Israpundit Digest

Support Israpundit


USD

ILS

CAD

Syndication

Blog Traffic

Pages

Pages|Hits |Unique

  • Last 24 hours: 24,767
  • Last 7 days: 120,122
  • Last 30 days: 120,122
  • Online now: 57
Los Angeles SEO
Current Entries

Recent Comments

  • The Jewish Question (72)

    • dweller: @ yamit82: “Chicken shit wrapped in the banner of morality is...

    • yamit82: dweller Said: Four million dispirited Repubs stayed home on Election...

    • yamit82: @ dweller: Your actions were treasonous and by rights you should...

    • dweller: @ honeybee: “I watched a program called ‘Brothers at...

  • Islam’s Religious War with Everyone (22)

    • Max: Comment # 8 is still pending moderation.

    • dove: @ honeybee: Do you need a load of ” Oslo Accords No, but thanks for the...

  • Does Israel’s triumph mean we are guilty? (11)

    • mar55: @ SHmuel HaLevi 2: I’m in total agreement with you when it comes...

    • yamit82: SHmuel HaLevi 2 Said: The Jewish people in Eretz Israel has been...

    • yamit82: ArnoldHarris Said: — If it were up to me, I would want to foment...

    • SHmuel HaLevi 2: @ mar55: Yamit is extraordinarily informed and in constant...

  • The moral case of Zionism (5)

    • Salubrius: For the legal case for Zionism under international law, see...

  • Israeli, Palestinian teen offenders face different fates (21)

    • dove: @ M Devolin: That is hilarious! All the garu is missing is the meat and...

    • M Devolin: “I do have different opinion on some scriptures because of...

    • AbbaGuutuu: mar55 Said: Thank you Ted. Can you recommend a forum for Mr....

  • ‘The Temple Mount Has Been Occupied By Hamas’ (168)

    • dweller: @ Max: “There were so many chances to annihilate Hamas....

    • dweller: @ yamit82: “Not that you’re all that much of a Jew even today....

    • the phoenix: @ honeybee: Spanish with a Castillian accent Do you , or anyone...

  • Israpundit is pro-Jewish and pro-Israel (77)

    • mar55: @ bernard ross: I have a problem with trying to excuse CA behaviour...

    • AbbaGuutuu: honeybee Said: I am a Honey Bear. I like both HBs and the Honey...

  • Ban Muslims from Temple Mount, too (10)

    • diana: Mira: I think it’s a great idea. I’ll send them some...

Archives

Sponsor

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

LIVE HEADLINE NEWS FEEDS
THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION

Support Israpundit

USD

ILS

CND

  • July 20, 2012

    US agrees, settlements are “not illegal”

    By Ted Belman

    The  legal tsunami gathering strength in  Israel will soon  engulf the world.  A report is soon to be released that says, the Fourth Geneva Convention (FGC) does not apply to Judea and Samaria aka West Bank and that Israel has every right to build settlements there.

    In January of this year,  PM Netanyahu set up the Levy Committee to investigate the legal status of unauthorized  West Bank  Jewish building.  The Committee was headed by Supreme Court Justice (ret) Edmund Levy. It included Tel Aviv District Court Judge (Ret.) Tehiya Shapira and Dr. Alan Baker an international law expert, who was part of the team that devised the Oslo Accords,

    The Committee reviewed legal briefs from right of center groups but also from far left  groups such as Peace Now, Yesh Din and Btselem. Its 89 page Report was submitted to PM Netanyahu a few weeks ago and is now under review by his Ministerial Committee on Settlements. Though the Report has yet to be formerly published, the contents are already well known.


    It found that the settlements are not illegal.  To reach this conclusion it first found that the Fourth Geneva Convention which applies “to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party” does not apply to Judea and Samaria because “Israel does not meet the criteria of ‘military occupation’ as defined under international law” … as  “no other legal entity has ever had its sovereignty over the area cemented under international law,”

    Furthermore it found that there was no provision in international law which prohibited Jews settling in the area.

    The UN and the EU have for decades repeated the mantra that the land is occupied and the settlements are illegal, both pursuant to the FGC but there has never been a binding legal decision on which they based their assertions. The US has been more cautious and considers the settlements “an obstacle to peace” or “illegitimate”. Nevertheless, it leads the chorus in demanding an end to Israel’s settlement construction.

    In 2010, Nicholas Rostow, in the American Interest , regarding the legality of the settlements, wrote:

      “On February 2, 1981, President Reagan stated that the settlements were “not illegal”, although he criticized them as “ill-advised” and “unnecessarily provocative.” Throughout the Reagan Administration the U.S. government did not question the legality of the settlements; rather, it criticized the settlements on policy grounds as an obstacle to the peace process. In the United Nations, the United States voted against resolutions describing Israeli settlements as illegal.

    President George Bush followed suit and so did President Obama.

    The Levy Report confirms the opinions of a large list of experts who have long claimed the same, including

    • Stephen M. Schwebel, Professor of International Law at the School of Advanced International Studies of The Johns Hopkins University (Washington), former Deputy Legal Advisor of the U.S. State Department and President of the International Court of Justice from 1997 to 2000: 

      “Where the prior holder of territory [Jordan] had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense [Israel] has, against that prior holder, better title.”

    • Eugene W. Rostow, Former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs and Distinguished Fellow at the U.S. Institute for Peace: 

      “The Jewish right of settlement in the West Bank is conferred by the same provisions of the Mandate under which Jews settled in Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem before the State of Israel was created… The Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan River, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated…”

    • Julius Stone, one of the 20th century leading authorities on the Law of Nations, Doctor of Juridical Science from Harvard and Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law at universities in Australia and California: 

      “The terms of Article 49(6) [of the Fourth Geneva Convention] however they are interpreted, are submitted to be totally irrelevant. To render them relevant, we would have to say that the effect of Article 49(6) is to impose an obligation on the state of Israel to ensure (by force if necessary) that these areas, despite their millennial association with Jewish life, shall be forever ‘judenrein’.”

    • David Matas, world-renowned human rights lawyer and honorary counsel to B’nai Brith Canada: 

      “For there to be an occupation at international law, there has to be an occupying and occupied power both of which are members of the community of nations. The only conceivable occupied power for the West Bank is Jordan. Yet Jordan has renounced all claims over the West Bank.”

    • David M. Phillips, Professor at Northeastern University School of Law: 

      Indeed, the analysis underlying the conclusion that the settlements violate international law depends entirely on an acceptance of the Palestinian narrative that the West Bank is “Arab” land. Followed to its logical conclusion – as some have done – this narrative precludes the legitimacy of Israel itself…The ultimate end of the illicit effort to use international law to delegitimize the settlements is clear – it is the same argument used by Israel’s enemies to delegitimize the Jewish state entirely.”

    • Jeffrey S. Helmreich, author and writer for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: 

      “The settlements are not located in ‘occupied territory.’ The last binding international legal instrument which divided the territory in the region of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza was the League of Nations Mandate, which explicitly recognized the right of Jewish settlement in all territory allocated to the Jewish national home in the context of the British Mandate. These rights under the British Mandate were preserved by the successor organization to the League of Nations, the United Nations, under Article 80 of the UN Charter.”

    The question of the applicability of the FGC was considered by the International Court of Justice (IJC), an arm of the UN, in its advisory opinion on the legality of the fence.

    The IJC held that “the Convention applies, in particular, in any territory occupied in the course of the conflict by one of the contracting parties.”.  In other words it ignored that the lands occupied must be the lands of “another High Contracting Party”.  This is not considered sound law and in any event, is not a binding decision.

    The Supreme Court of Israel in its decision approving the fence as legal,  said  that “the question of the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention is not before us now since the parties agree that the humanitarian rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply to the issue under review.”  Thus it didn’t decide on the applicability.

    The Left in Israel are screaming blue murder and referring to the Report as “born in sin” and a “political manifesto”.

    On Monday, while speaking to reporters, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said:

      “The US position on settlements is clear. Obviously, we’ve seen the reports that an Israeli government appointed panel has recommended legalizing dozens of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but we do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, and we oppose any effort to legalize settlement outposts.”

    What is interesting about this statement is that Ventrell did not comment on the finding that the FGC did not apply or that the settlements were not illegal.  He merely reiterated the US government position without substantiating it. Furthermore, the settlement outposts that the State Department doesn’t want “legalized” are legal save for having not received their final approval from the Government of Israel. If they were really illegal by international law, Israel wouldn’t be able to “legalize” them. Put another way, the US position is that Israel shouldn’t exercise her rights because such exercise would be an obstacle to peace. It prefers to recognize the non-existing Arab rights rather than the real rights of the Jews/Israel.

    Accordingly, the legal conclusions of the Report are sound.  What will the fallout be?

    Well for starters, the UN may ask for another advisory opinion from the ICJ on the validity of this report but why bother, it already has one on the applicability of the FGC. It probably will choose to ignore it as just another opinion. Meanwhile the existence of the report will take the wind out of the sails of the US and the EU as they try to damn the settlements and Israeli actions. The US will have to acknowledge that since President Reagan, it has considered the settlements to be “not illegal” but only, ”ill-advised”.

    PM Netanyahu will have to decide whether he will embrace the Report and act accordingly or whether he will wait for the issue to be adjudicated by Israel’s High Court.  It is highly unlikely that this Court will fly in the face of the named experts, the US Government and the Levy Report. The Court has previously held that the settlements were legal.

    From a political point of view, he cannot ignore the Report.  A political storm is raging. MK Tzippi Hotovely, Likud, is preparing a Bill that will “endorse the principles of the Levy Report and will require the establishment of a judicial tribunal in Judea and Samaria which will be given the responsibility of discussing matters related to land ownership, the establishment of an Israeli land registry in Judea and Samaria and applying Israeli building and planning laws on Judea and Samaria.”

    Where does that leave the international community?  The foundation of their attacks on Israel will have been destroyed. It will be hard to ignore the Report and harder still to ignore a confirming decision by Israel’s High Court. It will no longer be able to claim with a straight face that the lands are “occupied Palestinian lands” or that the settlements are illegal.

    Congress will no doubt strongly endorse the Report with or without a decision of the Supreme Court of Israel.

    The upshot of all this will be that Israel will end the de facto building freeze and start construction of settlements in earnest.  It will also signal the end of the pursuit by Israel of the two-state solution.  The Israeli center will no longer  believe that Israel is an occupier and instead will believe that the land is theirs, which it is.

    Presently there is a significant movement in Israel advocating Israeli sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria, even if that means making citizenship available to qualifying Arabs.

    Israel must decide between two risky alternatives; either accept the two-state solution based on ’67 lines with swaps or annex the land and contend with an extra 1.5 million Arabs within its borders. With the latter alternative, the Jews would be left with a stable 2:1 majority. Israelis are already trending to the latter and this Report will accelerate that trend.

    The Arabs in Judea and Samaria will not accept such a two state solution because it will preclude the “right of return” and will require them to recognize Israel as the Jewish State. Furthermore it will require them to sign an end-of-conflict agreement which they will never do. If Israel chooses to claim sovereignty, the Arabs will have to decide whether to push for citizenship or to accept autonomy.

    This tsunami will change the political landscape for the better and forever.

  • Posted by Ted Belman @ 5:37 pm | 131 Comments »

    131 Comments to US agrees, settlements are “not illegal”

    1. David Chase says:

      I apologize for posting my comment twice . Maybe it was meant to be.

    2. Jack Golbert says:

      @ David Chase:
      I have often posed the question, in light of the San Remo Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate, when did Jewish settlement in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem become illegal? When Jordan illegally conquered and occupied it? Or when so many people who should know better, people in the international media, academia and the diplomatic corps, started saying it? When did widespread falsehood become a source of international law?

      And just by the way, UN General Assembly Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution, consistently and exclusively refers to “Judea and Samaria.” The name “West Bank” was coined by an illegal occupier (Jordan) which ruled the place for 19 years out of its history over thousands and thousands of years and the world insists on that term being indelible. Why? “Judea” means “the land of the Jews” and “Samaria” (“Shomron”) is the name given by Omri, the king of Israel, to the city which he built on land which was sold to him by a man named “Shemer.” It became the name of the whole general region. So it too is a Jewish name. The world cannot admit that but it claims to be neutral and fair when deciding what is legal and illegal in international law.

    3. DAVIDA ROSENBERG says:

      @ David Chase:
      ” but that Israel has the deed to the land”….
      upon this statement rests our covenant and our mandate to inhabit. Isaiah rightly said, ‘ to the Torah and the testimony. If men don’t speak according to this truth, there is no light in them.” We simply must STOP answering all the questions, allegations, and urgings of the nations. Oslo was a ridiculous exercise and offense to our covenant. Israel’s leaders must AFFIRM AND UPHOLD the Torah of YHVH for Israel or they must be put OUT OF OFFICE. PM Olmert and Barak were ruinous for us.
      Annapolis was our reward for playing foolish and rebellious games with the nations.

      We behaved like victims and so we are treated as such.

      Who in their right mind, would acquiesce to deal with people who openly declare they desire to uproot and destroy us to oblivion? Who in their right mind would deal with the devil and call it peace accords? Who in their right mind would tolerate death threats, ROCKETS, bus bombings, boulders of rocks thrown into windshields, stabbings, slaughters of innocents in yeshivas, and go back to business as usual?

      There is a spell being cast over the world, including Israel and liberal American Jewish leadership which is the result of judgement. Our King told us in the book of Numbers that if we did not purge the land of it’s inhabitants, he would turn and do to us what he intended to do to them. Sobering Words.

    4. DAVIDA ROSENBERG says:

      @ Bernard Ross:

      Your comment is correct. I would like to ask now.. who in Israel can take this to the bank and cash it in for us. Measure for measure is the way to deal with every obstacle. If it’s good enough for our King’s measure, it should be good enough for us, .. don’t we think? Where is our leadership????????????????????

    5. David Chase says:

      @ Bernard Ross:
      Thanks, that’s even better. To be honest I haven’t read the San Remo Declaration read or Grief’s book yet. I was familiar with it’s basic finding from other readings. The idea that it even “encouraged settlement is very interesting, nice to know, and also very encouraging. Let’s hope that “fact” gets publicity’”

    6. David Chase says:

      @ DAVIDA ROSENBERG:
      I do think, though, that the biblical argument, although correct and the ultimate argument, may not be as effective as the legal arguments we now have in making our case. Between the Levy Report in the here and now and the San Remo Declaration as precedent in the historical context they’ll be no refuting our right to settle the land. There can’t be any room for interpretation and both the Levy report and San Remo are clear.

    7. Bernard Ross says:

      Jack Golbert Said:

      I have often posed the question, in light of the San Remo Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate, when did Jewish settlement in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem become illegal?

      Jack, pardon me for butting in but I believe you have asked a very important question. First, we should understand that the “encouragement” of Jews to settle west of the Jordan River was separate and apart from the state of Israel as the state did not yet exist. The Jews were to be encouraged in order to reconstitute the Jewish homeland. UPon Israel becoming a state it was not sovereign in all the land west of the jordan river. But does this mean that the right of Jews to settle all lands west of Jordan river was suddenly rescinded or cancelled? I think not! some say that the state of Israel was the successor to the Jewish Agency that was the representative of the Jewish people and that Israel became the agent of the Jewish people. People started to confuse the sovereign claims of a nation, and after 1967 a nation in “occupation”, with the Jewish people and the rights of their settlement. In my view the Jewish people never lost the right of settlement because even though Israel was sovereign west of green line only it still had an obligation under international law to encourage settlement west of the Jordan river under the mandate trust to which Israel was the succeeding Trustee between the green line and jordan river. I believe that although Israel could have worn 2 hats it operated as if it only had one obligation and one hat to wear: that of the perceived interests of the state of Israel. As Israel did not annex the territory and ALSO did not encourage Jews to settle the newly liberated west bank from the JOrdanians, Israel, and the world, came to view Israel under the GC and laws of occupation rather than as the successor mandate trustee to the British(in the remaining portions west of the river not under Israeli sovereignty) My view is that ALL the fault is attributable to the successive Govts of Israel in not pursuing the Jewish settlement rights on behalf of the Jewish people but rather pursuing what they perceived to be their national interests(eg they did not want to absorb the arab therefore they decided that they would abandon jewish settlement rights. In so doing they have violated the mandate trust and UN charter, as did JOrdan during its occupation, by not complying with “encouraging” Jewish settlement between the green line and the river. I see no difference in obligation between Israel’s position and that of the former British administrators of the mandate trust. What is ludicrous, is that with the birth of the state of Israel everyone has accepted that the Jewish right of settlement suddenly was reduced to a much smaller area, and yet there was no legal document or arrangement to such effect. The UN GA resolution 181 was a non binding resolution on the members and could not legally supersede the Jewish settlement rights unless there was a treaty replacing those rights. Furthermore, the arabs never accepted 181 so it could never be considered a treaty or agreement. Most importantly the UNGA 181 contradicted the UN charter and its antecedents by not making the boundaries of the state of Israel congruent with the area west of the jordan river. If the GOI had continually asserted the Jewish settlement rights since independence things would be different and this error would not exist. There is a question as to whether the GOI has properly fulfilled its duty as an agent for the Jewish people and/or as the successor mandate trustee. In any case the legal rights of jewish settlement, separate and apart from the legal right of Israeli sovereignty, has never ended as far as I know. Therefore, I see no legal reason why the state of Israel, as agent of the Jewish people or as the current administrator obligated to the Mandate trust, does not now resume the obligatory “encouragement” of the jewish settlement rights: start settling Jews west of the Jordan river without regard to any sovereignty issues. The settling of Israelis comes under the GC considerations which are now debunked by Levy report. However, I see no such issues regarding “Jewish” settlement which clearly have no reason to end regardless of who currently administrates, or is sovereign over, the territory.

    8. Jack Golbert says:

      Bernard Ross Said:

      they did not want to absorb the arab therefore they decided that they would abandon jewish settlement rights.

      They chose, in effect, to expel Jews from our land rather than Arabs. And subsequently, have actually expelled Jews literally. I believe that if the GOI were to make it clear that there will never be any authority in this Land other than the State of Israel, by annexing it all, for example, many Arabs would leave and I think Israel should encourage them to do so and help them find places to go. Many things would change for the better. And I do not believe that “principles” of international law should be taken so seriously either. Notice that, despite the oh-so-sacred “principle” against acquisition of territory by force, no one notices or cares that the Golan Heights included the Banias and a strip along the eastern shore of the Kinneret that Syria took from Israel by naked aggression in 1948. The world doesn’t really care about all that, certainly not where it concerns Israeli land occupied by Arabs. There is only one thing the world will never forgive and that is looking like a loser. The world piles onto a loser and that is what the GOI looked like, wringing its hands over the wrath of the world that Israel actually won. And the GOI is still doing it. And we still elect them.

    9. Bernard Ross says:

      DAVIDA ROSENBERG Said:

      I would like to ask now.. who in Israel can take this to the bank and cash it in for us.

      It is my view that the first step is to undo the damage created by successive GOI’s through educating Jews worldwide as to their LEGAL rights under international law, especially those emanating from the San Remo Treaty, LofN mandate Trust and the successor to the LofN: the UN who is legally bound to the obligations of the LofN mandate trust as specified in the UN charter. The second step is political in that influencing the GOI to fulfill its obligations to settle Jews. The 3rd is legal whereby Israeli and worldwide Jews,possibly in a class action suit, seek to compel the GOI through Israeli courts to execute its obligation to settle the Jews under international law.

    10. dweller says:

      @ David Chase:

      “Besides the fact that the Levy report concluded that the settlements are not illegal it is a also important to note the work of Howard Grief vis-a-vis the West Bank and the San Remo findings basically proving beyond a legal doubt that not only are the settlements not illegal as the Levy report concludes but that Israel has the deed to the lend. Therefore , illegitimate or illadvised are totally irrelevant concepts when it comes to developing the developments.”

      More than irrelevant.

      Disingenuous.

      Calling the settletments ‘illegitimate’ is a sneaky way of avoiding the fact that they are legal, while implying that they “aren’t”.

      “. . . . twisted by knaves

      to make a trap for fools. . . .”

    11. DAVIDA ROSENBERG says:

      @ Bernard Ross:

      In the meanwhile, organziation such as Nefesh b’Nefesh is doing their part and a wonderful job of making it possbile.. and it is occurring without step 1-3.

      Do you suppose it is truly these international events/dialogues/reports which hold them back? I would suggest that most Jewish liberals don’t even know about such things and those who do are out working for the enemy. This is a phenomenon.

      One terror event in the USA will give us all a kick in the rear towards Home.
      We have illegals coming in our southern border and many are not Mexicans but
      MIDDLE EASTERNERS WHO LOOK LIKE MEXICANS.

      Giant mosques of 53,000 sq. feet are being planted and our Middle Eastern immigrants are here to hunker down. They also like their Sharia Law.

      The tables are turning like a polar shift.

      These are awesome days and the true believers are watching the bible and the newspaper.

    12. dweller says:

      @ Bernard Ross:

      “Not only are the settlement not illegal according to Levy(re GC) but that the opposite is true in international law. San Remo,LofN Trust and the UN Charter not only recognise the right of Jews to settle west of the Jordan but “encourages” that settlement. My opinion is that every signatory to San Remo, LofN and UN members are actually legally bound to encourage Jewish settlement west of the Jordan River and those obstructing the settlement(inc GOI) are violating international law.”

      Quite right.

      From the text of the Mandate Charter:

      Article 6
      “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”

    13. yamit82 says:

      @ DAVIDA ROSENBERG:

      I think someone should inform you that Christians do not qualify under the current Law of Return.

    14. yamit82 says:

      @ dweller:

      We lost in part because the stinking Christians betrayed the Jews to the Romans at worst and refused to fight with the Jews and Samaritans at best. Bar Kochba had to spend essential resources liquidating Christian traitors that could have been used in the war effort against Rome. There were many Jews who were passive or supportive of Rome as well not as much as the Great Revolt but enough to make a difference.

      Rome eventually won by using scorched earth tactics and avoiding frontal confrontations and starving people make poor warriors. After the defeat of the Jews the teachings of the rabbis now urged the renunciation of warfare as a means of ensuring Jewish survival. As their compilations developed, the contents tended to disparage military figures like Samson and Bar Kochba. It is noteworthy that when the canon was established (probably late in the first century C.E.), the Books of I and II Maccabees were excluded. This was because the rabbis shunned the idea of glorifying the Jewish military victories which these books depicted?

      The substitution of prayer, learning, and study for animal sacrifice, pointed towards a much more profound shift: a substitution of Biblical and Talmudic study for the study of history and other secular subjects. Throughout the history of the Israelite nation, warfare had been a constant. Warfare, however, had brought the Jews to the edge of extinction. In now shifting Judaism’s emphasis, rabbinical teachings steered Judaism away from other worldly pursuits as well. Most important among these was the writing of history. In fact, for many centuries after Josephus (c. 37 – 100+ C.E.), there was no writing of Jewish history.

      Rabbinic criticism of Bar Kochba, after the fact should be viewed in the above contexts. The over emphasis of a Messiah served to reduce Jewish militancy as well.

      This was a double edge sword imposed by Jewish religious leaders against Jews returning to the Land of Israel. Preserving Jewish lives and Judaism became the overriding concern and emphasis by the Jewish rabbis. This may have saved Jews and preserved Judaism for a time but it also delayed our return to the Land, avoiding all the calamities Jews endured in Christian Europe.

    15. Bernard Ross says:

      Jack Golbert Said:

      And I do not believe that “principles” of international law should be taken so seriously either.

      My reason for giving importance to international law is merely to use it as a tool to achieve Jewish settlement and Israeli soerignty in the land of Israel. All the PR arrayed against Israel is related to the quoting of faulty international law. I believe that Israel should take unilateral steps citing the relevant international law as a basis for those actions. The issues of international law will never be decided in any impartial international court. There are bases in international law for 1)settling Jews west of JOrdan, 2)annexing Y&S, 3) Not granting political rights to arabs west of jordan river, and 4)transferring the arab populations (thus finalizing a population swap and legitimizing the creation of JEW FREE Jordan from 77% of Mandate territory). One doesn’t need to be sure of winning these cases in court only to be able to cite them when taking unilateral action. Many jews feel that any arguments against favourale legal postions should result in not citing, or not prosecuting, the legal approach. If Israel can possibly lose the case in the court of their mind then it makes sense not doing it. IN this regard the “palestinians” are wiser and have more faith in their position, right or wrong. The citing of international law will bring more support from Jewry, gentiles and nations if Israel take unilateral action. More support means less danger resulting from sanctions.

    16. Bernard Ross says:

      @ dweller:
      So, as Jack asked:

      I have often posed the question, in light of the San Remo Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate, when did Jewish settlement in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem become illegal?

      What is your answer to his interesting question and how can it be corrected?

    17. Jack Golbert says:

      Bernard Ross Said:

      What is your answer to his interesting question and how can it be corrected?

      Bernard Ross is correct. Of course we have to present the relevant international law and make the legal arguments and we have to do it well. Remember, however, that we cannot win our battles in “their” courts. We are talking to Jews primarily, persuading Jews that we are just and right. Secondarily, we are talking to non-Jews who are amenable to our cause or are able to be fair and objective. Articulation of our case and persuasion constitute an entire front in the current war of the Jews.

    18. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “We lost in part because the stinking Christians betrayed the Jews to the Romans at worst… ”

      Evidence, please?

      You’ll have a rough time finding any, Yamit, to confirm — even “in part” — that ‘Christians betrayed the Jews to the Romans.’ (Trust me; I’ve looked, high & low.)

      What you will find, frankly, is considerable evidence (admittedly circumstantial, but a TRUCKLOAD of it, hard to ignore) to suggest quite the contrary — evidence which makes it illogical to conclude that any ‘betrayals’ that occurred to the Judean effort might have come from the Nazarean-Jewish quarter.

      “There were many Jews who were passive…”

      Not during the first part of the War. The community was extraordinarily united.

      “…[many Jews who were] supportive of Rome as well…”

      Not so. Not at any part of the War.

      — Again, of course, if you’ve got evidence, then bring it — I’ll have a look.

      Though I think you’ll be spinning your wheels, Yamit, in the search for mainstream Jewish collaboration with Rome — just as much as you would be in any quest to unearth Nazarean-Jewish complicity with the vile mistress of the Tiber.

      I know you’d like to find such support — on both accounts — but that’s because your partiality is less toward wherever the truth leads than toward confirming what you already WANT to believe.

      That’s perhaps your greatest weakness, Yahnkel.

      One man’s opinion, of course.

    19. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      We lost… because the… Christians… refused to fight with the Jews and Samaritans at best

      This is a little closer to the truth (than your allegation that the Christian [Nazrean] Jews ‘betrayed their mainstream Jewish neighbors to Rome’), but is also OFF-POINT — even “at best” — and it clearly misses the point as well.

      It’s quite true that the Nazarean Jews did — eventually — refuse to remain part of the war effort.

      However, when they declined to continue their participation, they were only one of several sectors of the populace that had lost their former zeal for the struggle.

      The fault for that withdrawal lies squarely (I would submit) at the door of the Rebellion’s leadership: Bar-Kokhba & R. Aqiva.

      I’ll pursue that in another post.

    20. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      Why B-K lost.

      There’s ample evidence for the proposition that virtually all Judea — including the Nazareans, who still, at that time [AD 130], continued wholeheartedly to identify as Jews — supported the FIRST part of the effort, the War of Liberation.

      When Aqiva, exhilarated by early victories in the field, publically proclaimed BarKokhba to be Moshiakh — and B-K, in turn, demanded to be so ACKNOWLEDGED by his forces, the Nazareans were confronted with an impossible situation: Should they offer such declaration, and thereby betray their own earnestly-held beliefs that haNitzri — thus NOT B-K — was/is the promised Moshiakh?

      Or should they, rather, hold fast to the demands of conscience and thus withhold any such disavowal of their beliefs?

      They chose the latter (what ELSE could they do?), and were persecuted for it by an extraordinarily vain B-K. It was HE who made it impossible for them to continue serving, and who — in essence — hijacked what had been a legitimate and successful War of National Liberation of Judea, and converted it into a “War for Moshiakh.”

      Yet even then, when the Nazareans were no longer part of the war effort, there is no evidence that they became in any way complicit with Rome.

      Moreover, when Aqiva openly acknowledged B-K as ‘Moshiakh,’ large other sectors of the populace (not merely the Nazareans) ALSO began backing away.

      Upon hearing Aqiva stating his belief, R. Yokhanan ben Torta promptly shot back at Aqiva (this, the same Rav Yokhanan who’s usually credited with observing that the 2nd Temple had been lost, 60 years earlier, thru sinat khinam [groundless hatred]) with the words: “Akiva, the grass will be growing from your cheeks and still the son of David will not have come.” [T. Yerushalmi, Ta'anit Chap. 4:5 p. 68d]

      The SANHEDRIN opposed Aqiva’s declaration.

      Fact is, nearly the entire Judean rabbinate of the era — with the only exceptions being Gershom, Aha, and Aqiva himself — opposed the declaration.

      B-K was a skilled warrior & talented organizer — no denying that.

      But he was also a cruel thug — and ultimately, a shortsighted egotist. His vanity led him to do what ended up dividing & diluting his forces.

      We could have won; the more I learn of the era, the more certain I am.

      Why? — coming up.

    21. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      Why the Bar Kokhba Revolt was winnable.

      This was the most costly of Rome’s “Jewish Wars” — obliging Hadrian to call in his most accomplished commanders & his dozen best legions (nearly half the entire imperial army, from all over the Empire: some from as far away as Britain & beyond the Danube), and cost him staggering losses in blood & treasure (not to say, international diplomatic prestige).

      At least one legion was wiped out entirely.

      There is serious reason to believe that had the Rebellion remained united & intact for just a little longer, the brushfire conflicts that were beginning to crop up throughout the Empire among other captive or restive, vassal peoples taking hope from the extraordinary success of the Judeans (during the War-of-Liberation part of the struggle) — which success was, during that period, attracting other adherents, gentile allies, and entrepreneurs from outside Judea as well — would have become too much for Rome to handle all at once.

      She could well have not only had to give up (among other lands) Judea

      — she might ALSO, in fact, have actually collapsed (at least, as a world empire) 3 or 4 centuries earlier than she did.

      Think about it.

    22. dweller says:

      @ Bernard Ross:

      “So, as Jack asked: ‘I have often posed the question, in light of the San Remo Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate, when did Jewish settlement in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem become illegal?’ What is your answer to his interesting question and how can it be corrected?”

      Well, obviously it NEVER was ‘illegal.’

      To ask the question AT-ALL is to ask it rhetorically.

      Settlement was prohibited by Jordan, effectively at gunpoint, and Ben-Gurion’s Labour Alignment govt accepted that.

      Now Labour is gone, and so is Jordan.

      Yet it’s still assumed — in many quarters — that Jews don’t belong in Judea or Shomron.

      What to do about it?

      Clearly, the world — most importantly, world Jewry — needs to be treated to a crash course in Mandate history.

      Jack is right on the money in this regard, and on all counts:

      “Of course we have to present the relevant international law and make the legal arguments and we have to do it well. Remember, however, that we cannot win our battles in ‘their’ courts. We are talking to Jews primarily, persuading Jews that we are just and right. Secondarily, we are talking to non-Jews who are amenable to our cause or are able to be fair and objective. Articulation of our case and persuasion constitute an entire front in the current war of the Jews.”

      That says it a all.

    23. Bernard Ross says:

      Dear Ted, please see this article, written by another kapo jew,which seeks to discredit the right of jewish settlement west of the jordan river while at the same time admitting that at least the LodN mandate was an intenationally binding agreement.
      http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/san-remo-in-shilo-the-settlements-and-legal-history/
      It appears to me that his modus operandi is to to give weight to unrelated subsepquent jusgements and “legal opinions from international experts”. Apparently inhis eyes the actual binding law has less weight than “expert unrelated legal opinions”. It appears to me that the jewish legal right is strong as his arguments are so weak. Whats your legal opinion on his arguments? I think that a return to the jewish legal settlement issue in the still unreconstituted jewish homeland on the west bank may be a better legal focus than the GC occupation issues.

    24. Ted Belman says:

      @ Bernard Ross:
      I am not an international lawyer and don’t know enough to refute his argument. Essentially he writes that San Remo and the Mandate are old hat are are no longer binding or relevant. He writes “The two key principles of this current – the self-determination of peoples and the human rights of individuals – have considerably diminished the legal import of minute analyses of imperial memoranda and pronouncements. “.

      One thing I will say is that the two principles don’t invalidate the right of Jews to close settlement of the territories. That remains to be seen. I have written to 5 prominent international lawyers who disagree with what he is saying and support Levy. I recently exchanged views with one of these lawyers and he was arguing something similarly to this argument and I suggested that even if the international consensus is as he believes, it in no way negates our right to settle there.

      Essentially he took issue with the idea that we were not occupiers. He didn’t address whether the settlements are illegal even if we are occupiers.

      He also totally ignored that the Palestinians have entered into the Oslo Accords which essentially governs the allocation of rights and powers.

      See article in My Right Word.
      http://myrightword.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/bermans-post-modernist-cultural.html

    25. dweller says:

      @ Bernard Ross:

      I’ve had only a moment to scan the article briefly, and won’t be able to continue more closely with it till Monday. But a couple things stand out rather glaringly. The author is fond of speaking of the Levy arguments “existing in a parallel universe” and referring to the commonality of opinion. Yet international treaties are hardly subject to consensus opinion.

      He’s talking ‘legitimacy’ — not law.

      Then there’s this little clue from the last sentence of his article:

      “…those who support progressive forms of Zionism must firmly articulate their very different vision…”

      As I said, I’ll be back to have another look on Monday, but I’ll be gone tomorrow (library’s closed on Sunday during the summer months).

    26. Bernard Ross says:

      Ted Belman Said:

      Essentially he took issue with the idea that we were not occupiers. He didn’t address whether the settlements are illegal even if we are occupiers.

      I think that your use of the word “we” illustrates why the jewish people are being hoodwinked and confused. Who is “we”? Is it the Jewish people or is it the state of Israel: they cannot be the same. Israel may have inherited agency and/or it may have inherited the mandate trusteeship but in neither case can it be argued that Israel and the Jews are the same class. Can Jewish rights be canceled or have become limited as a result of the Israeli inheritance of obligation as Trustee or Agent? Israel may even become an occupying force in “disputed” lands but this still does not cancel JEWISH rights west of the Jordan. (Why wasn’t Jordan cited for not “encouraging” jewish rights of settlement under their occupation). It is the Jewish people who still retain the INDISPUTABLE right to settle west of the Jordan River. I believe that Israels best course is to declare that in the area where they are not sovereign, and as a signatory to the UN Charter, they will fulfill the mandate obligations of Jewish settlement. That the JOrdanian occupation, where these rights were obstructed begs for an affirmative action program of Jewish settlement to restore justice. If the focus in law is on this right and the Israeli sovereignty issues are separated out then the arguments against jewish settlement appear to be in absurd and obvious contradiction to the strongest international law which relates. It is only when rendering Jewish rights congruent with Israeli sovereign rights that the red herring emerges that allows jewish settlement rights to be in question because Israeli sovereign rights are in question. Certainly if Israel was not in control of the lands between the green line and the jordan river the mix up would not exist. Strangely, Israel operating as mandate Trustee to settle Jews with the goal of reconstituting the Jewsih homeland along with the mandate prohition of subdivision, would render calls for further partition absurd. The arguments of perfidious albion in 1938 which sought to separate the concept of Jewish homeland from Israeli sovereignty would now backfire on those using it in current arguments. As Jewish settlement is indisputable and Israel is not yet soverign over the area in question then the status quo can proceed but with tthe settlement of jews. After the settlement of Jews then the other issues, of greater dispute, can be addressed.

    27. Bernard Ross says:

      @ dweller: I agree: I believe that the one argument that has the the detractors in confusion is the uncanceled right of jewish settlement west of the jordan river. Arguments against Israeli sovereignty claims, the confusion by perfidious albion which sought to state that a jewish homeland is not a jewish state can all be swept away by concentrating, and demanding upon the simple fulfillment of the JEWISH settlement rights west of the Jordan. Israel can declare itself to be legally bound to fulfill the mandate. The status quo may be in the favor of Israel because it allows jewish settlement under law and there is no basis for pursuing arab political rights west of the jordan river in conflict with reconstituting the Jewish homeland(nation or homeland makes no difference while Israel controls the area) The greatest gift is that those who are seeking to give away the rights of jews for some absurd fantasy called “peace” are being thwarted and hopefully Israel and the Jews can be shown how the Jews have been swindled, especially by other Jews.

    28. Jack Golbert says:

      Bernard Ross Said:

      It is the Jewish people who still retain the INDISPUTABLE right to settle west of the Jordan River. I believe that Israels best course is to declare that in the area where they are not sovereign, and as a signatory to the UN Charter, they will fulfill the mandate obligations of Jewish settlement. That the JOrdanian occupation, where these rights were obstructed begs for an affirmative action program of Jewish settlement to restore justice. If the focus in law is on this right and the Israeli sovereignty issues are separated out then the arguments against jewish settlement appear to be in absurd and obvious contradiction to the strongest international law which relates. It is only when rendering Jewish rights congruent with Israeli sovereign rights that the red herring emerges that allows jewish settlement rights to be in question because Israeli sovereign rights are in question. Certainly if Israel was not in control of the lands between the green line and the jordan river the mix up would not exist. Strangely, Israel operating as mandate Trustee to settle Jews with the goal of reconstituting the Jewsih homeland along with the mandate prohition of subdivision, would render calls for further partition absurd.

      Bernard Ross, this is brilliant and subtle and shows admirable clarity. The truth is that the only people truly living under occupation in this country are the Jews of Judea and Samaria. If you don’t believe it, go and look at the police station in Gush Etzion. It is not a community police station. It’s a garrison of an occupation force. Israel is truly the occupying power against which we have to assert the rights of the (long exiled) indigenous people. Hats off to you, Mr. Ross.

    29. Ted Belman says:

      Jack Golbert Said:

      that we cannot win our battles in “their” courts.

      When lawyers remind me that there are legal arguments that say otherwise to my contention, I always say that I am asserting our legal rights not because I want the matter to be argued before a competent court but because to assert our rights, gives us color of right. Dore Gold also said that in settlement negotiations our position is greatly strengthened when we argue our rights.

    30. dweller says:

      @ Bernard Ross:

      “It is only when rendering Jewish rights congruent with Israeli sovereign rights that the red herring emerges that allows jewish settlement rights to be in question because Israeli sovereign rights are in question.”

      It’s clear that there are two distinctly different (albeit related) issues at stake — and that it’s important to not allow them to be conflated.

      Looking down the road, however, I would suggest that at the point where we succeed in getting the opposition[s] to acknowledge that there are, in fact, two separate issues — that this acknowledgment will be accompanied by some kind of “tradeoff” gambit. Something on the order of: ‘Okay, we recognize two different issues here, and if you agree to forego SOVEREIGNTY, then we’ll concede on SETTLEMENT. . . .’

      It will take kishkes to stand up to such an appeal & say, ‘No, the issues are separate, and have to be considered separately; but that DOESN’T mean that either is ‘negotiable’ in the other’s behalf — only that they aren’t the same issue.’

      Seems that ever since Avraham’s attempt at “jewing-down” the Most High over the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, the World has known that they can always find some Jews who are willing to. . . .(ahem) . . . “bargain” . . .

      “The arguments of perfidious albion in 1938 which sought to separate the concept of Jewish homeland from Israeli sovereignty would now backfire on those using it in current arguments.”

      Actually Britain had been resorting to those claims since long before the late thirties. If you google “Churchill White Paper of 1922,” it will be clear that they didn’t suddenly materialize in 1938 or 1939.

      Remember too that JEWS — people like Sokolow & Weizmann (and much of the mainstream Zionist movement) — had made a distinction between the two concepts, and argued that they were only seeking the homeland “and not statehood”: partly, at first, because at the time of the Balfour Declaration (late 1917), the war was still raging & Palestine was still held by the Ottomans. Language like “statehood” & “sovereignty” would’ve been seen as provocative to the Turks.

      But those Zionist disavowals of sovereignty gave Churchill the opening he needed to make that first proclamation in the 1922 White Paper that there was no intention to create a Jewish state (in his attempt to mollify the Arabs) and to quote the Zionists to this effect in the Paper.

      On the other hand, Lloyd-George makes crystal clear in his memoirs that it was most certainly sovereignty that was intended — right from the getgo — but that the groundwork would first have to be laid for that to happen:

      “There has been a good deal of discussion as to the meaning of the words ‘Jewish National Home’ and whether it involved the setting up of a Jewish National State in Palestine. I have already quoted the words actually used by Mr Balfour when he submitted the declaration to the Cabinet for its approval. They were not challenged at the time by any member present, and there could be no doubt as to what the Cabinet then had in their minds. It was not their idea that a Jewish State should be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the [then-existing] majority of the [then-present] inhabitants.

      “On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions in Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a National Home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then Palestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth.

      “The notion that Jewish immigration would have to be artificially restricted in order to ensure that the Jews should be a permanent minority never entered into the heads of anyone engaged in framing the policy. That would have been regarded as unjust and as a fraud on the people to whom we were appealing [i.e., the Jewish People].

      [David Lloyd George, Memoirs of the Peace Conference, Vol. 2 (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, 1939), pp. 736-37]

      Note the book’s publication date.

    31. Bernard Ross says:

      @ dweller:I think if we stick to demanding Jewish settlement west of the jordan river there can be no rebuttal. Israel should insist that the US, EU and UN overtly support the jewish right of settlement west of the Jordan river as the Jewish people must be able to reasonably expect that the law will be at least observed by the signatories of San Remo, the LofN and the UN Charter. What possible reason can they give for not fulfilling their obligations and treaties? By keeping it simple and focusing on the letter of the Law,with no sovereignty red herrings allowed, either there will be success or exposure of the double standard to all. Either way it will be a success for the Jewish people to see.

    Site Membership



    Google Site Search

    Editor

      Ted Belman

      tbelman3-at-gmail.com

    Mission

      News and Views on Israel, the Middle East, the war on terror and the clash of civilizations.

    Polls

    Will Israel attack Iran

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    RECOMMENDED BOOKS




    Tolerism2

    Iran islam

    Sharing

    mandate4

    Daily Archives

    April 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Mar    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    27282930  

    Selected Israpundit Articles

    Sponsors

    Miscellaneous Info

      All Politic Sites