Will we spend decades regretting the day when the chance for sovereignty was at hand – and we said no? - by R. Uri Pilichowski

Meanwhile Palestinians laughed at the settlers, with one PA official saying, “The settlers’ opposition to the plan is doing our work for us.”

R. Uri Pilichowski..
TOI Blogs..
16 August '20..

As a settler in Judea and Samaria, I’m supposed to tow the line that any plan that mentions a Palestinian State is to be rejected. A Palestinian State was called for in President Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan and settlers were put in a quandary. The plan called for Israel extending sovereignty to 30% of Judea and Samaria yet the plan also called for a Palestinian state.

A few miles from my house, well within smelling distance, construction has begun on a waste-to-energy incinerator. These incinerators are notorious for their bad smells, environmental destruction, and air pollution. Israel’s new Environmental Protection Minister, Gila Gamliel, has halted construction on three of these plants, but has allowed the one near our town to continue. The difference between the three that she stopped and the one near our town is the green line. The three that were stopped are within Israel’s green line, and ours is over it, in Judea and Samaria (The West Bank). Since Israeli sovereignty hasn’t been extended to our area, the air polluting incinerator is going forward. It will severely affect our quality of life. This is just one of many examples of how Israelis who reside in Judea and Samaria, settlers, live different lives than Israelis within the green line.

For fifty two years, the sovereignty movement, led by Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar, advocated for extending Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria. Like many settlers, with images of uprooted settlements like Yamit, Gush Katif and Homesh engraved in our hearts and minds, I thought extending Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria was a dream. I was satisfied with settlements being allowed to grow.

When President Trump announced his plan, and included in it the promise of American support for extending Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria, I was shocked. Like many skeptics, I read the plan looking for the catch. When it called for a Palestinian state I was initially disappointed but when I read the conditions for American support for the plan, I quickly came to two realizations. First, there was no way the Palestinians could or would meet these requirements, and second, any reasonable reading of the plan should recognize the dream come true of sovereignty and the impossibility of a Palestinian state coming to fruition.

Settler leaders like Efrat Mayor Oded Revivi recognized the benefits of the plan immediately, writing, “It is now our responsibility to embrace the Trump program – and apply Israeli law according to its framework throughout Judea and Samaria.”

Unfortunately other settler leaders objected and publicly criticized the plan. They lobbied Prime Minister Netanyahu to reject the plan, even at the cost of sovereignty. Objections ranged from the plan not calling for sovereignty on all of Judea and Samaria to a comprehensive map not having been released, unfounded worries about certain settlements being left alone in danger, and chief among them, the plan’s call for a Palestinian state.

(Continue to Full Post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

There is no alternative but for Israel to take on the ICC head-on - by Eldad Beck

Executive Director of UN Watch Hillel Neuer talks to Israel Hayom about the challenges facing Israel in the international arena, where facts and common sense are ignored in favor of pro-Palestinian politics.

Hillel Neuer

Eldad Beck..
Israel Hayom..
27 December '19..
Link: https://www.israelhayom.com/2019/12/27/they-say-every-jewish-settler-is-a-war-criminal/

It's doubtful there is anyone who can better describe the hypocrisy of international institutions when it comes to Israel better than Hillel Neuer. The 49-year-old Jewish legal scholar, born in Canada, has been on the frontline against the UN for more than a decade as executive director of the nonprofit watchdog group UN Watch in Geneva. He established a coalition of civil organizations that are working to promote human rights in the darkest dictatorships in the world, whose governments hold key positions in the UN.

A week ago, the hypocrisy of the international system reached a new height with the announcement that Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Fatou Bensouda had decided there were sufficient grounds to open an investigation against Israel for alleged "war crimes."

Neuer says that there is no alternative but for Israel to take on the ICC head-on. He thinks that ICC judges cannot adopt a position that contradicts that of the UN, which has recognized the "state of Palestine," and will therefore decide on an official investigation against Israel that centers on the accusation of war crimes and is expected to address Israeli settlements over the Green Line – which is why Israel declined to join the ICC in the first place.

"Over a course of a few years, the prosecutor was conducting a preliminary investigation, in which the court started to probe accusations that Israel was committing war crimes," Neuer said. "Now the main question is whether the judges will decide that the ICC has the authority to launch a full-scale investigation. Israel's position is that the Palestinian Authority is not a state, and therefore cannot be a plaintiff in the court or give it judicial prerogative. According to Israel, the PA does not meet the criteria of international law to be considered a state and therefore has no control over territory. So there is a basic debate here about the kind of judicial authority the court has," he says.

There have already been two attempts to try Israel, or rather senior Israeli officials, in The Hague. In 2012, the court rejected a suit against Israel for alleged war crimes supposedly committed during Operation Cast Lead, on the basis that "Palestine" was not a state and therefore it had no authority to discuss petitions on the issue. Since then, Israel's enemies have been working to create a situation that would allow Israel to be attacked in The Hague: at the end of 2012, the UN General Assembly recognized "Palestine" as an observer nation. Given that, despite an outcry from Israel, the PA was able to join the ICC in April 2015, and then rushed to file a suit against Israel.

A few weeks ago, the ICC rejected a petition from the Comoro Islands to discuss alleged Israeli war crimes committed during the raid on the Mavi Marmara vessel in May 2010. Turkey, which has committed plenty of war crimes itself, is not a member of the ICC and couldn't sue Israel itself, but the regime of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan took care that the flotilla of which the Mavi Marmara was part sailed under the flag of another Muslim state, which was a member of the ICC and could therefore sue Israel. But the attempt failed.

Positions that became law

Neuer explains that this week's decision by the ICC presents a more complicated challenge for Israel.

"On one hand, we have the military conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, especially the recent clashes in the Gaza Strip and the accusations about war crimes being committed there. In this matter, Israel can say that it has a trusted military justice system that can and is authorized to handle these accusations itself, as other democracies do. The court can only take action as a last resort in instances where there is no credible justice system that can handle accusations of war crimes. It's clear that Israel is a democracy that is willing to put its highest-ranking officials on trials when necessary, and there are very few countries in the world that do that. So Israel can easily claim that the ICC has no authority to handle these issues," he says.

When it comes to the settlements, the picture is different.

"It was decided when the founding charter of the ICC was written, under pressure from Arab and Muslim states, that the transfer of a population to occupied areas would be considered a war crime," Neuer says.

"For Israel, building settlements is not, of course, a war crime. If a Jew builds a house in the Old City of Jerusalem, that is a Jew who is returning to the homeland of his forefathers in accordance with the principles of the Balfour Declaration."

"On the other hand, the UN now sees any Jew living beyond the Green Line, even in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, as committing a war crime. There is no differentiation between Gush Etzion, Psagot, or Hebron. According to the UN, the settlements are a war crime. Israel and its courts do not see them as a war crime. Therefore, it will be difficult for Israel to argue that its legal system can investigate this matter. Here, the ICC can say, 'If you don't intend to investigate, we will.'"

In effect, the ICC judges are being asked to make a political ruling about the status of Judea and Samaria, and east Jerusalem.

"They will say they are dealing with a legal issue, but of course, if we look at the wider picture, what is happening is that since 1967 the international community has found different ways of criminalizing Israel. It didn't happen in a single day. Gradually, a [legal] infrastructure arose that decided that Jews living in their ancestral homeland are war criminals according to law. This process occurred through UN resolutions and declarations of policy from the European Union, like the recent decision about labeling settlement goods.

"These positions turned into tools that are presented as international law, particularly UN Security Council Resolution 2334 of December 2016, which declared that the settlements were illegal. [Then-US President] Obama not only did not prevent it from passing, he encouraged it to be adopted. Its goal was to say that any Jew living over the Green Line is an occupier, even in east Jerusalem. So according to the UN and the ICC, Israel is in violation of international law."

Legal Blindness, the International Criminal Court and Israel - by Daniel Pomerantz

Applying a unique law to Jews that is not applied to any other people or religion, is both illegal and racist.

Daniel Pomerantz..
Honest Reporting..
23 December '19..

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is supposed to prosecute perpetrators of the worst types of crimes, like genocide, mass deportation, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

At the request of the Palestinian Authority, the ICC’s prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, announced last week that she is prepared to open a formal inquiry into whether Israel has committed war crimes: by building residential communities, which are often called “settlements.” She’s also investigating alleged IDF crimes during the 2014 Gaza war and last year’s riots along the Israel-Gaza border. She is currently waiting for a final confirmation from the International Criminal Court’s judges that she has jurisdiction to investigate. But this week’s news focused primarily on the legality of settlements.

Much of the world calls the area in question the “West Bank,” a name applied by Jordan during its 19-year occupation from 1948 until 1967, and still used by much of the international community today. Previously the area was called, “Judea and Samaria,” after its ancient Jewish inhabitants. For now, I will refer to the area simply as the “disputed territories,” as they are the subject of a very real and ongoing, dispute.

This is not a question of whether Jewish settlements in the disputed territories are right or wrong, which is a topic of debate even among Israelis. Nor is it a question of whether Jews or Palestinians have historic, legal or emotional connections to this land. The question is whether building Jewish communities in the disputed territories is an illegal war crime.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

The NY Times, International Law and the Legitimacy of Jewish Settlements - by Jerold Auerbach

If ancient history is on the side of Jewish settlements, international law ever since World War I reinforces their legitimacy.

Jerold Auerbach..
Algemeiner..
13 December '19..

“Most of my ethnic group,” New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently wrote (evading his identity as a Jew), “understands that Trump is bad for the Jews.” Why? According to the paper’s Jerusalem bureau chief David Halbfinger, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s announcement that the United States does not consider Israeli settlements to be a violation of international law was an unwarranted “political gift” from the Trump administration to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The truth of Pompeo’s statement was, to Halbfinger, irrelevant.

Such judgements — whether by publishers, editors, columnists or Jerusalem bureau chiefs — have long reflected the conventional Times wisdom that Jewish statehood is bad for Jews, especially assimilated American Jews, lest they be accused of divided loyalty. The problem with their reflexively negative response to the reality of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria — the biblical homeland of the Jewish people — is that Jewish history and international law undermine their claim.

The Hebron tombs of the patriarchs and matriarchs, the most ancient Jewish holy site, are located in biblical Judea. King David reigned from Hebron before relocating his throne to Jerusalem. Samaria was the capital of the northern Kingdom of Israel in the 9th and 8th centuries BCE. More than a millennium before the emergence of Islam, Jewish history was embedded in Judea and Samaria. Despite Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s absurd claim that Palestinians are descended from ancient Canaanites, “Palestinians” had yet to make their appearance as a distinctive people, nor would they until well into the 20th century.

If ancient history is on the side of Jewish settlements, international law ever since World War I reinforces their legitimacy.

(Continue to Full Column)

Jerold S. Auerbach is the author of Print to Fit: The New York Times, Zionism and Israel 1896-2016, published by Academic Studies Press.

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Occupation? There are no Jewish settlers on the West Bank - by Jason D. Hill

If there are occupiers in Judea and Samaria, then we may ostensibly point to them as the war settlers who are the Jordanian-Palestinians. They are the real occupiers and improper settlers of the land.

Jason D. Hill..
JNS.org..
27 November '19..

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently announced that America would no longer consider civilian settlements in the occupied territories of the West Bank as a violation of international law. Many Israelis have warmly embraced this move as a great moral victory for the Jewish state. And to be sure, Pompeo’s declaration reversed a 40-decade-old policy that regarded the settlements as a violation of international law.

The only proper response to Pompeo’s announcement is that it’s a long time coming. And, along with the U.S. announcement, moral citizens of the world must begin a radical reversal of certain anti-Israeli and anti-Jewry references to the so-called “settlers” of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and what has been mistakenly referred to as “Occupied Territory.”

To begin with, the Israeli Jews are not settlers in Judea and Samaria. From here on, they should be referred to as “heroic pioneers” on re-founded land in Holy Israel.

(Continue to Full Column)

Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. His areas of specialization include ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics. He is the author of several books, including “We Have Overcome: An Immigrant’s Letter to the American People.”

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

The attempted war of extermination against Israelis is more than a land dispute up for negotiation - by Melanie Phillips

The only way to end what is essentially an Arab war of extermination against Israel is to call out the Palestinians on their fundamental lies and to treat them not as statesmen-in-waiting, but as international pariahs.

Melanie Phillips..
JNS.org..
21 November '19..

The statement by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that Israel’s settlements “are not inconsistent with international law” has been predictably greeted with adulation by Israel’s defenders and denunciation by its enemies.

Both sides, however, are once again missing the elephant in the room—as the Trump administration itself is also doing.

In its own terms, the statement certainly should be warmly welcomed. It is a remarkable stand for the truth against the unanimous endorsement by the Western world of the big lie about Israel that has done so much to demonize and delegitimize it: the claim that its occupation of Palestinian territories and Israeli settlements there are illegal.

Every part of that claim—that Israel is in “occupation,” that the land it is “occupying” is “Palestinian territory,” and that Israel is acting illegally—is false.

Israel isn’t occupying the disputed territories because, under international law, only land that belongs to a sovereign state can ever be “occupied,” and the territory in question has never belonged to any sovereign country.

It has never been “Palestinian” territory because it has never belonged to the Palestinians—for the very good reason that there never was a Palestinian nation to which it could have belonged. Palestine was merely the name contemptuously given by the Romans to Judea when they conquered it and tried to erase its Jewish identity.

(Continue to Full Column)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

US Secretary of State Pompeo’s statement on Israeli settlements is truly a diplomatic turning point - by Caroline Glick

President Trump's extraordinary gesture of support for Israel and the rights of the Jewish people was evident in the historic statement. The US has rightly concluded that falsely calling settlements illegal is not helpful for peace.

Caroline Glick..
Israel Hayom..
18 November '19..
Link: https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/pompeos-statement-on-israeli-settlements-is-a-diplomatic-turning-point/

Monday will long be remembered as a turning point in Middle East history. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s statement Monday that Israeli settlements are not illegal per se is the most significant shift in US Middle East policy in the past generation. Jerusalem’s status as Israel’s capital has been a matter of US law since 1996.

There was little interest in Washington in recent years in pressuring Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights. But the issue of the legality of Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), has been the defining issue of much of the international discourse on Israel for a generation.

In the vast majority of cases, the discourse has revolved around the widely held allegation – with no basis in actual law – that Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal.

This allegation has served as the justification for a continuous barrage of condemnations of Israel in the international arena and for anti-Israel legal verdicts in international courts including the International Court of Justice at the Hague in 2004 and the European Court of Justice last week.

The unsupported allegation that Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal was also the basis for UN Security Council Resolution 2334 from 2016 and is a basis of the International Criminal Court’s ongoing probes of Israelis.

Pompeo made two revolutionary assertions in his statement. First, he said that “after carefully studying all sides of the legal debate,” like the Reagan administration before it, the Trump administration has concluded, “The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.”

Second, Pompeo noted, the near ubiquitousness of the false assertion that settlements are illegal has not advanced the prospects for peace. To the contrary, it has harmed the chances of getting to peace.

In his words, “calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law has not advanced the cause of peace.”

And of course, it hasn’t. Placing a lie in the center of the discourse on the Palestinian conflict with Israel is no way to promote understanding and coexistence.

In the interest of promoting peace, Pompeo instead told the truth. Not only are Israeli settlements not illegal. Pompeo noted that they are arguably more justified than civilian settlements built in other disputed territories.


In his words, the administration’s determination “is based on the unique facts, history, and circumstances presented by the establishment of civilian settlements in the West Bank.” That is, it is based on the historic ties of the Jewish people to Judea and Samaria. These ties lay at the heart of Jewish history and religion.

Residents of the Gaza-adjacent communities are the civil front that protects the country's southwest border. - by Tirael Cohen

...The residents of the communities near Gaza aren't whiners. They explain and describe the challenges of life on the border. Their day-to-day reality exposes an uncomfortable truth about the country's security situation, and it's sometimes easier to dismiss their claims as "whining." But Israel should salute them, and be willing to listen about the challenges of their life.

Tirael Cohen..
Israel Hayom..
07 March '19..
Link: http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/visionaries-not-whiners/

Last weekend, an interview with Maj. Gen. (res.) Tal Russo – the Labor Party's "security and defense" guy – was published in which he supposedly criticized the "whining" by residents of Gaza-adjacent communities. The response led to an apology by Yedioth Ahronoth, the newspaper that ran the interview, and a clarification that stated that Russo had never actually made the remarks attributed to him.

But the very discussion about the "whining" by residents of the Gaza periphery reveals a deep lack of understanding about the role of Jewish settlement on the country's borders. Residents of the communities near the Gaza Strip aren't hapless victims of terrorism who burden the defense establishment, but rather the civil front that protects the country's southwest border. The question isn't how much the people near Gaza suffer or what the defense establishment is doing to ease that suffering, but rather how we should defend our border with Gaza. The communities just east of Gaza take a daily part in the country's battle to protect its sovereignty and security. They are the front that protects the center of the country. Remember the days of Operation Protective Edge. The residents of the Galilee communities along the border with Lebanon are Israel's northern line of defense and they are facing the threat of Hezbollah's attack tunnels. The residents of the Jordan Valley, Judea and Samaria do the same on Israel's eastern border. It could be that the daily struggles of the border settlements and communities aren't heard a few dozen kilometers away from central Israel. It's easy to forget what the residents constantly have to deal with and take the relative quiet for granted.

But the security of the nation rests on settlement, on human communities that implement our borders, and have since the days of the "wall and tower" operations. The Zionist choice to protect borders through settlement is an inseparable part of Israel's defense and security creed.

The strategic importance of bolstering Israel's settlements - by Gershon HaCohen

Israel’s attitude towards its presence in a temporary space—an attitude that has us waiting for an agreement and eventual withdrawal—is what gives hope to terrorism.

Gershon HaCohen..
JNS.org..
15 December '18..

The terror attacks that took place on Highway 60 near Ofra this week demand examination on both the tactical and strategic level.

From a tactical perspective, we must urgently focus on the question as to what elements of defense are required to secure the settlements and the traffic on the roads. From a strategic perspective, the Israeli government and Israeli society must re-examine the fundamental yet controversial question: “What are we doing there?”

As far as the tactical security response is concerned, the Israel Defense Forces and the security forces must find appropriate solutions. Strategically speaking, an Israeli leadership is required that will examine the national interests that guide Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria.

It would be wise to return to the fundamental conventions that guided Israel’s leaders up until the turning point of the 1993 Oslo Accords.

(Continue to Full Column)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Why Is Everyone Mad? Ambassador David Friedman Accurately Described Longstanding US Policy Towards West Bank Settlements by Lee Smith

...As a matter of historical fact, Ambassador Friedman is 100 percent correct. The failure of the US State Department to openly back him suggests a troubling lack of institutional memory—and a troubling lack of political discipline coming from the top.

Lee Smith..
Tabletmag.com..
03 October '17..

Last week, the Trump administration’s ambassador to Israel David Friedman set off a public controversy—pitting the US Ambassador to Israel against the US State Department and the Palestinian Authority—when he told an Israeli journalist that “the settlements are a part of Israel.”

No way, said Nabil Shaath, a senior advisor to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. “This alleged ambassador of the United States,” said Shaath, “has absolute ignorance of facts of law of the position of the United States.”

US media reports charged that Friedman’s comments marked a “break with almost 25 years of American policy advocating a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

In Washington, State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert scrambled to stanch the bleeding and suggested that other Trump officials, like the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt had a better handle on US policy than the US Ambassador did. In any case, Nauert said, Friedman’s remarks do “not indicate a shift in US policy.”

Nauert is right—sort of. And therein lies the rub. Friedman’s comments do indeed reflect longstanding US policy, which is rooted in UN Resolution 242, whose carefully-worded language referring to a future peace based on Israeli withdrawal “from territories occupied” in the 1967 conflict in exchange for “secure and recognized borders”—meaning borders that were different than the prior 1967 lines—was drafted by the US in the face of demands for an Israeli withdrawal from “the territories” or “all territories,” as suggested at various points by the British, the French, the Soviet Union, and various Arab states, led by Egypt.

The point of the American insistence on not specifying the extent of a future Israeli withdrawal, as Friedman explained in the interview last week, was that “Israel would be entitled to secure borders. The existing borders, the 1967 borders were viewed by everybody as not secure. So Israel would retain a meaningful portion of the West Bank—and it would return that which it didn’t need for… peace and security.”

Again, Friedman is clearly correct. Israel’s occupation of the West Bank was never defined as illegal by U.N., nor is there any obligation for Israel to withdraw from the territories in the absence of a comprehensive peace with the Arab states (the Palestinians are never mentioned in Resolution 242).

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

What's illegal under Israeli law but legal under international law

But the people who choose to break Israeli law and build their own illegal settlements cannot by any stretch of interpreting Geneva be considered to be "transferred" - their decision to move is purely voluntary and not encouraged at all by the Israeli government. Which means that these outposts that are illegal under Israeli law are legal under international law - no matter how you try to misinterpret Geneva Art. 49!

Elder of Ziyon..
13 November '13..

There are two kinds of settlements in Judea and Samaria: the ones that are legal under Israeli law, and the ones that are not.

The illegal settlements, often called "outposts" because they are often tiny, are, under international law - legal!

Let me explain.

The entire reason any settlements are considered "illegal" under international law is because of a tortured reading of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, Article 49, paragraph 6:

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

The argument that Jewish settlements are illegal comes from bizarre idea that people who choose voluntarily to live there are somehow being "transferred" by Israel. The arguments for that are very strained, to say the least. They are usually centered on how Israel supports the settlements it considers legal by building infrastructure or otherwise making life there any easier for its citizens, as if that fits the definition of "transfer."

The Problematic UN Human Rights Council Report - An Itemised Critique

Daniel Meyerowitz-Katz..
Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council..
01 February '13..

Earlier today, this blog noted that Israel has been boycotting the United Nations Human Rights Council due to the Council's habitual singling-out of Israel for unfair, unwarranted, and utterly biased criticism.

A report on settlements in the West Bank, the commission of which spurred Israel's decision to cease cooperation with the Council, has just been released. Sadly, the Report entirely vindicates Israel's position on the matter. Its three authors began by determining Israel's guilt, then conducted an investigation into why it was, in fact, guilty. The research was lazy at best – with numerous unreferenced assertions and many very basic factual errors.

Most importantly, they made no effort whatsoever to provide any form of context or balance, or even to acknowledge that some of the allegations they were making were in any way controversial. They simply re-hashed a series of tired and repeatedly debunked accusations against Israel. Whatever legitimate criticisms were made in the report are buried so far down amid layers of unfounded invective as to make them near impossible to find, let-alone act on.

Below is an itemised critique of the Report, highlighting numerous examples of errors and misinformation.

Another report report just like the Goldstone Report

Dror Eydar..
Israel Hayom..
01 February '13..

Let's begin from the end of the recent U.N. Human Rights Council report, which provides a timeline of "Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory." Well, it all began in 1948, when we established our state on Palestinian land in violation of British policy, as outlined in the "White Paper" which only allowed 75,000 Jews to enter Palestine. Beyond that, entry was up to approval by the Arabs. Since then, we annexed land, settled, violated, etc. The White Paper as a starting point. Nice, isn't it?

Well, the international definition is "occupied territories" (not "occupied Palestinian territories"), meaning that the ownership of the land is under legal dispute. We argue that the land belongs to us as part of the historical Land of Israel, by virtue of never having belonged to any other state. As early as the 1970s, legal experts proved that we are not "occupiers" because we never conquered any land that belonged to another state. The last sovereign entity in this land was the British mandate. The Jordanian occupation was never officially recognized, and even Jordan renounced ownership of this territory toward the end of the 1980s.

In addition, the timeline should begin more than 3,000 years ago. But even if we go back 18 centuries, we find that the Roman rulers gave the Land of Israel, or Judea, the name "Palestina" in efforts to sever the link between the Jews and their homeland. In the seventh century, Muslim conquerors expelled a large part of the Jewish population from the area, and forcibly converted some to Islam. Since then, the land was largely desolate until the end of the 19th century — the return of the Jewish nation to Zion. The land had waited for its real sons and daughters, and would only flourish for them.

Could Be That Israel’s Critics Are the Real Obstacle to Peace

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
19 December '12..

The Obama administration joined the chorus of United Nations, European and Arab critics of Israel this week when it blasted the decision of the Netanyahu government to approve plans to build new housing in two Jerusalem neighborhoods and one in the adjacent suburban area known as E1. While the Obama administration did not join its European allies and other members of the UN Security Council declaring the building illegal and an obstacle to a two-state solution that must cease immediately, it did declare that the activity put peace “further at risk.” Israel’s critics make the argument that this sort of condemnation is heightening the country’s isolation and is to blame for the lopsided vote in favor of upgrading the Palestinian Authority’s status at the UN earlier this month. But the hypocrisy of these charges makes it easy to understand why Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is ignoring them.

The point here isn’t just—as we have repeatedly pointed out here at Contentions—that building in these areas of Jerusalem as well as in E1 wouldn’t prevent a two-state solution were the Palestinians inclined to negotiate with Israel to get one. The building within Jerusalem’s city limits in Jewish neighborhoods that were built decades ago, such as Ramat Sharon and Gilo, are in places that no one envisions being given to the Palestinians even in the most generous offer possible. The same is true of the new Givat Hamatos project. As for the E1 area in between the city and the suburb of Ma’ale Adumim, it, too, is in an area that Israel has always intended to keep. That is a point underlined by the fact that it was Yitzhak Rabin that put it under the jurisdiction of the adjacent Jewish town.

But the real hypocrisy isn’t the fact that all those countries as well as the Palestinians know very well that it wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference to a two-state solution if Israel built 100,000 new homes in these places or none at all. It is the fact that these countries continue to ignore the fact that it is the Palestinians who refuse to negotiate and who continue to issue statements making clear their intention to destroy Israel without drawing much comment from nations that are supposedly so interested in peace.

When prognosticators of a diplomatic tsunami jump into action

Boaz Bismuth..
Israel Hayom..
04 December '12..

Calling an ambassador home is an unusual step, particularly in a relationship between two friendly countries. Officials in London and Paris are furious about Israel's decision to advance plans for settlement construction in the E1 area near Jerusalem, but we are nowhere near a point where the British and French ambassadors in Israel would be summoned to their home countries for consultations.

Europe does not like Israeli settlements in general. It even more strongly objects to construction in E1, which it views as a red flag. But Europe has many other troubles at the moment — severe unemployment, economic recession, illegal immigration — so there is a limit to how angry it can become about Israeli settlement construction in Judea and Samaria.

The diplomatic price paid by Israel was that its ambassadors in Paris, London and Stockholm were called in on Monday for meetings at the Foreign Ministry buildings in those capital cities. A similar step was taken by Spain, as if that country has no bigger problems than Israeli settlement construction.

In Israel, prognosticators of a diplomatic tsunami jumped into action. Europe, they predicted, would spank Israel abnormally harshly. Meanwhile, at the meetings in Europe, Israel's ambassadors were only being reprimanded. Not pleasant, but also not terrible.

After all, why should European countries consider calling their ambassadors home when this was already being done for them in Israel? The French newspapers Le Monde and Le Figaro reported that Britain and France were considering harsh sanctions against Israel. The source of this report was the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

It seems that this is the climate in which we now live. Yesterday, it was Haaretz. The day before this, it was former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who, while on a trip in the U.S., criticized the decision of Israel's democratically elected government. This is the same government that, according to polls, would survive a return to politics by Olmert, if he chooses to re-enter the ring.

Attention Fellow Israelis, We're All "Settlers"

Batya Medad..
Shilo Musings..
16 August '12..




It really blows my mind that so many Israelis think that they have more rights to their homes in other parts of Israel than I have to mine here in Shiloh. They absolutely hate it when our enemies lump us all together in the same illegal sic category. They consider themselves more acceptably "kosher*" than I am.

Modiin residents: We're not settlers

What's so awful about being a "settler?" Aren't we all settlers?

My neighbor's niece wrote and performs a one-actor play called in which she keeps asking if we're from the Holocaust. She was certainly born many decades after the Nazis were destroyed, but she concludes that we're all "from the Holocaust." And I think it's time for the Israeli Government to fully understand and make it clear to all Israelis that according to our enemies, Arabs and others alike, we are all settlers, wherever in the Land of Israel we live.

Here to Stay: Israel’s Settlers

Dani Dayan..
NYT Opinion..
25 July '12..




Maale Shomron

WHATEVER word you use to describe Israel’s 1967 acquisition of Judea and Samaria — commonly referred to as the West Bank in these pages — will not change the historical facts. Arabs called for Israel’s annihilation in 1967, and Israel legitimately seized the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria in self-defense. Israel’s moral claim to these territories, and the right of Israelis to call them home today, is therefore unassailable. Giving up this land in the name of a hallowed two-state solution would mean rewarding those who’ve historically sought to destroy Israel, a manifestly immoral outcome.

Of course, just because a policy is morally justified doesn’t mean it’s wise. However, our four-decade-long settlement endeavor is both. The insertion of an independent Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan would be a recipe for disaster.

The influx of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere would convert the new state into a hotbed of extremism. And any peace agreement would collapse the moment Hamas inevitably took power by ballot or by gun. Israel would then be forced to recapture the area, only to find a much larger Arab population living there.

Moreover, the Palestinians have repeatedly refused to implement a negotiated two-state solution. The American government and its European allies should abandon this failed formula once and for all and accept that the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria are not going anywhere.

On the contrary, we aim to expand the existing Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, and create new ones. This is not — as it is often portrayed — a theological adventure but is rather a combination of inalienable rights and realpolitik.

Legal rights, the 'occupation', and false narrative

Dore Gold..
Israel Hayom..
20 July '12..

Looking back over the last two weeks, what appeared to hit a raw nerve with critics of the report of Justice Edmond Levy's committee was not what it had to say about the specific issues for which it was appointed, like zoning and planning in the West Bank, but rather with how it dealt with the broader narrative for describing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This became evident in how the reaction focused on the report's conclusion that "the classical laws of 'occupation' as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable to … Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria."

How did Justice Levy, who recently retired from Israel's Supreme Court, reach this conclusion along with his two colleagues? They argued that the Israeli presence in the West Bank was unique, sui generis, because there was no previously recognized sovereign there when it was captured by the Israel Defense Forces during the Six-Day War in 1967. The Jordanian declaration of sovereignty in 1950 had been rejected by the Arab states and the international community, as a whole, except for Britain and Pakistan.

Moreover, as the Levy Report points out, the Jewish people still had residual historical and legal rights in the West Bank emanating from the British Mandate that were never cancelled, but rather were preserved by the U.N. Charter, under Article 80 — the famous “Palestine Clause” that was drafted, in part, to guarantee continuity with respect to Jewish rights from the League of Nations.

There were other issues that made the Israeli presence in the West Bank unique. With the advent of the Oslo Agreements in the 1990s, there was no longer an Israeli military government over the Palestinian population. Indeed, the famous 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention on occupied territories stipulates that an Occupying Power is bound to its terms “to the extent that such a Power exercises the function of government in such territory (Article 6).”

Should Israel’s Prestige Be Imperiled? Daniel Gordis and the Prestige of Israel .

Emmanuel Navon..
For the Sake of Zion..
19 July '12..

Last month, a panel of three Israeli legal experts (former Supreme Court Judge Edmond Levy, former District Judge Tchia Shapira, and the former legal advisor of Israel’s Foreign Ministry Alan Baker) submitted to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Justice a “Report on the Status of Building Activities in Judea and Samaria” (the “Levy Report”). The report was immediately condemned by the US State Department whose spokesman, Patrick Ventrell, declared: “We do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity and we oppose any effort to legalize settlement outposts.”

Less expected was the condemnation coming from mainstream North American Jewish leaders. In a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu, those leaders expressed concern “about the recent findings of government commission led by Supreme Court Justice (Ret.) Edmond Levy.” They went as far as to claim that the endorsement of the Levy Report by the Israeli government would place the “prestige of Israel as a democratic member of the international community in peril.” The letter was noticeably signed by Shalem Foundation President Daniel Gordis.

I found it hard to believe that a report whose purpose was to analyze the legal status of Israeli buildings beyond the armistice lines of 1949 would, if officially endorsed, imperil the “prestige of Israel as a democratic member of the international community.” So I read it.

Tobin - Does the Levy Report Doom Israel?

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
17 July '12..

As I wrote last week, the release of a report establishing the legality of Israel’s presence in the West Bank issued by a panel of Israeli experts chaired by former Supreme Court Justice Edmund Levy has been widely condemned. The attacks on Levy’s report have come from both those who support the Palestinians as well as Israelis and friends of Israel who oppose the settlement movement. Among the most prominent examples of the latter came in a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu organized by the Israel Policy Forum, a liberal group that came into existence to support the Oslo peace process and which has been eclipsed in recent years by the failure of the polices they promoted. The IPF letter takes the position that, if adopted by the government, the Levy report dooms the two-state solution to the conflict and “will strengthen those who seek to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist.”

While the concerns expressed in this letter are real, those who signed are mistaken not only about the impact of Levy’s report but also about how to build international support for Israel and the hope of peace. What the signers don’t understand is that it is the opposite tack — Israel’s abandonment of a position that would uphold its rights — that has done the most to convince the world the Jewish state is in the wrong and strengthened the resolve of the Palestinians to never accede to a compromise on territory and two states. While one document cannot undo the damage done by Oslo and 19 years of failed peace processing, the Levy report can at least begin to remind the world the Israeli-Arab conflict is not one of balancing Palestinian rights and Israeli security but the rights of two nations.