Not That Clever

On September 24, James Cleverly, the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, rose in Parliament to respond to MK from Aberavon, Stephen Kinnock), who had secured a debate on "settlement and annexation of the Occupied Palestinian territories" during which he uttered not a few inanities. It last an hour and a quarter.

Cleverly stated the issue is "a sensitive but incredibly important", even "complex". Perhaps being complex, Cleverly was challenged to provide factual replies.

He stated the Britain desires "a ​stable, secure and peaceful two-state solution, with a thriving Israel next door to a thriving Palestine based on 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and fair, agreed and realistic settlements for refugees...a two-state solution is the only viable long-term solution for the area...we genuinely believe it is in Israel’s best interests to also have a viable Palestinian state so that it can maintain its desired future as a Jewish democratic state...annexation...would be a violation of international law."

Asked if he woud agree that boycotting Israel if nannexation goes forward "would demonstrate a genuine commitment to the rights of the Palestinian people and international law?", he expressed opposition:

The UK Government have a long-standing position to oppose the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement towards the state of Israel, but more than that, it is better that we prevent annexation from taking place. 

Nevertheless, he indicated that

We give guidance to businesses and ultimately it is a decision for individual companies whether to operate in settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, but the British Government absolutely do not encourage or support such activities...It was in order to allow consumers to have that choice that in December 2009 the UK Government ​introduced voluntary guidance to enable products from Israeli settlements near the OPTs to be specifically labelled as such.

He then addessed the matter of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria:

The UK’s position on settlements is also clear. Again, they are illegal under international law and present an obstacle to a sustainable two-state solution. We want to ​see a contiguous west bank, including East Jerusalem, as part of a viable sovereign Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders. In 2016, the UK supported UN Security Council resolution 2334, which states that Israeli settlement activity “constitutes a flagrant violation” of international law and “has no legal validity”. This is the long-standing position of the UK Government

On the insulting language and incitement in Palestinian Authority textbooks, he reminded that "we have pressed the EU to publish its interim report on Palestinian textbooks. We want it to be addressed at pace and transparently"

MP Kinnock called it "a rich and multifaceted debate" but noted "the UAE deal has not stopped annexation. The settlements continue". He posited that "the illegal settlements are not Israel. They are illegally occupied territory that should belong to the Palestinians, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) correctly pointed out." and that there is a "need to act against those British companies that are involved in the illegal settlements...It is time for the British Government to step up to the plate. It is time for tangible action...".

Mr. Cleverly should know that England's efforts to thwart Zionism, from the 1921 White Paper to that of 1939 to its post-war diplomatic failures, were not only wrong morally but indefensible legally. All our communities in the land west of the Jordan River are ertainly legal and legitimate. The League of Nations Mandate, which Gt. Britian promoted and voted in favor legislates:

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.

That is quite clear.

"Palestine" as an independent state never existed and has no claims, not even under Geneva 1949. Jordan's rule over the territory until 1967 was an illegal occupation. The 1967 war won by Israell was one of self-defense against Arab aggression and no rights can accrue as a result of that illegal action.

Mr. Cleverly, review the historical, political and legal material for the next debate in the House. This article would be helpful. There are others.

^

Collection of Posts on Legality of Jewish Residence in Judea and Samaria

Summary of posts on the subject:

One.

Two.

Three.

Four.

Five.

Enjoy.

^

Mondoweiss and "Facts"

The latest from Mondoweiss:

Israel will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the 1967 War with an official ceremony in an illegal West Bank settlement. This news is a week old, but it has gotten no attention in the United States.

Here is Prime Minister Netanyahu’s declaration eight days ago:

Today the Cabinet will approve a decision about the celebrations to mark 50 years since the liberation of Judea, Samaria [biblical names for the West Bank] and the Golan Heights. We will also celebrate the liberation of Jerusalem...The main event will take place at Kfar Etzion..

...Kfar Etzion is an illegal settlement south of Jerusalem that was rebuilt [sic!] in 1967 because it had been a Jewish town before the partition of the land in 1949, and the site of a massacre of Jews...

A.  Kfar Etzion was built on land purchased. Legally.

B. Yes there is a claim that since "The area called 'Gush Etzion' today is more than 30 times the size of the historic Gush Etzion" there is somehow a fraud.  But Kfar Etzion is Kfar Etzion.

C.  That "massacre"? Perpetrated by Arabs. A day before state declared.

D. The partition? November 29, 1947 and never accepted but rejected by the Arabs.  It never really existed.

^

J Street's Ben-Ami Echoes Trump's Friedman

Are you upset at what Trump advisor David Friedman said?

Donald Trump's adviser on Israel said on Wednesday that Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank were not illegal and he believed the candidate agreed with him...Asked whether Trump viewed the West Bank as part of Israel, as many far-right Israelis do, Friedman did not answer directly.
"I don't think he believes that the settlements are illegal," Friedman said.

But here's Jeremy Ben-Ami, super-dove leftist progressive, saying:

“The United States is the only country that does not label what Israel does in the West Bank as illegal,” Ben-Ami added. 

Of course, he thinks he knows international law better than anyone, so he continued and said:

“The U.S. should join the rest of the world, the United Nations and declare [occupation and settlement construction] illegal.”

Note: President Obama only uses "illegitimate", never "illegal". 

^

One Good Thing About the Illegal Outpost 'Bab Alshams'

If you are reading the item below just after Shabbat has gone out, you might be very upset, especially as the act was not prevented by the IDF and now, PM Netanyahu has to order

security forces to remove make-shift tent city erected by Palestinian activists in protest of Israeli plans to build in disputed area...despite High Court injunction against evacuation.*

And the item is that

Palestinians Establish a new Village, Bab Alshams, in Area E1
250 men and women from across Palestine establish this morning a new Palestinian village named “Bab Alshams” (Gate of the Sun)...equipment for long-term living was brought. The group released the following statement:

We, the sons and daughters of Palestine from all throughout the land, announce the establishment of Bab Alshams Village (Gate of the Sun). We the people, without permits from the occupation, without permission from anyone, sit here today because this is our land and it is our right to inhabit it.  The village’s name is taken from the novel, “Bab Alshams,” by Lebanese writer Elias Khoury [which was also made into a movie which was brought to Israel in 2005]...Bab Alshams is our gate to Jerusalem. Bab Alshams is the gate to our to our return...

The only good thing is that finally, the Arabs of Eretz-Yisrael recognize that the name of their country, so to say, "Palestine", has nothing to do with Arabic.

When early Islam related to their conquests in this area which they occupied, the whole area stretching from Syria, through Lebanon, Eretz-Yisrael (including what is today Jordan), was termed Bilad El-Shams. 

How long will it take Israel's government to dismantle this illegal outpost?


_______________

*
Statement from PM Netanyahu's Bureau

(Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser)Saturday, January 12, 2013
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered security forces to evacuate forthwith the Palestinians who have gathered in the area between Maale Adumim and Jerusalem. To this end, the State will, this evening (Saturday,11 January 2013), request that the High Court of Justice rescind the injunction that it had issued and which is delaying the evacuation. Until the High Court responds to the State's motion, the Prime Minister has ordered the closure of access roads to the area in order to prevent gatherings. At this stage, the area has been declared a closed military zone.

^

Arab Illegal Settlement?

Arab sources, via IMRA, are reporting:

Israeli forces Sunday handed two Palestinians from Joreish village, south of Nablus notices to evacuate their land and demolish water wells, according to local sources.

Ghassan Daghlas, in charge of the settlements file at the Palestinian Authority in the northern part of the West Bank, said that Israeli soldiers gave the village’s residents 45 day notice to demolish the wells and evacuate the land.

Joreish or better, Jourish, is right near Shiloh, north of us.

It's where the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women), the United Nations Development Programme/Programme of Assistance to the Palestinian People (UNDP/PAPP) has requested bids from eligible contractors to perform Construction of the Jourish Women Community Center - Jourish Village – Nablus Governorate.

In any case, since Daghlas is an inveterate misconstruer, we'll wait until all the facts are in.

Or at least while the jury on Jurish is out.

After all, could it be that Arabs are engaged in illegal settlement?


^

Another 'Illegal Outpost Settlement'?

I hadn't heard of Dale Camp before.

I learned that

Dale Farm is a plot of land on Oak Lane in Crays Hill, Essex, United Kingdom. Until October 2011, it was an Irish Traveller halting site which had been established without planning permission. The site is owned by members of the travelling community and is located within the Green Belt. In October 2011, to give bailiffs safe access to allow a clearance order to be executed, some residents and activists had to be removed from the Dale Farm site - this action gained international press coverage.

At its height, Dale Farm, along with the adjacent Oak Lane site, housed over 1,000 people, the largest Traveller concentration in the UK.

In essence,

in 2001. At this time unplanned development started...Various planning breaches were reported. Basildon Council first served enforcement notices in 2001 and the Travellers brought legal action in an attempt to have these repealed. The council has said that planning applications for the caravans and chalets on the site were rejected because the land was green belt.

And now this, found here:

After the hard-fought, violent and costly eviction of the Dale Farm illegal traveller camp, some may have thought the decade-long saga had finally reached an end. But...the battleground has merely moved a few yards away...since Dale Farm was cleared in October at an estimated cost to the taxpayer of £18million, there has been an extraordinary explosion in the number of caravans pitched on the legal Oak Lane site next door...Basildon Council is preparing to serve eviction notices on half of the site’s 34 pitches by the end of January. The notices would give the travellers 28 days to vacate the land...the travellers say they are determined to fight any council moves to evict them. One, who would give her name only as Kathleen, said: ‘We are going nowhere. When they serve the notices we will ignore them.


‘People are ready to fight for their homes again. It will be like another Dale Farm situation all over again.’ Kathleen, 23, added: ‘They may send in the police and the bailiffs but we will stay here.’

...A total of 43 people were arrested and several injured after Dale Farm protesters fought running battles with riot police in October in the eviction of about 80 families from what was the UK’s largest illegal traveller settlement. A decade-long legal battle was declared a success and Basildon Council announced that the six-acre site, which was built illegally on green belt land, was clear...campaigner Mary Anne McCarthy, who lived on the Dale Farm site for ten years, said: ‘There will be another Dale Farm stand-off, there is no doubt about it. The travellers have nowhere else to go and this is their home. They will fight for their homes and livelihood.

In the UK, the legal process had taken ten years and in Israel, they sweep in overnight even before all legal avenues have been exhausted.

It even went international:

a mediation offer by Jan Jařab, the regional representative of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, was rejected by the Foreign Office

New costs for removal, under 8million pounds.

^

I Think I've Located An Illegal Settlement

On the southern bank of Nahal Shiloh, just north of Khan El-Lubban, opposite Eli:

I am fairly sure those transient Beduin do not have property rights.

But, this being the Middle East and they being Arabs, and traditional grazing rights being what they are (although in Jordan there seems to be problems), no uproar here.  Well, no anti uproar.  Seems, however, the Left does have something to say about the issue.

^

BBC - Be Fair?

Here's the BBC on my home, among others:-

Almost 500,000 Jews live in settlements on occupied territory. The settlements are illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.

Why not write "Over 500,000 Jews live in communities located in disputed territory. It is claimed that these residential location are illegal under international law whereas Israel asserts they are not"?

Is that so difficult?  So biased? 

Or not.

And that's the point.

^

This Is So Cool - Finally, the Real Occupation

Haaretz, ha-ha-Haaretz, reports:

State moves to expand settlement on Palestinian land confiscated by Jordan

Israel is pushing ahead with a plan that would legitimize construction on land near the settlement of Ofra in the West Bank...that it was the Jordanians, not the Israelis, who confiscated the land - before Israel took over the West Bank during the Six-Day War in 1967.

Jordan had confiscated land from the villages of Ein Yabrud and Silwad to build a military camp...The inspection unit says 20 prefab homes have been placed at the site, and the land is being prepared for more construction. Work has also begun on a central public building.

Two months ago, the original Palestinian owners petitioned the High Court of Justice to demolish the buildings and give them back the land....Responding to the recent petition, the state said it has no intention to carry out the Civil Administration's demolition orders, and that it plans to prepare the site for construction.

The affidavit, submitted by an adviser to Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Eitan Broshi, noted that the decision to legalize the construction was made after it was found that the land had been expropriated by the Jordanians.

The move is legally complex: While the land was originally confiscated by the Jordanians, Israel has since reaffirmed the Jordanians' confiscation order and stated that the land would be used for public needs such as infrastructure. This also contradicts the use intended for the land in the new plan.

I think a legal consideration would be did the Arab owners petition the Jordanian authorities contesting the confiscation?

if not, they should have no legal standing before Israel's courts.

But, of course, while I consider the Jordanian rule over Judea and Samaria between 1948-1967, termed "unification of the Kingdon in April 1950 when "West Bank" was first introduced into the political semantic terminology, if the Arabs didn't, that's their problem: "Palestinians" agreeing to be Jordanians while it suited them.

^

What "Illegal" Really Means

The Haaretz line on the supposed "illegality" of Jewish construction in the Jewish national home:

It should be noted, that any construction is deemed illegal in the absence of development plans such as these, a regulation which the state has been more stringent in upholding in recent years.

Did you read that carefully?

"Illegal" in my book is when I have done something completely wrong against a penal code.  But whay happens here, is that actually, I (that is, those who build those "illegal" homes") really haven't done anything wrong.

I filled out forms, registered engineer plans, infrastructure plans, architects' plans, checed ownership and title deeds, etc. etc., and then the clerk (ultimately, in this case, the Minister of Defense or someone who represents him) just doesn't do anything.  They won't append signatures, won't stamp their approval.  It's as if they've gone out for coffee.

In the meantime, knowing that there is no technical infraction, we go ahead and build.  In many cases, one signature, like in the case of the HaYovel neighborhood in Eli, is all that is needed.

"Illegal"?  We?  No, those who due to political considerations seek to thwart Jewish rights.

^

More on the Charge of "Illegality"

A collection from my mentor, Shmuel Katz, from the blog site that David Isaac maintains, researching and composing from Moekie's articles we found and collected.

Here.

^

The BBC Knows

Dear Jerusalmites, residents of the new neighborhoods, do who 'know' what you are?

The BBC knows:-

Israel plans 1,300 East Jerusalem Jewish settler homes

Har Homa, 8 November

...Israel has revealed plans to build nearly 1,300 housing units for Jewish settlers in occupied East Jerusalem. Building settlements is illegal under international law and recent efforts to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have stalled over the issue...

...East Jerusalem is regarded as occupied Palestinian territory by the international community, but Israel says it is part of its territory...Israel has occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, since 1967, settling close to 500,000 Jews in more than 100 settlements.

Want to complain?

Go here.

UPDATE

"We were deeply disappointed by the announcement of advance planning for new housing units in sensitive areas of East Jerusalem. It is counter-productive to our efforts to resume direct negotiations between the parties," said U.S. State Department Spokesman Philip J. Crowley.

^

One More On Judt the Jerk

Alan Gerson is an international lawyer and was counsel to the United States delegation to the United Nations from 1981 to 1985 and is the author of “Israel, the West Bank and International Law.” He responds in a letter-to-the-editor in the New York Times to the claim of illegality:

To the Editor:

Tony Judt (“Fictions on the Ground,” Op-Ed, June 22) substitutes repetition for substantiation in charging no less than six times that all Israeli settlements are a blatant violation of international law. Of course, he is no international lawyer, and his analysis demonstrates that fact.

He cites Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, but this has nothing to do — implicitly or explicitly — with settlements. It is about the avoidance of the threat or use of force in international relations.

Similarly, Article 47 of the 1949 Geneva Convention merely deals with the need to preserve the status quo ante of existing “institutions or government,” and to not annex occupied territory. Israel has not annexed the West Bank in part or in whole, with the exception of East Jerusalem, which for various historical and legal reasons has been treated as a special situation.

Of course, the presumption behind Article 47 was that the ousted power here, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, would be ready to come to the negotiating table and that preservation of its institutions — whether democratic or not — would be a spur to a negotiated resolution.

In fact, in the aftermath of the 1967 war, for more than two decades, the governing pan-Arab policy was one of no recognition, no peace and no negotiations. Probably more than anything else, that climate created the incubus in which settlements could take root.

The legality of the settlement issue is much more muddled than Mr. Judt portends. And for that reason, United States administrations have repeatedly taken the position that the issue is not one of lawfulness, where there is room for different strands of opinion, but rather one of political sense.

Allan Gerson
Washington,

Spiegel Report Example

If you go here, you can see an English-language excerpt from the Speigel Report trumpeted by Yesh Din.

I searched for my home community.

I found it.

112. Name of settlement: Shiloh

Number of residents: 2011

Construction without approved plan:

1. The neighborhood of Shvut Rachel -- northeast of the approved plan. Detailed
plan number 205/2 that was approved for deposit but not yet published allows
the construction of 548 housing units (both in the neighborhood of Shvut
Rachel and in the settlement itself).

In fact most of the plan has already been realized in the neighborhood of Shvut Rachel (93 permanent buildings, 30 caravans and five public buildings) except for saturated building south of the neighborhood. The plan is in the boundary of state land and survey land except for an excess onto private land by nine caravans and two permanent buildings.

2. Northeast of the settlement, adjacent to plan number 205, leveling of 30 lots
for construction and a permanent building, exceeding state land.

3. Ground leveling for an industrial area south of the settlement while trespassing
onto private land.

4. An industrial building south of the settlement, next to the settlement access
road.

A careful reading of this, and I have not yet checked any of the documents available to me so I cannot tell you if the numbers are correct or not, reveals:

a) "approved plan". This term is a simple bureaucratic procedure based on the decision made by the legal section of the relevant government office. Something not "approved" doesn't mean that an illegal act was done but that the final approval had not - as yet - been granted. Doing so does not invalidate the entire procedure.

b) "trespassing onto private land". In many cases in the past, and I have been out here, as a resident, for 28 years and more as an involved activist, when land is said to be "private", that is not always true. Claims are made and then need to be proven in court. The concept of "private land" is a bit nebulous when my neighbors are concerned. Are there deeds, tax records and other forms of proof or is it tradition or custom or land that belonged to someone else and somehow 'borrowed'.

c) "exceeding state land". Was the original map correct? If it is not "state land" it does not necessarily need to be "private land".

I know this may not seem the most solid explanation why Yesh Din's claims are not all they are supposed to be by Dror Etkes and Co. but I hope it provides a bit of background to the subject of land ownership.

Tat for Naught

One Ellen Kravitz commented on a Jeff Jacoby op-ed, and wrote:-

IN HIS Nov. 30 op-ed column "The UN's obsession with demonizing Israel," Jeff Jacoby correctly exposes the double standard applied to Israel at the United Nations. However, when he complains about the lack of moral outrage today, he omits an important fact.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank have greatly increased since 1977 when the Likud Party came to power; the expansion continues today, even in the midst of peace negotiations. Many around the world, including a number of Israelis, believe these settlements are illegal under international law because they involve a population transfer without affording full citizenship to the original occupants. The settlement policy in no way justifies Israel's treatment at the UN, but it weakens the moral authority of Israel's supporters and opens the door to claims of apartheid. Voicing moral outrage was easy prior to 1977; the settlement policy has made it far more complicated.

Well, I quickly upped this comment there:-

Ellen should know that the claim of illegality undermines the moral authority of anyone who claims what she does. Should some Israelis begin terming Arab towns and villages and cities as "settlements" and then suggest that if all Jews have to move out of their homes in Judea and Samaria, why not then all Arabs move out of Israel and into the "Palestinian" state that is to arise? That, of course, would not be moral even if some presume it to be equal to what is being asked of Israel but it does highlight a problem: Judea and Samaria are undoubtedly areas of the original Jewish homeland but politics decreed otherwise. If we depend on politics and the misfortunes of history, maybe the scenarios I sketched out above could come about, illegal, legal, or elsewhile. Would that be moral?

Look What I Found: Settlement Growth on the "West Bank"

On the way back from Tel Aviv yesterday, I clicked this:




No, It's not a Jewish illegal settlement expansion on the "West Bank".

Condi, Tony, et al., you can take it easy.

That's Arab construction, just outside of Jerusalem off of Route 443. And as far as I can tell, empty. It's there just to grab land.

(Previous view from September)