Gaza: A Brief Modern History Outline

Pre-1917 - Gaza part of the Ottoman Empire

1917 - Gaza conquered by British Army and subsequently becomes part of Mandate Palestine

1948 - Gaza conquered by Egypt and is ruled under a military governor. 

1948-1956 - Gaza is main base for Fedyeen terrorists infiltrating Israel

1956-1957 - Gaza is briefly under Israel military occupation

1967 - Gaza is militarily occupied by Israel following Egyptian initation of hostilities

2005 - Israeli Disengagement of total withdrawal from Gaza

2006 - Operation Summer Rains

2007 - Hamas assume Gaza governorship

2008 - Operation Hot Winter

2008/9 - Operation Cast Lead

2012 - Operation Pillar of Defense

2014 - Operation Protective Edge

2021 - Operation Guardian of the Walls

2023 - Swords of Iron War

To Be "Occupied Territory", It Must Have Been Part of a State

Are the so-called "Palestinian territories", that is Judea and Samaria, "occupied"?

Here is a section from Principles of International Law, by Hans Kelsen, 1952

The principle that enemy territory occupied by a belligerent in course of war remains the territory of the state against which the war is directed, can apply only as long as this community still exists as a state within the meaning of international law. This is hardly the case if, after occupation of the whole territory of an enemy state, its armed forces are completely defeated to that no further resistance is possible and its national government is abolished by the victorious state. Then the vanquished community is deprived of one of the essential elements of a state in the sense of international law: an effective and independent government, and hence has lost its character as a state. If the territory is not to be considered a stateless territory, it must be considered to be under the sovereignty of the occupant belligerent, which—in such a case—ceases to be restricted by the rules concerning belligerent occupation. This was the case with the territory of the German Reich occupied in the Second World War after the complete defeat and surrender of its armed forces. In view of the fact that the last national government of the German Reich was abolished, it may be assumed that this state ceased to exist as a subject of international law. If a belligerent state ceases legally to exist as an effect of the defeat, as, e.g., the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in the First World War, or the German Reich in the Second World War, no peace treaty or any other treaty can be concluded with this state for the purpose of transferring the territory concerned, or parts of it, to the victorious or any other state.

On the territory of the abolished state a new state or some new states may be established. This was the case with the territory of the defeated Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, which was the territory of two united states. On this territory the Czechoslovakian and the Austrian Republics, and part of Poland have been established. This is also the case with the territory of the German Reich on which two new states came into existence; the western German state, called the Federal Republic of Germany; and the eastern German State, called the German Democrat. Republic. But the new state or the new states, which have not been at war with the victorious state, cannot conclude a peace treaty and are not entitled to dispose of other territory but their own. That the Austrian Republic was forced to conclude a peace treaty with the Allied and Associated Powers, although this new state was not at war with the states which by their victory brought the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy to dismemberment, and that the Austrian Republic was forced to dispose in this treaty of territory of the disappeared state which never was territory of the Austrian Republic, was based on the fiction that the Austrian Republic was identical with the Austrian Monarchy. In the case of the German Reich, the governments of the occupant powers maintained the fiction; that it continued to exist even after the abolishment of its last national government, and on the basis of this fiction it was assumed that the territory of the German Reich occupied by the four victorious powers was not under their sovereignty, but remained under the sovereignty of the German Reich. But the administration of the occupied territory was in no way in conformity with the rules concerning belligerent occupation. 

It sounds like Kelsen is arguing that Israel wouldn't have had any legal reason to follow the Geneva Conventions laws of occupation in the territories. They were not considered Jordanian or Egyptian territory and they certainly weren't "Palestinian". To apply the humanitarian components of Geneva is proper, of course, and Israel voluntarily did so. But this sounds to me that even if you hold that the prohibition of "transfer" of a population to the territory includes voluntary relocation, that this would not apply to the West Bank or Gaza after 1967.

There was a discussion in the UN's Law Commission  in relation to the Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States about the whether all conquest is forbidden or not. James Brierly, the great American authority on international law, suggested making clear that the ban on territorial acquisition only applied to illegal war, and the motion was adopted by the drafting committee. I Yearbook Int law commission 143 (1949)

Similarly, when there were quibbles about whether annexation is always banned, or whether there might be various exceptions, the Secretary observed: “It might be suggested that in order to constitute a crime under international law an annexation must be carried out through the use of armed force, with a view to destroying the territorial integrity of another State”  I Yearbook 137 (1950)

It is not surprising France and other major countries wanted to make clear that annexation and title by conquest were not ALWAYS forbidden: most European frontiers were substantially revised 1947-50 in favor of the victors/victims of WWII, and against the loosers/other victims.

I don’t think you will find any pre-’67 international law treatise that says that the laws of belligerent occupation apply to non-sovereign territory. The question had not been raised so it was probably not addressed in many treatises, but that’s because the answer was blindingly obvious and it was exactly the opposite of what everyone says about Israel today.

^

The Palmach and the Arabs Up Until November 1947

I have in the past dealt with the issue of the presumed "better morality" of the Palmach pre-state defence units under the aegis of the left-wing socialist Zionist parties, Ahdut Ha'Avoda and HaShomer HaTzair. Their claim was always that the Irgun and the Lechi were but fascists and blackguards and roughnecks.

However, Palmach members also were involved in activities that today would land them in an international tribunal for 'war crimes'.

I blogged about the attack on an Arab village.

I also blogged about castrations of Arab rapists.

 The Book of the Palmach 

published in 1957 contains more instances which I will briefly summarize.

Starting on page 602 and continuing until 605, under the heading "Guerrilla Actions" or "Small-scale Combat", several anti-Arab reprisal attacks are described.

For example, in the autumn of 1943 (the actual time was March 1942), a three-man squad of Pluga Alef entered a Bedouin encampment near Waldheim (today's Alonei Abba) 

to avenge the murder of Alexander Zaid. Zaïd was murdered on July 10, 1938 when ambushed by an Arab gang while on his way to meet members of kibbutz Alonim. The killer was Qassem Tabash, a Bedouin from the al-Hilaf tribe. He was killed in reprisal in front of some 20 of his fellow tribemen.

By the way, the Palmach eliminated two Germans at the Templar village there as well in 1948.

In February 1944, a squad from Pluga Alef were in the vicinity of Masada on a training trek. Near Ein Gedi, they were set upon by armed Beduoin brigands and, in defending themselves, killed two in an exchange of fire.

During the spring of 1945, the Palmach was involved in leading clandestine immigration overland from Lebanon. On occasion, they were set upon by Arab gang members who demanded, with threat of death, a payment as if a toll crossing. To halt this practice, members of Pluga Gimel disguised themselves as Arabs, crossed into Lebanon, engaged the gang members in conversation and then opened fire and killed several. This put an end to the attempts to threaten Jews coming into the homeland.

In the spring of 1947, Arab terror was resurrected. Two Jews were murdered in mid-May and the Palmach determined that a cafe in Fajja village, some 2 kilometers east of Petah Tikva,  was a gang headquarters for members of the Arab Al-Suwerka tribe. It was subsequently attacked on May 21. 

Palestine Post, May 22, 1947

More on this incident here.

Another incident occured in August 1947 at the Cafe Hawai. Following a murderous robbery attempt, the Palmach and Hagan made a reprisal raid a week later:

Palestine Post, August 17, 1947

On October 7, 1947, a Palmach unit set out on a reprisal raid against a murderous gang near Kfar Syrkin who had killed two Jews previously that week.

Palestine Post, October 7, 1947

That evening, a Palmach squad set out to the orchards near Rosh Ha'Ayin to find the gang. In the battle, three gang members were killed, as well as a Jaffa prostitute who was spending the vening there, and one was wounded.

Palestine Post, October 8, 1947

A few incidents happened in the fall on the Negev protecting the supply and transportation lines to the kibbutzim there.

As a result of the start of the Arab-Israel War of 1947-49, the situation only worsened.

^

Jabotinsky Providing his Testimony to the Peel Commission

Found here:

On the testimony, February 11, 1937.

The photograph is also at the Jabotinsky Archives.

^

Al-Aqsa as "exclusive property"

In his UN General Assembly meeting address, Mahmoud Abbas said:

Al-Aqsa Mosque and its surroundings, ladies and gentlemen, are the exclusive property of Muslims, and this was approved by the League of Nations in 1930, and we will not accept anything else, no matter the circumstances.

To what is he referring?

An International Commission was appointed by Great Britain following the 1929 riots. It was done with the approval of the Council of the League of Nations and its purpose was "to determine the rights and claims of Moslems and Jews in connection with the Western or Wailing Wall at Jerusalem".

Among its conclusions is this:

(3)  The Ownership of the Wall and of its Surroundings.

The Commission has to pronounce a verdict on the Jewish claims, and the Jews do not claim any proprietorship to the Wall or to the Pavement in front of it (concluding speech of Jewish Counsel, Minutes, page 908)...Subsequent to the investigation it has made, the Commission herewith declares that the ownership of the Wall, as well as the possession of it and of those parts of its surroundings that are here in question, accrues to the Moslems.  The Wall itself as being an integral part of the Haram-esh-Sherif area is Moslem property.  From the inquiries conducted by the Commission, partly in the Sharia Court and partly through the hearing of witnesses' evidence, it has emerged that the Pavement in front of the Wall, where the Jews perform their devotions, is also Moslem property.

I am not sure that this conclusion was "approved".

In any case, Mount Moriah was conquered and occupied by Moslem Arabs in 638 CE

^

Making a Correction

Researching for an article on the "Saison", I checked the Hagana history volume and a footnote directed me to the Palestine Post and a column entitled "Reflector"

But it turned out to be "Reflections".

^

High Commissioner Harold MacMichael and Southern Syria

In mid-1944, Harold MacMichael, the High Commissioner for Palestine, was convinced that an Arab entity of "Palestine" was artificial and was the southern region of Syria.  It had no inedependent history of its own:

The "Cairo Report", the summary of a conference held there over April 6-7, 1944, can be found in F.O. 371/40135 [E2987G].

From this academic article.

^

Kalman Liebskind on the Media

Excerpted in translation from Kalman Liebskind's column of September 6, 2024 entitled "Who Do You Hate More? Sinwar or Netanyhau?"

"Our mainstream press mentions the same Sanhedrin court. In almost every important issue on the agenda, there are no disputes, there are no arguments for and against. Everyone thinks the same. Everyone talks the same. And as a citizen - not as a journalist, just as a citizen - it's scary. Because in the weighty issues on our agenda, it cannot be that in every discussion between the right and the left and between the opposition and the coalition, one side is always right and one side is always wrong.

And in our case, it is impossible to take seriously a press that proceeds entirely from the premise that its side - the one that seeks to fully accept Hamas's demands - is the just one, the humane one, the one that cares for the abductees, and the other side - the one that demands to be insistent with Hamas and not yield - is made up of a collection of heartless people who are not interested in the fate of the abductees and all that matters to them in life is that Netanyahu remains in power.

This week, Shmuel Rosner and the Jewish People's Policy Institute published a survey conducted immediately after the announcement of the murder of the six abductees. Two positions were presented to the respondents regarding the abductees deal, and they were asked to answer which of them was closer to their own position. 49% of the Jews answered that "Israel must not relinquish control of the Philadelphi corridor, even if because of this there would be no kidnapping deal." 43% answered that "Israel should give up control of the Philadelphi corridor to allow a deal to release hostages." 

Leave the nuances for a moment. Leave aside the fact that Hamas did not respond positively to the deal in question. Let alone the fact that the terrorist organization is not satisfied with the Philadelphi corridor but wants many other important things. Leave aside the fact that we have seen different and varied polls in their results, to a large extent depending on the poll taker and the wording of the questions. Also leave aside the question of what you would answer if you yourselves were asked.

The results of all the surveys, and as mentioned, regardless of their exact bottom line, show that there is a serious disagreement in Israeli society on the question of the right price to pay in the deal. And the fact that the media, which are supposed to reflect this controversy, make sure not to do so, and conduct aggressive propaganda in favor of one position and the complete delegitimization of the other position - is nothing but a professional crime.

Because what is happening these days in the media is something that even I, whose opinion on the Israeli press I have been posting here for many years, have not seen for a very long time. Everything is allowed. Everything is normal. The red lines, if there were any, were completely erased. One by one, all the reporters, moderators, presenters and commentators stepped forward and explained, some with blunt words and some with even more blunt words, that the Israeli government was to blame. A brutal terrorist organization is massacring innocent Jews, and the Israeli press places all the blame on its own government. Hamas's job is to murder us, our own job is to submit to all of its demands, and if we don't do it, fully - it is quite clear that our hands are covered in blood. We have a government of traitors, we have a government of murderers, we have a government of the irresponsible, we have a government that Hamas was willing to do anything to free its abductees, but it stubbornly says no. I ask seriously: what is the difference between the position of the leader of Hamas, and the position voiced this week by our current affairs broadcasts?

And this is not new. Our press has failed miserably in its almost singular role in every contact we have had with the enemy in recent decades. In the Oslo agreement, in the withdrawal from Lebanon, in the Disengagement, in the Shalit deal. In all these events, which ended in rivers of Jewish blood, there was no press that asked questions, there was no press that demanded answers, there was no press that raised doubts, there was no press that criticized.

I know the constant responses that come whenever I make claims of this kind, responses that wonder "why do you deal with the press all the time?". The answer is simple. Because I believe in the role of journalism and its power to correct, check, investigate, monitor, and prevent disasters before they occur. And in all these respects, Israel has no press. There is a huge collection of people with political positions, legitimate positions, of course, who flock like a herd after every political step that fits their agenda without stopping for a moment and without doing their job.

^

Let's Go Back A Year

Using the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center, the government institution for commemorating the legacy of the Israeli intelligence community, I went back to the end of August 2023 to see and be reminded what was the situation, as regards open intelligence, of the events leading to the Hamas attack on October 7.

Aug. 30-Sept 5

The Palestinian terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip continue to develop and improve their rocket systems. An attempt to smuggle explosives from the Gaza Strip to Judea and Samaria was foiled. For the third consecutive week, Palestinians demonstrated at the border security fence. The national authority for return marches in the Gaza Strip has begun rebuilding the return camps and preparing them for the possible renewal of the marches. The leaders of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) met in Beirut with the Iranian foreign minister and Hezbollah’s secretary general.

Sept. 6-12

On the eve of the Jewish High Holidays, the Israeli media reported that senior IDF officers warned Hamas through intermediaries not to engage in escalation. Hamas denied the reports and emphasized it would continue to fight Israel in every arena.

On September 12, 2023, the joint operations room of the military-terrorist wings of the Palestinian organizations held its fourth “military” maneuver, which included live fire, rocket launches towards the sea and a simulated attack on an Israeli position. Hamas banned protest demonstrations near the security fence after that became a condition for the resumption of activity at the Kerem Shalom Crossing, which was suspended after an attempt to smuggle weapons. The chairman of Qatar’s National Committee for the Reconstruction of Gaza participated in the negotiations for reopening the crossing.

Sept. 13-20

This past week riots were renewed along the Gaza border, and Palestinians threw IEDs and hand grenades, burned tires and launched incendiary balloons. One Palestinian was killed by IDF forces in the southern Gaza Strip and five others were killed by an explosive device in the eastern Gaza Strip before it could be thrown at Israeli soldiers. The apparent cause of the riots was the breakdown of talks between Mohammed al-Emadi, chairman of Qatar’s National Committee for the Reconstruction of Gaza, and the Hamas leadership regarding the amount of Qatar’s financial support for the Gaza Strip, and other excuses included the arrival of Jewish worshipers at the Temple Mount compound on Rosh Hashanah and the Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. Following the riots the Erez Crossing remained closed to laborers and businessmen who wanted to enter Israel.

Sept. 20-27

This past week violent clashes continued along the border security fence in the Gaza Strip. Palestinians shot at IDF forces and threw IEDs. The number of incendiary balloons launched at the Israeli communities near the border rose, causing several fires. In response, the IDF attacked several Hamas positions near the Gaza border. Several boats sailed from Gaza port in a staged “protest flotilla.” Israel left the Erez crossing closed to the entry of Palestinian workers into Israel (a situation which has lasted more than 12 days). International and Arab efforts at mediation have yet to bear fruit. Reports continue about the Hamas administration’s severe financial hardship.

A meeting was held in Beirut by the deputy head of Hamas’ political bureau, the secretary general of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and the deputy secretary general of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). They expressed support and pride for the activities and attacks of the “resistance” [terrorist attacks] in Judea and Samaria and emphasized the importance of escalation and armed “resistance” [terrorism] against Israel.

Were there indications that Hamas was deterred? 

^