Are "Jewish (Re)Settlements" Legal?

Following the latest US policy decision on the Jewish civilian residency communities in Judea and Samaria of November 18, declared by Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, which reads:

Turning now to Israel, the Trump administration is reversing the Obama administration’s approach towards Israeli settlements.
U.S. public statements on settlement activities in the West Bank have been inconsistent over decades.  In 1978, the Carter administration categorically concluded that Israel’s establishment of civilian settlements was inconsistent with international law.  However, in 1981, President Reagan disagreed with that conclusion and stated that he didn’t believe that the settlements were inherently illegal.
Subsequent administrations recognized that unrestrained settlement activity could be an obstacle to peace, but they wisely and prudently recognized that dwelling on legal positions didn’t advance peace.  However, in December 2016, at the very end of the previous administration, Secretary Kerry changed decades of this careful, bipartisan approach by publicly reaffirming the supposed illegality of settlements.
After carefully studying all sides of the legal debate, this administration agrees with President Reagan.  The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.
I want to emphasize several important considerations.
First, look, we recognize that – as Israeli courts have – the legal conclusions relating to individual settlements must depend on an assessment of specific facts and circumstances on the ground.  Therefore, the United States Government is expressing no view on the legal status of any individual settlement.
The Israeli legal system affords an opportunity to challenge settlement activity and assess humanitarian considerations connected to it.  Israeli courts have confirmed the legality of certain settlement activities and has concluded that others cannot be legally sustained.
Second, we are not addressing or prejudging the ultimate status of the West Bank.  This is for the Israelis and the Palestinians to negotiate.  International law does not compel a particular outcome, nor create any legal obstacle to a negotiated resolution.
Third, the conclusion that we will no longer recognize Israeli settlements as per se inconsistent with international law is based on the unique facts, history, and circumstances presented by the establishment of civilian settlements in the West Bank.  Our decision today does not prejudice or decide legal conclusions regarding situations in any other parts of the world.
And finally – finally – calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law hasn’t worked.  It hasn’t advanced the cause of peace.
The hard truth is there will never be a judicial resolution to the conflict, and arguments about who is right and wrong as a matter of international law will not bring peace.  This is a complex political problem that can only be solved by negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The United States remains deeply committed to helping facilitate peace, and I will do everything I can to help this cause.  The United States encourages the Israelis and the Palestinians to resolve the status of Israeli settlements in the West Bank in any final status negotiations.
And further, we encourage both sides to find a solution that promotes, protects the security and welfare of Palestinians and Israelis alike.

I add more to previous lists of opinions (here; and here;) supporting the full legality and legitimimacy of Jewish residency in Judea and Samaria:

Talia Einhorn.

Douglas Feith.

Observation of Amnon Lord.

Dore Gold.

Matthew Mainen.

Eugene Kontorovich.

UPDATE

Gill Troy.

Ken Cohen.


^

When Things Bounce Back At You

Found in an article by Lara Friedman is the Director of Policy & Government Relations for Americans for Peace Now. Hagit Ofran is the Director of Peace Now’s Settlement Watch (Israel):-

Statistics can help track specific aspects of Israel settlement policy, but like any statistics, when cherry-picked they obscure more than they reveal.

I think that is a classic, coming from those who manage to cherry-pick and even misrepresent, twist and obscure data so well themselves.

Here's some more

...a single statistic is being exploited to obscure [a] track record...The totality of the facts tells the real story...checked only intermittently and temporarily, for tactical political purposes.

__________

See now EOZ.


^

Sixty-Thousand Americans & "Palestinian Hamlets"

The Jewish Press alerted me to this exchange and I thought to bring it to your attention in full.  The questioner is Said Erikat

Here is the video starting around 20:18.

QUESTION: -- Palestinian-Israeli issue? There was a study issued by Oxford University and published in Haaretz yesterday that there are 60,000 American Jewish settlers in the West Bank. Do you have any comment on that?

MR TONER: Sixty thousand?

QUESTION: Sixty thousand American Jewish settlers in the West Bank.

MR TONER: I don’t. I’m not aware of the study.

QUESTION: I know because you guys – your position is --

MR TONER: I just haven’t seen the study, frankly, so I don’t --

QUESTION: -- you oppose the settlements, you oppose – you consider them to be illegal and so on. But there you go – you have 60,000 Americans. Do you have any leverage with these American citizens?

MR TONER: Look, I mean, in terms of leverage – I mean, we through our embassy offer support for American citizens throughout the world. But what – we’re very clear on our policy on this issue, and I don’t know that we need to be any clearer.

QUESTION: Many elements among these settlers are extremists, they carry guns, they enforce their own sort of rules and regulations on roads and hamlets and so on – Palestinian hamlets. Do you have any kind of program, perhaps, to rehabilitate these settlers, bring them back somehow, as as opposed to the settlements?

MR TONER: No, I mean – and the other thing is we’ve also spoken about the uptick in violence, in extremist violence in Israel. And in fact, the government and the prime minister have also spoken about some of the recent attacks that we view as abhorrent. And we call on, frankly, all sides to stop this kind of violence.

In terms of programs, I’m not aware of what you’re – specific programs aimed at Israeli American settlers, no.

QUESTION: Since I – my last question on this issue.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Should the United States or would the United States have some sort of a program – an incentive program – to sort of encourage settlers to perhaps dismantle these settlements?

MR TONER: I mean, that’s really a question for the Israeli Government to look at. I mean, we’ve been very clear on how we feel about settlements.

QUESTION: Not really because they maintain their U.S. citizenship.

MR TONER: Well, we believe that settlements hinder getting any kind of talks back up and running and peace process going. We want to see positive actions on all sides.

Of course, the question of Arab residents who engage in terror and are American citiznes never gets raised.

Love the "Palestinian hamlets".

I'd call them "settlements".

But note that he feels he must dominate the semantic discourse and people argue with me about my term "revenants".  If we use it consistently, there'll be no problem.

^

Another Reuters Roil

Just caught this:

(Reuters) - Israel invited bids on Monday to construct 77 new homes in two settlements on occupied land in East Jerusalem, drawing a swift Palestinian condemnation. Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki said the planned projects were a violation of international law and showed Israel was not interested in peace.

Peace Now, an Israeli group that monitors and opposes settlement-building on land Palestinians seek for a state, said only tenders for 18 of the 77 units were new, and the others were reissued after previous offers were not taken up.

The Israel Lands Authority said 41 of the homes are to be built in Pisgat Ze'ev and 36 in Neve Yaakov, where 63,000 Israelis already live.  The two settlements comprise mainly apartment blocs and are defined by Israel as integral neighborhoods of Jerusalem.

Well, are they homes or apartments?  And 63,000 residents.  Does that sound like a "settlement" to you?  At least they noted Peac Now's opposition stance.

And as for Neveh Yaakov, one would presume that someone at Reuters is intelligent to review this material and add a line of history:

Neve Yaakov...was established in 1924 on a 65 dunams (0.065 km2; 0.025 sq mi) parcel of land purchased from the Arabs of Beit Hanina...Until they were abandoned in 1948, Neve Yaakov and Atarot were the only Jewish settlements north of the Old City.

The first houses were ready for occupancy in Av (summer) 1925...The village, home to 150 families, suffered from financial problems and lack of a regular water supply...the inhabitants of Neve Yaakov were attacked during the 1929 Palestine riots, and many families returned to the Old City...When the Jordanian Arab Legion advanced toward Jerusalem from the north during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Neve Yaakov and Atarot* were abandoned in the wake of advance warning that they were about to be attacked. The region was occupied by the Jordanians until 1967 until after the Six-Day War, when Israel captured the Old City and environs.

I especially note the use of "occupation" for the period of Jordanian rule. 

Cannot the media unlock itself from prejudicial concepts, do homework and question the narratives groups and people push?

_________

*

In 1912, the Palestine Land Development Corporation (PLDC) purchased land in the hills north of Jerusalem from the neighbouring Arab village of Kalandia.  In 1914 the tract was settled by Zionist youth of the Second Aliyah...After the outbreak of World War I, the project was abandoned until 1922, when a group of workers returned to the area to continue reclamation and planting work. This group leased some of the land to local Arabs and acquired more tracts for settlement. The plan was to ready the land for sale to individuals and groups. When the venture proved unsuccessful, the Jewish National Fund bought 375 dunams of the best land. It was on this land that Atarot was established. 

^

Retro on "Get Out" Demand

Remember when you read this:-

“IT’S NOT OUR PLACE TO TAKE SIDES” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, said Democratic presidential frontrunner Howard Dean days ago in Albuquerque, New Mexico. But then he promptly took sides, saying that peace would require the dismantling of an “enormous number” of Jewish settlements.

This, historians may record, was the moment the wheels started to come off the bandwagon that had been speeding the former Vermont Governor to his party’s nomination….and perhaps into the White House.

“Howard Dean’s statements break a 50-year record in which presidents, Republican and Democrat, members of Congress of both parties, have supported our relationship with Israel based on shared values and common strategic interests,” said Dean’s rival Senator Joseph Lieberman (D.-Conn.) in this week’s Baltimore Democratic candidate debate.

In the verbal fistfights that happened during and after this debate, Dean accused Senator Lieberman of trying “to demagogue this issue” in a “despicable” attempt to divide the Democratic Party.

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post reports that Senator Lieberman afterwards released to the press this statement: “While Dean claims he’s ‘not taking sides,’ he specifically called for Israelis to leave the West Bank.”

“To dictate to Israel the terms of concessions on any issue [like settlements] is inappropriate,” read a Fax sent to Dean by the Anti-Defamation League asking for clarification of his position. As of Thursday, September 11, reported Deborah Orin of the New York Post, the ADL had received “no response from Dean-land.”

Both the ADL and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, reports Orin, have called Dean’s remarks on Israel “’troubling’ and a break with U.S. policy.”  “This is not a time to be sending mixed messages,” read a letter signed by more than two dozen Democratic Members of Congress (several of whom support Dean rivals), including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.).
“On the contrary,” the Congressional letter continued, “in these difficult times we must reaffirm our unyielding commitment to Israel’s survival and raise our voices against all forms of terrorism and incitement….It is unacceptable for the U.S. to be ‘evenhanded’ on these fundamental issues.”

We've come such a long way since then and, remind me, where is Dean?

I mean you know who is is/was, yes?

^

Slowing Down On J Street

From the interview of Jeremy Ben-Ami by Jeffrey Goldberg:

JG: But you publicly disagreed with his op-ed in which he called for a boycott of products made in settlements. Why do you disagree with it?

JB: Because I don't think that it makes any sense to put negative pressure on people whose behavior you hope to change. I think that the way that Israelis will feel comfortable making the compromises and the sacrifices--and Israel as a whole, not just the settlers --is when they really feel that not only American Jews, but the United States, is going to be there for them...

...The biggest obstacle I see in the Israeli psyche at the moment is this sense that two states is never going to happen, that there's just no way peace is ever going to come. While 70% of Israelis want a two-state solution, 80% of them think it's never going to happen in their lifetime.

JG: How do you dislodge the settlers?

JB: The way that you overcome the mindset, which I think is the first step, is you actually present an agreement that, lo and behold, the world supports, and Palestinians would support, and you realize that, hey, we actually can get it. And that positive pressure to make that decision by creating a path to hope, a path to the future, gives you then the national political will and the national political consensus to make that very difficult move: to say to the settlers, it's time to come home.

...The problem with Oslo was it laid out a process without ever telling you what the end result is going to be. What does that Palestinian state look like? What does the border look like? What are the security arrangements? Let's actually skip over the three to five years of process and talks, because we don't need them--because we already know what the end result looks like. Let's put that deal on the table and force the political decision on both sides--both the Palestinians and the Israeli political world--to decide if they are really ready to say yes to a realistic resolution to this conflict.

...JG: We expect J Street to condemn settler violence, or provocative settlement building, or the power of the religious right parties in Israel. But another thing that we don't seem to hear from J Street enough is where the left side of the framework is. I understand where you go on the right, but it's always this concern--look, some of it is manufactured by people who don't like your general outlook, but some of it is real. What is "too left" for J Street? What sort of expression of criticism is too far to the left, from your perspective?

JB: We established at the beginning of the interview some of the tactical things that are too far. We don't support, obviously, BDS but also Peter's conception of "Zionist BDS," that that is either advisable, doable, or workable.

JG: Do you think that this would put you on a slippery slope toward full BDS?

JB: I think it's very hard to make a clear line between what is "settlement business" and what is not. So many businesses do business on both sides of the Green Line. Very few things are simply, purely done on the other side of the Green Line.

JG: And isn't it, of course, the Israeli government that subsidizes factory-building in settlements that then create products that are sold?

JB: Right.

JG: So then why are you blaming the factory? Shouldn't you be blaming the guy who gave you the money to build the factory, which in this case is the Israeli government?

JB: The same issue comes up with divestment. Because if you divest from a company that produces a military product that is used in the occupation, that same company is probably producing a product that helps defend Israel from, let's say, rockets. So if you're saying you shouldn't be supporting a truck company or a boot manufacturer, is that the boots of the soldiers who are going to defend Israel itself? It is a slippery slope and very hard to draw that line.

JG: Do you think Beinart's idea is going to catch on?

JB: I think there are a lot of people in the progressive part of the pro-Israel community who are personally, deeply bothered by the notion that we would doing anything that helps to perpetuate this occupation. So I think on a personal level, people do, when they find out that a product or a wine or whatever it is comes from the West Bank, then personally I think people will consider this.

JG: I don't think this is going to gain traction in the American Jewish community. Tell me I'm wrong.

JB: No, I don't think so either...

^

UN Human Rights Council Circus Wants To Come Back

Well, the UN's Humans Rights Council Circus wants to come to this part of the world, again:

The UN Human Rights Council on Thursday passed a resolution ordering a first probe into how Israeli settlements may be infringing on the rights of the Palestinians. The resolution was adopted by the 47-member council with 36 votes in favour and 10 abstentions. Only the United States voted against it.*

From the official release:

Human Rights Council adopts 11 resolutions on Iran, Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Israeli settlements

Human Rights Council
AFTERNOON 22 March 2012

...decided to send an independent international fact-finding mission to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem...

...Under its agenda item on the human rights situation in Palestine and other Occupied Arab Territories, the Council adopted resolutions on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan in which it called upon Israel to desist from its continuous building of settlements, from imposing Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards and to allow the Syrian population of the occupied Syrian Golan to visit their families. With respect to the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, the Council reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination as a basic condition for achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the region of the Middle East and also reaffirmed its support for the solution of two States, Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peace and security.

Concerning the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and in the Occupied Syrian Golan, the Council demanded that Israel cease all of its settlement activities, condemned the firing of rockets against Israeli civilian areas and called upon Israel to cease prolonged closures and economic and movement restrictions, including those amounting to a blockade on the Gaza Strip. On the follow-up to the report of the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, the Council welcomed the efforts of Switzerland to reconvene a conference on measures to enforce the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and recommended that the General Assembly consider launching an urgent discussion on the legality of the use of certain munitions.

This line from an AP report drew my undivided and unpartitioned attention:

Some 300,000 Israelis live in settlements in the West Bank, an area Palestinians claim as part of a state. Israel says the issue must be resolved in peace talks.

Well, that is actually correct although the state in question, of which Judea and Samaria are to be part of, is Israel.

In the debate on a related issue, of the Resolution on the "Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination...A/HRC/19/L.33)...adopted by a vote of 46 in favour, 1 against and no abstentions, the Council reaffirms the inalienable, permanent and unqualified right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including their right to live in freedom, justice and dignity and to establish their sovereign, independent, democratic and viable contiguous State...", you could read this:

Palestine, speaking as the concerned country, expressed its sincere condolences to France and the families of the victims of terrorism in Toulouse. In 2010, the Palestinian people celebrated 10,000 years since the creation of the first Palestinian town of Jericho which was before Judaism, Christianity, and the arrival of Islam in the region. The right to self-determination was an ethical and legal value enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The draft resolution had not sought to exclude Israel but to protect the right of Palestinians through a fact-finding mission to be sent to investigate the colonization of Palestinian land. Some 46 per cent of Palestinian territory was under complete Israeli colonization; how could a two State solution be achieved under such circumstances?

Don't we have a right not to have historically false narratives bandied about, incorrect data distributed?

Oh, and two other items there drew my attention.

The first was this:

Action on Resolution on Freedom of Religion or Belief

In a resolution (A/HRC/19/L.23) regarding freedom of religion or belief, adopted without a vote, the Council condemns all forms of violence, intolerance and discrimination based on or in the name of religion or belief, as well as any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means; also condemns violence and acts of terrorism, which are increasing in number and targeting persons belonging to religious minorities across the world;...urges States to protect and promote freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, and to this end: to ensure that adequate and effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief are provided to all without distinction; to ensure that no one within their jurisdiction is deprived of the right to life, liberty or torture because of religion or belief, and to bring to justice all perpetrators of violations of these rights; to end violations of the human rights of women and to devote particular attention to abolishing practices and legislation that discriminates against women; and to promote, through the educational system and other means, mutual understanding, tolerance, non-discrimination and respect in all matters of freedom of religion or belief...The resolution also welcomed the work of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.

Will that to help me, as a Jew, to offset Islamic "Temple Denial"? The campaign of Palestinianism against Jewish heritage sites? **

And the second was this:

Action on Resolution on Birth Registration and the Right of Everyone to Recognition Everywhere as a Person Before the Law

In a resolution (A/HRC/19/L.24) regarding birth registration and the right to everyone to recognition everywhere as a person before the law, adopted without a vote, the Council expresses concern at the high number of persons throughout the world whose birth is not registered; calls upon States to establish or strengthen existing governmental institutions responsible for birth registration and the preservation and security of such records, and to ensure they have sufficient resources to fulfil their mandate; also calls upon States to ensure free birth registration, including free or low-fee late birth registration, by means of universal, accessible, simple, expeditious and effective registration procedures without discrimination of any kind; urges States to identify and remove physical, administrative and any other barriers that impede access to birth registration...

Can I use that against United procedure to deny my children their identity as born in Israel by refusing to append any state status to the city of Jerusalem while, on the other hand, having "West Bank" as a state for children of American citizens born in Judea and Samaria?


__________

*

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (36): Angola, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Switzerland, Thailand, Uganda and Uruguay.

Against (1): United States.

Abstentions (10): Cameroon, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania and Spain.

Action on Resolution on the Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem

In a resolution (A/HRC/19/L.34) regarding the Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, adopted by a vote of 44 in favour, 1 against and 2 abstentions as orally revised, the Council reiterates that all measures and actions taken by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, in violation of the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention and contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, are illegal and have no validity; demands that Israel cease all actions that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people; also demands that Israel comply fully with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949; further demands that Israel cease all of its settlement activities, the construction of the wall and any other measures aimed at altering the character, status and demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory; condemns the firing of rockets against Israeli civilian areas resulting in loss of life and injury; demands that Israel comply with its legal obligations under international law, and General Assembly resolutions, and immediately cease the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, dismantle the structure, and make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall; calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to cease prolonged closures and economic and movement restrictions, including those amounting to a blockade on the Gaza Strip, and to fully implement the Agreement on Movement and Access and the Agreed Principles for the Rafah Crossing, both of 15 November 2005, in order to allow for the sustained and regular movement of persons and goods and for the acceleration of long overdue reconstruction in the Gaza Strip; and urges Member States to continue to provide emergency assistance to the Palestinian people to alleviate the financial crisis and the dire socio-economic and humanitarian situation, particularly in the Gaza Strip.


**

Marshall and Shea have been toiling for many years at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom in Washington, and the dossier they have assembled on religion and human rights shows that, in the Muslim world and beyond, the proponents of a radical and politicized Islam have set one great goal for themselves, which is not at all dreamy or utopian. The goal is to narrow the limits of what everybody else is allowed to think. The way to achieve this goal is to invoke sacred taboos against apostasy and blasphemy, together with a series of other taboos—“insulting Islam,” “corruption on earth,” “fighting against God,” “witchcraft,” and so forth.

^

How Right - Or Wrong - Is Wright?

Robert Wright, senior editor at The Atlantic, writes (inter alia attacking poor Jeffrey Goldberg) this in a piece entitled Who Is Responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse?.

In assigning responsibility for the impasse...you can ask:

...Why is it that it's starting to look as if a two-state solution is impossible--or, at least, close to impossible and getting closer every month? The answer to that question, it seems to me, is the settlements. There are just too many settlements, interconnected by too many roads that restrict the movement of too many Palestinians, for a two-state deal to result in anything Palestinians could proudly call a "state." It would take a massive exertion of political will on Israel's part to uproot enough settlements for a two-state deal, and Israeli politics are nowhere near permitting such a thing. And here's the kicker: As the settlements grow, the amount of political will it would take to uproot them grows, while (as Hussein Ibish recently noted) the supply of such political will drops, since the Israeli constituency for the settlements grows.

...the settlements are the thing blocking the road. (At least, that's my view, and Goldberg, too, has in the past emphasized this pernicious effect of the settlements.)

At the risk of belaboring the metaphor: Suppose two people--a Palestinian and an Israeli--are in a car driving to a town called "two-state solution". Suddenly they see that a giant tree has been cut down and impedes further progress. The two people can, if they want, argue about which of them is responsible for not having gotten past this point before the tree was felled. (Who dawdled at rest stops more, etc.) That's question number one, and Goldberg says the two are about equally to blame. Question number two is: Who cut down the tree that now lies in the middle of the road?

That would be Israel. And the tree would be the settlements. (Which isn't to say that the settlements were necessarily put there in order to block a peace deal, though no doubt some settlers had that motivation--just that that is the settlements' effect.) And this would explain why Peter Beinart wants to put pressure on the settlements--because he thinks that they are what stand in the way of progress and that it's not too late to do something about that...

[Update, 3/21, 8:40 p.m.: I want to emphasize that I'm not saying that the settlements are the only current obstacle to a two-state deal. There are attitudes and positions on both the Israeli and Palestinian side that are obstacles. But the settlements are the biggest, closest-to-immovable obstacle, and they're getting closer and closer to immovable as the settler population continues to expand. If you ask the growing number of people who think it's too late for a two-state solution why they think that, a large majority will say, first and foremost, "the settlements."]

I left this comment there:

But ask yourself, using your example: who, even before that Israeli and the Arab set out on their car trip not stymied by a felled tree, was killing Jews, joining up with Hitler, pogroming, burning, chopping down trees, blocking up wells, refusing to accept partion plans and even receiving 70% of the original Mandate territory and pressuring the British Mandate authorities to halt immigration and then engaged in ethnic cleansing of Jewish communities in place in Hebron, Nablus, Gaza, etc. for centuries (what you would call "settlements") way before our current "occupation" began in 1967 (that nasty war we were forced to win) and way before any of the "settlements" that bother you were constructed.


I know you may say 'but that's so long ago' or even 'but what has that to do with contemporary and future peace deals', and I'll reply: the Arabs refuse to acknowledge any Jewish political national identity, will - and habe - done everything to halt it and even roll it back and are so concerned with this project that they give no thought to themselves, their people and their own identity, preferring to imagine who they are while refusing to recognize Jewish history.


Peace cannot be achieved given this history and this attitude.

^

From the AP to the PA

AP is the Associated Press.

And I am referring to Karin Laub's story on Shvut Rachel and Shiloh.

PA is, of course, the Palestinian Authority.

And the news from there is:

Secretary-General of the Executive Committee of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), Yasser Abed-Rabbo, stated that the Palestinian leadership will not return to the negotiations table before Israel halts all of its settlement activities.  He also stated that peace talks must have a clear timetable, and cannot be conducted while Israeli continues its invasions and violations.

...The Palestinian position is coherent with the Quartet statement as it clearly demands Israel to halt its settlement construction and expansion activities in the occupied territories, including in and around occupied East Jerusalem.

Oh, sorry, that was from October 7 last year.

Here's the really new story:

PLO Secretary-General Yasser Abed Rabbo claimed Saturday that Israel is seeking to create a "settler state" in Judea and Samaria instead of a "Palestinian state."  The charge came as Israel legalized the Shvut Rachel community, and announced plans to legalize two neighborhoods in Shilo.

Shvut Rachel and the Shilo neighborhoods were built with government assistance, but without defense ministry permits. Plans to legalize a third such Shilo neighborhood are expected in the coming weeks.

Abed Rabbo said that Israel was continuing to build in settlements "so that it could establish a state for settlers, and not for Palestinians, in the West Bank and Jerusalem."

What was, will be.

^

New Fabrication from Dror Etkes via Haaretz

As reported by Dror Etkes' buddy in Haaretz, Akiva Eldar:

Etkes says an aerial photo shows that Israel has violated the agreement signed in Washington in September 1995. One clause states: “All civil powers and responsibilities, including planning and zoning, in Areas A and B set out in Annex III, will be transferred to and assumed by the Council [the Palestinian government] during the first phase of redeployment.”

Well, in the first instance, let's not lose sight of the exact context of that clause is here:

ARTICLE XI  -  Land

1. The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period.

2. The two sides agree that West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will come under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Council in a phased manner, to be completed within 18 months from the date of the inauguration of the Council, as specified below:

a. Land in populated areas (Areas A and B), including government and Al Waqf land, will come under the jurisdiction of the Council during the first phase of redeployment.

b. All civil powers and responsibilities, including planning and zoning, in Areas A and B, set out in Annex III, will be transferred to and assumed by the Council during the first phase of redeployment

As the matter of "settlements" is a final-status issue, Etkes' supposition doesn't apply.

Moreover, I have been informed that:

The paragraph refers to the assumption of powers by the PA in areas A and B upon Israeli redeployment in 1995. This already happened. The PA did assume those powers including planning and zoning. Clause fulfilled.

Individual residents of Amona — and other Israeli individuals — were not parties to the agreement, and cannot be held to have violated it. Even if they could, they never had any authority over planning and zoning to transfer or fail to transfer. Israel was a party to the agreement, but nothing in that or any part of the agreement committed Israel to preventing Jews from construction in area B. Israel maintained security control in areas A and B and therefore maintained authority to, among other things, restrict movements of Palestinians in the area.

Article 10.4 of the agreement specified that “Israel shall continue to carry the responsibility for external security, as well as the responsibility for overall security of Israelis for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order.” Article 12.2 stated that “Israel shall continue to carry … the responsibility for overall security of Israelis and Settlements, for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order, and will have all the powers to take the steps necessary to meet this responsibility.” Article 13.1.a stated that “Israel shall have the overriding responsibility for security for the purpose of protecting Israelis and confronting the threat of terrorism.”

And, by the way, how exactly is it possible for aerial photographs to establish whether Israel did or not transfer the authority to regulate building and planning to the Palestinians in 1995?

Etkes from extreme Left to Eldar of far Left into Haaretz of progressive Left - all leave you out of knowledge.

^

Upset About International Law Clubbing Israel?

Many are upset that international law has been hijacked to club Israel.

Fear not.  Just remember:-

1) occupation in and of itself is not illegal, and does not mean the occupier could not perfect sovereign rights.

"belligerent occupation" results from being involved in a war.  and if that war was in self-defense, as was 1967 (and was one that had continued since November 30, 1947 on the morrow of the UN Partition recommendation, never having stopped but being pursued by various Arabs groupings, some state-sponsored, in a campaign of terror directed at civilians), and Israel came into control of territories, then that "occupation" is just fine.

and if the territory happens to be portions of the land area originally intended to become the Jewish National Home according to a decision by international law as in the case of the League of Nations Mandate of 1922, following deliberations at the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference, the 1920 San Remo Conference among other arrangements, then that "occupation" cannot be illegal but must be resolved by negotiations.  there is nothing a priori wrong with that administration.

and

2) "settlements", the perceived principal rub, are not "transfers" under Geneva Convention 49(6) for a variety of reasons, including their limited scale and, most importantly for some, the fact that they are populated on private initiative, and indeed often in the face of governmental opposition.

and moreover, since Article Six of the League of Nations Mandate decision prescribed a right of "close settlement of Jews" in those areas that now are claimed by Arabs to be off-limits to Jews - and that throughout history Jews had actually resided in those areas - "Jewish settlements" cannot be illegal in any form or manner.

And let's add material from a recent Howard Grief letter, redacted:

the assertion that the Mandate for Palestine was awarded by the League of Nations to Britain reveals that one never read the minutes of the San Remo Peace Conference for April 24 and April 25, 1920, nor the final text of the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920, that resulted from that Conference, otherwise he would know that it was the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers that conferred or entrusted the Mandate for Palestine to Great Britain in order to create the political, administrative and economic conditions in the country to secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as set out in Article 2 of the Mandate.

The statement that “…the Balfour Declaration ceased to have legal effect when the UK discharged its Mandate” is astounding. Britain never executed the Mandate for Palestine in accordance with the original purpose noted above. In truth, the Balfour Declaration, as a British policy statement in 1917 that Prime Minister David Lloyd George described as a “bargain” or contract between World Jewry and Britain, was converted into a document of binding and irreversible international law by the adoption of the San Remo Resolution by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers on April 25, 1920, that subsequently became Articles 94 to 97 inclusively plus Article 132 of the Treaty of Sèvres. This Resolution, insofar as Palestine was concerned, was then incorporated into the first three recitals of the Preamble of the Mandate for Palestine, subsequently approved by all 52 members of the League in 1922 and separately by the United States. It continues in legal force today, mutatis mutandis, and no action taken by the United Nations today or by Britain itself can nullify this binding act of international law upon which the State of Israel draws its legal existence. The San Remo Resolution means that all of Palestine is Jewish land, not Arab land, and that any partition of this land is perforce illegal and null and void. Britain did adopt a different direction beginning with the ascension of Winston Churchill to the Colonial Office on February 14, 1921 and the convening of the Cairo Conference in mid-March 1921 which was in opposition to the previous international decisiions, though.

In citing UN Security Council Resolution 242 regarding “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, one fails to understand is that Israel never acquired title to Judea, Samaria and Gaza by war, and it is therefore under no obligation to withdraw from those regions that the Allied Powers accorded to or recognized as belonging to the Jewish People. As the devolee or assignee of the Jewish People, the State of Israel has inherited all the legal rights derived from the San Remo Resolution and the Mandate for Palestine that were vested in the Jewish People. In the Six-Day War of June 1967, Israel was only recovering territories that were originally designated or intended for the Jewish State by the Principal Allied Powers.  As an example, is Alsace-Lorraine “French-occupied Germany” and is was it “inadmissible” for France to re-acquire its former territory by war?

Israel's Supreme Court has never decided on the merits or accepted as a proven argument that Judea and Samaria are “occupied territories” under international law, but merely adopted the position of the Government of Israel, that it adjudicate all cases before it as if Judea and Samaria were governed by the laws of war embodied in the Hague Regulations and Fourth Geneva Convention, without ruling on the actual legal status of these territories. This policy is based on the erroneous legal advice of then Military Advocate-General Meir Shamgar, the Government of Israel violated its own constitutional law and caused foreign states to believe that this indeed was the legal status of those regions, even though, ironically enough, Shamgar himself, later President of the Supreme Court, issued a disclaimer stating that he did not consider these military administered territories to be necessarily “occupied territories”.

To call Judea, Samaria and Gaza the “Occupied Palestinian Territories” is not only an oxymoron but also an abuse of the English language in the service of the imperialistic Arab cause, as well as an outright denial or attempted erasure of the legal, political and diplomatic history of the Palestine Question. For some, history only begins in 1967.

^

Responding to a WashPost Letter-to-the-Editor

The Washington Post has a letter-to-the-editor this morning:

The next time Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announces he is willing and ready to negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinians, I hope readers will remember what he has just done. In a speech last week, he said that his Likud party “is ‘committed to settlement in the Land of Israel,’ a nod to a growing constituency of settlers and their supporters in the party’s ranks” [“Netanyahu strengthens his base within Likud,” news story, Feb. 2]. According to The Post’s coverage, his government also “approved new housing subsidies and loans for people who move to more than 500 communities in designated ‘national priority areas,’ including 70 West Bank settlements.”

The meaning of these moves is clear. Mr. Netanyahu and his party have no intention of stopping the growth of settlements in the West Bank, no matter what he might pronounce to be seen as a man of peace and reconciliation. The “peace talks” that Israeli leaders say they support are a farce, and the Palestinians realize that.

Joanne Heisel, Columbia

I left this comment there:

I don't understand JHeisel's thinking. The residency of Jews in the territory some people wish that a "Palestinian" state be established somehow is wrong, part of a farce, unhelpful to peace or reconciliation. If that is her conceptualization of a resolution of the conflict the Arabs began in 1920 by launching a series of riots and violent attacks agaist Jews during the Mandate Period, should the reverse also be true: that the residency of Arabs in "settlements" in the state of Israel is somehow wrong and intrusive and not assisting reconciliation and peace? Or can it be that she does not recognize any historic, religious, cultural or legal right the Jewish people possesses - and which was recognized by eh League of Nations at the time - to reconstitute our national home in that territory at all? If she does, then just as Arabs reside in Jerusalem, Beer-Sheba, Acre, Rahat and Um Al-Fahm, Jews can and should live in Shiloh, Hebron and Bet-El - and even in Rabat-Ammon, for that matter. No?

^

The Logic of A Haaretz Columnist

This passes for logic and discourse in Haaretz:-

The settlers have chalked up a major achievement in that the government and Education Ministry allow such tours of occupied territory - has anyone heard of American young people touring Iraq or Afghanistan?

So, we are expected to presume that whereas in the past, academics and ideologists compared Ireland and Algeria with Judea and Samaria, for example my good acquaintance, Ian Lustick (in his book: Unsettled States, Disputed Lands
Britain and Ireland, France and Algeria, Israel and the West Bank-Gaza), and the additional "colonial state" model, Judea and Samaria are now countries similar to independent states that were a threat to mankind and were conquered by America and its allies and for sure did not in anyway 'belong' to those temporary occupiers.

Clever those Haaretz columnists, aren't they?

Here is his paradigm which is just left-wing progressively amazing:

The settlers' takeover of the "molding of national memory," or simply put, the curriculum on key issues like the Land of Israel's history and geography, gives them the status of a state within an Israeli-settler federation. Each province of this federal state, Israel and Outpostia, has laws and leaders of its own. One has laws enacted by the Knesset and the other has ad-hoc laws, sometimes determined by rabbis and sometimes by the hilltop youth and other criminals.

But within this federated framework is a mighty struggle for control. Outpostia no longer makes do with partial independence that gives it the power to manage its affairs as it sees fit, to live according to its own interpretation of federal laws, to rob land at will and to establish settlements that become a burden and political threat to the entire federation. It no longer wants to rely on the mother state's education and legal system, which has embraced Outpostia. The goal is to turn Israel into a minority satellite state and force the settlements' laws and rules on the federation.

That another section of Israel's society had ruled over the country's "collective memory" is to be ignored and not analyzed, or whether it was justified then and justified now, or not justified now - and why. Does the term democracy possess any relevance?

Ha-Ha-Haaretz.

^

US State Dep't Declines to Term "Settlements" As "Illegal"

Read Victoria Nuland's reply - she's the Spokesperson at the State Department Daily Press Briefings - to the question:

December 21, 2011

TRANSCRIPT:
12:52 p.m. EST

...QUESTION: Yes, Toria. Yesterday, the four members of the European Union on the Security Council issued a statement calling occupied territories and settlements in the occupied territories and East Jerusalem as illegal under international law. Do you concur?

MS. NULAND: Said, as you know, we declined to join that statement for all of the usual reasons. It doesn’t change the fact that our longstanding policy remains that we don’t recognize the legitimacy of the continued Israeli settlements, but we don’t think statements in the UNSC are the way to pursue the goal of getting these parties back to the table. The best way to deal with this issue of land, settlement, et cetera, is for these parties to talk
to each other, come up with borders, and then have two states living side by side in agreed borders.

Take note:

a) she doesn't employ "illegal";

b) she refers in the context to "continued", not previous/existing;

c) size of land Israel is to retain is still an open question for the agenda.

Jewish residency communities in Judea and Samaria are not "illegal" but very much in line with the diplomatic, legal and historical development of the Jewish reconstitution of its National Home in what was termed Palestine.

Only negotiations and a final peace treaty can define what the borders will be.

Thank you, Ms. Nuland.

^

"Settlers"? Grotesque

In a post about her two recent visits to Hebron, Melanie Phillips notes of the Jewish residents there, in passem, that

It is also grotesque to call them 'settlers' as if they are colonising land with which they have no connection. Jews have lived in Hebron for thousands of years but have been repeatedly driven out, as in the 1929 pogrom when Arabs slaughtered 67 adults and children.

As I have insisted, the media-preferred term of "settlers" and "settlements" are selected with malice aforethought, to pejoratively influence the media consumer, the diplomat, the politician, the potential supporter. The terms corrupt. They alter reality. They misrepresent.

^

Goldberg on Gorenberg: From the West Bank to the West Side

In his NYTimes book review, Did Israel Actually Lose the 1967 War?, Jeffrey Goldberg comments of Gershom Gorenberg's thesis that in his new book, “The Unmaking of Israel”, he

argues, in essence, that Israel is losing the 1967 Six- Day War.

Goldberg, at the outset, lists

the many things that the diminutive but disproportionately interesting state of Israel is not. I do this in recognition of the fact that mere mention of Israel can send its critics into paroxysms of rhetorical excess seldom heard outside ESPN. So: Israel is not a fascist state, nor is it a theocracy nor, for that matter, is it a fascist theocracy. It is not an apartheid state, a totalitarian state or, God forbid, a Nazi state. It is, for its region in particular, a model of Western values, a country in possession of a robustly independent judiciary; a boisterous, appropriately unkempt press; a mature and activist civil society; and an assortment of fearless and effective human rights organizations.

not truly comprehending that Israel's critics from the progressie liberal camp cannot not only believe this but grasp it. It is an image outside their allowed or permitted framework of thought.





In any case, he notes that Gorenberg is

...a leftist Israeli journalist of American extraction [who] tells us that...the Israel of today is rampant with illiberal feeling. It is a place whose Arab citizens are at once enfranchised and isolated. It is a place whose military is coming to be dominated not by the secular, progressive-minded kibbutznikim of old, but by a right-wing Orthodox officer corps, some of whom may respect the idea of Jewish land more than they respect the decisions of the elected government. Mainly, it is a place being corrupted by an ostensibly temporary but in fact interminable occupation

As if.

Gorenberg does consider

...the issue of the Jewish settlements, which many Palestinians see as concrete proof of Israeli lack of interest in a two-state solution. It is an understandable Palestinian view, but the truth is more complicated.

That it surely is.

For example, Goldberg claims

...the majority of Israelis, if they ever loved the settlements, appear to love them no more...

Nope. Polls indicate that is a wrongheaded assumption, not to forget that the parties who have persistently gained the plurality of votes have bee pro-YESHA. Even the Labour Party was pro-Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and Gaza before.

On the issue of legality, Gorenberg illustrates the shallowness of the term:

Gorenberg cites, among other examples, that of the northern West Bank settlement of Ofra...which was established illegally, not only according to international law, but to Israeli law as well. “The relevant Israeli authorities have never approved a town plan for Ofra or defined its municipal area. Those are legal preconditions for issuing building permits in an Israeli settlement.”

Approval of a twon plan is an administrative and bureacratic matter making not an illegality but something not-yet-authorized since the government has shown over four decades not to be willing to act against the community and many others. This lack of negative action indicates an opinion that the residency is quite legal by Israeli law. International law has long ago decreed that Judea and Samaria are regions where "close settlement by Jews on the land" is to be facilitated.



As for Gorenberg's thinking, Goldberg is, I think, tweaking here:

No doubt most everyone on the Upper West Side of Manhattan would agree with his recommendations. Whether Israelis do, particularly in the current, besieged climate, is another thing entirely.

As for the matter of democracy, Goldberg relates of a visit in Hebron that

The Palestinians who live side by side with [the Jewish residents there] are not allowed a say in choosing the government that rules over them. Gorenberg’s book makes clear that this is a situation that cannot go on forever.

Well, they are lucky to be able to live there.

The "peace" the Pals. offer us means we can't live there at all.

That is democracy? Human rights? Civil liberties?

A "state of Palestine" can be allowed to ban Jews?

Goldberg is not even on the East Side on this one.

^

Jewish "developments" in YESHA - a la Miami

Reported

Israel should be describing Jewish communities beyond the Green Line as developments, not settlements, Carlos Gimenez, the recently elected mayor of Miami-Dade County, said on Friday.

Gimenez, on a six-day visit to Israel with four other mayors of large US cities as part of Project Interchange, an educational institute of the American Jewish Committee, said the reality of the settlements – as opposed to the stereotype that the word invokes – was what surprised him most during his first visit to the country.

“When you conjure up the word ‘settlement,’ you think about the Old West, pioneers and all that,” he said in an interview just after visiting Efrat in the West Bank.

“It is really more like a development, that is all it is,” he said. “Settlement is the wrong word to use. If you want to describe it to Americans, it is really a development.

Who Lives in "Communities"?

You all know that I prefer "communities" to settlements".

And who gets to live in "communities"?

The Beduin of Judea and Samaria.

Yep.

Here:

According to Israeli human rights group BTselem, the first phase is planned to begin as early as January 2012, and would forcibly evict approximately 2,300 people – who are currently living in about 20 communities in proximity to the Israeli settlement of Ma’ale Adumim – and transfer them to a new location near the Abu Dis garbage dump, just east of Jerusalem.

We never win?

^

A Translation Problem

I am having a problem with the translation policy over at Israel Hayom.

I read Emily Amrousi's articles.

Besides the fact that they are great, funny, incisive and mind-moving, I happen to be acquainted with her.

For some reason, they keep translating the Hebrew word, hitnachalut - התנחלויות, which indicates the new communities built in Judea and Samaria, as "settlements".  It was done, again, today.

I happen to know that Emily thinks, as I do, that the term should more properly be "communities" as the word "settlements" has assumed quite a negative and pejorative connotation, as I have explained here at this site many times.  Emily served for some three years as the spokeperson for the Yesha Council and authored the book, HaTris  (see her in the last picture here).

They even have translated "Judea and Samaria" as the "West Bank". But it is now corrected.  As here, too.

"Settlements", though, is still there as it is in today's article.

The English-language edition editor has explained the paper's policy to me so

Hi Yisrael,

Our policy is to translate what the Hebrew writer of the story has written: If they write Judea and Samaria then that is what we translate. And if they write West Bank then that's what we use.

I can't think of Emily using "West Bank".
Now, if Emily used the term yishuvim - ישובים, would they paper then use "communities"?

^

Am I A Provocation?

According to the Statement of the Middle East Quartet

...The Quartet recalled its previous statements, and affirmed its determination to actively and vigorously seek a comprehensive resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, on the basis of UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338, 1397, 1515, 1850, the Madrid principles including land for peace, the Roadmap, and the agreements previously reached between the parties.

...The Quartet reiterated its urgent appeal to the parties to overcome the current obstacles and resume direct bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations without delay or preconditions. But it accepts that meeting, in itself, will not reestablish the trust necessary for such a negotiation to succeed. It therefore proposes the following steps:

1. Within a month there will be a preparatory meeting between the parties to agree an agenda and method of proceeding in the negotiation.
2. At that meeting there will be a commitment by both sides that the objective of any negotiation is to reach an agreement within a timeframe agreed to by the parties but not longer than the end of 2012. The Quartet
expects the parties to come forward with comprehensive proposals within three months on territory and security, and to have made substantial progress within six months...
...5. The Quartet calls upon the parties to refrain from provocative actions if negotiations are to be effective. The Quartet reiterated the obligations of both parties under the Roadmap.

Now, what would be considered a provocation?


UPDATE

From Benjamin Netanyahu's UN speech:-

...President Abbas just stood here, and he said that the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the settlements. Well, that’s odd. Our conflict has been raging for — was raging for nearly half a century before there was a single Israeli settlement in the West Bank. So if what President Abbas is saying was true, then the — I guess that the settlements he’s talking about are Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa, Be’er Sheva. Maybe that’s what he meant the other day when he said that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for 63 years. He didn’t say from 1967; he said from 1948. I hope somebody will bother to ask him this question because it illustrates a simple truth: The core of the conflict is not the settlements. The settlements are a result of the conflict. (Applause.)

The settlements have to be — it’s an issue that has to be addressed and resolved in the course of negotiations. But the core of the conflict has always been and unfortunately remains the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize a Jewish state in any border...

^