Wrong, Mr. President — Jewish Settlements Expedited Peace Talks
Unable to beat Israel on the battlefield, an attempt is being made to delegitimize the state by its actions regarding settlements. Interestingly, the Oslo Accords signed in 1993 by Yasser Arafat do not prohibit settlements.
The settlements have never been and never will be an obstacle to peace. If and when honest and frank negotiations resume and a territorial agreement with the Palestinians is signed, Israel may well dismantle additional settlements in Judea and Samaria. History shows, however, that dismantling settlements and making territorial concessions only makes the Palestinians more aggressive and obstinate.
Israel uprooted Jewish families from their homes in Gaza and Samaria in what became a national trauma. But abandoning the Jewish settlement and their economic assets did not bring peace or reconciliation — instead it brought more violence and more death. For the Palestinians, these unilateral Israeli concessions were a sign of weakness, causing them to launch even more terrorist attacks.
The endlessly repeated refrain about the “occupied territories” is sheer propaganda, since the territories never belonged to Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinian Authority was given control of the areas, and the only reason Israel continues to exert control is in reaction to Palestinian Arab violence.
The real obstacle to peace is the refusal of the Arab world to accept the existence of a Jewish state in their midst. Although it occupies one-thousandth of the combined size of Muslim states, Israel’s existence in the Middle East is, to most Arabs, unacceptable and should be fought to the last drop of (Israeli) blood. The Palestinian struggle is not so much for Palestinian self-determination as it is for the destruction of the Jewish, infidel state.
U.S. pressure on Israel to dismantle the settlements is therefore dangerous because it will bring more violence, more terrorism, and more Israeli deaths. By pressuring Israel on this issue the U.S. will contribute to the creation of an area that will become “Judenrein,” as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and most of the rest of the Arab world are. And this action would certainly be in contravention to the precepts of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
If Yasser Arafat and his minions were able to negotiate with Israel while the Israeli settlements expanded through natural growth, why should Obama take this “holier than thou” approach? The Obama administration’s focus on the settlements is a ploy to appease the Arabs, especially the Saudis.
A genuine Arab-Palestinian acceptance of peace with the Jewish state is what should be the prerequisite for Obama’s demands.
This is genius thinking!
Using the same logic as in this article you can argue that:
Mexico has historic legal claims over parts of USA.
Ireland has legal claims over parts of UK.
Germany has legal Claims over parts of Poland and Austria.
France has legal claims over parts of Germany and Belgium.
Italy has legal claims over parts of France.
Turkey has legal claims over parts of Greece and Cyprus.
Denmark has legal claims over parts of Germany, Sweden, UK and Norway.
…..
….etc.
And if these countries started to make settlements, it would improve peaceful relations.
One thing. Why not refer to dictionaries that predate 1948? There were Arabs, and a curious mixture of Ashkenazi and Sephardi.
The Yishuv was the embryonic legislature which predated the Knesset.
So, why not refer to Arabs, instead of Palestinians. Because, they are not
the only one’s who would benefit from an equal standing with Israel. For, they are punishing themselves in their efforts to relegate Israel to second class status, at best.
Thank you.
Now, as for this piece, it is perfectly logical and rational to see the impact of Jewish settlements upon Arabs. It shows to the Arabs that the Jews are staying, and they will not be the one’s to back down.
Ah, yes, straight out of the hasbara playbook. What is surprising, is the casual use of the racist term “Arab” as a generalization. Try replacing it with Negroe or Jew, and I think you will see what I mean.
@JL
Palestinians do react to concessions from Israel by increasing terrorism. You forget you are dealing with Muslims, who do not play by European rules.
Clearly, you have difficulty comprehending genius thinking.
3. fnord:Ah, yes, straight out of the hasbara playbook. What is surprising, is the casual use of the racist term “Arab” as a generalization. Try replacing it with Negroe or Jew, and I think you will see what I mean.
You are full of crap. You don’t even know enough about the world to know what terms mean!
Arab denotes an ethnic and cultural group, not a race. Specifically it means the peoples on the Arabian Peninsula. Kinda like how Slavic peoples peoples in Eastern Europe are still white. Of course Arab isn’t a great term because there are Turks in Turkey, Persians in Iran, Berbers in North Africa and other peoples who are NOT Arab. The majority of Palestinians are ethnically and culturally Arab.
And if you ever paid attention to the news you’d hear about Jewish settlements and plenty of stories where you hear Jew instead of Israeli.
Keep chanting OMG racist! Every time you hear a word that might have some non-white connotations. Korean cell phone maker Samsung! OMG Racist! Nigerian Prince e-mail scam! Racist! Keep it up, otherwise you might have to think about things.
The Muslims do not,never have,and never will want a two-state solution. They want a one-state solution: no Israel.
Nice job with the article. You miss a couple of points, and you should call Arabs as Arabs, and if you must make a differentiation, either South Syrian Arabs or PA Arabs, as is done in Arutz Sheva.
Ignore the critics, Joseph. They can’t handle facts and they can’t deal with their own narrative being tossed into the trash in so cavalier a way.
@Attila the 2end coming
Uhm…Muslim way of thinking? Muslim Iraq claiming their historic right on territories in muslim Iran in the 80ties…..Peaceful?
They should not stop settlements as concessions. They should just stop it, because it’s insane, It’s wrong. Just like I shouldn’t stop hitting people in the head with a shovel as a concession. I can’t believe that you actually need to have this explained. Nobody from civilized countries take over territories. Period. That sort of thinking belongs to the middle ages. It is a recipe for disaster.
I agree somewhat to your warped way of thinking in that the Palestinians are eggheads that only respond to raw power. Which is sort of what you’re saying between the lines. And that is why Israel should keep doing what have been doing recently in Lebanon and Gaza: Respond to aggression with sudden and overwhelming military power. That is raw power, the Palestinians understand. And that is the kind of raw power that actually works to achieve piece. But please stop already with the settlement nonsense.
Arab-Palestinian acceptance of Israel: On this point, our presumed leaders are often nothing but followers. Submission to the popular notion of Israel’s guilt by settlement is just as stupid, if I may borrow a presidential term, as bowing to the race baiters in the US. That does not mean that all US presidents lack courage, it’s just that the cowards enjoy a distinct statistical advantage.
Arab is not considered a derogatory term. Arab refers to the language Arabic, it is not a race. While many Arabs refer to the Arab nation in English, the meaning is more like the English nation. It is a group affiliation based on language.
Many Arab members of Israel’s parliament have gone on record stating that they feel they are part of the Arab, not the Palestinian nation. Calling someone an Arab is not a racist comment. It is like calling someone an English man. It is only an insult if you have a negative view of Arabs.
Settlement is an English translation of the Hebrew word moshav. Some of the connotation is lost. Many of the areas refereed to as settlements were Jewish majority areas in the 19th century. The Israelis didn’t call them settlements because they thought they were going into someone else’s territory, they called them that because these areas were destroyed by the Jordanian and Iraqi army’s in the 1967 war and people had to rebuild. This is why Israel doesn’t refer to anything in Jerusalem as a settlement, Jerusalem is an urban area.
I think there is a lack of understanding of both the Arab and the Jewish Israeli point of view here. If anyone is interested in understanding these things from a non-Western point of view, I recommend “Righteous Victims” by Benny Morris, “Islam and the West: What Went Wrong” by Sir Bernard Lewis, and “The Dream Palace of the Arabs” by Foud Adjami.
South Syrian Arabs work for me, instead of Palestinians, just like Hashemite Arabs, Lebanese Arabs, and so forth. After all, why is Jordan called the Hashemite Kingdom?
It is still about who will back down first, and frankly for the just solution to come about, it will have to be the Arabs who back down, and see what they can learn from their neighbours. After all, they are paying through the nose for relegating Israel to second-class status (at best).
I thought this was a well-argued article, and I learned a lot about the Geneva convention the “Palestinians” are always citing in an attempt to incriminate Israeli settlements. It seems to me that Israel’s unilateral, forced withdrawal of Israeli citizens from Gaza in 2005 and their subsequent forced transfer, violates the spirit and letter of this Geneva convention far, far more than the settlements do! Also, Palestinans “forget” at their peril that when Gaza belonged to Egypt, Egypt categorically refused to supply Gazan residents with electricity. Although a majority of Palestinians probably hate Israel and Israelis, many privately admit that they are far better off under Israeli than Egyptian “occupation” (which, I agree with the author, is not one). Finally, Israel’s population is 20% Arab; any future Palestinian state must also formally agree to let Israelis settle there (Arabs and Jews).
This is a deeply selective and frankly absurd understanding of the Geneva Convention, especially Article 49. I’m not surprised its tolerated here, by the functionally illiterate, authority-fellating, micro-encaphalics who read this tripe regularly.
In the first case, it is not settled history that Palestinians left of their own free will. Palestinian historians such as Benny Morris–who supported the most recent devastation of Gaza and does not believe Palestinians should get their own state–have shown that the nascent Israeli government purposefully undertook a plan to terrorize Palestinians in order to drive them out of their villages. Do your homework. Also, you left this little sentence out of your analysis of Article 49.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
Its the last line, so its hard to miss, so I figure you’re either a very stupid person, or a liar. Your choice.
In the second case, there is more to this than just article 49. The slack spinal cords that occasion this site are not likely to go and read the Convention for themselves, but here are some other relevant portions:
SECTION 111
OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
Article 47
Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
Article 53
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
These next few are particularly relevant in the case of Gaza. Israel is still recognized as the occupying power of Gaza, a fact you probably try your darnedest to avoid talking about.
From CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/06/israel.gaza.occupation.question/index.html
The U.N. position
In February 2008, Secretary-General Ban was asked at a media availability whether Gaza is occupied territory. “I am not in a position to say on these legal matters,” he responded.
The next day, at a press briefing, a reporter pointed out to a U.N. spokesman that the secretary-general had told Arab League representatives that Gaza was still considered occupied.
“Yes, the U.N. defines Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem as Occupied Palestinian Territory. No, that definition hasn’t changed,” the spokesman replied.
Farhan Haq, spokesman for the secretary-general, told CNN Monday that the official status of Gaza would change only through a decision of the U.N. Security Council.
Article 55
To the fullest extent of the means available to it the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.
The Occupying Power may not requisition foodstuffs, articles or medical supplies available in the occupied territory, except for use by the occupation forces and administration personnel, and then only if the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account. Subject to the provisions of other international Conventions, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements to ensure that fair value is paid for any requisitioned goods.
The Protecting Power shall, at any time, be at liberty to verify the state of the food and medical supplies in occupied territories, except where temporary restrictions are made necessary by imperative military requirements.
Article 59
If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal.
Such schemes, which may be undertaken either by States or by impartial humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, shall consist, in particular, of the provision of consignments of foodstuffs, medical supplies and clothing.
All Contracting Parties shall permit the free passage of these consignments and shall guarantee their protection.
A Power granting free passage to consignments on their way to territory occupied by an adverse Party to the conflict shall, however, have the right to search the consignments, to regulate their passage according to prescribed times and routes, and to be reasonably satisfied through the Protecting Power that these consignments are to be used for the relief of the needy population and are not to be used for the benefit of the Occupying Power.
It’s time for us all to get used to the Obama version of history.
3. fnord:
What is surprising, is the casual use of the racist term “Arab” as a generalization.
All the Arabs I knew referred to themselves as Arab. Were THEY being racist in referring to themselves as Arab?
What many forget is that after the 1948 War, Jewish people who had been living on the West Bank were expelled.
#14 Moho
The author Puder cited only Article 49 and you responded by quoting Articles 47,53 55 & 59. I for one appreciate the additional information as I am sick and tired of the cherry picking done to stir up the rank and file.
That said since when did we Americans give a wit about the Geneva Convention? Waterboarding violates Common Article 3 of said Geneva Convention. I guess all articles are just open to personal.
Melissa: its quite obvious. The authority worshiping drones attracted to this kind of rhetoric are most attracted to the double standard. While about 70% of people who hear this kind of hypocrisy question such motives, people attracted to these websites are actually enabled and empowered by it. They lack any cohesive moral or ethical compass, living their lives basically with anything they can get away with. People like Bush and Cheney, who spoke of the power of human rights even while they violated every charter and convention meant to protect human rights, are their heroes.
#3. “Arab” is a racist term? Since when?
But it gets even better. The ONE has decreed in his own “non-meddling” way that Israel shalt not allow Jews to build new homes in parts of Jerusalem. Y’know that place that he promised to the AIPAC would remain the “undivided capital” of Israel.
But it gets even better! Having conceded nuclear weapon development to the Iranians (not to mention returning captured QUDS goons and other assorted murderous riff-raff) to the Supreme Enlightened leaders of Iran, we hear that Shillery has promised to protect Iran’s neighbors with a missile shield which will presumably render those Iranian nukes to be of no use to them (Y’know, the missile shield technology that the ONE has been cutting funding for). After all, it’s not as though some recently freed QUDS goons could arrange to truck a weapon to the Jewless part of Jerusalem or anything.
I gotta hand it to Hopey-Changey. He has single-handedly managed to unite all of Israel in a way that we haven’t seen in my life time (and I’m no Spring chicken). If only my fellow tribesmen in THIS country could wake up and be so united in opposition to the holocaust in the making!
What about all the economic benefits to Arabs living in Judea and Samaria — which might explain why Arabs living outside the “separation wall” are upset because they want to be included on the Israeli side.
A visit to Arab towns and villages throughout the “West Bank” will see magnificant villas built by Arabs who work for and with Jews in settlements. That’s called peace. Give the people a chance — not terrorists.
Moho: To learn about the use of the term “occupation” under international law check out http://www.jcpa.org/text/occupation-sharon.pdf