The truth about “the occupation” and “the settlements”
By Ted Belman
The pro-Palestinian propaganda machine has succeeded in stigmatizing the Israeli occupation and the settlements. Time and again we hear about the “brutal occupation” and the “illegal settlements”. We rarely hear the truth in opposition to these lies.
Occupation
Israel is accused of occupying the West Bank and Gaza. In fact these territories are described as “The occupied Palestinian territories.” Not only are they not occupied in a legal sense, but also they are not “Palestinian” lands in a sovereign sense..
The Fourth Geneva Convention (FGC) is a treaty between signatory states that are called High Contracting Parties (HCP). It regulates the obligations of one HCP who occupies the land of another HCP. It defines the terms “Occupying Power” and “Occupied State”. Thus this convention does not apply to the territories because they were not the land of any HCP. They have never been the land of an HCP. Prior to 1967, Jordon was in occupation of these territories, just as Israel is currently in occupation. Jordanian sovereignty over these lands was never recognized and ultimately Jordan relinquished any claims she claimed to have over these lands. The FGC was never applied when Jordan occupied the land and it shouldn’t be applied now that Israel does.
Yet the International Court of Justice, when it gave an advisory opinion on the Israeli security fence, “identified Jordan as the occupied power of the West Bank”. According to David Matas, an international lawyer of considerable repute, in his well argued book Aftershock ,”The judgment moves on from this legal reasoning to labeling the West Bank as Palestinian occupied territory. But this labelling is based on the ethnic composition of the West Bank, not on its legal status.” [..] “This assertion by the ICJ that the West Bank is occupied territory is a contortion the Court imposed on the law to get to its desired results of slapping the label “occupier” on Israel.”. “[This] shows that the primary concern of the court was to connect to pro-Palestinian rhetoric”. As a result the Palestinians consider themselves the “occupied power”.
Matas notes “That the Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War do not recognize the legal possibility of the occupation of a people, only the occupation of the territory of a state.” A Protocol to these conventions does recognize such a possibility but Israel is not a signatory to it and is thus not bound by it.
It must be clearly understood that Israel’s occupation is not illegal and the UN has never claimed it to be. In fact Resolution 242 permits Israel to remain in occupation until they have an agreement on “secure and recognized borders”.
The Palestinians have no greater claim to a state than any minority group in any other state that wants a state of their own. The Basques and the Kurds come to mind. No one is demanding that they be given statehood.
When Israel’s counsel acknowledged to Israel’s High Court when it was deliberating on the fence, that Israel held the land in “belligerent occupation”, he did so to enable the Court to use the law of occupation in its deliberations. It was not an admission that the lands were Palestinian land or that the FGC applied.
Matas also takes issue with Dore Gold and others for calling the land “disputed land”, because others argue all of Israel is disputed land.
UNSC Res 242 sanctioned Israel’s right to remain in occupation until such time as the parties reached an agreement on secure and recognized borders. This resolution makes no mention of the FGC. Israel has accepted the PA as the negotiating party. Nevertheless she knows the PA is currently an illegitimate government, having overstayed its mandate, and speaks for no one much less Hamas.
Settlements
The anti-Zionists argue the settlements are illegal and rely solely on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention which provides that the Occupying power is prohibited from transferring civilian populations to occupied territories. They say that the prohibition against transfer includes a prohibition against encouragement to settle. The matter has never been put to a court for interpretation or determination. But the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) advises “that this provision was intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War in which certain powers transferred portions of their populations to occupied territories for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed to colonize those territories.”
Nazi Germany enforced two kinds of transfers but in both cases they were forced transfers. The victims were the persons being forced.
Transferring populations is not a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. However a Protocol to the GC makes it so but Israel is not a party to the protocol and is not bound by it.
The anti-Zionists reject the notion that the proscription is against only forced transfers and argue that the FGC proscribes inducement to move as well. But how can there be a crime of inducement when the person committing the act, the settler, has done nothing wrong. How can you be guilty of a crime by inducing someone to do something which is not a crime? Furthermore, this inducement would be a War Crime on an equal footing with Genocide. The equation is ludicrous. And if the settlers settle on their own volition and not due to inducements, what then? Also it is impossible to prosecute an occupying power. So what individuals would be held responsible?
Even if someone in Israel was convicted of offering inducements to settle, the settlers would not be affected and could remain in the settlements if they wished.
Matas opines, “The interpretation defies the ordinary understanding of criminal responsibility where the person committing the act is the primary wrongdoer and the person inducing the act is only an accessory.”
Matas concludes. “There is all the difference in the world between forcible transfer, the offence of the Geneva Convention, and voluntary settlement, even where the settlement is encouraged” (by are merely providing inducements).[..] “Transfer is something that is done to people. Settlement is something people do.”
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court made it an offence to ”directly or indirectly” transfer populations. The ICRC has attempted to interpret “indirect transfers” as “inducements” thereby making them a crime. But the GC certainly does not and that currently is the prevailing opinion.
But that didn’t prevent the ICJ, in its advisory opinion above noted, from finding that the settlements violated international law. No reasons were given and no authority cited. But elsewhere it expressed the opinion that the combination of the settlements and the fence amounted to de facto annexation. It ignored the fact that Israel took the position that the fence was not intended to be the border but was merely a security measure. While actual annexation may be a violation of the FGC, the settlements and the fence certainly were not.an annexation or a violation of the FGC. What a legal stretch! And what about the settlements on the west side of the fence? Are they an annexation too?
Thus the ICJ did not conclude that someone in Israel was guilty of inducing settlements or in any other way of transferring populations…
Matas expands on his dim view of the advisory opinion. He considers it an attempt to discredit Israel. In the end it discredited the ICJ. He prays that the ICC will be more judicious. The ICJ, after all, is an organ of the UN who requested it to provide the opinion. Similarly the UN requested Goldstone to investigate Cast Lead and produce a report. This report, like the advisory opinion, was just what the UN ”ordered”.
But keep in mind that the opinion of the ICJ was just that, an opinion, and is not legally binding on anyone.
The US has traditionally, with the Carter administration being the only exception, refrained from describing the settlements as illegal and instead called them obstacles to peace. In September 2009, Obama went before the United Nations and declared “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” This is closer to Carter’s position but falls short of declaring them illegal. Nevertheless, it prompted John Bolton to say “This is the most radical anti-Israel speech I can recall any president making.”
All this ignores the fact that the Palestine Mandate encouraged close settlement of the land by Jews. This right has never been rescinded and the UN has no right to rescind it. . So Jews from anywhere have the right to settle on the West Bank and the PA and the UN has no right to say otherwise.
To demand that the future Palestinian state be Judenrein, free of Jews, is reprehensible and discriminatory. The West should not condone it, but it does.
Cogent reasoning alone has not and will not lead to bridging the gulf between those whose views are reflected in this piece and those opposed.
Those aligned with Ted’s views continue to cite facts, history and law to make their case. Those opposed are deaf to such arguments and continue to shout sound bytes and propaganda lines that viscerally resonate with them. Feelings based views are all that matters to these people.
For those opposed to views such as Ted’s, there is clearly a disconnect between mind and heart.
The question put therefore is what will it take to induce or force those opposed to views such as Ted’s, to fix that now broken connection between heart and mind?
Occupation:
The International Court of “Justice” is an Orwellian construct formed to enhance the agenda of the United Nations to create a “one-world government” dominated by non-whites at the expense of white europeans and america. Of course, the Orwellian white liberals never express this in stark racial terms, because that is “not nice”.
So instead, we see the white middle class in europe and america being slowly squeezed to death by the white liberals, who are flooding europe with muslims, and america with mexicans.
And in the best Orwellian practice, if you speak this simple truth out loud, then you are a “racist”, and your words are therefore null and void. (Look at the demonization of Glenn Beck and his supporters just a day ago). And remember the cardinal liberal rule: only whites can be “racist”. Nothing non-whites do or say can ever be considered “racist”, no matter how “racist” it would be if whites did it. And if you are white (and especially if you are Jewish) and want to live with your own people, then you are clearly a racist, but no matter how ethnically pure a non-white country is (Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia), it is never racist.
The International Court of “Justice” is part of this picture. The judges are chosen by the UN. No conservative judges are present. I think there was one judge from America, and he more or less toed the liberal line.
According to the International Court of “Justice”, there clearly never had been a Palestinian state. But this suddenly changed on the day in 1967 when the Jewish Israeli Army crossed the “Green Line” (an arbitrary military truce line established by Israel and Jordan in 1949). Before that day, Jordan ruled the West Bank and had incorporated it into the Kingdom of Jordan.
But on the day Israel crossed that line (acting in self-defense), then, according to the International Court of Justice, Jordan no longer had control of the West Bank, and instead, the Green Line suddenly became an “international border” and a new “legitimate” independent, Palestinian state suddenly came into being (one which had never had an independent government), and the dirty Jews were “occupying it illegally”.
So from that moment, according to the goyim, the dirty Jews from the “illegtimate Jewish state of Israel” were the evil “occupiers” of the “legitimate” (but non-existent) state of muslim, Jew-hating Palestine.
Unfortunately, the condition of denial among Jews is overwhelming. It seems pretty obvious that most goyim despise Jews, and they want to see Jewish Israel destroyed. And they will never stop trying until Jewish Israel is first made powerless, and is then finally destroyed.
You can continue to tie yourself in knots trying to apologize for Obama (he really means well), the EU (liberals who just want justice for all), Russia (Putin is just playing politics), and Iran (they speak evil words but don’t really mean them).
But that’s history repeating itself. We heard these same apologies from Jews just before the german christian hitler annihilated them, with the help of all his fellow european christians, and the unspoken support of the american christians.
Great article and great comment by Bill Narvey!
The UN, Europe, and Obama know that to deny Jews the right to live in J&S represents an inversion of international law as laid down in the Mandate. No one wants to do so explicitly because this would undermine the entire body of international law and UNSC resolutions, past and future. So, the game is to argue Israeli settlements are illegal for all the reasons usually enunciated, i.e, “occupation”, Geneva Conventions, UNSC 452, ICJ, etc. and to pummel Israel politically until she surrenders the land. By this logic, stateless Jews would of course be welcome in J&S!
The only way for the Jews of J&S to defeat the legal cudgel would be to renounce their Israeli citizenship (and thus, the protection of the state). That would either lead to genocide at the hands of the Arabs or a miraculous new Jewish state of Judea (yamit’s solution).
Narvey:
What would you want, an Amen group. Ted has hardly made a compelling case for his views. His is a minority view in the world Jewish community and there is not a single nation on earth that accepts any of the policies that he espouses.
When you write there is a disconnect beteen heart and mind amongst his opponents,I would counter that Ted is almost sll heart and a tiny bit of mind. Yes it is pure emotion and little realism. I admire his ideallism however that is just not enough.
Kendraa
This article simply aims to disclose the truth. No where do I suggest what whould be done about it. I have not annunciated any policies.
I have no respect for the policies of the World because they are based on self interest. Why would I accept them of my own free will.
I make a purely legal argument and you say I am all heart. Odd, don’t you think.
You seem to advocate going with the flow. Not much intellectual integrity there. You call it realism. In essence, you want submission. I have a different reality, one based on facts and law and not world pressure.
As for what policy I support I would put it this way. At the moment we are being forced to accept the Saudi Plan. Our only choice is to accept it or to reject it. I reject it. If the Arabs made us a better offer, I would consider it but this they will not do.
Now I can either support annexation or the status quo. Ultimately the status quo which is always changing will evolve into annexation.
So you are wrong, totally wrong to write me off as all heart and little mind. Quite the contrary. I am mostly mind and little heart. I am being the realistic one when I say peace is not possible. You are chasing after a mirage .
I still advocate this solution. If the Israeli government doesn’t want Y & S, so be it. There are enough Jews I believe who do and who will elect to stay in the territories. There may be those who will join them from outside.
Most Jews have a moral problem in fighting other Jews, especially if it is the IDF. They have no such inhibitions in killing Arabs. Give them the means of self-defense and watch what happens. The State in any event couldn’t stand by if they were really threatened and would surely intervene. A truly Jewish State in the Jewish heartland would garner more support than the current pseudo Jews running Israel today and even from so called Christian Zionists. As Stateless refugees the UN would have to protect them and support them.
It would be very embarrassing to the State of Israel and their secular and religious elites. They would lose the Jewish state card they use with the Jews and Christians outside of Israel.
Many interesting scenarios might develop.10-30,000 such Jews I believe is a reality and from such a Garin, more will follow.
If there can be 3 Pali States why not two Jewish states? We will have to once again fight for the second Jewish State. So be it!!
*****The principle here is that the state cannot remove by force or coercion from their homes in the territories if they are no longer Israeli citizens. They would become stateless upon renouncing their Israeli citizenship.
Aren’t Legalisms fun??
The legal debate of Israels rights and legitimacy is an intellectual curiosity of no consequence or import. Except for a few lawyers and academics who cares. These historical legal premises have long been filed in file 13 of real politic.
Even the Israeli governments from the first till today have not used legal argument in any negotiation or agreement of our historic rights. The contrary is more correct. We have accepted the legal narrative of the enemy making ours mute in the only courts relevant.
Uncle, why should this take a back seat to any rights. Time for the Israeli government to recognize it’s own rights to exist in the Holy Land.
Just too many chefs in the kitchen, each cooking up something different.
Let’s begin with the reason there is a problem, the Arabs are only interested in killing Jews and overtaking Israel. The rest is all camouflage.
Don’t forget Israel is a highly developing nation in great proportions and the Arabs who develop nothing but trouble are embarrassed.
The historic rights are G-d given.
Yamit’s thinking is on par with Kendraa’s.
Kendraa’s views assume the majority view is right. She simply and unquestioningly adopts that view and then says because her view is the majority view, she must therefore be right.
Yamit is right that Israel from her inception to this day has pretty much ignored law and historical rights. Instead Israel has bent to the will of her enemies and the will of the powerful Western nations in whose interests it was, as far as their stomachs could take, to bend to the will of Israel’s enemies.
That said however, what possesses Yamit to take a throw in the towel approach and say the advantage of citing history and laws in shaping the Israeli narrative is lost, never to be regained?
Such pessimism is borne of resignation.
If Israel were to try at this late juncture, to re-shape the Israeli narrative to accord with laws that favor Israel and Israel’s historical rights and accordingly re-define Israel’s positions, it would indeed be a very steep hill to climb.
The proof they say however, is in the doing.
If Israel tries and fails, the pessimists like Yamit would gloatingly declare, “I told you so!”.
History however, is replete with instances where nations or just mere individuals armed only with their unswerving faith that they were right, tried against all odds to win their cause and somehow they succeeded.
That lesson from history should be inspiration enough for Israel to try now, even at this late date.
Failure is expected. Success is hoped for. Sometimes seemingly impossible dreams come true.
parsing, wiggling, justifying, etc may convince those already convinced, but the very future of the state of Israel is at stake: demographics will destroy Israel if those who believe settlements are justified win the day. For a full and cogent view of settlements, demographics, and the very essence of Zionism, read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/opinion/30taub.html?ref=opinion
The NYTimes?????
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Read this instead, chowderhead.
Why waste energy,blood snd treasure on that which even in a best case scenario might be a 60-40 chance of failure, Rights are won on the battlefields of history. The victors get to write the historical narrative unless you are a cowardly ghetto minded Jews, than losers win.
What other country in history won 5-6 wars and then pleaded with the losers to make peace, adopted their narrative and gave back territories rightfully the victors, to the losers?
You Ted and others raise the issue of legal rights as some sort of wonder cure for all our ailments but if you ever got to an international court to test your contentions you would find your Judges no more but probably less of the judge Goldstone variety. remember him?
The palis sold their narrative and we didn’t! Time to begin making a whole new narrative based on other principles than what you suggest but first we need a whole new set of Jews in leadership roles. Might need to have some sort of civil war or traumatic apocalyptic event to trigger such a civil war but that seems to be the only way.
You have a better option lets have it. Here I am being the rational one and you the pie in the sky idealist.
Name some examples.
Narvey how then is my thinking on par with HWSNBN?
You never explained that gem adequately and even not at all.
demographics favour the jews not the arabs. if we annex J and S Jews ewill outnumber Arabs 2:1 now and for the foreseeable future.
Everyone seems to forget that we should also strip the Israeli Arabs of their citizenship and we certainly shouldn’t ever give citizenship to the ones on Yosh.
Was I not PC?
Yamit, my meaning was obvious.
As Kendraa looks for the comfort of the majority view in the belief that the majority is a majority because they must be right, you look for the comfort in your conviction that Israel’s past failure to rely on law and history to shape her narrative, has thus determined and restricted her options for her future narrative and positions.
I am not disagreeing with you in saying Israel has closed the door on herself to make the legal and historical rights argument and thus has ceded the field to the Palestinian narrative. Israel’s plaintive refrain that gains the most prominence in her position is that Israel is concerned for her security.
That said, where I do disagree is that whereas you are convinced beyond doubt that there is no chance whatsoever for Israel to open that door to advance positions based on law and history, I believe there is at least a slight chance of success to re-shape her narrative and position in that regard, but we won’t know unless Israel at least tries.
I don’t know why you are so adverse to at least encouraging Israel to try. If she did and succeeded, the absolute worst that would happen would be that you would have to admit you were wrong to be so pessimistic, but you would have not lost a thing in being wrong, for you would only gain by Israel’s unlikely success.
Because it’s a dead issue, too much time and events have passed for it to be elevated to a position of relevance in the real politic of today.
At best it is an intellectual masturbation and at worst an unnecessary distraction from what might or can work. You also forget that the Arabs also can make a case ,legal and historical and the Jews could lose both in an international forum and in the court of public opinion. Security is a dumb defense as is historical rights easily parried by our enemies and false friends like America.
There is only a single argument that has never been argued by anyone in authority from Israel and that is: G-d gave the Land of Israel to the Jews period. No further argument is necessary. Name a higher authority? 70% of all Americans believe in G-d and the Bible. Tell them it ain’t so!! G-d
is a liar? etc.
Even Ted accepts this is religious conflict and the weapons and the tools to fight it must also be religious weapons and tools i.e, the Bible.
Any Christian or Muslim fighting this war would first have to deny the bible upon which their beliefs rest. Won’t happen but it puts the conflict where it belongs and where we have the ultimate case: G-d gave the land of Israel to the Jews. No UN, No League of Nations, No San Remo, No demographics arguments and no pseudo leftist morality not even security. G-d the highest authority in the Universe gave the Jews a small land in a very strategic location.
You make you argument and I’ll make mine, wanna see who wins?
In Bamidbar 33:53, Hashm says:
‘Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: When ye pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their figured stones, and destroy all their molten images, and demolish all their high places.
And ye shall drive out the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein; for unto you have I given the land to possess it.
And ye shall inherit the land by lot according to your families–to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer thou shalt give the less inheritance; wheresoever the lot falleth to any man, that shall be his; according to the tribes of your fathers shall ye inherit.
But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then shall those that ye let remain of them be as thorns in your eyes, and as pricks in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land wherein ye dwell.
And it shall come to pass, that as I thought to do unto them, so will I do unto you.
Rabbis to US Ambassador: Time to ‘Go Biblical’ with Arabs
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/135283
by Gil Ronen
(IsraelNN.com) A delegation of the Rabbinical Congress for Peace (RCP) met with U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Mr. James Cunningham, today and called for a reassessment of the entire U.S. policy vis-à-vis the Israelis and Palestinians. The rabbis told Ambassador Cunningham that it was time to try the Biblical approach to the dispute over the Land of Israel.
Hashem anticipated the likes of HWSNBN by 3,500 years.
Hashem anticipated the likes of HWSNBN by 3,500 years.