Legitimate and Obama

As reported, the United States will judge the new government based on its actions, the US State Department said on Wednesday.

"We have also seen reports from Israel describing it as the most right-wing coalition in Israel's history and we also know that many of its ministers have said they oppose a two-state solution," State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters. "This raises legitimate questions about the direction it may be headed in ... and what kind of policies it may adopt."

That use of legitimate, again.


As in "settlements":-

we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. 

and as in a "Palestinian state":-

America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. 

So now a cloud of illegitimacy is over Israel's government?

^ 

Dear Mr. Ambassador Shapiro

New Green-Lined blog post up.

^

How Deep Is Obama's Concern?

As ChallahHuAkbar points out, (and I also did in April) President Barack Obama has a semantic problem thst devolves into an matter of moral inequivalency.  And even worse.

He is deeply concerned (and see there for the references) about Jewish residency across the Green Line.  And he is deeply concerned about the Syrian regime killing its own citizens.  Do both of those situations carry the equal moral weight?

Now, I discussed previously the issue of "illegitimate" of Obama, and I think this linguistic framing for the two concerns illustartes either a paucity of speech or a viewpoint which needs be corrected.

Murdering defenceless human beings does not equal Jews exercising their legal right to live in the Jewish national homeland.

^

Illegitimate "Illegitimacy"

Taken Question at the June 16, 2011 Daily Press Briefing

Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC

Q: What is the current U. S. policy on Israeli settlements?

A: The position of the United States on Israeli settlements has not changed and will not change. Like every American administration for decades, we do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. President Obama's recent speech offered our views on the way forward.

A. It has changed, see Ronald Reagan (and here)

B. It can change.

C. There is nothing "illegitimate" or even "illegal" about a Jew residing in the area of the Jewish National Home.

The decisions of the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference, the 1920 San Remo Conference, the articles of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate 1922-23, especially 6, and the Anglo-American Convention of 1924-1925 grant full international legality and recognition for Jews to reside, develop and engage in "close settlement" in all the territory, at the least, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, regardless of any political arrangements in that area.


More to come.


1.  Among the legal scholars who dispute this view is Stephen M. Schwebel.51 Schwebel, a judge of International Court of Justice and Professor of International Law at Johns Hopkins University makes three distinctions specific to the Israeli situation that show the territories were seized in self-defense and thus Israel has more title to them than the previous holders. Professor Julius Stone also writes that ”Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.”63


Julius Stone referred to the absurdity of the claim that establishing settlements violate Article 49(6): "We would have to say that the effect of Article 49(6) is to impose an obligation on the State of Israel to ensure (by force if necessary) that these areas, despite their millennial association with Jewish life, shall be forever judenrein. Irony would thus be pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49(6), designed to prevent repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan territories judenrein, has now come to mean that . . . the West Bank . . . must be made judenrein and must be so maintained, if necessary by the use of force by the government of Israel against its own inhabitants. Common sense as well as correct historical and functional context exclude so tyrannical a reading of Article 49(6)."64

...Israel argues that its settlement policy is consistent with international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, while recognizing that some settlements have been constructed illegally on private land.66 The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the power of the Civil Administration and the Military Commander in the occupied territories is limited by the entrenched customary rules of public international law as codified in the Hague Regulations and Geneva Convention IV.676869 In 1998 the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs produced "The International Criminal Court Background Paper".70 It concludes

International law has long recognised that there are crimes of such severity they should be considered "international crimes." Such crimes have been established in treaties such as the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions.... The following are Israel's primary issues of concern [ie with the rules of the ICC]: The inclusion of settlement activity as a "war crime" is a cynical attempt to abuse the Court for political ends. The implication that the transfer of civilian population to occupied territories can be classified as a crime equal in gravity to attacks on civilian population centres or mass murder is preposterous and has no basis in international law.

_______________________________________

2. From Eli Hertz:

Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) states the following facts:

"The facts of the June 1967 'Six Day War' demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR's [The state formed by the union of the republics of Egypt and Syria in 1958] use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF.

"It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated.
"The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest."

Judge Sir Elihu Lauterpacht wrote in 1968, one year after the 1967 Six-Day War:

"On 5th June, 1967, Jordan deliberately overthrew the Armistice Agreement by attacking the Israeli-held part of Jerusalem. There was no question of this Jordanian action being a reaction to any Israeli attack. It took place notwithstanding explicit Israeli assurances, conveyed to King Hussein through the U.N. Commander, that if Jordan did not attack Israel, Israel would not attack Jordan.

"Although the charge of aggression is freely made against Israel in relation to the Six-Days War the fact remains that the two attempts made in the General Assembly in June-July 1967 to secure the condemnation of Israel as an aggressor failed. A clear and striking majority of the members of the U.N. voted against the proposition that Israel was an aggressor."


Israel Has the Better Title to the Territory of What Was Palestine, Including the Whole of Jerusalem

International law makes it clear: All of Israel's wars with its Arab neighbors were in self-defence.

Professor, Judge Schwebel, wrote in What Weight to Conquest:

"(a) a state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense;
"(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense;
"(c) Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.

"... as between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt."


"No legal Right Shall Spring from a Wrong"

Professor Schwebel explains that the principle of "acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible" must be read together with other principles:

"... namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State."
Simply stated: Arab illegal aggression against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel, cannot and should not be rewarded.
Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on the Law of Nations, stated:
"Territorial Rights Under International Law.... By their [Arab countries] armed attacks against the State of Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, and by various acts of belligerency throughout this period, these Arab states flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members to refrain from threat or use of force against Israel's territorial integrity and political independence. These acts were in flagrant violation inter alia of Article 2(4) and paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the same article."
Thus, under international law Israel acted lawfully by exercising its right to self-defence when it redeemed and legally reoccupied Judea and Samaria, known also as the West Bank.


Various opinions.
______________________________________

Some of my previous posts:

Here.

Here.

Here.

______________________________________

On Scobie:

Geneva convention IV is described in La Croix rouge internationale, by Henri Coursier [Paris: PUF, Que Sais-Je 1959], pp 42-43:


"The 4th Convention is new in the law of Geneva. It "completes" the dispositions of the Hague law on the protection of civilians in time of war. . . . It [Geneva IV] principally forbids:
a) Harm to the lives and bodily integrity of human beings, notably torture. . . cruel treatments. . .
b) hostage taking. . .
c) deportations;
d) harm to the dignity of persons, notably humiliating and degarding treatments and discriminatory treatment based on . . . race, color, nationality, religion. . . .sex. . .
e) [sentences and executions not approved beforehand by a regular court {here I summarize}]"

Therefore, of the five classes of action forbidden by Geneva IV, one is deportations [same word in French]. There is no hint here that persons are forbidden to move across a border of an occupied country in order to live on the other side of that border. This was the ICRC's own interpretation of Geneva IV, art 49, as of 1959. The later interpretations of the ICRC, of Scobbie, and of Hansell were purely meant to strike at Israel. The word "transfer" in Geneva IV, art 49, does not apply to non-compulsory, voluntary migration or movement.


^

Don't You Feel Like Condemning Obama?

When I read this, my frustration with a politican who has no deep understanding of the issue (read this piece by Asaf Romirowsky) rises:

White House Condemns New Israeli Settlements Announced on Eve of Israeli President’s Visit

"The United States is deeply concerned by continuing Israeli actions with respect to settlement construction," said White House National Security Staff spokesman Tommy Vietor...

...Mr. Vietor notes, the Obama administration is "concerned" about the recent announcement by the Jerusalem District Planning and Construction Committee of approval of 942 housing units on the Southern Slopes of Gilo, in addition to the Israeli government's approval over the weekend of hundreds of apartments in West Bank settlements Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Adumim, Ariel, and Kiryat Sefer, as reported by Ha'aretz.

"Not only are continued Israeli settlements illegitimate, Israel’s actions run counter to efforts to resume direct negotiations," Vietor said.

By the way, don't mix this "settlement" issue with the "Settlement Claims Act" which provides funding for settlements reached in four separate water rights suits brought by Native American tribes.

I know, we Jews consider ourselves to be the true native population of this land but seems Obama can't, or won't, grasp that.  "Not only illegitimate"?  Who is he to determine legitimacy?  What are his standards for legitimacy?  His condemnation?

Syria gets condemned.  Iran gets condemned.

Israel?

That position deserves a condemnation.

Moshe Dann has a concise pieceon the theme.

^

Is Netanyahu Becoming Illegitimate?

Ted Belman at Israpundit notes:

PM Netanyahu issued the following statement as payment or part payment for the exercise of the US veto.

“Israel deeply appreciates the decision by President [Barack] Obama to veto the Security Council resolution today. Israel remains committed to pursuing comprehensive peace with all our neighbors, including the Palestinians. We seek a solution that will reconcile the Palestinians’ legitimate aspiration for statehood with Israel’s need for security and recognition.”

No longer is he claiming defensible borders, a united Jerusalem or the settlement blocks. Not only is he not asserting our legal rights, he is also not asserting our historical rights. The fact that he has maintained a defacto freeze and that the Cabinet Committee voted unanimously to not extend Israeli law to the communities in Judea and Samaria, says volumes.

If you think that's a misquote, here's the source Ted doesn't provide.

Menachem Begin, in signing the The Framework for Peace in the Middle East

agreement of the Camp David Accords, opened the way for the use of that term.  In A c., it reads:

The solution from the negotiations must also recognize the legitimate right of the Palestinian peoples and their just requirements

I recall that he once responded to criticism by saying: 'for sure they have legitimate rights but creating a state is not one of them'.  He pointed out that the plural, "peoples", indicate the Arabs as individuals, as persons, but not as a people in the national sense.

He must assuredly was opposed to statehood.

In the book I edited, you can find these words of Begin written in August 1980:

...The Egyptian delegate made a speech at the United Nations in which he said, inter alia:


...iii) "The Palestinian people should exercise, without any external interference, the inalienable and fundamental right to self-determination, including the right to establish an independent state on the West Bank and Gaza.

Thus, the Egyptian delegate to the United Nations.

However, not one word about self-determination (which, of course, means a state), or about an independent (Palestinian) state appears in any one of the pages, paragraphs, sections, sub-sections etc. of the Camp David agreement. Dr. Ghali, speaking of behalf of Egypt, committed almost incomprehensible deviations from, and total contradictions, to, the Camp David accord which you and I signed and which our friend President Carter signed as witness, and which all of us are obligated to carry out in good faith in accordance with the old golden rule: Pacta sunt servanda. It is not Israel, Mr. President, which commits a breach of our peace treaty of the other, not yet fulfilled, part of the Camp David agreement; spokesmen of Egypt, of various levels, do...


...Jerusalem is and will be one, under Israel's sovereignty, its indivisible capital in which Jews and Arabs will dwell together in peace and in human dignity. Whosoever declares that the sovereign acts of our democratic Parliament are null and void makes a declaration which is null and void.  The same applies to our settlements in Judea, Samaria, the Gaza District and the Golan Heights. They are legal and legitimate and they are an integral part of our national security. None of them will ever be removed.

It would seem that Prime Minister Netanyahu needs to read the book, "Peace in the Making".

^

No 'Genocide' For Armenia But We're Still "Illegitimate"

My residency in Shiloh is, a la Obama, "illegitimate" but he's afraid of Turkey:

Obama fails to call Armenian massacre a genocide

As a candidate, Barack Obama repeatedly promised to refer to the almost century-old massacre of Armenians in Turkey as a genocide. But since becoming president, Obama has twice passed up opportunities to do so.

In a statement Saturday, Obama called the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians during World War I "one of the worst atrocities" of the 20th century and "a devastating chapter" in history.

The statement, issued as Obama and first lady Michelle Obama spent a weekend getaway here in western North Carolina, marked the 95th anniversary of the start of the slaughter of Armenians by Ottoman Turks. The president called it "a devastating chapter in the history of the Armenian people."

Activists and officials from across the spectrum were quick to express disappointment.

Armenian National Committee of America Chairman Ken Hachikian voiced "sharp disappointment with the president's failure to properly condemn and commemorate the Armenian genocide."

Of course, with Obama now on Turkey's side, a classic pincer movement is in place.

This President is pro-Israel? You recall his use of illegitimate.

Yeah, sure, just like J Street.

Dear President Obama, Secretary Clinton and Other Washington Officials

On the assumption that someone in Washington would think that my opinions and thoughts are important to them regarding President Obama’s speech before the UN yesterday, and if they would want to know my reactions and would be willing for me to convey them to Washington, I actually have just really one point:


I take umbrage at the characterization of President Obama of my residential community as "illegitimate". More than illegal, that term used conveys to me a sense of moral repugnancy which I find hard to accept.

Jews lived in Judea and Samaria right up until the end of the Mandate, in Hebron, Shchem (Nablus), Gaza, Jenin, Jerusalem's Jewish, as well as Muslim and Christian, Quarter and other places throughout the historical Land of Israel. The Arabs, since 1920 in an organized fashion, conducted a campaign of ethnic cleansing to remove the Jews with horrific violence from locations that had lived in for centuries as well as from newly built communities in areas promised to the Jews as their reconstituted national home by the League of Nations, where they could exercise their right to "close settlement on the land" as guaranteed by the League of Nations Mandate.

The Jews through their official representatives accepted the principle of "territorial compromise" in 1923 when Transjordan was separated from the Mandate and in 1937 when the Peel Commission partition plan was proffered as well as the November 29, 1947 UN Resolution on Partition. The Arabs consistently refused any political arrangement and surely refused to compromise on land.

For Mr. Obama to term the situation of Jews living in their homeland, as distinct from any eventual political resolving of the conflict, as "illegitimate" is wrong, is mean-spirited and simply invites further Arab attempts to kill us, to dislodge us from our homes and to destroy a sacred legal trust that the United States Congress assumed in 1922-24 (please see below*).

I was quite disappointed.

I hope my thoughts are passed on to those who count.


------

* I am referring to this:

The Lodge-Fish joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine - anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:

"Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected." [italics in the original] (June 30, 1922).

President Warren G. Harding signed the Lodge-Fish joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine (September 21, 1922). Writing to the Zionist Organization of America, Harding stated:

"A long-time interest, both sentimental and practical, in the Zionist movement causes me to wish that I might meet the members of the organization and express the esteem which I feel in behalf of the great movement" (June 25, 1922).

President Herbert Hoover stated:

"On the occasion of your celebration of the 15th Anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, which received the unanimous approval of both Houses of Congress by the adoption of the Lodge-Fish Resolution in 1922, I wish to express the hope that the ideal of the establishment of the National Jewish Home in Palestine, as embodied in that Declaration, will continue to prosper for the good of all the people inhabiting the Holy Land" (October 29, 1932).

President Calvin Coolidge ratified the Convention between the United States and Great Britain - a relationship governed by international law.

The U.S. (not a member of the League of Nations) Government maintained that her participation in WWI and her contribution to the defeat of Germany and the defeat of her Allies, entitled the United States to be consulted as to the terms of the "Mandate for Palestine."

The outcome of this request was a Convention [Treaty] between the United States of America and Great Britain with respect to the rights of the two governments and their nationals in Palestine. The Convention which contains the entire text of the "Mandate for Palestine" including the preamble word-for-word was concluded and signed by their respective plenipotentiaries in London on December 3, 1924; Ratification advised by the Senate, February 20, 1925; Ratified by President Calvin Coolidge, March 2, 1925; Ratified by Great Britain, March 18, 1925; Ratifications exchanged at London, December 3, 1925; Proclaimed, December 5, 1925.

The United States of America upon ratifying the said Convention formally recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.


Source

So, Now I'm Illegitimate?! Obama Joins Ahmadinejad's Lexicon

Reported:

President Barack Obama called Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegitimate a day after he praised Israel for showing restraint in their construction, a comment that had left Palestinians angry.

“We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel. And we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” Obama said in a speech today before the United Nations General Assembly.

I asked once before if illegitimate is worse than illegal and I still am not sure.

After all:

Saeb Erakat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said Obama’s address to the UN was “encouraging.”

“We very much appreciate President Obama’s statements on settlements being illegal and his calling for an end of the occupation,” Erakat said in a telephone interview.

And guess who thinks like Obama - or is that Obama thinking like him?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called Israel a "counterfeit and illegitimate regime that cannot survive", in a live broadcast on state television.

"The Zionist regime is counterfeit and illegitimate and cannot survive," he said in a speech to a crowd in the town of Islamshahr in southwestern Tehran.

See here.