Showing posts with label Jewish settlement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jewish settlement. Show all posts

Sunday, January 24, 2016

The right of the Jewish people to live in their land

The State of Israel's existence is based on more than just military force and diplomatic realism. Most of all, it is rooted in the right of the Jewish people to live in this land with which we are so bonded.

Nadav Shragai..
Israel Hayom..
24 January '16..

The two homes in Hebron which Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon ordered the evacuation of on Friday were purchased from their previous owners for the full price. And this is how it should be in the city of our forefathers. Abraham set the precedent when bought the Cave of the Patriarchs and the surrounding field from Ephron the Hittite for 400 shekels of silver.

The two homes in question are located very close to the Cave of the Patriarchs and the legal justification for their evacuation was just an excuse. The homes are surrounded by hundreds of illegally built Arab homes that the Israeli justice system has taken no steps against.

So the two homes were not evacuated because of Israeli law. They were evacuated for the very same reason Ya'alon and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have limited construction in the Judea and Samaria settlement blocs and Jerusalem in recent years -- heavy pressure from the U.S. and Europe.

Deep in his heart, Ya'alon very much supports the expansion of Jewish settlement in Hebron. He knows well that if the settlers had acted in accordance with protocol and requested the proper permits from him and Netanyahu, their chances of being allowed to inhabit the homes would have been close to zero. Ya'alon himself, in previous military roles, knew how to turn a blind eye to unauthorized settlement activities and then later approve them ex post facto.

So while the evacuation of the homes may be a diplomatic-related matter, it represents a huge missed opportunity. We are in the midst of a wave of Palestinian terrorism during which many attackers have come from Hebron. The evacuation broadcast an image of Israeli weakness and it contradicted the long-held Zionist doctrine of building, not retreating -- defiantly constructing new homes, neighborhoods and communities in the face of terrorism, murder and hatred.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

You can’t occupy your own land

Europeans like to say that “Israeli settlements outside of the Green Line are illegal under international law.” The US State Department prefers “illegitimate.” But they are wrong.

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
06 December '15..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2015/12/why-jewish-settlements-in-judea-and-samaria-are-legal/


Europeans like to say that “Israeli settlements outside of the Green Line are illegal under international law.” The US State Department prefers “illegitimate.” But they are wrong.

Usually the explanation has something to do with Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which says that

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

The original intent of this is generally understood to prohibit transfer against the will of the transferees, such as the expulsion of Jews from Germany into occupied Poland that took place during WWII. But since the text does not say this explicitly and it does mention “forcible transfer” in another context, it is often argued that it applies to Israeli Jews who have moved by their own volition across the Green Line, especially if they have received government support to do so.

The argument has also been applied to the transfer of Turkish settlers to the part of Cyprus occupied by Turkey.

This would be a stretch, even if Israel were to be an “Occupying Power.” But unlike Turkey in Cyprus, it isn’t. Here is a generally accepted definition of ‘military occupation’:

Military occupation is effective provisional control[1] of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[2][3][4] [notes at link]

So who is the “actual sovereign” in the case of Judea and Samaria? Let’s look at history.

The territory called ‘Palestine’ was controlled by the Ottoman Empire until the Empire was dissolved after World War I. In 1922, the League of Nations issued a Mandate to Britain to hold the land of Palestine, from the river to the sea, in trust for a national home for the Jewish people.

The Mandate explicitly guaranteed the rights of Jews to live anywhere in its territory and called for “close settlement of Jews on the land.” This guarantee is independent of whatever meaning is attached to the expression “national home.”

In 1948, the Mandate was terminated and the British withdrew from its territory. The League of Nations had been replaced by the UN. However, Article 80 of the new UN Charter carried forward to the UN obligations created by trusteeships like the Mandate, such as the obligations to the Jewish people.

Friday, October 3, 2014

Recycled Outrage in the Peace Camp

...Part of the problem is the permanent industry of European-funded settlement snoops. They count every new shack and every new permit (whereas ironically the EU has a limited grasp on how many Turkish settlers are on its own territory). They will not be silent simply for lack of what to report. One wonders if they will be even silent if all their political demands were realized, or whether they would, as has happened in Gaza, define occupation down.


Eugene Kontorovich..
Commentary Magazine..
02 October '14..

Defining “settlements” has always been difficult. The relevant international law instruments speak only of people being “transferred or deported” by an occupying power. However, most Jews in the West Bank have not been moved there by the Israeli government (that is why they are called settlers, not transferees and deportees).

But recent months have seen an unprecedented broadening of the concept of settlement activity to include things that do not involve Jews moving and, in this week’s dust-up, things that have already happened. The peace camp has been defining settlements down.

The Israeli government has not issued new authorizations for the building of new homes in the “settlements” since before the collapse of negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas. Even Peace Now grudgingly concedes a “semi-freeze.” Yet the absence of new tenders creates a problem for peace processors: they traditionally blame any foot-dragging by Abbas on these tenders, and insist that if Israel desisted, the primary obstacles to fruitful negotiations would be removed.

Yet as the moratorium grows longer, Abbas has, contrary to peace-process predictions, only moved farther away from negotiations. Indeed, he has fully adopted a new strategy of using international pressure to give him his demands without the trouble of having to make compromises.

Unable to blame “new settlement activity,” the peace camp, uncritically parroted by the media, has defined settlements down. Anything is now called “new” settlement activity. Last month, Peace Now treated a surveying decision that certain lands were not owned by private parties–Jewish or Arab–as a massive outrage, though the technical and administrative action would not result in a single hut being built for a single Jew.

Monday, September 23, 2013

The Absolutely Appropriate and Historical Zionist Response To Terror

...It should be made clear that the next murder of Israeli "X" won’t lead to the resettlement of a Jewish owned building but the settlement of a new neighborhood.

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Commentary..
23 September '13..

Historically, settlements were considered the "Zionist response to terror."

A look at the map of modern Israel finds it sprinkled with the names of settlements named in memory of the victims of various Arab attacks.

Today's terrorists are popular folk heroes in Palestinian society. The cost to the Palestinians of terror, in the form of restrictions on movement and commerce, may be painful, but the pain is temporary in nature. Large terrorist attacks may postpone what the Palestinians see as the ongoing capitulation of Israel either at the negotiating table or via unilateral withdrawals, but, again, these are temporary setbacks.

Terrorist attacks may, in fact, be viewed in the long run by the Palestinians as serving their interests by softening Israel's resolve.

Last night Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu responded to the murder of Sgt. Gabriel Kobi in Hebron by
ordering the immediate resettlement of Beit Hamachpela, a Jewish owned building near the West Bank city’s Tomb of Patriarchs which was previously boarded up by order of the Defense Ministry.

PM Netanyahu declared that "Those who attempt to uproot us from the city of our forefathers will achieve the opposite effect. We will continue on one hand to fight terror and to harm terrorists and on the other hand to strengthen settlements."

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

PM Netanyahu's Remarks on the Issue of the Ulpana Neighborhood in Beit El

IMRA..
06 June '12..





(Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser)

Following are Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's remarks today (Wednesday, 6 June 2012) the Ulpana neighborhood in Beit El:

"We are not strangers in Beit El. We are not strangers in Judea and Samaria. This is the Land of our Patriarchs. This is where our identity was formed. I say this here in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, and I say this everywhere in the world. Israel is a democratic state in which upholding the law is at the foundation of our free lives. The State of Israel is a law-abiding democracy and as the Prime Minister of Israel I am committed to upholding the law and am I committed to uphold the settlement enterprise, and I tell you that there is no contradiction between the two. The draft law that was rejected today in the Knesset would have hurt settlement whereas the outline that I have decided upon – the expansion of the community, moving the homes and legal defense against any precedent – strengthens settlement.

And yet it must be said that this has been a complicated and difficult day. Moving homes from their location, even if it is only five homes, is certainly not an action that this Government rejoices in doing. But the court ruled as it did and we honor the decisions of the judicial system.

At the same time, the community of Beit El will be expanded. The 30 families will remain in Beit El and will be joined by 300 new families. I tell those who think they can use the judicial system to hurt settlement, that they are mistaken, because in practice, the exact opposite will occur. Instead of shrinking Beit El – Beit El has expanded. Instead of hurting settlement, settlement has been strengthened.

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Werdine - Removing Settlements will not Bring Peace–or Appease BDS

Robert Werdine..
Times of Israel..
04 June '12..

Phillip Mendes’ recent article “Dismantle settlements to defang BDS” forwards an interesting and thoughtful proposal: removing some 70,000 settlers from east of the green line over the next five years in order to, as he puts it:

“…demonstrate without doubt that the Israeli people are committed to making significant concessions required for a two-state solution.” This would “place the onus back on the Palestinians to demonstrate that they, too, are willing to compromise,” and, “Overall, it would defang the BDS campaign by reminding everyone that both sides have to give significant ground if there is to be conflict resolution.”

Mr. Mendes reasonableness and optimism are infectious, but, I fear, gravely misplaced. It is, I admit, difficult for me to reconcile his earlier description of BDS as a movement that is “not intended to promote a two-state solution that respects the national and human rights of Israeli Jews or Palestinian Arabs, or conflict resolution at all” with his belief that the hefty concession he recommends would somehow “defang the BDS campaign by reminding everyone that both sides have to give significant ground if there is to be conflict resolution.”

Mr. Mendes further adds that “[BDS’s] leading Palestinian proponents seek the demonization of all Israeli Jews and the deligitimazation of Israel.” To which I would also add: so do their non-Palestinian proponents.

As for the Palestinians, their manner of rewarding such concessions has a familiar, sorrowful, and not-too-distant precedent.

IMRA - Observation: Paradox – proposed law favors real Palestinian land owners

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA..
04 June '12..




Let’s walk through this:

#1. The proposed law to compensate Palestinian land owners is the fairest arrangement for them.

Today if a Palestinian decides to file in court to have part of a Jewish neighborhood torn down because, he claims, it turns out he owns the land it was built on, the most he can expect to gain from the effort is the satisfaction of seeing the homes bulldozed. After all, since the land is in the middle of a Jewish community, beyond the Green Line, there is no way that the authorities are going to permit him to build a home there. And if he sells the land to the Jews, our “peace partner” Palestinian Authority will sentence him to death.

In sharp contrast, under the proposed law, the same Palestinian land owner would get fair financial compensation for the ex-poste confiscated land. And since this is a kind of “force majeure” from the standpoint of the Palestinians, the Palestinian landowner can get fair compensation for his land and stay alive.

Monday, June 4, 2012

Eydar - Time to take a stand

Dror Eydar..
Israel Hayom..
04 June '12..

The settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria is the heart of the Likud movement. To sabotage the settlement enterprise is to strike at the conservative camp's ability to govern and steer the Zionist ship back on course. Decades of language and collective consciousness control have turned the settlement enterprise in Israel into an "obstacle" and a "crime" and Zionism into an empty metaphor.

You can't just shave five buildings off a community, remove them as though they were a diseased tumor and relocate them. Behind these five buildings lies an entire settlement enterprise whose enemies — some of them our own Jewish brothers — pray for its destruction. These enemies of the settlement enterprise realize that the majority of the population supports the settlers, even if the media uniformly doesn't. That is why they employ dozens of human rights organizations (a code name for organizations that strip Jews of their right to live in their country) and wield the swords of the High Court of Justice and the State Prosecutor's Office.

Shragai - Ulpana is just the start

Nadav Shragai..
Israel Hayom..
03 June '12..

A mistake. A serious mistake. Evacuating the Ulpana neighborhood in Beit El is just the beginning. First Migron will be evacuated, then exactly the same situation will repeat itself in the 12-year-old outpost Givat Assaf, and after that 20-year-old Amona will be next in line.

And those examples are just the beginning. Left-wing organizations have many more High Court petitions up their sleeves that apply to much larger neighborhoods and entire settlements that are said to be built on "private land." The Civil Administration has counted more than 1,100 such homes, but the Left is convinced they number in the many thousands.

If Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not put an end to this now, he will find himself — by choice or not — gradually implementing a "mini-disengagement."

The solution to the Ulpana problem cannot be localized. The problem is systemic and extensive, and the solution must be as well. The so-called High Court bypass bill, which seeks to authorize structures built on private land retroactively if the owner does not claim it within four years of the buildings' creation, could provide a solution.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Medad - Settlements – a US election issue

Yisrael Medad
Israel Hayom
19 December '11

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=1037

The issue of the legality of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria has become an American presidential campaign issue of sorts. Just recently, Wolf Blitzer, former Al HaMishmar correspondent, pressed Rick Perry in a CNN interview, asking him: "Since ’67, every U.S. president, Democrat and Republican, has called Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories, in the West Bank, illegal under international law. Would you continue that activity?"

Perry responded, "No I wouldn’t. I consider the Israeli settlements to be legal, from my perspective, and I support them ... where the Israelis are clearly on Israel’s land that they have hard fought to win and to keep, absolutely." In November, Rick Santorum, another Republican contender, was asked if Israel should dismantle its settlements, and insisted the territory was "part of Israel." He compared it to the status of New Mexico and Texas as part of the U.S. and asked his questioner, "Should we give Texas back to Mexico?" The interviewer countered, "Well, I don’t think you should recognize recent annexations," to which Santorum retorted, "Oh, so it depends whether it’s recent or not? ... The bottom line is that is legitimately Israeli country. And they have a right to do within their country just like we have a right to do within our country ... all the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they’re not Palestinians. There is no Palestinian, this is Israeli land."

The roots to this dispute lie with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who claims that, on U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, “Prime Minister [Menachem] Begin ultimately acknowledged its applicability in all its parts,” as Carter wrote, for example, in the Washington Post on Nov. 22, 2000, where he linked this to the issue of building Jewish communities "in occupied territory."

In fact, it was the Carter administration that initiated the "illegality" terminology. He had Herbert Hansell, the State Department legal adviser, declare that the communities "violated international law," marking a reversal of the approach taken by all previous administrations. Following Carter, however, President Ronald Reagan reinstated the traditional approach, declaring on Feb. 2, 1981, that the communities were "not illegal." He did criticize them on policy grounds as being "ill-advised." Even Carter's Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, stated on July 29, 1977, that "it is an open question as to who has legal right to the West Bank."

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Pipes - Not Stealing Palestine, but Purchasing Israel

Daniel Pipes
nationalreview.com
21 June '11



http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270064/not-stealing-palestine-purchasing-israel-daniel-pipes

Zionists stole Palestinian land: That’s the mantra both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas teach their children and propagate in their media. This claim has vast importance, as Palestinian Media Watch explains: “Presenting the creation of the [Israeli] state as an act of theft and its continued existence as a historical injustice serves as the basis for the PA’s non-recognition of Israel’s right to exist.” The accusation of theft also undermines Israel’s position internationally.

But is this accusation true?

No, it is not. Ironically, the building of Israel represents almost the most peaceable in-migration and state creation in history. Understanding why requires seeing Zionism in context. Simply put, conquest is the historical norm. Governments everywhere have been established through invasion and nearly all states came into being at someone else’s expense. No one is permanently in charge; everyone’s roots trace back to somewhere else.

Germanic tribes, Central Asian hordes, Russian tsars, and Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors remade the map. Modern Greeks have only a tenuous connection to the Greeks of antiquity. Who can count the number of times Belgium was overrun? The United States came into existence after the defeat of Native Americans. Kings marauded in Africa, Aryans invaded India. In Japan, Yamato-speakers eliminated all but tiny groups such as the Ainu.

The Middle East, due to its centrality and geography, has experienced more than its share of invasions, including the Greek, Roman, Arabian, Crusader, Seljuk, Timurid, Mongolian, and modern European. Within the region, dynastic froth caused the same territory — Egypt for example — to be conquered and re-conquered.

The land that now makes up Israel was no exception. In Jerusalem Besieged: From Ancient Canaan to Modern Israel, Eric H. Cline writes of Jerusalem: “No other city has been more bitterly fought over throughout its history.” He backs up that claim, counting “at least 118 separate conflicts in and for Jerusalem during the past four millennia.” He calculates Jerusalem to have been destroyed completely at least twice, besieged 23 times, captured 44 times, and attacked 52 times. The PA fantasizes that today’s Palestinians are descended from a tribe of ancient Canaan, the Jebusites; in fact, they are overwhelmingly the offspring of invaders and immigrants seeking economic opportunities.

Against this tableau of unceasing conquest, violence, and overthrow, Zionist efforts to build a presence in the Holy Land until 1948 stand out as astonishingly mild, mercantile rather than military. Two great empires, the Ottomans and the British, ruled Eretz Yisrael. In contrast, Zionists lacked military power. They could not possibly achieve statehood through conquest.

Instead, they purchased land. Acquiring property dunam by dunam, farm by farm, house by house, lay at the heart of the Zionist enterprise until 1948. The Jewish National Fund, founded in 1901 to buy land in Palestine “to assist in the foundation of a new community of free Jews engaged in active and peaceable industry,” was the key institution — and not the Haganah, the clandestine defense organization founded in 1920.

Zionists also focused on the rehabilitation of what was barren and considered unusable. They not only made the desert bloom, but drained swamps, cleared water channels, reclaimed wasteland, forested bare hills, cleared rocks, and removed salt from the soil. Jewish reclamation and sanitation work precipitously reduced the number of disease-related deaths.

Only when the British Mandate of Palestine gave up power in 1948, followed immediately by an all-out attempt by Arab states to crush and expel the Zionists, did the latter take up the sword in self-defense and go on to win land through military conquest. Even then, as the historian Efraim Karsh demonstrates in Palestine Betrayed, most Arabs fled their lands; exceedingly few were forced off.

This history contradicts the Palestinian account that “Zionist gangs stole Palestine and expelled its people” which led to a catastrophe “unprecedented in history” (according to a PA twelfth-grade textbook) or that Zionists “plundered the Palestinian land and national interests, and established their state upon the ruins of the Palestinian Arab people” (writes a columnist in the PA’s daily). International organizations, newspaper editorials, and faculty petitions reiterate this falsehood worldwide.

Israelis should hold their heads high and point out that the building of their country was based on the least violent and most civilized movement of any people in history. Gangs did not steal Palestine. Merchants purchased Israel.

— Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2011 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved

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.
.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Gilder: The Economics of Settlement

George Gilder
The American Thinker
June '11

The root cause of Middle Eastern turmoil, according to a broad consensus of the international media and the considered cerebrations of the deepest-thinking movie stars, is Israeli settlers in what are described as the "occupied territories" on the West Bank of the Jordan River. Even such celebrated and fervent supporters of Israel as Alan Dershowitz and Bernard-Henri Lévy put the settlers beyond the pale of their Zionist sympathies. Remove the settlers, according to these sage analyses of the scene, and the problems of the region become remediable at last.

Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute adds to these political concerns a coming environmental catastrophe, also presumably aggravated by the Israeli settlers and their hydrophilic irrigation projects. He sees the Middle East as severely threatened by the growth of population and the exhaustion of water resources. The Institute explains: "Since one ton of grain represents 1,000 tons of water, [importing grain] becomes the most efficient way to import water. Last year, Iran imported 7 million tons of wheat, eclipsing Japan to become the world's leading wheat importer. This year, Egypt is also projected to move ahead of Japan. The water required to produce the grain and other foodstuffs imported into [the region] last year was roughly equal to the annual flow of the Nile River."

Although these two concerns might seem unrelated, they converge in the history of Israel, created by several generations of settlers and constrained at every point by the dearth of water in a mostly desert land. In the mid-19th century, before the arrival of the first groups of Jewish settlers fleeing pogroms in Russia, Arabs living in what became the mandate territory of Palestine -- now Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza -- numbered between 200,000 and 300,000. Their population density and longevity resembled today's conditions in parched and depopulated Saharan Chad. Although Worldwatch might prefer to see the Middle East returned to these more earth-friendly, organic, and sustainable demographics, the fact that some 5.5 million Arabs now live in the former British Mandate, with a life expectancy of more than 70 years, is mainly attributable, for better or worse, to the work of those Jewish settlers.

CHRONICLING THE ORIGINS of this Jewish feat in 1939, nine years before the creation of the modern state of Israel, was one of the little-known heroes of the 20th century, Walter Clay Lowdermilk. An American expert on land usage, he formulated and popularized the best techniques of soil reclamation and watershed management around the globe. Today the agricultural school at Technion bears the lapidary name of this American-born Christian, and the world-leading feats of Israeli water conservation attest in part to his influence.

(Read full "The Economics of Settlement")

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.
.

Monday, February 7, 2011

Louis Theroux: The Ultra Zionists

srugim.co.il
07 February '11




British BBC reporter, Louis Theroux, came to visit in Yehudah and the Shomron, to meet with residents there, as well as a number of other locations. While watching this does require some self-control when listening to Louis, his interviewees handled themselves exceptionally well, deserving acknowledgement for sticking to the facts, and making their points without apologetics. Enjoy! (Yosef)




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.
.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

"Built in a Day" (1938 video)

Elder of Ziyon
27 December '10

A video showing the building of Kibbutz Tirat Zvi, a tower and stockade settlement that had to be built in a single day to defend itself against terrorists and robbers.

Note that the Jews are greeted warmly by their new Arab neighbors.



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.
.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

A Century before Statehood: The Forlorn Land the Zionists “Stole”

Daphne Anson
24 November '10

One hundred years before the realisation of the Zionist dream, an English clergyman , Reverend A. G. H. Hollingworth, travelled in the Jewish homeland and surrounding region, and in 1849 published The Holy Land Restored. The following extract was printed in the London Jewish Chronicle (15 March 1850), and hardly depicts a land abundant with milk and honey. The extract (to which I append a description of Tiberias at the same period) appears here with no further comment from me (the pictures are from another source):

All its ancient fertility has been obliterated. As if the earthquake had become its only tenant for centuries, its valleys and mountains are riven and dislocated, shattered and torn, heaped with rocks and gravel, deprived of soil and wasted, as if repeatedly burned with fire. The heart of the modern traveller becomes oppressed with a profound melancholy as he moves in silence over the vales. Or when standing on the summit of some precipitous range, he overlooks a wide and extended plain, his eye wanders gloomily upon the deserted face of this which was once the glory of all lands, and he turns in wonder to those pages that describe its original fertility....

(Read 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.
.

Friday, October 15, 2010

Israel's Front Porch

Moshe Feiglin
Manhigut Yehudit
2 Cheshvan, 5771 (10 October '10)

Translated from Ma'ariv's NRG website.

I get to Elmatan almost every morning – on my mountain bike. The dried creek beds and mountains on the way there and back provide me with half an hour of solace and physical fitness that are the dream of every mountain rider. After ten years of riding here and playing catch with the sun's first morning rays, I thought that I had already seen all the different views from Elmatan. Nevertheless, it is important for me to share this picture of the Elmatan synagogue with you:


I get to Elmatan almost every morning – on my mountain bike. The dried creek beds and mountains on the way there and back provide me with half an hour of solace and physical fitness that are the dream of every mountain rider. After ten years of riding here and playing catch with the sun's first morning rays, I thought that I had already seen all the different views from Elmatan. Nevertheless, it is important for me to share this picture of the Elmatan synagogue with you:

Elmatan is a "mixed" outpost – a neighborhood of the Ma'aleh Shomron settlement that is open to everyone – with or without a kippah on his head. They built the synagogue pictured here about a year ago. Israel's Supreme Court has ordered the synagogue to be sealed off. Mosques are popping up like mushrooms after the rain in this entire area – which is under Israeli jurisdiction – and nobody dares touch them. But the synagogue within the boundaries of the Elmatan settlement unhinges the "rule of law" clan. Their norms dictate that the Arabs here are permanent while the Jews are a passing phenomenon. I am talking about Tel Aviv, of course.

(Read full story)

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.
.

Friday, August 27, 2010

In Defense of Settlers

Talks between Israelis and Palestinians should be mindful of the settlers' perspective.


Fred Barnes
The Weekly Standard
27 August '10
Posted before Shabbat

When direct talks begin next week between Israelis and Palestinians, the fate of Jewish settlers in the West Bank – tens of thousands of them – will be a major issue in the negotiations. But the settlers themselves won’t be part of the discussion. Nor have American officials involved in the talks been willing to meet with them.

You’ve probably heard that the settlers are an obstacle to peace. That’s not exactly true. Their absentee role in the peace process is different. They’re opposed to an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that would uproot a large number of settlers from their homes or would leave Israel with inadequate security, at least from their viewpoint.

Obstacles or not, they’ve become “the most stereotyped and demonized people in the world,” says Dani Dayyan, the leader of the Yesha settler council for the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza. Yet the settlers have a case. It’s neither incoherent nor unreasonable, but it’s politically unacceptable and thus off the table in the new talks.


Visit us at http://theothersidevideo.com/

The settlers insist, for starters, that their settlements aren’t located on “occupied” Palestinian territory. Rather, they live on “disputed” territory, claimed as a homeland by both Palestinians and Jews (some of whom don’t consider themselves Israelis). “This is my homeland,” Dayyan says. “How can you ‘occupy’ your homeland?”

And Israel has a “morally flawless” claim to the West Bank and other land it captured in the Six Day War in 1967, according to Dayyan. “We took what we thought was ours in a defensive war” against Arab countries, he says. “The rule that winner takes all was set by the Palestinians,” since they were prepared to claim any land seized in the war.

(Read full article)

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.
.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

The Illegal-Settlements Myth


David M. Phillips
Commentary Magazine
01 December 09

(This is a major and well written presentation, based on both historical fact and international law)

The conviction that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal is now so commonly accepted, it hardly seems as though the matter is even open for discussion. But it is. Decades of argument about the issue have obscured the complex nature of the specific legal question about which a supposedly overwhelming verdict of guilty has been rendered against settlement policy. There can be no doubt that this avalanche of negative opinion has been deeply influenced by the settlements’ unpopularity around the world and even within Israel itself. Yet, while one may debate the wisdom of Israeli settlements, the idea that they are imprudent is quite different from branding them as illegal. Indeed, the analysis underlying the conclusion that the settlements violate international law depends entirely on an acceptance of the Palestinian narrative that the West Bank is “Arab” land. Followed to its logical conclusion—as some have done—this narrative precludes the legitimacy of Israel itself.

These arguments date back to the aftermath of the Six-Day War. When Israel went into battle in June 1967, its objective was clear: to remove the Arab military threat to its existence. Following its victory, the Jewish state faced a new challenge: what to do with the territorial fruits of that triumph. While many Israelis assumed that the overwhelming nature of their victory would shock the Arab world into coming to terms with their legitimacy and making peace, they would soon be disabused of this belief. At the end of August 1967, the heads of eight countries, including Egypt, Syria, and Jordan (all of which lost land as the result of their failed policy of confrontation with Israel), met at a summit in Khartoum, Sudan, and agreed to the three principles that were to guide the Arab world’s postwar stands: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel. Though many Israelis hoped to trade most if not all the conquered lands for peace, they would have no takers. This set the stage for decades of their nation’s control of these territories.

The attachment of Israelis to the newly unified city of Jerusalem led to its quick annexation, and Jewish neighborhoods were planted on its flanks in the hope that this would render unification irrevocable. A similar motivation for returning Jewish life to the West Bank, the place where Jewish history began—albeit one that did not reflect the same strong consensus as that which underpinned the drive to hold on to Jerusalem—led to the fitful process that, over the course of the next several decades, produced numerous Jewish settlements throughout this area for a variety of reasons, including strategic, historical and/or religious considerations. In contrast, settlements created by Israel in the Egyptian Sinai or the Syrian Golan were primarily based initially on the strategic value of the terrain.

(Continue to full article)
.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

"A Place Once Settled is Not to Be Abandoned"


by Dr. Alex Grobman
First Published: 12/20/06

As Israel continues its quest to find a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Jimmy Carter and others are pressing Israel to leave parts of Judea and Samaria. Before even considering such a move, which would repeat the disaster of Gush Katif, Israeli leaders might learn from the experiences of former Zionist leaders.

On March 1, 1920, Joseph Trumpeldor, a political activist, along with five of his men from the Tel Hai settlement, was killed in a fight with Arabs from a nearby village. Historian Anita Shapiro notes that two months before the encounter, Aharon Sher, a settler, wrote an article in which he asked for help to defend the settlements in this lawless and remote northern region. One sentence became a rallying cry to battle:

"A place once settled is not to be abandoned."

In subsequent discussions about whether to defend or desert these communities, leaders of the Labor movement essentially adopted Sher's view. Yitzchak Tabenkin, a leader of the kibbutz movement, argued that if the Arabs terrorized the Jews enough to leave a few settlements, they would not stop until the Jews were forced out everywhere. Only by taking an "obstinate, desperate stand, without looking back," could the Jews guarantee their right to the land.

The moderate, left-of-center HaPoel HaTza'ir party paper asserted that their work in settling the land was based on "mutual understanding and amicable relations" with their neighbors: "Yet, wherever Hebrew soil is drenched with the sweat of Hebrew workers, and with their blood, that place is holy to us, and we have no right to abandon it."

In the 1930s, when the Arabs rioted in Palestine over increased Jewish immigration, David Ben-Gurion thought the Arabs might be more receptive to Jewish settlement if he could demonstrate how it would benefit them economically. In 1934, he went to see Musa Alami, a young "moderate" Arab lawyer, who served as the Private Secretary to Arthur Wauchope, High Commissioner for Palestine.

Alami's response to Ben Gurion was quite telling: "That's true," he said, "but we don't want your blessing. We prefer the land to remain impoverished, barren and empty until we ourselves are capable of doing what you are doing. And if it takes another century, then we will wait a hundred years."

Shortly after the Arab Rebellion began on April 19, 1936, Ben-Gurion didn't even bother trying to convince the Arabs of the morality of Zionism or about the economic advantages that would accrue to them from increased Jewish settlement, according to Shapiro. "It would be extremely naive to assume that the Arabs would determine their attitude toward us from the standpoint of abstract justice," Ben-Gurion declared. "The Arabs are adamant that this country is an Arab country, and they wish it to remain so. That is quite elementary!"

Arthur Ruppin, the foremost authority on Jewish efforts to settle the land, explained the difficulty of reaching an accord with the Arabs. On February 21, 1931, he wrote in his diary, "We are not offered what we need, and what we are offered is of no use to us."

Ruppin, who was chairman of Brit Shalom, which advocated a bi-national state, recognized that the "conciliatory tone" the group took toward the Arabs was "interpreted by the Arabs as weakness."

In November 1929, German Zionist members of Brit Shalom suggested that an appeal for a reprieve be made to the British for the Arabs convicted of killing Jews in Hebron and Safed. On Friday August 23, 1929, the Arabs began a week of rioting, killing and looting. More than 400 Jews were murdered or wounded. In Hebron, eight American Jews were killed and 15 wounded. The dead were students at the Slobodka yeshiva, who were not Zionists and not involved in the Jewish national movement. Neither were those attacked in Safed.

Although "in principle" Ruppin opposed the death penalty, he felt in this case it would be too dangerous to stop the practice. Prisons don't "frighten the Arabs," he said, "since they are relatively better off in jail than they were at home." Furthermore, "they would not regard a prison sentence - with the hope of amnesty after a few years - as a serious punishment, and thus might encourage others to slaughter Jews."

The lessons learned by early Jewish leaders should not be lost on those in power today. The Arabs have not yet accepted the Jewish right to live in the Land of Israel. Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh made this clear when, on December 8, 2006, he declared, "We will not give up our Jihadist movement until the full liberation of Beit Al-Muqqadas [Jerusalem] and Palestinian land."

Israeli leaders would do well to heed the words of Edmund Burke, who said, "The concessions of the weak are the concessions of fear." Appeasement has a place in resolving disputes, he believed, but not in dealing with aggression.

Dr. Alex Grobman served as director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center during its formative years. He has an MA and Ph.D. in Contemporary Jewish History from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and is the co-author of "Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened And Why Do They Say It?" (University of California Press, 2000).

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.
.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

In Defense of 'Settlements'


OPINION

Jews belong in Judea and Samaria as much as Palestinians who stayed in Israel.

By Yisrael Medad
June 28, 2009

No one, including a president of the United States of America, can presume to tell me, a Jew, that I cannot live in the area of my national homeland. That's one of the main reasons my wife and I chose in 1981 to move to Shiloh, a so-called settlement less than 30 miles north of Jerusalem.

After Shiloh was founded in 1978, then-President Carter demanded of Prime Minister Menachem Begin that the village of eight families be removed. Carter, from his first meeting with Begin, pressed him to "freeze" the activity of Jews rebuilding a presence in their historic home. As his former information aide, Shmuel Katz, related, Begin said: "You, Mr. President, have in the United States a number of places with names like Bethlehem, Shiloh and Hebron, and you haven't the right to tell prospective residents in those places that they are forbidden to live there. Just like you, I have no such right in my country. Every Jew is entitled to reside wherever he pleases."We now fast-forward to President Obama, who declared on June 15 in remarks at a news conference with Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, that Jewish communities beyond the Green Line "in past agreements have been categorized as illegal."

I believe the president has been misled. There can be nothing illegal about a Jew living where Judaism was born. To suggest that residency be permitted or prohibited based on race, religion or ethnic background is dangerously close to employing racist terminology.

Suppose someone suggested that Palestinian villages and towns in pre-1967 Israel were to be called "settlements" and that, to achieve a true peace, Arabs should be removed from their homes. Of course, separation or transfer of Arabs is intolerable, but why is it quite acceptable to demand that Jews be ethnically cleansed from the area? Do not Jews belong in Judea and Samaria as much as Palestinians who stayed in the state of Israel?

Some have questioned why Jews should be allowed to resettle areas in which they didn't live in the years preceding the 1967 war, areas that were almost empty of Jews before 1948 as well. But why didn't Jews live in the area at that time? Quite simple: They had been the victims of a three-decades-long ethnic cleansing project that started in 1920, when an Arab attack wiped out a small Jewish farm at Tel Hai in Upper Galilee and was followed by attacks in Jerusalem and, in 1921, in Jaffa and Jerusalem.

In 1929, Hebron's centuries-old Jewish population was expelled as a result of an Arab pogrom that killed almost 70 Jews. Jews that year removed themselves from Gaza, Nablus and Jenin. The return of my family to Shiloh -- and of other Jews to more than 150 other communities over the Green Line since 1967 -- is not solely a throwback to claimed biblical rights. Nor is it solely to assert our right to return to areas that were Jewish-populated in the 20th century until Arab violence drove them away. We have returned under a clear fulfillment of international law. There can be no doubt as to the legality of the act of my residency in Shiloh.

I am a revenant -- one who has returned after a long absence to ancestral lands. The Supreme Council of the League of Nations adopted principles following the 1920 San Remo Conference aimed at bringing about the "reconstitution" of a Jewish National Home. Article 6 of those principles reads: "The administration of Palestine ... shall encourage ... close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands." That "land" was originally delineated to include all of what is today Jordan as well as all the territory west of the Jordan River.

In 1923, Britain created a new political entity, Transjordan, and suspended the right of Jews to live east of the Jordan River. But the region in which I now live was intended to be part of the Jewish National Home. Then, in a historical irony, a Saudi Arabian refugee, Abdallah, fleeing the Wahabis, was afforded the opportunity to establish an Arab kingdom where none had existed previously -- only Jews. As a result, in an area where prophets and priests fashioned the most humanist and moral religion and culture on Earth, Jews are now termed "illegals."

Many people insist that settlements are illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention. But that convention does not apply to Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza district. Its second clause makes it clear that it deals with the occupation of "the territory of a high contracting party." Judea and Samaria and Gaza, which Israel gained control of in 1967, were not territories of a "high contracting party." Jewish historical rights that the mandate had recognized were not canceled, and no new sovereign ever took over in Judea and Samaria or in Gaza.

Obama has made his objections to Israeli settlements known. But other U.S. presidents have disagreed. President Reagan's administration issued a declaration that Israeli settlements were not illegal. Support for that position came from Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, former president of the International Court of Justice, who determined that Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria did not constitute "occupation." It also came from a leading member of Reagan's administration, the former dean of the Yale Law School and former undersecretary of State, Eugene Rostow, who asserted that "Israel has a stronger claim to the West Bank than any other nation or would-be nation [and] the same legal right to settle the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem as it has to settle Haifa or West Jerusalem."

Any suggestions, then, of "freezing" and halting "natural growth" are themselves not only illegal but quite immoral.

Yisrael Medad, an American-born Israeli commentator, has lived in Shiloh since 1981. He is head of information resources at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem and blogs at www.myrightword.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.
.