To the Editor:
Tony Judt (“Fictions on the Ground,” Op-Ed, June 22) substitutes repetition for substantiation in charging no less than six times that all Israeli settlements are a blatant violation of international law. Of course, he is no international lawyer, and his analysis demonstrates that fact.
He cites Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, but this has nothing to do — implicitly or explicitly — with settlements. It is about the avoidance of the threat or use of force in international relations.
Similarly, Article 47 of the 1949 Geneva Convention merely deals with the need to preserve the status quo ante of existing “institutions or government,” and to not annex occupied territory. Israel has not annexed the West Bank in part or in whole, with the exception of East Jerusalem, which for various historical and legal reasons has been treated as a special situation.
Of course, the presumption behind Article 47 was that the ousted power here, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, would be ready to come to the negotiating table and that preservation of its institutions — whether democratic or not — would be a spur to a negotiated resolution.
In fact, in the aftermath of the 1967 war, for more than two decades, the governing pan-Arab policy was one of no recognition, no peace and no negotiations. Probably more than anything else, that climate created the incubus in which settlements could take root.
The legality of the settlement issue is much more muddled than Mr. Judt portends. And for that reason, United States administrations have repeatedly taken the position that the issue is not one of lawfulness, where there is room for different strands of opinion, but rather one of political sense.
Allan Gerson
Washington,
Sunday, June 28, 2009
One More On Judt the Jerk
Alan Gerson is an international lawyer and was counsel to the United States delegation to the United Nations from 1981 to 1985 and is the author of “Israel, the West Bank and International Law.” He responds in a letter-to-the-editor in the New York Times to the claim of illegality:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
This is all playing with words trying to cover a simple straightforward fact: settlements are illegal!
Nope, they aren't.
I always wondered, maybe you could help me out here, why if Jews were allowed to settle in Judea and Samaria, why Palestinians were not thus allowed to move back across the green line and settle where they please? If we're going to condone Jewish settlements, in all fairness, shouldn't Palestinians have just as much of a right to live in the same housing? Talking purely equality of opportunity. Again, I assume since Israel is democratic and treats its citizens equally, it should allow anyone who can pay for it, to live where they please.
"why Palestinians were not thus allowed to move back across the green line and settle where they please?"
On 29 November 1947, the UN moved to establish an Arab Palestine state. since that entailed a truncated Jewish state to be established as well, the Arabs continued their 30 year terror campaign and decided to wipe out that state-to-be. In my rule book, aggressors don't get rewarded. Between Dec. 47 and May 48, the war against Israel-to-be was carried on once again by maruading gangs supported by the local population, just like during 1936-39. over 1000 Jews were killed. this was an intra-communal conflict. the bad guys lost and they do not get rewarded.
"If we're going to condone Jewish settlements, in all fairness, shouldn't Palestinians have just as much of a right to live in the same housing? "
and in 1967, after 19 years of terror, infiltrations, the founding of Fatah in 1964, the PLO (which "Palestine" were they "liberating" if not Israel? Judea and Samaria were in Jordanian hands), once again a war broke out. defending itself against aggression, Israel has the best right to be in those territories and Jews have all the rights in the world to live there and develop it.
"Again, I assume since Israel is democratic and treats its citizens equally, it should allow anyone who can pay for it, to live where they please."
About 1,000,000 Arabs do live in Israel, many now coming to call themselves "Palestinians". So, you see, they do live where they want to and they can even tell Jews they can't come into their cities, like in Um El-Fahm. Ain't that democratic?
Now, I'm still learning a lot about the conflict, but can Arab-Israelis buy houses in settlements? And if they can, why don't they do it? Or if they can't why not?
Depends in which communities. Kibbutzim, no. They're much too liberal and humanistic (just kidding)
Post a Comment