Monday, November 29, 2010

Yes? No. (All You Need for the "Illegality" Claim)

It all seems so simple for Roula Khalaf who writes in a piece entitled "Trust in short supply at Middle East talks" at the Financial Times that

There was an astonishing report out of Jerusalem last week. Israel, it said, was growing increasingly frustrated with the US.

Israel unhappy? But had Washington not just offered the Jewish state a generous security package, including subsidised fighter jets, to buy a 90-day freeze on the expansion of Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian land? And are the settlements not illegal under international law in any case and the moratorium a demand the Obama administration has been making for two years?

The answer to those questions is yes.

No, they are not illegal.

Jews living in their homeland, in territory originally allocated to them for their reconstituted Jewish national home, land to be used for "close settlement", in the area from which terror acts and from, which aggression was launched against them, cannot be considered illegal.

Some articles:

Howard Grief

Eugene Rostow.

Nicholas Rostow.

Talia Einhorn.

Michael Zevulon.

Dan Diker.

Victor Sharpe.

Anglo-American Convention aspect.

One summary.

CAMERA's summary.

Mitchel Bard's summary.

Eli Hertz (short version) and the long version.

David Phillips.

There's even a university syllabus.

State of Israel.

And a site.

And my two cents: one and two.

And there's more.

Adam Baker.



Settembrini said...

No, the inhabitants are not illegal. The fact that they settle there is. I think it takes no advanced studies in history and political science to confirm that, does it?

The UN Resolution that allowed the creation of the state Israel allotted those territories (and others that were meanwhile tacitely annexed by Israel) to the creation of an arab state.

Remember, TWO states were to be created on the West bank of the Jordan river: a jewish state, with a slight jewish majority, and an arab state, with an overwhelming arab majority.

The representatives of not-yet-Israel favored this solution, since it was the only way to create a state with a jewish majority.

By the way: this is still the case now. If Israel were to annex Gaza and the Palestinan territories of the West bank, it would have 1/3 jews, 2/3 non-jews, even without considering the return of arab refugees.

So: yes, those settlements are illegal, and furthermore: they are not in the best interest of the settlers themselves. Who would want to build a house on a plot that can be taken away from him any time?

So really, the building freeze keeps Israeli citizens from incurring costs for houses that will lose their value one day or another.

YMedad said...

You poor fellow.

a. the Mandate was explicitly and exclusively established for the reconstitution of the Jewish national home - and no Arabs are mentioned. = "Whereas 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;"

b. ART. 11.

The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country..It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.

The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration.

c. ART. 6.
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.

d. ART. 5.
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.

all of which indicate that once the Arabs rejected the Partition and then went to war, as we say, "all bets are off". Your assumption is wrong: there simply is no basis for that Arab state that never came into being. The Arabs tried to eradicate Israel and ended up eradicating"Arab Palestine". If they went for "all or nothing", they ended up with nothing.

Nate said...

The partition plan was also a recommendation, it was not binding international law, whereas the British Mandate—which authorized Jewish settlement from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River—was. Therefore, there were no legal claim for a separate state in the West Bank, Jordan occupied those lands without legal justification and the Eastern borders of Israel were never settled. Fast forward past 1967, Israel recovers those lands from Jordan and, due to the Balfour Declaration and British Mandate, have the best LEGAL claim to the land.