Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forum
When it comes to Israel, why is the world silent?
By Ron Prosor
December 9, 2011
Silence. Just silence from the U.N. Silence from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. And silence from major media outlets throughout the world.
Imagine for just a moment if this were happening to cities in, say, Texas. Imagine that the citizens of El Paso, Laredo and San Antonio have to stay inside their homes. Schools are closed, businesses are shut and people have to suspend their lives. Not because of some natural disaster or a nuclear or chemical accident, because groups in Mexico have purchased and are firing thousands of deadly missiles at Texans across the border. Sometimes a school is hit, sometimes a grocery store, and every so often someone is killed.
Imagine a similar occurrence in Seattle, Detroit or Cleveland — with rockets raining in from Canada.
Your reaction to this imagined scenario is, no doubt, incredulity. The very thought of terrorists in another country attacking Americans at random is ludicrous. You know the president would immediately order the U.S. military to respond, root out the terrorists and make sure that the Canadian or Mexican governments clearly understood that this behavior would not be tolerated. The United Nations Security Council would immediately condemn this infringement on a country's sovereignty and the safety of its citizens. The U.N. charter makes a country's self-defense as legal as it is logical. This is universally understood.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-perspec-1209-israel-20111209,0,2865182.story
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fearless
(18,458 posts)suggests. Both sides believe that they are right and are willing to fight to be right. That is why these things happen. Cooler heads on both sides need to prevail before conclusion of this conflict can be found.
Violet_Crumble
(36,385 posts)Silence? Is this moron illiterate? Someone needs to get the many, many articles in the US media read to him. And note there's not one single word in there about Israel's ongoing and brutal occupation of the Palestinian people. It's like it doesn't even exist in his fantasy world...
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I highlight that only because of the terminology you used in your opening sentence.
I hardly think the Israeli ambassador to the UN is an illiterate moron.
I would point out that his comment is with respect to (in this order): the UN, President Abbas, and and "major media outlets throughout the world".
In this respect, many articles in the US media would not need to be read to him as they have nothing to do with his argument.
His argument is that there is silence with respect to this particular recent series of rocket attacks in the UN (which is true), by President Abbas (which, as of now, is also true), and by "major media outlets throughout the world". This is true as well in that there are major media outlets throughout the world who have not really given much coverage to these recent incidents. That others, mostly in the US and Israel, have, does not render his argument false.
And it hardly calls for his being called an moron or illiterate. His observation is true - one wonders who is living in the fantasy world with respect to these observations.
Especially in light of your comments about "the brutal occupation of the Palestinian people" which neither the UN, nor President Abbas, nor major media outlets throughout the world are silent on.
Owlet
(1,248 posts)..as used by the character played by Frances McDormand in the film "Burn After Reading". (One of my all time favs, btw).
Violet_Crumble
(36,385 posts)I just got a mental image of Prosor with drool running down his chin as he typed that article 
Violet_Crumble
(36,385 posts)Note, that I asked if he was an illiterate moron. I didn't call him one.
If his comment was aimed at only specific things, then he was dishonest or illiterate to claim it was the world that was silent. And there most definately isn't a silence from the media outside Israel and the US. I dunno, maybe he's upset coz it's not page one news everywhere and people dare to be critical of what Israel does. And because the UN as recently as July said that rocket attacks on Israel were completely unacceptable, and in the past have stated that those attacks are terrorism, should the UN start issuing a daily or weekly condemnation to keep twits like Prosor happy?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Are you seriously trying to say that you didn't mean drivel and just type it wrong? I find that hard to believe.
Anyway, Prosor's point is what it is. Who gets more attention where? Is the UN biased against Israel? Does the US not care about Palestinians? Everyone has their point to make I guess.
Violet_Crumble
(36,385 posts)And, yes. I'm seriously saying I meant to say dribble. We've been through this exact same thing back at DU2 last time I said dribble...
I'd suggest that if Prosor's point was to whine about how little attention he thinks Israel gets, then he should have given his article a less misleading title than 'When it comes to Israel the world is silent'. Because saying that the world is silent is an outright lie...
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Though I am trying to be a lot more polite about it now.
Just out of curiosity - have you ever been wrong about anything you've posted on here - and, if so, have you admitted to your mistake?
I don't recall seeing that happen.
Violet_Crumble
(36,385 posts)What's with the weird and totally random question? Why would you ask me a question like that?
btw, I can recall getting things wrong and admitting to it. I'm not sure why this came up or where it's going but I'd hazard a safe guess that most people in this group would have done the same thing...
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I didn't literally want to buy (as in purchase) anything.
It just means that I don't accept the validity of the claim.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Violet_Crumble
(36,385 posts)Putting aside the sheer triviality of whether I say 'dribble' instead of a word you'd prefer, I'm a bit disturbed that I appear to be being called dishonest, and it does come across as a bit nasty. In the interests of making DU3 work for this group, I'd prefer to put this back in the past where it belongs and engage in constructive discussion. What do you reckon? Good idea?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Bullshit in every way.
What he is really whining about is our failure to share his obsessions.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)
LeftishBrit
(41,451 posts)As regards real silence from the world, try many of the African countries, for example. Severe poverty and inequality in virtually all; severe conflict in many; what amounts to genocide in Darfur. And remarkably little coverage.
'Imagine that the citizens of El Paso, Laredo and San Antonio have to stay inside their homes. Schools are closed, businesses are shut and people have to suspend their lives. Not because of some natural disaster or a nuclear or chemical accident, because groups in Mexico have purchased and are firing thousands of deadly missiles at Texans across the border. Sometimes a school is hit, sometimes a grocery store, and every so often someone is killed.'
It wasn't rockets but guns and sometimes bombs - but the parts about school closures, having to suspend one's life, significant risk of being killed, etc. could have described life in Northern Ireland, on and off, for decades, until 1997. And every now and then, it spilled over onto the mainland.
Israel isn't the most evil country in the world, or anything like it, as is sometimes portrayed by its enemies. It also isn't a uniquely unfortunate country, or the only one subject to local or border terrorism, as is sometimes portrayed by its supporters.
shira
(30,109 posts)If Israel were to just lob missiles over the border right now for no reason other than to indiscriminately attack, oh anywhere those missiles may fall in Gaza City, the mainstream media, UN, and humanitarian NGOs would have fits for weeks on end, and tens of thousands would rally in the streets. Saturation coverage and outrage. And rightly so....
Now to compare, recall all the ridiculous saturation news coverage, NGO poutrage, and UN declarations WRT some IDF troops killing terrorists and Hamas cheerleaders posing as humanitarians on a boat that carried no humanitarian supplies. That drew far more worldwide poutrage than all missile attacks combined falling over the border from Gaza.
No, there isn't complete silence - but comparatively it's not even close.
You can bet there will be far more poutrage once Israel inevitably responds to those rocket/missile attacks. All THAT poutrage could be spent before Israel has to attack back. Maybe that would stop or severely limit Gaza attacks against Israelis.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)n/t
shira
(30,109 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Portraying Hamas and the PLO as victims of Israeli aggression trumps portraying Hamas, the PLO, and radical Islamists as the real barrier to peace.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)they are incredibly powerful and all of the media organisations are afraid to stand up to them. I myself will probably need to go into hiding just for referring to this simple fact.
Thats why you read so much about in the American media about the Palestinians being under an illegal sixty-year occupation and so little about the home-made Palestinian Qassam rockets.
Dick Dastardly
(937 posts)60 year illegal occupation.
Hate to break it to you but you dont hear about an illegal 60 year occupation because the media doesnt usually continuously reprint something that is false. The same goes for hearing about a 40 year illegal occupation. Neither are illegal so why would you hear that they are except in some marginal extremest media.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)"The same goes for hearing about a 40 year illegal occupation. Neither are illegal so why would you hear that they are except in some marginal extremest media."
Certainly the settlements are illegal, and only marginal fringe extremists (like yourself?) believe otherwise.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)What people think they should say and what they actually believe are not always one and the same.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)it was an honest mistake. Typing fast and not doing my sums right. Up to you whether you want to believe that or not.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)My apologies for suggesting otherwise.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)There have certainly been plenty of non-fringe legal experts who disagree with such a statement. I think the determination that they are all illegal is based more on politics than the law as it was written.
Here are some arguments:
Among the legal scholars who dispute this view is Stephen M. Schwebel.[50] Schwebel, a judge of International Court of Justice and Professor of International Law at Johns Hopkins University who makes three distinctions specific to the Israeli situation to claim that the territories were seized in self-defense and that 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.”[62]
Julius Stone said that the notion that establishing settlements violates Article 49(6) was "irony bordering on the absurd": "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)."[63]
Israel maintains that a temporary use of land and buildings for various purposes is permissible under a plea of military necessity and that the settlements fulfilled security needs.[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.[65] 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.[66][67][68] In 1998 the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs produced "The International Criminal Court Background Paper".[69] 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Legality_arguments
Settlements are Not Illegal
The settlements are not located in "occupied territory." The last binding international legal instrument which divided the territory in the region of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza was the League of Nations Mandate, which explicitly recognized the right of Jewish settlement in all territory allocated to the Jewish national home in the context of the British Mandate. These rights under the British Mandate were preserved by the successor organization to the League of Nations, the United Nations, under Article 49 of the UN Charter.
The West Bank and Gaza are disputed, not occupied, with both Israel and the Palestinians exercising legitimate historical claims. There was no Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza Strip prior to 1967. Jews have a deep historic and emotional attachment to the land and, as their legal claims are at least equal to those of Palestinians, it is natural for Jews to build homes in communities in these areas, just as Palestinians build in theirs.
The territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was captured by Israel in a defensive war, which is a legal means to acquire territory under international law. In fact, Israel's seizing the land in 1967 was the only legal acquisition of the territory this century: the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank from 1947 to 1967, by contrast, had been the result of an offensive war in 1948 and was never recognized by the international community, including the Arab states, with the exception of Great Britain and Pakistan.
The Settlements are Consistent with Resolution 242
Many observers incorrectly assume that UN Security Council Resolution 242 requires a full Israeli withdrawal from the land Israel captured in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Some may have a hidden agenda aimed at depriving Israel of any legal rights whatsoever in the disputed areas. In either case, they use this misinterpretation to conclude that settlement activity is unlawful because it perpetuates an "illegal" Israeli occupation.
The assumption and the conclusion are deeply flawed. Resolution 242 calls for only an undefined withdrawal from a portion of the land -- and only to the extent required by "secure and recognized boundaries." Israel has already withdrawn from the majority of the land it had captured, and nearly all of the areas in which it retains communities are essential to "secure and recognized boundaries." The specific location of Israeli settlements was determined by Israel's Ministry of Defense over the last 30 years, not by the settlers themselves, and they were set up in order to strengthen Israel's presence in those few areas from which it cannot, militarily, afford to withdraw.
Settlements are Consistent with the Geneva Conventions
In three recent emergency special sessions of the UN General Assembly, Israeli settlement was cited as a violation of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. These international humanitarian instruments, forged in the ashes of the Holocaust to prevent future genocidal brutality and oppression, were never invoked in 50 years until the case of condominium construction in Jerusalem during 1998. Was such construction -- any settlement construction -- a violation of the Geneva Convention?
No. The relevant clause, Article 49, prohibits the "occupying power" from transferring population into the "occupied territory." Aside from the fact that the territory is not occupied, but disputed, Morris Abrams, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, had pointed out that the clause refers to the forcible transfer of large populations. By contrast, the settlements involve the voluntary movement of civilians. The U.S. Department of State, accordingly, does not view Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as applicable to settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. For that reason, the official U.S. position has been over the years that settlements are legal, even though successive administrations have criticized them on political grounds. (Only the Carter administration for a short time held that settlements were illegal; this position was overturned by the Reagan administration.)
http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-16.htm
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Occupied territory, by its very nature, is disputed. You can essentially guarantee that if land is occupied then there at least two parties fighting over it. If simply referring to a territory as "disputed" makes the West Bank settlements legal, then equally Hitler's settlement of the Sudentenland was legal, given that that territory was equally "disputed". The comparison is particularly apt given that the Sudenten was historically part of greater Germany, and had a substantial population of ethnic Germans.
Moreover, referring to it as "disputed" is a cop out, and blatantly dishonest. You have the choice of either accepting that the land is occupied Palestinian territory and the inhabitants thereof Palestinian citizens, or claiming that the territory is Israel, and that therefore people in the West Bank are Israeli citizens.
Professor Stone has come up on this forum in this context before (as I said, he's practically the only international jurist that held this position). While his work has been acclaimed it is generally acknowledged that his views on Israel fell into the area of polemic rather than reasoned analysis. A good paper on this was recently published by a chap from Macquarie University, which I would encourage you to read:-
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNDAULawRw/2008/4.pdf
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)issue of Israel. I'm very inclined to agree, for I see in Stone's reasoning a certain type of misuse of linguistic philosophy that was in vogue a few decades ago, but is now defunct.
I really enjoyed reading it. Thanks!
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)the paper was presented at a conference honouring his achievements - accordingly the paper characterises his arguments as "formalistic" whereas I would have described them as "ambitious".
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Really? I don't think so. I'd say it's pretty rare that occupied territory is claimed by the occupier as its own land. Maybe not in the west bank, but everywhere else certainly. The US currently occupies Iraq and Afghanistan without disputing ownership. After WWII the US also occupied Japan, Germany and Italy without trying to annex them. Even surprising examples like Vietnam occupying Cambodia did not lead to disputed territory. Post WWI the Mandate system led to England and France occupying (and eventually delineating), all the land in the Middle East without claiming any of it for themselves.
If simply referring to a territory as "disputed" makes the West Bank settlements legal, then equally Hitler's settlement of the Sudentenland was legal, given that that territory was equally "disputed".
Wow, a straw man AND a Hitler reference in one sentence. I'm impressed. Of course I did give you quite a few legitimate legal arguments supporting the legality of (at least some), settlements (and subsequently the "disputed" label). But you chose to create an absurd reason of your own instead, which proved itself much easier to dismantle I'm sure.
Moreover, referring to it as "disputed" is a cop out, and blatantly dishonest. You have the choice of either accepting that the land is occupied Palestinian territory and the inhabitants thereof Palestinian citizens, or claiming that the territory is Israel, and that therefore people in the West Bank are Israeli citizens.
Why am I suddenly limited to this binary choice of yours? I happen to reject both of them. As far as I know there is still not yet a state of Palestine, hence there are no Palestinian citizens. Far from being a technicality this is a pretty key point. Nor do I assert that the entirety of the West Bank automatically belongs to Israel. This makes as little sense as saying that it all belongs to Palestine.
Quickly before I answer, some key history. When Israel first occupied in 67 the only state to claim that land as its own was Jordan, a claim rejected by every state except England weirdly. The Palestinian inhabitants were all Jordanian citizens at the time. And the PLO in its charter actually renounced any Palestinian claim to the area, asserting their official position as being that it belonged to Jordan. Obviously their charter has been changed, they aren't Jordanian citizens any longer and none of that information could be considered a rationale for denying that the Palestinians' have a historical homeland in the west bank.
But it IS important when we think about what Israel's options were in 67 and whether starting settlements back then can be thought of as the equivalent of starting some new ones now. There exists plenty of legal reasoning for Jewish settlement. After all, it is as much the Jews' historical homeland as it is the Palestinians. And the Jews actually still had a legal Mandate to settle via the Balfour Agreement.
Now this in no way implies that they had a legal right to settle ANYWHERE, or that the entire West Bank was theirs to do with what they pleased. But Balfour, the lack of any obvious rival for the land (except Jordan who had a far weaker legal claim), and the recently passed UN Security Council Resolution 242 (which reinforced the idea that Israel was not expected to withdraw from the entirety of the land it occupied in the 67 war, made settlement a viable option (barring obvious criminal acts like taking over existing Palestinian villages.)
It seems to me that the disputed land currently belongs to no one from a legal perspective. Issues such as where the border that divides the two nations will eventually be must be entirely subject to negotiations between the two parties. To say otherwise; that the border is to be based on the green line from before the six day war would mean not just using an arbitrary line, but also violating the terms of every peace agreement drawn up at the time of independence, all of which explicitly stated that the green line must not constitute a border of any kind.
A good paper on this was recently published by a chap from Macquarie University, which I would encourage you to read:-
Thanks, I skimmed it. Will read later when I get a chance.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Please. You're being disingenuous. The US did not transfer its civilian population into either Iraq or Afghanistan and never had any intention of doing so - therefore it is not a very instructive example in terms of Article 46.
In virtually every instance of one country attempting to transfer its own population into occupied territory, the territory is "disputed".
Eg:-
Northern Cyprus - Greece claims its Cyprus, Turkey recognises the government of Northern Cyrpus
Nagorno-Karabakh - Azerbaijian claims its Azeri territory. Armenia claims its "disputed". The territory itself asserts itself as being the independent republic of Nagorno Karabakh.
Other aspects of Professor Stone's arguments are equally unpersuasive. He remarks that international law was set up to protect people such as the Jewish victims of the Nazi holocaust, and considers it "absurd" that international law should then criminalise the subsequent actions of the said victims.
Its an outrageous argument, and tantamount to saying the holocaust can and should be used as a moral alibi for the sins of Israel against the Palestinians, or that Jews, as victims, can justifiably take actions that other groups cannot.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)You merely mentioned occupied territory, not the far more rare instances when one country allows its citizens to inhabit the area under dispute. In that case, sure I agree with you. The fact that the area is disputed goes without saying. But it is obviously not the act of labeling the land "disputed" that grants anyone the right to immigrate there, but the validity to their claim. In this case we are talking about an area that Jews have lived in for thousands of years. How can you honestly argue that their claim is the equivalent of some other obvious land-grab like Morocco in Western Sahara or whatever.
I think you misunderstand Prof. Stone's argument. The entire point lies within the reality that Jews have a long historical tie to the land. The article in question was written to protect indigenous people from those who lack any rightful claim but would usurp their territory. The land in question is undeniably the homeland of both Palestinians and Jews. Invoking this article implies that the Jews are foreign invaders impinging on the Palestinian's sole sovereignty when in reality the Jews have a historical and legal claim to the land. And a legal right to settle within it as set out by the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)If that's the entire point, then I'd say that its a pretty shoddy one. In most cases, occupied territory is "disputed" territory. Likewise, in many cases, the people occupying the territory have some historical connection to it.
I cited above the example of Nagorno-Karabakh. This is land that the international community views as being Azeri territory, but which is currently occupied by an Armenian puppet state. Karabakh was historically part of greater Armenia, was considered an Armenian province as early as 2000 years ago (since about 189 BC to be precise), and the majority of its population have always been ethnic Armenians.
Notwithstanding this historical connection, the international community regards the situation as one of occupation. The US State Department has stated quite bluntly that it regards Armenia as having occupied the land, meaning that any attempt to have ethnic Armenians into the enclave would breach Article 46 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Here's the funny part: Israel also regards Armenia as being an occupying power in Karabakh, and it gets even better - they think that the Azeri refugees who fled during the fighting should have the right of return (haha!), although how their diplomats can say that with a straight face is beyond me.
The point of Article 46 is essentially to prohibit civilian settlers from being used as instruments of warcraft or statecraft. Turkey for instance allowed Turks to move to Northern Cyprus to cement its claim to the land. Armenia would like to settle Karabakh with more Armenians. And Israel has been quite upfront about its use of settlers as pawns in the struggle over land - the so-called quest to "create facts on the ground" as they call it.
Moreover, the words of the text are quite simple. No country shall permit its civilians to move to an area under military occupation. Notwithstanding your attempts to construct exceptions on the grounds of historical connections or "disputed" status, the fact is that those purported exceptions exist nowhere in the text of the convention itself.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)I don't know enough about the example you gave to comment on it. But regarding the West Bank, there are several concerns that differentiate it. Key among them is the right granted to the Jews to settle that land as provided by the League of Nations. The UN's charter makes it clear that no new UN developments have the power to dissolve existing agreements such as this one. It bears noting that Jews actually OWN some of the land in question.
Now as far as the Geneva Conventions go, you are right, the words of the text are quite simple. But they are also different than the ones you wrote, in key ways. Art. 49 (not 46) reads "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Deport and Transfer are significantly different in meaning than words like "allow" or "permit." Israel has not deported its civilians into the west bank but merely allowed it.
Israel is not violating any of those specific terms.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)The Palestinian Mandate is not an existing agreement. It was terminated in 1948. Furthermore, mandatory Palestine included Transjordan as well as the West Bank and Israel. Are you suggesting that the UN did not have the authority to recognise the State of Transjordan (now Jordan)? And are you suggesting that Jews still have the inherent right to colonise Jordan in the same way that you seem to be arguing in respect of the West Bank? Because I have to say, very few people outside of Kahane Chai would agree with you.
"Israel has not deported its civilians into the west bank but merely allowed it."
Israel has taken numerous steps to directly facilitate the movement of Jews (not just Israeli citizens, but Jews in particular) to areas in the West Bank that it has de facto annexed, by building roads, encouraging and approving developments and building infrastructure to support those settlements, as well as making sure that the housing is attractively priced. There is nothing in the language of the text requiring that civilians be transferred forcibly. Simply taking the necessary steps to make sure that people move from point A to point B is sufficient.
"It bears noting that Jews actually OWN some of the land in question."
The amount of land in the West Bank that was legitimately purchased by Jewish settlers is miniscule. By comparison, far more ethnic Germans legitimately owned land in the Sudetenland. If private ownership of land justifies annexation and colonisation, then quite frankly Hitler was on far firmer legal footing when he invaded Czechoslovakia than Israel is in the case of the West Bank.
Have a good hard think about it matey. When you're finished, you'll probably realise why there are far more climate scientists willing to deny global warming than there are international jurists willing to say that the Israeli settlements are legal.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)And of course the UN could recognize Jordan. The Jews had no right to settle there due to the Transjordan memorandum anyway. But had Palestine declared independence then this right would no longer apply too. But right now the land is still unclaimed.
Simply taking the necessary steps to make sure that people move from point A to point B is sufficient.
Really? Because that is not at all what it says. It says deport or transfer. Not "make attractive." You said it yourself... the language is simple.
If private ownership of land justifies annexation and colonisation, then quite frankly Hitler was on far firmer legal footing when he invaded Czechoslovakia than Israel is in the case of the West Bank.
Again, I don't know much about that situation but wasn't Czechoslovakia its own independent state? Because that's kinda super duper important. Sovereignty pretty much trumps all. Palestine is not and has never been a state so far. This is actually important from a legal perspective.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Really? Perhaps you can tell me which parts are void and which aren't? Presumably the provisions that dictate that Britain is the mandatory power in Palestine are no longer applicable?
"The Jews had no right to settle there due to the Transjordan memorandum anyway."
That was a private agreement between the British and the Hashemites. Are you suggesting that this took precedence over the text of the Palestine Mandate? The UN of course later approved the partition of Palestine in 1947, recognising the West Bank as Arab territory. Are you suggesting that they did not have the authority to do that as well?
"Again, I don't know much about that situation but wasn't Czechoslovakia its own independent state?"
It was indeed. As is Syria, whose land Israel is occupying, and settling, in the Golan Heights. In the case of the West Bank, the land had been illegally annexed by Jordan when Israel occupied it. Hasbaradoes point to the illegality of that annexation as justification for the occupation and annexation of East Jerusalem, which is of course problematic because:-
1) If you accept that Jordan's annexation of the West Bank is illegal, its likely to be the case that Israel's occupation and annexation of parts of the West Bank is very likely to be illegal as well
2) If Palestinians are not entitled to the protections of Article 46 of the Fourth Geneva Convention because they are not members of a sovereign state, its likely to be the case that they are not bound by the provisions of the Geneva conventions either, meaning that they were quite entitled to hold Gilad Shalit indefinitely and as they saw fit.
3) Palestine has the same claim to being regarded as a State that Israel has. It has declared itself a state and the vast majority of countries in the world have recognised it, Europe and the US aside. As Israel itself argued during the UNESCO furore, the UN does not have the ability to confer statehood itself, only other countries can do that.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)from looking at the debates and eventual terms that dictated the Mandate's cancellation in Israel and Jordan, the declaration of a sovereign state supercedes any Mandate affiliated dictates. Regarding Palestine, Britain isn't the Mandate power any longer because they declared themselves done with it, but there was no legal event that occurred that would invalidate the right afforded to the Jews to close settle the land of Palestine west of the Jordan.
That said I don't know a lot about this stuff and this particular area is not as particularly cut and dry as some other situations. (Like the following questions for example!)
And it is west of the Jordan because the Transjordan memorandum wasn't private but an official addendum to the Mandate, validated by the League of Nations, challenged by the Yishuv and everything.
The UN of course later approved the partition of Palestine in 1947, recognising the West Bank as Arab territory. Are you suggesting that they did not have the authority to do that as well?
Well, the short, simple answer is no, they did not have the right to do that. The longer, more complex, but more accurate answer is yes, doing that was fine... Bearing in mind that it was just a suggestion, and had no legal power on its own whatsoever. That's not because of anything special about the mandate, that is true of every UNGA resolution and most security council resolutions as well, (with the exception of explicitly made Chapter 7 UNSC resolutions.) General Assembly resolutions are meaningless from a legal standpoint unless (in the case of treaty proposals like Partition), both parties agree to the terms and validate them. (A good example of something like this would be the Rome statute even though it isn't a general assembly resolution, it draws its authority from the fact that member states signed and validated it.) So while the Yishuv accepted the resolution, when the Arabs rejected them the terms became meaningless from any legal standpoint. Had the Arabs accepted it though, THEN it would have been a binding document just like any agreement between the two powers.
As is Syria, whose land Israel is occupying, and settling, in the Golan Heights.
Good point. Yeah, I really don't see how the Golan Heights could possibly be legally considered disputed land or in any way belongs to Israel. And since Syria is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions the settlements must be totally illegal as well. Especially the ski resorts.
If you accept that Jordan's annexation of the West Bank is illegal, its likely to be the case that Israel's occupation and annexation of parts of the West Bank is very likely to be illegal as well
Except that Israel isn't annexing any of the West Bank. And it had a right to settle the land under the terms of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate. Jordan never did.
If Palestinians are not entitled to the protections of Article 46 of the Fourth Geneva Convention because they are not members of a sovereign state, its likely to be the case that they are not bound by the provisions of the Geneva conventions either, meaning that they were quite entitled to hold Gilad Shalit indefinitely and as they saw fit.
Is this a joke? When has Palestine EVER conducted themselves within the confines of the Geneva Convention?!?! Ha! As if! Gilad Shalit was never held according to the rules of the convention from the get go. NOTHING the Palestinians do is acceptable according to the conventions. That said, Israel has a moral duty to abide by the rules even if there is no legal one. (If the Palestinians conducted themselves according to the convention's rules then Israel would be legally obligated to do likewise. But still, Israel has an ethical obligation to meet the convention's standards whenever it is feasible to do so.)
None of that means that Hamas thusly had every right to hold Shalit for as long as they wanted. It meant that they had NO right under the law to hold him at all. Since he wasn't being held according to POW rules he was essentially just kidnapped. The people who did so were terrorists holding him to extort a ransom for his return.
It has declared itself a state and the vast majority of countries in the world have recognised it, Europe and the US aside.
Europe and the US are pretty important WRT people accepting your state as legit. Right now Palestine doesn't have set borders, control over most of the land it claims, or even a functioning government over its entire area. It is constantly on the brink of devolving into civil war with itself. I wouldn't QUITE put it on the same level as Israel JUST yet.
As Israel itself argued during the UNESCO furore, the UN does not have the ability to confer statehood itself, only other countries can do that.
Right but the UN can decide who gets to join the UN as a member. And membership for Palestine would certainly go a long way towards presenting it as a sovereign worthy of recognition. It's really got its work cut out for it before that happens though. Key among its tasks is the negotiation of a peace agreement with Israel. Because without Israel's backing at this point, Palestine will never gain recognition as its own official state.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)So the long-defunct League of Nations essentially consisting of fifteen self-appointed European powers had the power to approve Jewish settlement of Palestine in perpetuity, but the United Nations, consisting of virtually all the countries on Earth - including, importantly, the countries that were previously members of the League, as well as Israel - could not allocate the West Bank to the Arabs?
Sure, the General Assembly has no power to independently enforce its decisions - the same way that the League of Nations had no way of doing that either. The Mandate was essentially a rubber stamp for British rule, and the British felt free to ignore or observe it as they pleased.
"Europe and the US are pretty important WRT people accepting your state as legit"
The US was never a member of the League of Nations, either (which was, ultimately, a major reason for the League ultimately not being very "legit" )
"Except that Israel isn't annexing any of the West Bank."
Israel has formally annexed East Jerusalem, and has de facto annexed a significant portion of the West Bank.
"Right now Palestine doesn't have set borders, control over most of the land it claims, or even a functioning government over its entire area."
Neither does Somalia, or Yemen, the Congo, or Afghanistan (at least in relation to the last two). An occupation tends to have an impact on the ability of a state to govern itself.
"It meant that they had NO right under the law to hold him at all"
No right under which law? Presumably the laws of Israel do not apply in Gaza - unless you consider that the Israelis are still occupying it. If you consider that the Palestinians are not parties according to international law, then presumably they cannot be bound by it. Accordingly, if one accepts your assertion that international law does not recognise Palestine or the Palestinians, the only law that could apply in Gaza would be domestic Gazan law, which I doubt would have been much help to Gilad Shalit.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)This is what the law is. The authority of the treaties and Mandates made during this process have been upheld, even after the League itself was long gone. South Africa tried to claim that there was no longer a Mandate because of the dissolution of the League. But International Court of Justice in 1950 did not agree and held that the substantive obligations of the mandate over that territory continued in force despite the dissolution of the League of Nations.
http://www.think-israel.org/shifftan.belligerentoccupation.html
Jewish settlement was a right that was never withdrawn. The last legal sovereign power imposed these rights along with the support of the international community.
Israeli settlement throughout the West Bank is explicitly protected by international agreements dating from the World War I era, subsequently reaffirmed after World War II, and never revoked since. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, calling for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” was endorsed by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, drafted at the San Remo Conference in 1920, and adopted unanimously two years later. The mandate recognized “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and “the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” Jews were guaranteed the right of “close settlement” throughout “Palestine,” geographically defined by the mandate as comprising land both east and west of the Jordan River (which ultimately became Jordan, the West Bank, and Israel). This was not framed as a gift to the Jewish people; rather, based on recognition of historical rights reaching back into antiquity, it was their entitlement.
Jewish settlement throughout Palestine was limited by the mandate in only one respect: Great Britain, the Mandatory Trustee, acting in conjunction with the League of Nations Council, retained the discretion to “postpone” or “withhold” the right of Jews to settle east — but not west — of the Jordan River. Consistent with that solitary exception, and to placate the ambitions of the Hashemite Sheikh Abdullah for his own territory to rule, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill removed the land east of the river from the borders of Palestine.
Churchill anticipated that the newly demarcated territory, comprising three-quarters of Mandatory Palestine, would become a future Arab state. With the establishment of Transjordan in 1922, the British prohibited Jewish settlement there. But the status of Jewish settlement west of the Jordan River remained unchanged. Under the terms of the mandate, the internationally guaranteed legal right of Jews to settle anywhere in this truncated quarter of Palestine and build their national home there remained in force.
Never further modified, abridged, or terminated, the Mandate for Palestine outlived the League of Nations. In the Charter of the United Nations, drafted in 1945, Article 80 explicitly protected the rights of “any peoples” and “the terms of existing international instruments to which members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.” Drafted at the founding conference of the United Nations by Jewish legal representatives — including liberal American Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Peter Bergson from the right-wing Irgun, and Ben-Zion Netanyahu (father of the future prime minister) — Article 80 became known as “the Palestine clause.”
It preserved the rights of the Jewish people to “close settlement” throughout the remaining portion of their Palestinian homeland west of the Jordan River, precisely as the mandate had affirmed. But those settlement rights were flagrantly violated when Jordan invaded Israel in 1948. The military aggression of the Hashemite kingdom effectively obliterated U.N. Resolution 181, adopted the preceding year, which had called for the partition of (western) Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. Jordan’s claim to the West Bank, recognized only by Great Britain and Pakistan, had no international legal standing.
Contrary to Theodor Meron’s citation of Article 49, the Geneva Convention did not restrict Jewish settlement in the West Bank, acquired by Israel during the Six-Day War. As Eugene V. Rostow, formerly dean of Yale Law School and undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969, noted, the government of Israel neither “deported” Palestinians nor “transferred” Israelis during or after 1967. (Indeed, beginning with the return of Jews to Hebron the following year, settlers invariably acted on their own volition without government authorization.) Furthermore, Rostow noted, the Geneva Convention applied only to acts by one signatory “carried out on the territory of another.” The West Bank, however, did not belong to any signatory power, for Jordan had no sovereign rights or legal claims there. Its legal status was defined as “an unallocated part of the British Mandate.”
With Jordan’s defeat in 1967, a “vacuum in sovereignty” existed on the West Bank. Under international law, the Israeli military administration became the custodian of territories until their return to the original
sovereign — according to the League of Nations mandate, reinforced by Article 80 of the U.N. Charter — the Jewish people for their “national home in Palestine.” Israeli settlement was not prohibited; indeed, under the terms of the mandate, it was explicitly protected. Jews retained the same legal right to settle in the West Bank that they enjoyed in Tel Aviv, Haifa, or the Galilee.
After the Six-Day War, a new UN resolution — which Rostow was instrumental in drafting — specifically applied to the territory acquired by Israel. According to Security Council Resolution 242 (superseding Resolution 181 from 1947), Israel was permitted to administer the land until “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East” was achieved. Even then, Israel would be required to withdraw its armed forces only “from territories” — not from “the territories” or “all the territories” — that it administered.
The absence of “the,” the famous missing definite article, was neither an accident nor an afterthought; it resulted from what Rostow described as more than five months of “vehement public diplomacy” to clarify the meaning of Resolution 242. Israel would not be required to withdraw from all the territory that it had acquired during the Six-Day War; indeed, precisely such proposals were defeated in both the Security Council and the General Assembly. No prohibition on Jewish settlement, wherever it had been guaranteed by the Mandate for Palestine forty-five years earlier, was adopted.
“The Jewish right of settlement in the area,” Rostow concluded, “is equivalent in every way to the right of the existing [Palestinian] population to live there.” Furthermore, as Stephen Schwebel, a judge on the International Court of Justice between 1981 and 2000, explicitly noted, territory acquired in a war of self-defense (waged by Israel in 1967) must be distinguished from territory acquired through “aggressive conquest” (waged by Germany during World War II). Consequently, the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine, allocating all the land west of the Jordan River to the Jewish people for their national home, remained in force until sovereignty was finally determined by a peace treaty between the contending parties — now Israel and the Palestinians. Until then, the disputed West Bank, claimed by two peoples, remained open to Jewish settlement.
In sum, the right of the Jewish people to “close settlement” throughout Mandatory Palestine, except for the land siphoned off as Transjordan in 1922, has never been abrogated. Nor has the legal right of Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria, indisputably part of western “Palestine,” ever been relinquished. The persistent effort to undermine the legitimacy of Israeli settlements, according to international law expert Julius Stone, has been nothing less than a “subversion . . . of basic international law principles,” in which the government of Israel, at best ambivalent about the settlements, has often been a willing accomplice. In the continuing absence of a “just and lasting peace,” with an accompanying determination of the scope of Israeli withdrawal from “territories,” Israel is under no legal obligation to limit settlement.
http://zoadc.org/2011/12/06/are-settlements-illegal/
Israel has formally annexed East Jerusalem, and has de facto annexed a significant portion of the West Bank.
Yeah, that's clearly not legal. De facto doesn't count, we're talking law. But settlements are only like 2 or 3% anyway.
Neither does Somalia, or Yemen, the Congo, or Afghanistan (at least in relation to the last two). An occupation tends to have an impact on the ability of a state to govern itself.
What can I tell you? It's not fair, I know.
Accordingly, if one accepts your assertion that international law does not recognise Palestine or the Palestinians
Huh? I never asserted anything remotely like that.
---
Ultimately, the Jewish settlement of the WB isn't violating any laws but removing them probably would. Ethnic cleansing is still against international law, right?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)The Palestinian Mandate terminated in 1948 when the British ceased to be mandatory power.
"Jewish settlement was a right that was never withdrawn."
There was never a "right" to Jewish settlement. The Mandate simply stated that Britain would be permitted to faciliatate the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine - without prejudice to the rights of the existing Palestinian inhabitants.
Whether a Jew was permitted to move to Palestine or not was entirely a matter for the British. Sometimes they turned the tap on and sometimes they turned it off. Nowhere in the text of the agreement was there any suggestion of a plenary Jewish right to settle Palestine. And even if there were, the mandate strictly stipulated that the rights of existing Palestinians were to be upheld, a condition that both Israel and the settlements flagrantly fail.
"Ultimately, the Jewish settlement of the WB isn't violating any laws but removing them probably would. Ethnic cleansing is still against international law, right?"
So Ariel Sharon was guilty of ethnic cleansing when he evacuated the Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip? Presumably the soldiers who participated in that action were guilty as well, after all, post-Nuremburg you can't simply follow orders when it comes to crimes against humanity.
Maybe you should write to the Hague and ask them to issue an indictment.
"Huh? I never asserted anything remotely like that."
Yes, you did. You asserted that the provisions of the Geneva Conventions only apply where both the aggressor and the victim belong to countries that are signatories, and that accordingly, the Geneva Conventions do not apply to Palestinians.
Regarding your long cut and paste from a Kahanist website, thanks very much. However, it doesnt answer the question I put to you above:- if fifteen self-appointed European powers (essentially a French-British endeavour to "carve up the world to suit themselves" in the words of the US State Department) can award Palestine to the Jews in perpetuity - why would the UN be unable to allocate the West Bank to the Arabs?
Essentially, you need to come up with some decent argument for why the resolutions of the League of Nations were effectual, but UN resolutions are ineffectual.
vminfla
(1,367 posts)And that is really what we are talking about. Israelis having a country at all is unacceptable to many.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)His article in the Chicago Tribune smacks of contempt, and as usual he blames the palestinians for all of Israels woes. He conveniently forgets that the world is not silent at all when it comes to the I/P conflict, but that the condemnation is proportionate to the damage caused, and frankly, the people in Gaza are worse off than those in southern Israel. This seems to his usual approach. I didn't know much about him until recently, but after watching his speech at the UN he caught my attention.
It's sad that those who represent Israel to the world are so determined to destroy its image by being so arrogant and out of touch with reality. Is Ron Prosor trying to build bridges or raze them? Or is he just trying to destroy his country's image and infuriate the palestinians? How can anything positive come out of his comments?
Those who currently represent Israel are a despicable bunch: Ron Prosor, Mark Regev, Benjamin Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman, Moshe Ya'alon, Eli Yishai etc. This very negative image is only partially offset by people like Shimon Peres, Tzipi Livni, and Ehud Barak. Of those, only Shimon Peres is an actual statesman, but they all shine bright when compared to the rest of the bunch. I find myself dreaming back to the good old days when Ehud Olmert was PM, at least he was only an incompetent liar, he could never do any real harm. The current rush to destroy Israel as a democracy is unprecedented and irrepairable.
It's very difficult to find anything positive to say about Israel these days. I really wish these despicable people would just disappear somehow. Israel is currently its own greatest enemy, and I think it's going to get worse. Nobody will profit from this development, not the Israelis, not the Palestinians, not the rest of the Middle East.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)So much for cute turns of phrase.