Enough Already: Are Israeli Settlements Actually ‘Illegal’?
Logically, since Jordan renounced its claim to Judea and Samaria in 1988, and signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994, recognizing its current border, the only other possible valid legal claim, defined in the Mandate, is that of Israel; Palestinians have no claim because the area was never a Palestinian state.
According to Professor Newton, “Occupation itself does not change sovereignty, but temporarily displaces it until full sovereignty is either restored or reasserted.” By extension, Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria is legal and legitimate because it did not acquire territory belonging to another state or legal entity.
Sooner or later, Israel will have to decide what part of Judea and Samaria belongs to the Jewish people and what to do about that.
Finally, since Israel did not “forcibly transfer” populations, prohibited in GC IV, condemning Israel lacked solid foundations. Therefore, in 2002, the Arab states at the Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court added a new element to the law governing war crimes, making it a crime for an “occupying power” (i.e., Israel) to transfer its citizens into “occupied territory” not only forcibly, but indirectly as well — that is, by providing any assistance such as mortgages and infrastructure.
This Rome treaty provision was specifically designed to declare Jews who built homes over the Armistice Lines of 1949 and Israel guilty of war crimes. An extension of GC IV, it leads back to the ICRC. Without the ability to examine their archives, however, it’s a dead end. What is the ICRC hiding, and why?
Whether Israeli settlements are “unacceptable” and “unhelpful” is debatable. ICRC and kangaroo court rulings against Israel, like those of the International Court of Justice, however, have no basis in proper judicial procedures. They serve only to demonize and delegitimize Israel, and abrogate the meaning of just law.
‘The Legal Foundation and Border of Israel Under International Law’, by eminent legal scholar, Howard Grief, lays out Israel’s LEGAL case.
Anyone who desires the truth should read this book.
Simple as that.
I don’t really see ‘law’ as being the true basis of anything here but in fact, three groups that had successively smaller guns being the arbiters of fate.
In what world did Great Britain ever have moral or ethical and therefore legal jurisdiction over former Ottoman territory since war itself is an abrogation of law? What appeared as legal and orderly from London looked an awful lot like military occupation and the dregs of empire to those in Mandatory Palestine. What legal basis did British maneuvering and occupation in Egypt ever really have?
When Great Britain threw up its hands and left its so-called ‘mandate’, muslim and Jew were left to fight it out in yet another arena in which law was not invoked and therefore was of no use and the Palestinian Jews won.
Resorting to calls for the rule of law has been an action of convenience for all sides and the final arbiter of all in such matters as nationhood stood supreme, and that is the reality that might makes right.
It is that arbiter that is the basis of the bewildered looks on native-American faces from Maine to Hawaii and the basis of American federal ‘law’.
I don’t have a problem with this type of arbitration since it is the basis of reality itself and one ignores it at ones own risk and in any event, bullets and bombs as an expression of cultural will do not ask my permission or advice. What scraps are left to the loser is really just the high water mark of violence and when it recedes it is not a form of justice but an exhaustion of what is possible for violence alone to define – these are often called ‘borders’.
Law at its heart is an elusive concept, usually being stingily reserved for those a culture defines as not having the status of an ‘other’. One can find law and sometimes even justice within a culture but when applied to other cultures, it is probably fair to say that the map of Europe itself is the result of naked violence which is why there had been a large polity called Poland, a Duchy of Warsaw and at times no Poland, Gdansk and Danzig – you say tomato and I say tomahto and I have a gun which trumps etiquette.
In the case of modern day Europe there is an unprecedented amount of cooperation between nations exhausted by centuries of war but it is still safe to say that no borders will really change there as the result of law and without the use of force. The map of the middle east was drawn by Europeans at the point of a sword and without regard to ethnicity. Even those borders are jealously guarded by those countries as the concept of a border is a sacred thing in today’s world, for selfish and mystic nationalistic reasons as well as concepts by outside nations involving the balance of power.
Israel’s status in terms of exerting or not exerting sovereignty is not under threat because of law, but because of the modern disdain the West has for the rule of reality which is ironically, the very basis for the status of the nations which challenge Israel. A base desire to replace war with law globally is a noble venture but a monumentally hypocritical one that has been a failure since, when the International Criminal Court extradites criminals, it does so only in those places where there is a vacuum of raw power and Libya cannot do to the U.S. what we do to Libya.
Along those same lines, the middle eastern countries that hate Zionism are themselves mirror images of the idea of a religious state and so it is not religion as the basis of a polity that has muslims so up in arms but the notion that Israel is not muslim that is the issue. Fair play is nowhere to be found here so we should not kid ourselves by dressing up a goat as a woman and taking it out on a date.
James May – I agree with most of what you have to say in the second part of your comments, but I kind of disagree with the first part. You say: “In what world did Great Britain ever have moral or ethical and therefore legal jurisdiction over former Ottoman territory … ?” Along those lines let me ask you, by what right did the Ottoman’s occupy the territory of the Eastern Roman Empire (the Byzantine Empire), and by what right did the Roman Empire occupy the Seleucid Greek Empire which had occupied the Asian portions of the Persian Empire? Also, by what right do the Franks occupy the former Roman Empire area called Gaul, and by what right do the Angles and Saxons occupy Britain? And of course, by what right do the post-Columbian native Americans occupy America? And so on. There is no right (unfortunately) to this or that. It is what you can defend that gives you the right to be where you are. As long as the Jews of Israel can defend themselves, they have every right to be there.
I don’t see where we disagree – it’s all one and the same – intent and the ability to carry out that intent until stopped by another intent with its own imperative or else plain distance and logistics.
The Ottoman Empire transferred the political rights to Palestine to England in trust for the Jews. See Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres. It was supplemented by the Treaty of Lausanne, but the provisions dealing with the Ottoman Lands in the Middle East and the Maghreb were unchanged. As of the time of the transfer, the Ottoman Empire had held undisputed sovereignty over Palestine for 400 years.
The problem with going back to Great Britain and the Ottomans is that — while interesting enough in a “how did we get here” sense, it leads to no resolution. One might as well argue the relative merits of legality between Moses and Pharaoh.
Fact is, the Ottomans picked the wrong side in WWI and got chopped up accordingly. The Brits — who had made common cause with Arabs (a la Lawrence of Arabia) — were into the chopping and handing-out biz because they picked the right side in WWI. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan….all were pieces of the Ottoman empire disposed of by the victors — and started out with the same legitimacy as Israel.
As to subsequent disputes, it would seem that the nations involved would be the parties at interest — if Israel and Jordan settled their border along a certain line, then that’s where the border is.
In fact it shows past resolutions and the method by which current issues are still resolved – power.
Say what you will about Israel wanting to get on the public’s good side – in the end they don’t need to and can’t survive on our good will. Israel knows this and it is the credo they live by because it is the credo they have been forced to live by by stark example. Survival has its own imperatives quite separate from legal niceties.
If the League of Nations had no authority to establish a Jewish state, what right did it have to establish all the Arab states? And what right does the UN (successor to the League) have to do anything?
Spot on Ron. Not only that of course. The 51 members of the League UNANIMOUSLY voted for it as well.
The clear answer is that they had no ‘right’ to do so. In the case of Israel, it established itself with its army and wanted but did not need a rubber stamp.
In the case of the the other states in the middle east, they were established by outside armies. Those borders are maintained today by those nations’ armies in combination with the reality of outside armies allowing or not allowing them to exert themselves militarily against other nations borders. Kuwait was not absorbed by Iraq because of law but because of the American army.
Europe tried to divide up Turkey during the same post-WW I events and in the end militarily failed to do so; law had nothing to do with it one way or the other. Turkey exists within its present boundaries because it COULD.
You wrote: “Resorting to calls for the rule of law has been an action of convenience for all sides and the final arbiter of all in such matters as nationhood stood supreme, and that is the reality that might makes right.
“It is that arbiter that is the basis of the bewildered looks on native-American faces from Maine to Hawaii and the basis of American federal ‘law’….”
I have made a bit of a hobby of the study of the conquest of the north American continent by white Europeans; the expropriation of American Indian and Mexican lands; Andrew Jackson and his Indian wars, President John K. Polk, Manifest Destiny, etc. Who is complaining today? Where are all the United Nations resolutions condemning the United States for its illegal occupation of Native American lands? America’s example is the history of the world. If I understand you correctly, I agree with your central contention. “Might (historically does indeed) makes right.”
The Secret War Against the Jews continues apace, and most especially through hostile international entities, entities which have NO legal jurisdiction over Israel.
Through demonizing, deligitimizing, and outright lying, they have lied to the world about Israel’s heartland.
Most importantly, there has NEVER been a state of Palestine.Therefore, how in heavens name can they lay claim to ANY territory?
Anti-Zionists/anti-semites will do anything to destroy Israel, to the extent of spinning a fictitious tale of a ‘people’ who were an invention of Arafat, the MASTER terrorist and an Egyptian!,thoroughly aided by his KGB handlers.
We shall see if Israel’s leaders-many bought and paid for by foreign powers-step up and tell the historical truth, instead of selling our patrimony.
If they don’t step up there will be hell to pay on many levels.
1920 San Remo International Conference clauses awarded the sovereignty over the whole Palestinian Mandate (From Mediteranean sea to Hejaz railway=125,000 square kilometers) to the sole Jewish people.
These clauses are still valid,binding and embedded into the international laws.
Leftists may claim whatever they want but nobody can withdraw these rights to the Jewish People.
The proof of legitimacy is often not always in the legal, but sometimes in the moral construct of ones own behaviour.
Any fool can have a child. Wild, immoral, promicuous behavior, devoid of of any purpose and without reasonable discipline, can result in many children being spawned. That does not make you a Parent.
Such it is with entire civilizations…. No rule of law, and no respect for such. No industrious middle class, no sense of “honor” other than perpetual violent reaction to limitless percieved insults. Agression, violence, domination of neighbors, rival clans, women, and “infidels” of all sorts, including the nearly indestinguishable versions of themselves. This does not equate a country.
Any mob can procreate in numbers sufficient to overwhelm the land they sit upon and refuse to develop or invest in. That is the way of Arab World. An enourmous slum of non-ownership, of non-investment, of non-productivity, with no desire for anything but looting of the “decent” neighborhood they have yet to spill into.
The ones that develop the land, that nurture a civilization, that create, and share and irrigate and plant and produce…that VOTE and transfer power peaceably…that live quietly with the means to DESTROY their enemies, yet have not the malice to do so, that live quietly with no demand other than to be unmolested in their daily work…They are the Fathers and Mothers of the reigon.
They are the Parents.
Theirs is a Country.
Israel regularly treats Arab Children to better (free) lifesaving medical care than is available to them in their own countries, and it does so without fanfare or expectations of praise…they do so because, despite all the terror inflicted on THEIR children, they believe the Enemies children are innocent, and they HAVE the means to help, so they DO.
Whereas, in the Arab world, no Jew or Christian is safe from assault. They will slit a childs throat in their bed as they sleep, and dance in the streets to celebrate.
They are not the Parents of a respectable culture.
They have no claim to a Country.
There is no comparison or debate over who “belongs”, or who “deserves” the land. One civilization is a responsible Parent, ready to care for the children of its enemies out of the goodness of their heart. The other a despicable liar, opportunist, thief, and murderer, uncapable of any noteable measure of success in the 95% of the area they already control.
By what sane measure can they lay claim to more?
Who can reasonably support the ambitions of the most irresponsibe, unfriendly, corrupt and untrustworthy civilizations known to man.
Legitimacy comes from within….you have to EARN respect through your conduct.
The “palestinians” earn no respect because they, through their conduct, DESERVE none.
Adina Kutnicki is right about the Arabs who are miscalled “Palestinians.” The Roman Emperor Hadrian in 135 A.D.. after defeating the last of the Jewish rebellions under Bar Kochba, renamed Judea “Palestina” and outlawed Judaism. From that time, “Palestine” was synonymous with “Land of the Jews” or “the Holy Land” (since Jesus was a Jew), and “Palestinian” was synonymous with “Jew.” That is why Great Britain was awarded the “Palestine Mandate” after World War I to be the homeland of the Jews.
It was in Cairo, in 1964, that Gamal Nasser, ruler of Egypt, and the Soviet Union, invented the “Palestine Liberation Organization” with all the phony history and propaganda to go with it. Arabs are not “Palestinians.”
PAthena,you do know your history, something which is in short supply world over.
As a matter of record, my dearest friend in Israel,Tsafrir Ronen,( may he rest in peace)had completed and sold his rights to his 3 part historical documentary, Hadrian’s Curse to Channel 1 in Israel.This was done just before his sudden death in Dec 2008.
There are a few details holding up production, but once shown it will seal the PA’s fate.The invention of their ‘peoplehood’ will be laid bare-historically speaking.
It took a former Sayeret Matkal commando(General Army Staff)who participated in the raid on Entebbe;having been also a former Communications Director for Rabin,quitting when he signed the Oslo Peace/Death accords, as well as a former CEO of Israel History Channel to set the historical record straight.
Why haven’t Israel’s leaders done the same?
The problem with this argument (and I’ve heard everyone up to the comedian Larry Miller making it) is that the term Israeli is about as old as the term Palestinian. Both of the newer terms are region-specific, while the old terms (Arab and Jew) were more heritage-oriented. To my mind, if you’re going to argue that “Palestinians” are fake because they adopted the name recently, there ought to be some contrast between the two groups in terms of longevity…and there isn’t.
“B’nai Israel” (“children of Israel,” aka “The Jewish People”) is a Biblical reference. A group of people called “Plishtim” (the word means invaders)who originated in what today are Greek islands conquered parts of Egypt and Israel. They were eliminated around the time of King David, 3,000 years ago. The term “Palestinian people” — according to Rashid Khalidi and others — is a modern term that developed in response to Zionism, especially after the wars of 1948 and 1967. Supported by the UN and others, the notion of a Palestinian people, like that of Libyans, Syrians, Jordanians, etc is revealed as myth.
Since the Roman times Palestine is a name of a region not of people. During the Mandate the term ‘Palestinian’ was referring to both Jews and Arabs living in Palestine. As a matter of fact When Arabs were mentioned they were mentioned as ‘Palestinian Arabs’. Browsing articles from the mandate time you can clearly see that Arabs were trying to distance themselves from any Palestinian connotations(i.e. They did not like to be called Palestinians and never saw themselves as a distinct people from the Arab nations, although there was never such nation in this highly fragmented tribal society).
As a matter of fact it’s akin to today’s symptoms of the use of the term ‘Israeli’ although it refers to a citizen of Israel be it an Arab or Jew. (Many) Israeli Arab are showing disdain at being called Israelis and adopt the name that purged itself of Jewish ownership ‘Palestinian’.
And the misinformed are getting lost…
For how the “Palestinians” got their name, see:
Brand, Soviet Russia, The Creators of the PLO and the Palestinian People, http://www.think-israel.org/brand.russiatheenemy.html
Mr. Dann’s article is an island of reason in a sea of insanity.
Can somebody please explain to me how settlements outside the state of Israel strengthen the State of Israel? Are they to be evacuated someday? Are they to be a part of some Arab political entity? Is there any alternative to a new Arab state in the West Bank that any bozo or religious chauvanist here would like to propose?
Imagine an armored columned emerging from a Palestinian controlled West Bank, attempting to cut Israel in two in a drive to the sea where Israeli territory is slimmest, cutting the country in two. That column attacks North and South while other columns descend on Israel from the Lebanon/Syria and Gaza.
This is its own imperative. We’re talking about territory where every mile counts because there is no such thing as defense in depth; it is all or nothing with nowhere to retreat to.
Considering the past, the Palestinian Arabs should count themselves lucky they haven’t been deported wholesale from the West Bank. Israel has no obligation to listen to the West’s stupid ideas about returning conquered land considering that it is not the West’s survival at stake.
if your scenario came to pass, the 4th most powerful military in the world, backed up by the most powerful military in the world, would destroy your hypothetical arab “armored column” in about five minutes.
still, i’ll concede for the sake of argument that Israelis as the victors in a defensive war (1967) have the right to acquire conquered territory for defensive purposes, even if their perception of the need for that territory is in my opinion entirely neurotic and imaginary. Does any nation in the year 2011 have the right to refuse to enfranchise the population of an acquired territory solely for the purpose of remaining an ethnonationalist state?
if the west bank is so essential to israel’s survival, then it is essential to make clear that there is no such thing as “palestinians,” there are only “Israeli Arabs.” But if you can’t do this, because doing so would threaten jewish dominance of a democratic system, don’t get angry when people compare your nation to south africa under minority rule.
I don’t know that the West Bank is strategically necessary for the survival of Israel, I’m just saying that the memory of 1967 is still a strong one.
And by the way, ’67 wasn’t entirely a defensive war. Israel had announced years before that the closure of the Straits of Tiran would mean war and Israel attacked the Egyptian air force on the ground to drive home the point shortly after it actually happened.
Saudi Arabia had given Egypt an island for the sole purpose of extending out Egyptian sovereignty in those straits to do that exact thing.
“don’t get angry when people compare your nation to south africa under minority rule.”
I as a European am offended by such comparisons, it is both an affront to human intelligence and a denigration of the gravity of apartheid. If people want to meddle with that at least do it in a decent manner appealing to some aspect of intellect and without making terms like ‘apartheid’ loose all meaning. When it is just used to demonize israel people of all countries should be justified to ‘get angry’ as it just promotes the grooming of generation lacking in critical thinking and knowledge of history.
After Hamas in Gaza and Hezbullah in South Lebanon if you can’t figure out what would happen after a further retreat you should see a psychiatrist. Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (“settlements”)are strategically critical, historically and legally valid.
fine. are you willing to make the non-Jews living in judea and samaria israeli arabs? if not, why? and if not, then what are they?
Why is it black or white ? either slaves or Israelis
Are you forgetting that West bank Palestian enjoy an autonomy. Yes the Palestinian Autonomy exists for more than 10 years, true they still rely on Israel, but that is up to them, Israel showed consistently that if the Palestinian behave they get more if they not they get less.
Compare Gaza and west bank on any fact website and see for yourself.
And no! behaving doesn’t mean being a slave to Jews, it means not sneaking to a village in the middle of the night to slaughter babies (And later on reading in a Palestinian pole that 30% of WB Palestinian oppose such an act).
they enjoy “autonomy” the same way cherokee indians enjoyed autonomy when Oklahoma was “indian territory,” or black South Africans enjoyed autonomy in the apartheid-era “bantustans” they lived in. Calling Israel “apartheid state” is a false slur when it comes to how Israel treats its Arab citizens, but it has a strong grain of truth in regard to its treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank. And before you come back with argument that West Bank Arabs are better of than Arabs in Syria or elsewhere, realize that you could make the same argument vis-a-vis apartheid-era South Africa: black were indeed better off in South Africa under apartheid than they were in Zaire, Rwanda, Mozambique or most other post-colonial sub-Saharan hellhole states.
I would hate to think I would qualify as a “bozo” or “chauvinist” but I have an alternative. Since exclusive political rights to all the West Bank has previously been granted to Israel, it would be a reasonable alternative for Israel, in response to a unilateral declaration by the PA, which would cancel the Oslo Accord, to annex the West Bank as a part of Israel proper. The population figures heretofore proffered by the Arabs (who call themselves Palestinians) have been proved much too high. The incorporation of this land into Israel would still leave the Jews with a healthy majority, easily enough to maintain a Democratic Israel as a Jewish State.
The next time some Arab family gets expelled from their house with an hour’s warning to collect their belongings, because an Israeli court has ruled their deed to their house invalid, I’m sure as the bulldozers destroy their ancestral home, they’ll be comforted by the fact that everything’s legal and above-board. This will convince them to not resent the fact that their home has been taken from them without compensation, and of course they would never encourage their young children to become terrorists.
Unfortunately, in the real world, when you treat someone like this, and they react by murdering innocent children (I mean Israelis who are victims of suicide bombings and the like) it just adds fuel to the fire. Oh, and Markus, it’s simple. Israel is famously 7 miles wide or something at its narrowest point. The settlers don’t imagine they will be made to evacuate their homes; they’re imagining that someday their Arab neighbors will be made to leave, completely, and the territory will be absorbed into Israel completely. Then it *would* strengthen the country. Frankly, I’ve at times advocated a solution along this line, with the idea that they should just get it over with, take their lumps, and let the world get over it. The Israelis would have done something like this under Ben Gurion, I think, but by the time the situation came up he’d either retired or even died, and his replacements have either had baggage (Sharon) or been more squeamish about the idea. As a result we get this (pardon the politically incorrect phrase) Chinese water torture of very gradual settlement of the disputed territory, which exacerbates the issue incrementally, while each individual act of settlement is more or less barely tolerable.
People do get expelled from their homes with little or no notice in Israel, but they are Jews, NOT Arabs. Arabs have dozens of well financed NGOs to finance court battles and legal hassles, assisted by the media.
Jews who live in Judea and Shomron don’t have these advantages.
One…..
Contrary to what you read in the lamestream media, Israel is a democracy where the law equally applies to ANYONE. No one can be removed from land they legally own (Apart from Jews in Judea, Samaria and Gaza ). 99% of all those sob stories about Arabs being removed from their ‘ancestral land’ are just that, sob stories. If you believe all the Pollywood productions you are either very gullible, extremely dim or just too lazy to find out the truth.
Israel
1.Israel’s is a multi-racial country with citizens from more than a 100 different countries of the world.
2.Israel is the most racially, religiously and ethnically diverse country in the Middle East.
3.Israel is the ONLY country in the region that permits citizens of all faiths to worship freely and openly
4.Israel is the ONLY country in the ME with a Baha’i temple and where Baha’i can practise their faith unrestricted is Israel.
5.Arabic is an official language in Israel.
6.Palestinian Arabs have full citizenship in Israel
7.Israel was the first Middle East country to grant Arab women the right to vote.
8.Some 200,000, non Jewish, migrants from Romania, Thailand, China, Africa and South America, have made their home in Israel.
9.Israel has given refuge to more than 16,000 non Jewish African asylum seekers.
10.Israel’s Arab citizens have more political rights than any Arabs in the entire Middle East.
11.Israeli-Arab citizens economically better off than the majority of their fellows in virtually every other Arab country.
Arab countries
1.Kuwait and several Gulf countries expelled more than 400,000 ‘Palestinians’ in March 1991, after Kuwait was liberated from Iraqi occupation.
2.There are 400,000 Palestinians living in Lebanon in twelve refugee camps — which human rights organizations and Palestinians say have the worst living conditions of all the refugee camps in the Middle East — as in most of the Arab countries, these Palestinians have been assigned the status of “foreigners,” a fact which has deprived them of health care, social services, property ownership and education.
3.Lebanese law bans Palestinians from working in the public services and institutions run by the government such as schools and hospitals.
4.Lebanese public hospitals do not admit Palestinians for medical treatment or surgery.
5.Jordan has a law on its books explicitly prohibiting any Jew from becoming a citizen, or any Jordanian from selling land to a Jew. It has refused to amend this law despite repeated demands.
Two……
If you believe that it is quite understandable that people who feel aggrieved strap explosives to animals to blow people up, rape women to force them to become suicide bombers and invade somebody’s home to slit the throats of the occupants AND celebrate these atrocities by naming streets and buildings after the murderers and handing out sweets then you are (In my book) just as deranged as the vermin responsible for the atrocities.
Simply brilliant . . . now force our leaders to learn the truth. Thanks and thanks and ever thanks.
Next time that the IRS (Or any tax authority in your country) breaks into your house and confiscates your belongings because you failed to declare and pay your proper tax, I am sure you will strap your kids with some explosives and tell them to go and kill as many unrelated people as possible.
I know that some naive people will try to sway you that in a lawful country behaving unlawfully incurs some penalties and all you have to do is conform to the law. BUT don’t let them sway you, you know better than them, your way is the right way.
Just as Palestinians are an invention so is the Mohammedan ARAB claim to the Holy Land. They are ARAB invaders after all so to accept that they have the ‘RIGHT’ to the Holy Land is to accept a ‘Right of Conquest’ that said the Jews conquered the land then so do they not have a ‘Right of Conquest ‘ too. To deny it exposes your illogical antisemitism . Now I can understand that with Mohammedans Islam and logic are polar opposites but what is the left wing monbats excuse?
In 1920, Great Britain was given the responsibility by the League of Nations to oversee the Mandate over the geographical territory known as Palestine with the express intention of reconstituting within its territory a Jewish National Home.
The territory in question stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to the eastern boundary of Mandatory Palestine, which was a border that would separate it from what was to become the future state of Iraq.
The League of Nations created a number of articles, which were in line with the original intent of the Balfour Declaration of November 29th, 1917. At the last minute, however, a new article was introduced by the British Colonial Office: article number 25.
At first the sudden addition of this article was not a cause for alarm but gradually it became apparent that its inclusion directly enabled Great Britain in 1921 to tear away all the territory of geographical Palestine, east of the River Jordan, and give it to the Arab Hashemite family; the territory to become Trans-Jordan and led by the emir Abdullah.
Britain presented this gift to Abdullah, the son of the Sherif of Mecca, as a consolation prize for its awarding of the Hedjaz territory and Arabia, which included Mecca, to the rival Saud family: That vast territory is now Saudi Arabia.
British officials also claimed that the gift of Mandatory Palestine east of the Jordan River was in gratitude to the Hashemites for their contribution in helping defeat the Turks. However, even T.S. Lawrence later described in derisory terms the Hashemite role as “a side show of a side show.”
This was the first partition of Palestine and created a brand new entity 87 years ago covering some 35,000 square miles or nearly four-fifths of the geographical territory of Palestine. Immediately Jewish residence in the territory was forbidden and it became in effect judenrein – the German term for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from a territory.
This betrayal by none other than Winston Churchill, the Colonial Secretary at the time, was a devastating blow to the Jewish and Zionist leadership, which now saw the promised Jewish homeland reduced to the remaining narrow territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan – an area barely 50 miles at its widest.
Shortly after, in 1923, the British and French colonial powers also divided up the northern part of the Palestine Mandate. Britain stripped away the Golan Heights (ancient biblical Bashan) and gave it to French occupied Syria.
The Balfour Declaration issued by Lord Balfour, British Foreign Secretary, never envisaged that the Jordan River would be the eastern boundary of the reconstituted Jewish homeland. Indeed, the Zionist leadership had put forward in February 1919 its first submission that the eastern boundary would run well east of the Hedjaz railway. The incorporation of the railway would be an economically essential requirement for the Jewish community living east of the River Jordan as well as providing it with vital security.
The squabbling by the French and British colonial powers over the final frontiers of the Palestine Mandate had earlier led the London Times to urge Paris to accept sensible and rational frontiers in both the north and east of Jewish Palestine. As early as September 19th, 1919 it had thundered in an editorial:
“The Jordan will not do as the eastern frontier of Palestine … Palestine must have a good military frontier east of Jordan … Our duty as Mandatory is to make Jewish Palestine not a struggling state but one that is capable of vigorous and independent life … ”
But Jewish aspirations inevitably were dashed as a new British Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, took the place of Lord Balfour. This new British official within weeks of succeeding Balfour made it clear that Britain was intent upon separating Transjordan from Palestine: the first two-state solution.
The succeeding history of the remaining one fifth of the original territory promised to the Jewish people by Lord Balfour and the British government was one of continuing British betrayal as each successive Mandatory administration displayed pro-Arab and anti-Jewish policies.
During its administration up until 1947, Britain severely restricted Jewish immigration and purchases of land while turning a blind eye to massive illegal Arab immigration into the territory from neighboring Arab states.
Britain’s sorry record of appeasement of the Arabs, at the expense of Jewish destiny in the remaining territory, culminated in the infamous 1939 White Paper, which limited Jewish immigration to just 75,000 souls for the next five years. This onerous and draconian policy, coming as it did on the eve of the outbreak of World War 2, was a death blow to millions of Jews attempting to flee extermination by Nazi Germany.
Britain’s mismanagement of the Mandate finally led to the United Nation’s Partition Plan of 1947. The Jewish Agency reluctantly accepted this additional dismemberment of what was left in Mandatory Palestine of the promised Jewish National Home.
They did this in order to provide a refuge for the surviving Jewish remnants of the Holocaust and for the growing numbers of Jewish refugees being driven out of their homes throughout the Arab world. In contrast, the Arab regimes rejected the Partition Plan. Then, as now, they worked against the existence of an independent Jewish state.
Israel was officially re-born as a sovereign nation in 1948 and its 600,000 Jews fought to survive the massive Arab onslaught, which was intended to wipe out the Jewish state.
In 1948, Trans-Jordan, renamed the Kingdom of Jordan since 1946, had joined the other Arab nations in invading the Jewish state, illegally annexing the Biblical and ancestral Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria and renaming it the West Bank. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized the annexation.
The war ended in tortuous armistice lines resulting in an Israeli border a mere nine miles wide at the most densely populated area, which stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordanian occupied West Bank. Israel’s late Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, described these dangerously vulnerable armistice lines as the Auschwitz borders.
Nineteen years later the Arab states declared again their imminent intention to destroy Israel. In the June 1967 Six Day War Israel liberated Judea and Samaria from Jordan in a defensive war. Israel offered to give away the newly liberated West Bank to the Hashemite regime in Jordan and the Gaza Strip to its erstwhile Egyptian occupiers in return for a full and lasting peace. But the Arab League, meeting in Khartoum in August, 1967, delivered the infamous three No’s: No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel.
[b]It is within the narrow territory remaining for the Jewish state, if one includes Judea and Samaria, that the world now demands the establishment of yet another Arab state. Hamas controlled Gaza would be included in this future state to be called Palestine; a state which has never existed before by that name in all of recorded history – certainly not as an independent Arab state.
Gaza has already been given to the Arabs and they have turned it into a terror base from which they have launched a lethal missile blitz against Israel numbering to date over 10,000 rockets.
Israeli leaders should never have accepted even one missile fired from Gaza at its citizens in southern Israel. To let thousands fall with relative impunity for so many years led the world to believe that it was acceptable. After all, if Israel wasn’t interested in safeguarding its own civilians, why then should the world be. It was accepted as business as usual.
[/b]
The Gaza War thus came as a surprise to the world community and, just as the Second Lebanon War, it was launched by Israeli leaders too late and ended too soon, leaving both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon free to wreak future havoc upon the Jewish state.
The disputed West Bank, which is the ancient biblical heartland of Israel, is now the territory U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is pressuring Israel to give away to the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians. This is the present day so-called two – state solution and will dismember what is left of Israel and drive some 250,000 Jewish residents from their homes and farms. Why? Because just as in Jordan, Jews will not be permitted to live within Arab territory, while Arabs can remain free to live within Israel.
It is instructive to remember that upon the granting of the Palestine Mandate to Great Britain, an eminent British celebrity and supporter of Zionism, Josiah Wedgwood, addressed a Jewish crowd of thousands at the Royal Albert Hall in London in which he urged the audience to stand up for Jewish rights in its homeland.
According to the late Shmuel Katz in his groundbreaking biography of the great Zionist leader, Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky, titled The Lone Wolf, Wedgwood said:
“… This lesson I want the new Jewish nation to learn and to get by heart: Stand up for your rights. Let us have more of the spirit in the Jewish movement of my good and gallant friend Jabotinsky.”
Sadly, Israeli governments have become notoriously fearful of rejecting outright the deadly trap inherent in the so called two-state solution. Their muted responses have merely encouraged world leaders to repeatedly breathe new life into the discredited plan. The searing tragedy is that the two-state solution may presage for the Jewish people another Final Solution.
Perhaps the Secretary of State prefers to remain oblivious to the stark fact that the Arabs, whom she embraces and who today call themselves Palestinians, are as committed as their parents and grandparents before them to destroy the Jewish state; whatever size or shape its borders. The fact is that this is not a dispute over borders; this is a religious war and the Arabs, so long as the overwhelming majority remain Muslim, will never accept the existence of a non-Muslim state in territory previously conquered in the name of Allah -whatever the size or shape of its borders.
Only just recently, Muhammad Dahlan, speaking on behalf of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, declared on PA TV that the PA will not recognize Israel — one of the primary demands made upon the Palestinian Arabs in the Oslo Peace Accords. Indeed, Dahlan admitted that the only reason they meet with Israelis at all is in order to continue receiving the immense flow of international funds.
Is Ms. Clinton aware of this Arab charade? Or does she dismiss it and care not for the absence of a sincere and honest Palestinian Arab peace partner and the inevitable plight of the quarter of a million plus Jewish residents who will become displaced refugees by enacting the next two-state solution. Perhaps she cares little for the resulting takeover of Judea and Samaria by Hamas and the inevitable missile blitz that will be launched by the Palestinian Arabs upon the rest of Israel.
Incidentally, what irony when the homes of Peace Now members living in Tel Aviv become daily targets of missiles launched from the very areas they campaign for their fellow Jews to be expelled from.
One wonders if Secretary Clinton knows that eighty seven years ago an original two-state solution was enacted in infamy. If she does, it is unlikely that she cares – anymore than the rest of the Obama Administration or State Department cares.
And what of those Jewish Americans who serve the Secretary and sadly will be in the forefront of destroying Jewish patrimony in the Land of Israel. Will they have a conscience or feel shame for the calamity they create? I think not.
are you willing to make the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria Israeli Arab citizens, with voting rights equal to Jewish citizens?
I answered you in other comment but your insistence is recommendable.
Palestinian have an autonomy so the proper question to ask is “Do Jews have equal rights in a Palestinian autonomy?”
A hint: Palestinian authority dictates that any Arab to sell land to a Jew should be put to death
Another hint: “I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land” Mahmoud Abbas, July 28th 2010
How about the old standby: “might makes right”? Was that not the rationale of the Arabs who freely chose to challenge Israel and ended up wearing their collective asses for hats? Israel paid in blood for the Golan heights to protect themselves and no “international law” will ever compel them to give them up.
That is my take. And it didn’t take a book length treatise on international law to arrive at it. Weep, pencilnecks, weep.
Marcus: Following is an inciteful, researched and informative reference with regard to Israel’s security needs and why we must remain in what is currently identified as the Westbank as well as in The Golan: See Professor Martin Sherman’s article published about one month ago in Ynet. There is a place called “site” in Ynet where you can fill in the name “Martin Sherman” and find the article. I think it will explain clearly and comprehensively why evacuation of these areas would be instrumental in the defeat of the whole nation. Israel is not about to go under, however, in order to facilitate the Arab world and much of the left leaning international community.
i can’t find the link, but i’d be interested in reading it.
so if a democratic state needs to incorporate new territory for its own self-defense, is it permissable for it to deny political rights to the population of the new territory, solely to avoid diluting the political power of the current ethnic majority? if the u.s. was forced to take over mexico for political reasons, would it be morally legitimate to refuse to enfranchise the mexicans in the conquered territory?
Marcus–If you can’t find the link on Ynet (in the blank next to “Site”), why not just google “Martin Sherman + Israel” and search for it.
The Green Line, established in 1967 with Jordan as a ceasefire line was drawn with a green pen between military leaders (Moshe Dayan on the Israeli side) simply as a description as to where the two armies were placed at that time. In fact, the “Green Line” was drawn with a thick pen such that it obfuscated just where, exactly, the demarcation line was given a variance of several kilometers. At any rate, the Green Line was never meant as a recognized border.
J Post today reports that a group of former defence officials are set to release a peace proposal. It does not sound like there is anything new in it concerning the Palestinians. Same offer they have rejected thus far and will continue to reject.
Puzzling part is that they propose handing over the Golan. Why? Israel is not under any pressure to hand back the Golan and this is a particularly bad time to even think about it with current Syrian and Lebanese instability. While one might argue that given current military and political reality the concept of “strategic depth” makes less sense in the W Bank than it did 30 years ago, it still very much does in the Golan.
In any case why make a proposal which will only be rejected except as a PR move. Even as that it will backfire as did the last round because it will stall and Israel will be blamed for the failure for breathing Palestinian air or something.
What then is the alertnative given Palestinian intransigence? One approach is to wait for the Palestinians to make the next move.
Few days ago an Israeli peacenik, actor-producer Juliano Mer-Khamis who was living in the W Bank and had a theater there was killed, apparently by Hamas operatives. He had been criticised for producing “Animal Farm” with people playing pigs and otherwise offending Islamic sensibilities (wait dont Jews also…oh never mind).
Word out to BDS supporter Roger Waters – When you come out to show your support for Palestinians and play a concert in Jenin, you might want to leave “Pigs on the Wing” out of the set, or just change it to “Jews on the Wing” that ought to go over well.
These people need a state. Preferably far away from Israel.
The question of the settlements’ legality is no longer relevant. The question is whether to expel millions of Arabs or give them democratic rights. The current situation cannot be sustained indefinitely.
” The question is whether to expel millions of Arabs or give them democratic rights. ”
This choice is repeated so often that folks believe it to be the only two choices. There is another option that is more reasonable and more humane and solves the problem. Muslims who reside in Israel should become citizens of Jordan. They can choose to remain in Israel with everything they have or move if they like. I can own a home in France. That does not make me a citizen.
Nearly all Arabs living in Judea, Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza live under the PA/Hamas;no democracy. A Palestinian state already exists in Jordan; no democracy. Millions of “Arab refugees” live in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and other Arab countries;no democracy. There’s a regional problem — solve it regionally. Israel is an island of stability; letting things remain as they are may be the best solution.
Palestinians have democracy. The PA is a mess because of the last vote. The vast majority of Palestinians live under the governments they have elected. Those mandates are expired and they cannot even sit in the same room and plan for the new round of elections for local government.
Democratic rights they have. They can declare a vote tomorrow on whatever they want. They can declare a state if they wish and deal with that. They have their own police, courts, schools and economy. Nobody is stopping that.
Expel millions of Arabs is not even on the table. Israel does not do such things. Neither does Israel practice genocide or apartheid. These are facts. What Israel wants is the ability to govern within it’s territory and breathing room against the constant attack on all fronts.
You want to talk about civil rights? Please.
so…what is your rationale for israel continuing to hold on to the territories, while denying arabs living in those territories the same rights as in the rest of Israel?
And how do you explain the inconsistency of a democratic nation doing this?
Markus , what rights are the Palestinian denied ? and by whom ?
those who believe that israel should hold on to the west bank (several of whom are posting comments here) are opposed to giving arabs living there the same political rights given to israelis, including israeli arabs. those rights include Israeli citizenship, voting rights, the right to speak and move freely, and other constitutional protections. they would deny west bank arabs these rights for the same reason white southerners wanted to deny voting rights to southern black prior to the 1960s, and afrikaners wanted to deny black south africans political rights under apartheid — they want israel to remain an ethnonationalist democracy. i don’t have any problem with ethnonationalism, as long as it doesn’t involve oppressing minorities against their will. If Israel needs or wants to hold on to the West Bank, it needs to become a binational state.
Markus, first of all you put in a white or black mindset, while a small glance in history shows that the plethora of solutions is much wider than that.
Second I think you are confusing Palestine for some other place, because apparently Palestinians have their own elections and their own autonomy with free rights to move therein as they please. Something the blacks in south Africa never had so the comparison is fallacious.
Moreover, your white/black thinking is leading you to a dead end. If you want the WB Palestinians to be Israelis what does that mean.
1. Give Israelis voting rights for the Palestinian authority ? (To make things even)
2. revoke the Palestinian authority altogether ?
Sorry Markus, you make no sense, force the disucussion to a very limited mindset and rely on fallacious facts.
Pragmatist’s summary of the history is accurate and excellent. The West Bank was an essential part of the original land of the Jews, and should all remain a part of Israel. Most current observers do not realize that the Palestine Mandate included all of the present country of Jordan, as well as the Golan Heights. In 1947, Palestinians left (and some were expelled from) the territory that was to become Israel, and they moved to another part of Palestine, not to another country. They should remain there. Many Arabs remained in Israel, and they became citizens of the new state of Israel. The two-state solution already exists: the Arabs are entitled to Jordan, and the Jews to Israel, including the West Bank.
When Jordan gained control of the area of the West Bank in 1947, Jews were not allowed there at all, and even tourists were not allowed to visit the holy sites, if their passports showed they had visited Israel beforehand.
The underlying problem that must be understood, that will render this an eternal battle, is the Islamic principle that any land or territory that has been conquered by jihad remains forever the property of Allah, and may only be rightfully governed by his Islamic state. Israel was conquered by Muslim jihadists in the seventh century, and the Muslim claim to it is now eternal. That is the reason for Arab intransigence and unwillingness to ever recognize the right to existence of Israel.
This is the truth nobody can deny. Pierre Orts, the Chairman of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nation:
“Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.”
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/FD05535118AEF0DE052565ED0065DDF7
No David, this was half truth skewed for unholy purpose or due to negligence.
“ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by ***Jews*** who take up their permanent residence in Palestine. ”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7
@ Joe
You’re quoting it yourself: “included [...] as to facilitate”. This was not only for Jews. It just made it easier for Jews to become Palestinians than other foreigners.
This was the main paragraph of the Palestine Citizenship Order of 1925: “Turkish citizens habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 6th day of August 1924 shall become Palestinian citizens.”
Even the International Court decided in the Case of the Mavrommatis Concessions that Palestine was the successor state:
“[71] The provision, therefore, contained in Article 9 of Protocol XII, to the effect that Palestine is subrogated as regards the rights and obligations of Turkey towards the nationals of contracting Powersother than Turkey, who are beneficiaries under the concessionary contracts entered into with the Ottoman authorities before October 29th, 1914, is applicable to M. Mavrommatis’ concessions.”
http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1925.03.26_mavrommatis.htm
Compare it with the mentioned Article 9 of Protocol XI which was applied:
“the State which acquires the territory is fully subrogated”
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/xii_-protocol-relating-to-certain-concessions-granted-in-the-ottoman-empire.en.mfa
And we can not only find international treaties with Palestine and the USA, France, Turkey and so on during the mandate period, but also with Great Britain before the mandate! See:
http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/20/20/00038953.pdf
http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/17/1/00032024.pdf
It’s like the Chairman said. Palestine was a state, though under guardianship.
Indeed Palestine was a state, a Jewish one as the Mandate clearly dictated it should be. and the paragraph you provided clearly confirms that it was the case at 1937.
Beside clearly stating that the Jews were already organized for statehood. It clearly indicated that Arabs where not considering themselves as Palestinians, so no whitewash would help you there.
Taking for your arguments only scrapes that suit your agenda and washing away the contextual definition does not qualify as an argument, at least not an honest one.
And as long as I am already at it.
Had you read the link you sent you would realize that the term Palestinian refers to either only Jews or anything/anybody related/living to/in the region of Palestine.
And some parts make it quite explicit what Palestinian Arabs were thinking about being considered Palestinians.
“As to transfer, Mr. Ormsby-Gore quite agreed that, if it were a case of moving the Arabs long distances to a strange country, transfer would indeed be difficult. But these people had not hitherto regarded themselves as “Palestinians”, but as part of Syria as a whole, as part of the Arab world.”
Palestine before 1948 wasn’t only a “jewish state” and the Palestinian Nationality didn’t only refer to Jews.
I’ve allready quoted the main paragraph from the nationality law of 1925:
“Turkish citizens habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 6th day of August 1924 shall become Palestinian citizens.”
It’s based on the Treaty of Lausanne:
“SECTION II. NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”
‘Palestine before 1948 wasn’t only a “jewish state”’ David
Nor did I say so. I merely mentioned that the mandate dictated by the League of nations was to create a ***Jewish*** state on Palestine for the Jewish people. The mandate clearly dictates that Non-Jews civil rights should not be compromised by the creation of the Jewish state.
“in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Remo_conference
So anything you were trying to add so far just adds to the fact that non-jews should not be discriminated against. fair enough but it doesn’t change the facts.
1. The mandate was aimed at creating a Jewish state on Palestine (The territories of contemporary Israel and Jordan).
2. Pierre Orts, was referring to Palestinians (=Jews) as the mandate was clearly a guardianship for the Jewish state. and he clearly referenced Article 7 of the Mandate that speaks only of Jews.
3. There is no reference to a mythical Palestinian state that is both Jewish and non-Jewish especially at 1937 during the Arab revolt. The suggestion that there was at 1937 such a state is ludicrous at best. Arabs were trying to do their best to kill Jews. So you must agree that Orts can’t really talk about a Palestine state that is composed of both Jews and Arabs and refer to them as a ripe nation.
4. Nor is there reference at that time to an Arab state on Palestine, Nor a Palestinian Arab state. So you can’t claim that what Orts said was related to a pure Arab state. If he did he should have refereed to Greater Syria, or Arab Uma (Which was the Arabs affiliation at that period of time).
5. The definition of the word Palestinian was different at that time and referred to Jews. The fact that you try to use contemporary usage of that term although all evidence point to the contrary is disturbing.
Not a state for Jews, only a national home in Palestine. From the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry – Chapter V:
“It should be noted that the demand for a Jewish State goes beyond the obligations of either the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate, and was expressly disowned by the Chairman of the Jewish Agency as late 1932.”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/angch05.asp
And Pierre Orts was not only refering to Jewish Palestinians. He refered to article 7 to point out that it demanded a nationality law and that this was a sign that Palestine was a state, though under guardianship.
Article 7:
“ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.”
Do you undestand, that this nationality law was for all Palestinians (Jews and Gentiles) as this law indicates itself and that it should only include provisions to “facilitate” jewish immigration?
David,
I perfectly understand, you are the one that is mixing nationality and ownership with sovereignty.
Jews were to be the sovereign without affecting ownership nor nationality of the local people.
But lets follow you line of reasoning, what was this Palestinian nation composed of:
1. Arabs – if so. why did he refer to the mandate that clearly didn’t mention Arab ? What Arab national institutes existed and recognized by the English ?
2. Jews & Arabs – If so. What Jewish/Arab national institutions existed in that area ? And how did they qualify as a Palestinian nation ? show references to indication that Palestine should have been sovereign by both eccentricities. Was there any group accepting such path ?
3. Jews
4. Other ?
“they would deny west bank arabs these rights for the same reason white southerners wanted to deny voting rights to southern black prior to the 1960s…”
Baloney. People who have any sense want to drive the Arab Muslims out of the West Bank (and other areas) for the same reason the Chinese wanted to drive the Japanese out of China.
Arab Muslims are foreign invaders, imperialists and colonialists, as well as being murderous thugs, terrorists and oppressors. And, the only claim they have on Israel, or any other piece of land north of Aqaba is that other Arab Muslims took those lands by force in the past.
They have no right to even be in the West Bank at all, much less political rights, like a right to set up states on the lands they stole.
“Do settlements violate GC IV?”
They might if the Pal terrorist quasi-state had ever signed onto the Geneva Conventions, but since they haven’t signed on, and since Pal terrorists never have and don’t now honor the Conventions, they don’t apply.
Common Article 2 of the Conventions…
“Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.”
If Pal terrorists ever agreed to follow the Conventions themselves you could make a case that Israel was obliged to honor the Conventions in relation to the Pals. Only, Pal terrorists don’t do that, so the issue is moot.
Article 49 of the 4th Convention doesn’t apply.
And, if it was up to me, my country (the USA) would pull out of the Conventions anyway, because the people we fight never abide by them.
What’s the point of being in these treaties if foes like Al Qaida blow up embassies, or capture American civilians and then murder them in cold blood? Screw the Geneva Conventions. They’re totally useless.
@ Dave Surls
This is not correct in many ways.
First of all the IV. Geneva Conventions protects people not states. It doesn’t matter if this people are living in a sovereign state or it’s sovereignty is absent because of an occupation or the lack of a funtcioning goverment (like Germany, after the war) or even if the territory is postcolonial and has no self governing institutions yet. This people are protected under the right of self determination and an occupation genuinely violates this right. This is the reason why an occupiation is only legitimate, if it’s temporary.
What really matters is that Israel is a member state of the UN. It ratified the Charta of the UN and that means that it is not allowed to acquire territory by war or to annex it or to change the demographics in occupied territories. Even the High Court of Israel concludes, that the territories are under “belligerent occupation”, e.g.:
“B. The Normative Outline in the Supreme Court’s Caselaw
1. Belligerent Occupation
14. The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation.
The legal meaning of this view is twofold:
first, Israeli law does not apply in these areas. They have not been “annexed” to Israel.
Second, the legal regime which applies in these areas is determined by public international law regarding belligerent occupation (see HCJ 1661/05 The Gaza Coast Regional Council v. The Knesset et al.”
http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/04/570/079/a14/04079570.a14.pdf
Last but not least. The Palestinians tried to ratify the Geneva Conventions but were not allowed, because the State of Palestine is not yet a member of the UN, although it’s recognized by more than half the countries of the 192 member states of the UN. Back in 1949 it took only 37 countries to vote for Israel’s membership. And never forget that there were also terrorist organisations like Irgun and Lehi on Israel’s side before they were dissolved into the IDF after the state was founded.
@David
Yes I remember when I was young and articles about Lehi and Irgun blowing themselves up in restaurants and slaughtering babies was common, while the Jews were clapping and and distributing candies. [end sarcasm]
According to the paragraph you provided you should already concede that Isreal was a nation by 1937. many would contradict that this is the the case of the Palestinian state. actually the case of both Palestinian states.
Actually the zionist terror organisations blew up arab market places and busses after the British White Paper of 1939, because the mandatory decided that the goal of creating a Jewish National Home within the State of Palestine was accomplished and that it should become independent within the following 10 years. Jewish immigration was to be stopped after another 75000 were allowed within the following five years. After this 75000 it would have been up to the arab Population to decide on this matter. It was obvious that the zionist dream was dead and that’s the reason why Irgun and Lehi started their terror campaign.
You are right that the Jewish Agency created a state within a state as the Anglo-American Commission put it:
“The State Within the State”
1. The Jews have developed, under the aegis of the Jewish Agency and the Vaad Leumi, a strong and tightly-woven community. There thus exists a virtual Jewish nonterritorial State with its own executive and legislative organs, parallel in many respects to the Mandatory Administration, and- serving as the concrete symbol of the Jewish National Home. This Jewish shadow Government has ceased to cooperate with the Administration in the maintenance of law and order, and in the suppression of terrorism.”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/angch08.asp
It also says:
“It should be noted that the demand for a Jewish State goes beyond the obligations of either the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate, and was expressly disowned by the Chairman of the Jewish Agency as late 1932. ”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/angch05.asp
“The British administrators were of the opinion that there would eventually be a show down between the British forces and the Haganah. They felt that there was an intolerable “state” within a state. They were of the opinion that an explosion was brewing and expressed the view that the Jews believed that the committee is only a formality to justify a policy which had already been formulated. ”
http://www.jewishmag.com/101mag/palestinemission/palestinemission.htm
And you’re accusing me of brainwashing, while you claim that the State of Palestine before 1948 was a Jewish State and Israel was a nation by 1937?
Was I blaming you for being brainwashed ? I am just pointing out that your primary assertion “There was a Palestinian nation by 37″, as in Palestinian Arab nation. is not only false, but also not backed by any of your arguments.
somewhat amusing I must admit, but tedious nonetheless, as I can’t prove a negative, If you want to create a nation in the past you will have to do better than quote a paragraph that references an obligation to JEWS and claim it was relate to Arabs because the terminology seems awfully familiar to contemporary terminology.
Dear Mr. Dann,
The “mandate” was a trust arrangement. England was the trustee. The trust res or subject of the trust was the exclusive political rights to Palestine, i.e. the right of political self determination. When England abandoned its trust in 1948, the trust res went only to those who had a beneficial interest in the trust, i.e. the Jews or its legal representative, Israel.
See: Brand, Israeli Sovereignty over Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria, http://www.think-israel.org/brand.jewishsovereignty.html