Mr. President: The Israeli settlements are legal

[Mosby]

From US President Barack Obama to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, state leaders at the United Nations General Assembly aren’t missing an opportunity to condemn the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria, or what they call “illegal Israeli settlements.” However, the term “illegal Israeli settlements” is outdated, incorrect and irrelevant.

Since Israel liberated Judea and Samaria (commonly termed the West Bank) half a century ago, the international community hasn’t missed an opportunity to condemn her presence there, but that doesn’t make it illegal. Israel was forced into a war of survival and captured its historical highlands, which were legally ownerless at the time. The land wasn’t taken from another nation that had legal rights to it. In fact, no other nation on earth has more right to Judea than the people of Judah, aka the Jews.

Over half a million Israelis currently live in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem. This is an irreversible fact. No Israeli government could feasibly ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands of men, women and children from their homes, schools and businesses. These are not makeshift forts as the word “settlement” indicates, rather they are established towns and cities with shopping malls, high-rise buildings, factories and a large university.

The main legal argument used against Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria is that it violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that an occupying power may not forcefully transfer a population into occupied territory. This was a provision written in the shadow of World War II and the Holocaust, intended to protect innocent civilians from extermination, slave labor or colonization during time of war. The Six Day War ended five decades ago, and the Jordanians have subsequently waived all rights to the land – which they didn’t have a legal right to occupy in the first place. Israel didn’t forcefully transfer anybody. Approximately one tenth of Israel’s population currently resides in over 200 communities and neighborhoods across Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem, out of personal choice.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Mr-President-The-Israeli-settlements-are-legal-468410

[jonno99]

1. +1 And, cue a variation of the popular song: "Send in the haters, they're here." nt

[shira]

2. Well articulated & correct. Of course, enemies of the Jews would argue otherwise....

...because the goal is to demonize & dehumanize Jews as illegal subhumans, as colonial settlers, racist supremacists & thieves who have no right to live on their ancestral land. Which BTW is repugnant, not to mention a complete denial of Jewish history and indigenous rights. In other words, pure bigotry.

[aranthus]

3. So what?

International law isn't law. It doesn't have the moral backing that law has. So there is a big difference between being "legal" under international law and being rightful. The reverse is true as well. Even if the Israeli settlements were "illegal" under international law, that wouldn't make them wrongful. So shouldn't Israel and her supporters deal with the ultimate question up front? Does Israel have the right to do with the territories what it wants, without including the current occupants in any way? Does it have the right to annex the territory without making the Palestinians citizens of Israel or giving them a say? I don't think so.

In a way what Israel is doing is similar to what the Palestinians want to do with right of return. They are changing the demographics of the territory against the wishes of the people already living there.

[Mosby]

4. The problem with your argument

Is that the Zionists are not responsible for what the British did by giving away 3/4s of the mandate area to the Hashemites. That land was supposed to be split between the Jews up to the Jordan river and Palestinians on the east bank.

So it's hard to say what exactly is fair, depends on how far back you want to go I suppose.

[aranthus]

5. History should inform the present, not control it.

We can't go back and "do it right," or, "the way it was supposed to be."

[Little Tich]

6. The author of the OP hasn't read the relevant part of the Geneva convention about an occupier

Last edited Fri Sep 23, 2016, 07:44 AM - Edit history (1)

transferring its own civilian population into occupied territory:

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

(https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/380-600056)

There's nothing that says that there must be a forcible transfer for the provision to be applicable.

For more info on this subject, there's always the Wikipedia:

International law and Israeli settlements
Source: Wikipedia

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law. Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.

Numerous UN resolutions have stated that the building and existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions in 1979 and 1980. UN Security Council Resolution 446 refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention as the applicable international legal instrument, and calls upon Israel to desist from transferring its own population into the territories or changing their demographic makeup. The reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions has declared the settlements illegal as has the primary judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The position of successive Israeli governments is that all authorized settlements are entirely legal and consistent with international law, despite Israel's armistice agreements all being with High Contracting Parties. In practice, Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure, but has stated that on humanitarian issues it will govern itself de facto by its provisions, without specifying which these are. The majority of legal scholars hold the settlements to violate international law, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position.

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements

[shira]

7. Since Geneva IV doesn't apply to other occupations/settlements globally...

....it doesn't apply to Israel either. It really is that simple.

Morocco in Western Sahara
Turkey in North Cyprus
Russia in Georgia’s Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Ukraine's Crimea
China in Tibet
Indonesia in E.Timor
Vietnam in Cambodia

The fact is Geneva Article 49(6) has never once been brought up at the UN about these settlements. Not ever, in any resolution. In fact, the UN has never called these developments in other nations "settlements". Only WRT Israel.

It's because Geneva 4 doesn't apply to settlements.

Besides, Israel's case is much stronger than any of the above situations (Jews indigenous to area, the OPT has never been sovereign territory).

If you can find where the UN invokes Geneva Article 49(6) and applies that to "settlements" elsewhere in the world, I'm sure you'll let us all know. Until then, you don't have a leg to stand on.

[Little Tich]

8. Wow, that's a pretty big bag of pick'n mix of different situations...

Last edited Fri Sep 23, 2016, 09:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Some of these territories are occupied, some are not and in some places there are examples of population transfer taking place and not so much in others. The problem is that the Israeli transfer of its own civilian population into occupied territory is probably the best example of how the provisions in the Geneva Convention are contravened.

If there was a another example of a country doing more or less the same as Israel does, and it wasn't more or less subjected to similar forms of criticism, I would think it was unfair. I must admit that my knowledge of the situation in most of the countries you mention is less than perfect, so if you could provide a more specific comparison it would help me understand what you mean.

[shira]

9. Nah - they're all occupations, all population transfers, "settlers". Enough denial.

Last edited Fri Sep 23, 2016, 11:26 AM - Edit history (1)

As to being unfair, China/Tibet is a big example. What China has done to Tibet is 100x worse than anything Israel has done. Over 1 million dead Tibetans, cultural genocide, and importing millions of Han Chinese settlers (sinicization).

The UN has never once invoked Geneva 49(6) or called these millions of Han Chinese "settlers".

If Israel's actions were really & truly against International Law & violate G49(6) then we should see the same UN resolutions for other situations around the globe. No need pretending to invoke "International Law" when Israel seems to be the only country violating such a law. That's not law, it's discrimination.

[Little Tich]

12. Too much of a leap of faith, I'm afraid - I still think that you should be able to actually prove

that the conditions are analogous.

Your own assertions aren't enough. I was hoping you actually had some good arguments supporting an analogy, because these examples are difficult subjects and Google won't give any clear answers.

[shira]

14. It's more proof than any of the idiotic anti-Israel narratives...

......your lot has concocted over the past few decades.

And you're right about google, so here's an article about Kontorovich's new research paper:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/09/12/new-research-paper-unsettled-a-global-study-of-settlements-in-occupied-territories/?utm_term=.adb90d47562b

Download it here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2835908

The PDF is 66 pages long. If you doubt the claims, google those specific claims for confirmation.

I mentioned Tibet because it's the most obvious, most publicized example. Kontorovich avoids Tibet because the Chinese occupation preceded their signing of Geneva (also due to questions about Tibet's sovereignty). Of course, there was no Palestinian sovereignty either, but that doesn't stop the bigots & their idiotic arguments.

If you're still looking for hard evidence, I gave you 7 scenarios that Kontorovich writes about. We can start with any of those examples given his 66 page PDF.

Where would you like to start? Or is this where you disappear due to your silly narrative being challenged?

[geek tragedy]

10. Enjoy your apartheid state while you have it.

It'll work about as well as it did for the Afrikaaners.

[oberliner]

19. Every citizen of Israel has the same rights regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity

Palestinian citizens of Israel serve in the legislature, sit on the Supreme Court, and have leadership positions in the military.

It is, in fact, one of the only liberal democracies in the region.

One would think states with legal segregation such as Saudi Arabia, or ones with laws restricting rights to one ethnic group over another such as Jordan, would have fallen by now.

[geek tragedy]

20. Liberal democracies don't practice apartheid

as Israel does in the West Bank.

They're physically committed to the one-state solution at this point, so it's apartheid or/until bust.

[shira]

21. Right, and neither does Israel - even in the W.Bank. Give it up. n/t

[Israeli]

23. Yes it does shira ....

......how many times do I have to post this ???............... You give it up .

This was written in 2007 .....now its much much worse .

Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel

by SHULAMIT ALONI

Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.

The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population’s movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians’ land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.

If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: they are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing “Jewish only” roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night–all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.

On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. “Why?” I asked the soldier. “It’s an order–this is a Jews-only road”, he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. “It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?”

Source : http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/01/08/yes-there-is-apartheid-in-israel/

[shira]

25. "Jewish Only Roads" is a lie, so why keep posting this shit? n/t

Last edited Sun Sep 25, 2016, 10:57 AM - Edit history (1)

[Israeli]

24. 2008 shira .....

......I have posted this more than once ....

Apartheid Highway 443

http://tv.social.org.il/en/apartheid-hw-443

[shira]

26. Hmmm....a road Israelis use that Palestinians cannot is not Apartheid.

Israeli Palestinian Arabs are ethnically & racially the same as Palestinians in the W.Bank. The former can use Israeli roads, the latter cannot due to citizenship.

Not Apartheid.

Any objective person knows that's just a dumb, idiotic accusation.

[oberliner]

28. Agreed

Israel is a unique country in many respects.

For instance, it is, I believe the only liberal democracy in the world whose very existence is deemed not only illegitimate by dozens of countries but also as an affront by hundreds of millions of people around the word.

In fact, most of the people in Israel's general neighborhood view the whole of Israel as occupied territory and many are committed to see its liberation some day (i.e. the eradication of Israel as a country).

That being said, Israel is also unique among liberal democracies, as you point out, for the promulgation of settlements in the West Bank and everything that goes along with the occupation.

I think we should all do everything we can to help bring about a situation where there is no longer such an occupation, where the Palestinian people have their own independent state, and where the peoples and countries of the middle east and around the world are able to accept Israel as a country.

At the Olympics, South Korean gymnasts posed with their North Korean counterparts, despite the horrors of the North Korean regime, yet athletes would not share a bus with Israelis or, in one case, shake hands. This antipathy to Israel by the peoples and countries in the region pre-dates the settlements.

It existed when the West Bank was occupied by Jordan and Gaza was occupied by Egypt.

[sabbat hunter]

11. To me Israel has a few choices

1) unilaterally withdraw from the WB, with the exception of Jerusalem, take all the settlers with them and say "here you go PA, govern your land". Build whatever the want between that territory and Israel, and control who is allowed in to Israel.
2) Annex all of the West Bank, give everyone there full Israeli citizenship.
3) Status quo.
4) Negotiate at any cost with the PA for an agreement.
5) actually negotiate with the PA, and mean it.

Problems with each
1) the right wing, especially Jewish Home, yisrael beiteinu, would be up in arms over this. But if a moderate government can be formed, they probably can be silenced. It would require Zionist Union, Kulanu, Meretz, Yesh Atid to run one united front. Even then might need help from some of the Arab parties to form a coalition and implement this plan.
2) A one state solution, giving all Arabs in the WB Israeli citizenship, will likely mean that Israel becomes a majority Arab state in the near future.
3) Untenable. The situation there is not good and is bad politically for Israel from an international viewpoint
4) not going to happen. PA wants full RoR (which would destroy Israel as we know it)
5) the most likely option. Would require new leadership in Israel (probably from a grand coalition that excludes the religious and far right wing parties, but includes Zionist Union, Likud, Kulanu, Yesh Atid, and possibly, Meretz. It would also require Abbas to be gone, as he is corrupt and does not really desire peace as it would kill his stealing of money for his own use from the PA (just like Arafat before him). An eventual peace plan will require Israel withdrawing from 90% of the WB, with the exception of Jerusalem, and making sure that the WB state of Palestine is a continuous region, with no enclaves of Israeli power. Ideally, settlers livign there would stay, under Palestinian rule, or be compensated monetarily to leave and go back to Israel. RoR for Palestinians would be handled with allowing a token number of Palestinians into israel, (read few thousand), rest compensated monetarily. Jews thrown out of Arab countries would also be compensated. Jerusalem would remain in Israeli hands (with the Temple mount controlled by Islamic authorities). Under no plan was Jerusalem supposed to be a part of Palestine, I see no reason this should change.

[shira]

15. The problem is Israel negotiating with a Palestinian leadership...

....that wants all Jews dead or out of Israel altogether.

It's impossible to compromise with that. An example being half the week Hamas and the PLO will not kill Jews. Come on.

[sabbat hunter]

27. What is your solution

to the situation?
and I did say it would require Abbas to be out on his ass (as well as Bibi)

[shira]

29. There's always something that can be done; not that it will result in peace.

I'm for a settlement based on genuine peace. Even a cold peace.

But so long as peace is impossible, there won't be a solution anytime soon. The only way I see it happening soon is if neighborhood Sunni states (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) put enough pressure on the Palestinians now that their relations are warming towards Israel. Otherwise, peace isn't happening anytime soon. There also can't be peace with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, etc.. running any part of Palestine. Anyone thinking these Jihadi organizations will make peace is delusional.

[sabbat hunter]

30. If they don't negotiate with

Fatah, (but not Abbas obviously, whomever replaces him), who are they supposed to negotiate with? There has to be somebody/group the negotiate with. There are no other choices. There is no military/dictator like with Egypt to negotiate with. There is no king, like with Jordan (or with SA whom I believe Israel is negotiating with/working with secretly)

[shira]

32. Right, it's basically hopeless. n/t

[Israeli]

13. Oded Ravivi ???? !!!!!........

" The author is chief foreign envoy for the YESHA Council and mayor of Efrat. "

He is one of the new settler leaders Mosby.

Of course he thinks the settlements are legal ......

Do you think "the settlements are legal " ......?????????????

[shira]

16. The author could be Uri Avnery. Facts are facts. n/t

[Israeli]

17. Come on ....now you are being extremely silly shira .....

THE BACKGROUND of this affair concerns the very foundation of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Since the Six-day War of 1967, Israel has been occupying, among other territories, the area called by the Arabs, many Israelis and most of the rest of the world "the West Bank" (of the Jordan river) and by the Israeli government and right-wing Israelis "Judea and Samaria", their Biblical appellation.

Almost since the beginning of the occupation, the Israeli right-wing has been making strenuous efforts to "settle the land" – putting up Jewish settlements, towns, villages and small "outposts" all over the place.

To whom do the lands, on which the settlements are built, officially belong?

Much of it was "government land". This goes back to the Ottoman Empire. Communal land reserves, which did not belong to individual fellahin (farmers) but to the entire village, were registered in the name of the Sultan. Under the British "Government of Palestine" it became "government land". When the Israeli army occupied the territory, the Israel government just laid its hands on all these properties. Which means that this land is now being held solely for the benefit of Jewish settlers.

Other areas of land were simply expropriated by the military government for "security reasons" or "public purposes" - and then turned over to the settlers.

Many of these settlements are manifestly illegal, even according to the Israeli law prevailing in these areas. But the law is very rarely applied. The Israeli military government, the army and the police quite openly support the settlements, protect them and connect them to Israeli grids. The courts very rarely intervene.

Yet what about settlements which are being set up on privately-owned Arab lands? Ah, there's the rub. All possible and impossible tricks have been used to take them over. Among them, the use of false documents, false signatures, often of dead owners. But the most common method is the use of Arab middlemen.

FOR THE Palestinian people, this is an existential struggle. The Israeli Right, which now dominates the government, does not hide its vision of a country free of Palestinian Arabs ("Araberrein" in German). The vision of the entire country settled by Jews, with no one else around, has strong attractions for some, especially in religious circles.

The settlers and their allies have created an entire network for "legal" land acquisition. They approach an Arab owner and offer hugely inflated prices for his land. The money comes from Jewish billionaires in the United States or from secret government funds. The Arab owner is sorely tempted. He wants to sell and run away with the money. But he is afraid of his neighbors and of Palestinian fanatics.

Source : http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1452867180

[shira]

18. I don't think you got the point. I know Avnery didn't write that....

But it shouldn't matter who the author is.
What's important is whether the facts or correct or can be proven to be bullshit.

[Israeli]

22. LOL .....

.........of course it matters who the author is .

If you want to believe a far Right settler be my guest ..........I dont .

Q: So what's the solution?

Avnery: The solution is perfectly clear. All parts of the conflict have been amply debated and discussed. Many plans have been put on the table--hundreds. And everybody knows by now exactly the parameters of a peace solution. We at Gush Shalom have published a draft text of a peace agreement, and I am fairly certain that when peace comes about, it will be more or less on these lines.

The solution is this: There will be a state of Palestine in all of the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Green Line, the border that existed before 1967, will come into being again. Jerusalem will be the shared capital--East Jerusalem will be the capital of Palestine, West Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. All settlements must be evacuated. The security must be arranged for both people, and there must be a moral solution and a practical solution.

On these lines, there will be peace. And if you ask me, they could make peace in one week. The trouble is that both people find it very difficult to come to this point. And when I say both people, I don't want to establish a symmetrical situation. There is no symmetry here; there are occupiers, and the occupied. And as the occupier, we have the responsibility to lead this process. This is what I, as an Israeli patriot, tell my own people.

Source : http://www.progressive.org/news/2004/03/832/uri-avnery-interview

[sabbat hunter]

31. Why should any part

of Jerusalem go to Palestine? It never was supposed to be a part of Palestine under any plan. It just happened to be on the wrong side of a cease fire line.