Saturday, September 04, 2010

BBC Reporting As Biased As Ever Or, Why Oh Why Wyre

The "facts" of Wyre Davies, BBC Middle East correspondent :-


After saying goodbye to Mr Nassar I made the short journey to a windy hilltop to the north and the settlement of Beit El.

Dotted around Ramallah are several neat, lush Jewish settlements, identifiable by their orderly streets and red-roofed houses.

There are more than 120 settlements of various sizes in the West Bank.

They are illegal under international law because they are built on occupied Palestinian territory.

To the 400,000 settlers who now live in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, they are seen as pioneering communities on what is historically Jewish land.


I can think of a few reasons why certain people can claim that my village of Shiloh is "illegal" (and President Obama thinks they are "illegitimate") but "Palestinian territory"?

First of all, if "Palestinian", that certainly doesn't apply only to Arabs so there should be room for Jewish residents. Secondly, since no "Palestinian" geopolitical entity ever existed, exactly whose territory are we talking about?

Third, "Palestine" was called into being as a Mandate territory and the League of Nations decided that it would be predicated on the fact that it was done so as being:

in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights [not political!] of existing non-Jewish communities [and not specifically Arab!] in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and [the]...recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and...The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home...The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes...nothing in this mandate shall be construed as conferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines, [and those that are shared, or joint, like the Temple Mount] the immunities of which are guaranteed...


Fourth, even if one claims that not all "Palestine" was intended to be all the above, and that the Jews were to merit but part of "Palestine", a year after the words above were agreed upon the territory of the Mandate was removed from the above framework and given to Emir Abdallah to become the Arab state ("In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions").

Fifth, let's not forget that all this "occupation" claim is based on the Geneva Fourth Convention but since that was to be conducted between "High Contracting Parties", since no "Palestine" existed in 1949, never did and still doesn't, it can't be "occupied Palestinian territory".

Sixth, since we never heard any complaint about Jordan being the illegal occupier of the territory, why should a Jewish administration being discriminated against?

Seventh, since the Arabs refused to establish an Arab state as a result of the UN Partition recommendation and moreover, declared a war of extermination against the Jewish state that was to arise, they were forfeit any claim in the future especially as they contuned a terror was against Israel from 1949 to 1967.

Eight, since the 1967 war which facilitated Israel's current administration over the territory in dispute was defensive, the territory cannot be "illegally occupied".

Ninth, there is no international law that prohibits Jews from building in Judea and Samaria.

Oh, and there are 320,000 Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria and 200,000 in the new neighborhoods of Jerusalem.

4 comments:

frog said...

"First of all, if "Palestinian", that certainly doesn't apply only to Arabs so there should be room for Jewish residents."

I suspect you are a hypocrite.

Every time I test the hypothesis that jewish settlers could go on living in a palestinian state with an arab majority, the answer is a firm "Njet" or "don't be ridiculous" from you Shiloh folks.

So I suppose that this is not a solution you support.

YMedad said...

you are croaking again.

my answer is not "nyet" (you're spelling is wither Dutch or German) but 'yes' if only my security is protected for after all, last time the Arabs were a majority in this area during the Mandate all they did was kill Jews.

frog said...

Of course I am croaking again, that's why my nick is frog.

So you are the first shiloh inhabitant I come across who advocated this solution. I fear you are a minority.

PS: your wife, on her blog, does not seem to agree with you... What will you do once the autonomous state is established?

YMedad said...

let you know if that happens. why waste time on trivialities. My wife has her own mind.