Knowingly deceptive: Saying "50-year occupation" without mentioning Khartoum - by Elder of Ziyon

...If someone thinks that "occupation" is the ultimate evil and doesn't have a word to say about the Arab leaders' decision to reject peace in exchange for virtually all the land Israel gained in 1967, then that person doesn't care about "occupation" or peace - they support the old Arab genocidal attitude towards Jews in the Middle East.

Elder of Ziyon..
30 May '17..

There are lots of articles being published in recent and upcoming weeks about the Six Day War and its legacy.

Any article that talks about "occupation" and "colonialism" and all the other evils that are ascribed to Israel, that do not mention the Khartoum Resolution of September 1, 1967, is an example of deceit.

The main paragraph of the Khartoum Resolution said:

The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.

That last sentence means "destroy Israel," by the way. It was not referring to the territories in any way. Nobody at all demanded a Palestinian state in the territories in 1967.

(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. 

.

Welcome to UN-istan: occupation above and beyond morals and ethics

...During the Jordanian occupation, and following that Israel’s return of Jews to their lands, and after the PA was granted full administrative responsibilities under the Oslo Accords, it turns out that little industry has been created in “Palestine”; the UN-funded and UN-run education programme is a case study in mass indoctrination in hatred, racism and violence; the economy is kept alive by the UN thanks to the fact that the UN employs 25,000 locals to maintain the permanent refugee status of the local population; the UN provides the funding and training for the PA’s almost two dozen different internal and external security agencies; the UN runs many of the medical services and, if the PA’s own claims and that of the UN are to be believed, then even issues as basic as food, water supply and nutrition would be non-existent without the UN.

Ilya Meyer..
Times of Israel..
21 August '15..

It turns out “Palestine” is occupied after all. By the UN.

Half the world, consisting of authoritarian Islamist theocracies, non-democratic dictatorships and brutal military regimes, would have you believe that something called “Palestine” is occupied. It is apparently occupied by the Jewish state of Israel. According to these people, “Palestine” is occupied – and this includes the ethnically cleansed, judenrein, Gaza Strip where not a single Jew, dead or alive, remains.

The other half of the world – consisting of people who believe in the quaint notions of democracy, free speech, religious freedom, gender equality and human rights – believes that “Palestine”, that is to say the two Jewish provinces of Judea and Samaria, are at best disputed territories.

Disputed not least because the only rationale behind Arab demands for this territory is that Arab Jordan successfully managed to ethnically cleanse all Jews from this territory between 1948 and 1967, when Israel retook the territory and once again made it possible for Jews to return to their homes.

The Arab position – and that of their leftist, communist and anarchist collaborators in the West – is that because the Jordanian expulsion of Jews and the subsequent ethnic cleansing of Jews from Judea and Samaria was successful for 19 years, the territory now rightfully belongs to the Arabs. This apparently passes for logic in some quarters.

But hold on a minute. What about the occupation?

Which occupation, you ask?

Well, for starters, there was the illegal Jordanian occupation of the disputed territory following the pogroms and mass expulsions of Jews – ethnic cleansing – between 1948 and 1967. That illegal occupation was not recognised by the United Nations (the oh-so-adored and untouchable UN). In fact, the only country that recognised Jordan’s illegal occupation was Islamic Pakistan – itself illegally occupying large swathes of Indian Kashmir. And that occupation continues to this day, although strangely the UN has no presence there and nothing to say on the issue. Of course, no Jews are involved in Kashmir so that may explain the UN’s silence.

Fishy business and the EU's claims in its dealing with Israel

...Of course, the inconsistency between the treatment of Morocco and Israel does not in itself demonstrate which is correct. However, the position regarding Western Sahara is consistent with all prior international law, including a 2002 opinion by the Security Council’s legal adviser, and a ruling of the French Court of Appeals this summer in the Alstom case, as well as the practice of all other nations, and the EU’s own practice in other occupied territories. The EU is right about Western Sahara – which means it is wrong about Israel.

Eugene Kontorovich..
Opinion Columnist/JPost..
09 December '13..

The EU has in recent weeks provisionally approved a contentious agreement with Morocco that extends EU-Moroccan fisheries treaties into the territory of Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara. The deal both applies beyond Morocco’s recognized sovereign territory into occupied territory, and further, actually pays Morocco for access to the Western Saharan fishery.

On all these points, the agreement directly contradicts what the EU has called fundamental principles of international law in its dealings with Israel. Indeed, the EU has been negotiating this agreement with Morocco even as it imposes on Israel unprecedented funding guidelines that say the exact opposite.

Background

Morocco invaded Western Sahara in 1975 and has occupied it since claiming it as its own territory.

No nation in the world recognizes this claim, and the United Nations Security Council has demanded that Morocco completely withdraw.

Morocco has engaged in an aggressive settlement policy, as a result of which settlers may now be the majority in the territory.

The EU also does not recognize Western Sahara as part of Morocco, but this has not stopped it from extending its agreements with Morocco to cover Israel. The Fronte Polisario is the generally recognized representative of the indigenous people (Sawahari), and Western Sahara has been recognized as a nation by 40 countries.

This is not the first such agreement with Morocco to apply to its occupied territory. However, the arrangement was criticized by several EU members, and there was some chance that it would not be implemented in the fisheries protocol.

Differences with Israeli agreements

1) Territorial Scope. The fisheries agreement applies not just to the “territory” of Morocco, but to all areas under its “jurisdiction,” which is understood to include Western Sahara. In agreements with Israel, however, the EU has only applied it to the “territory” of Israel, which is understood to exclude the West Bank, as well as Jerusalem.

The new Funding Guidelines go further and exclude entities with operations in the territories.

The guidelines claim that their approach is required by “international law” to avoid recognizing Israel sovereignty over the territories. The Moroccan case proves this concern false and pretextual.

Occupation? Who is Occupying Whom?

Prof. Moshe Sharon..
Translated from Hebrew by Sally Zahav..

The word "occupation" has been used for many years to describe Israel's rule over Judea and Samaria (the area which is known as "the West Bank") and Gaza Strip which Israel conquered in 1967 during the Six Day War when it vanquished the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Egypt, respectively. In the distorted language of the media and politicians, whether in Israel or in most other parts of the world, these two territories are described as the "occupied Palestinian territories", as if, in 1967, Israel conquered a land called "Palestine" and appropriated Palestinian lands for itself. Unfortunately, very few media consumers in the West or the East are aware of the falsehood behind the use of these terms.

Let us first take a quick look at the simple facts regarding this "occupation". Israel conquered the "West Bank" from Jordan and not from any nonexistent "Palestinian" entity; and Israel conquered Gaza from Egypt. But these two countries, Jordan and Egypt, conquered these territories themselves during the War of Independence of 1948 and subsequently ruled there illegally. The Jordanians even annexed the area West of the Jordan River and called it the "West Bank". Egypt established its own administration in Gaza. These two territories were, therefore, in Arab hands for nineteen years, but during this time of Jordanian and Egyptian occupation, no one ever thought of establishing a Palestinian state in them, despite the fact that it would have been possible to establish such a state easily and this state would have won recognition, even from Israel.

Moreover, neither the Jordanian occupation of the "West Bank" nor the Egyptian rule in Gaza were recognized , for the simple reason that these two countries conquered territories that were, according to international agreements, international decisions and international law, parts of the Jewish national home. Actually, the only right to sovereignty over these territories belonged and still belongs to the State of Israel.

UN Watch - Pressed by Media, Evasive UN Pledges to Answer UN Watch Challenge on Labeling Gaza "Occupied"

UN Watch Briefing..
Vol. 337..
Jan. 10, 2012..



As shown in the video and transcript below, the spokesman of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was asked by journalists on Friday to respond to UN Watch's challenge as to why the world body continues to label the Gaza Strip “occupied” by Israel, despite a Hamas leader last week stating the opposite.

After initially seeking to dodge the question, the spokesman promised the UN would look into it and respond. We're waiting.

Over the past week, UN Watch created an international buzz on the story with op-eds placed in Canada's National Post and the Jerusalem Post, which in turn were featured in the Mideast Mirror, the PLO-linked American Task Force on Palestine, the Daily Alert and Jewish Ideas Daily.



Transcript of UN daily press briefing, Jan. 6, 2012, with Martin Nesirky, Spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:

Journalist #1: I have a report which I got this morning, apparently it came out yesterday from UN Watch in Geneva, which quotes one of the senior officials of Hamas saying that the Gaza Strip, specifically the Gaza Strip only, is no longer Israeli-occupied territory and it refers, however, to some comments that Farhan made when he must have been doing the daily briefing two and a half or three years ago, saying that it is still the UN policy that the Gaza Strip is part of the Israel-occupied territory.

And a 22 September 2011 report put out by the Office of the Secretary-General speaks of a UN mission’s visit to the “Occupied Palestinian Territory, specifically the Gaza Strip”. Do you have any comment on that, or does the UN still seriously believe that the Gaza Strip is occupied territory?

UN Spokesperson: I think we can discuss this after. I don’t think I am going to get into a long back-and-forth on this right now. But I will certainly speak to you afterwards about it. Yes, okay. Yes?

Journalist #2: Can we get someone in to brief about that from the UN, Martin? It would be very helpful as this whole Palestinian statehood issue is being reviewed and things like that…

UN: I’ll ask.

Journalist #2: …because it has come up in the past and there should be some UN clarification about the UN position on it. And it has been historically the UN saying it is occupied territory; my understanding is because the Israelis control the border crossing; I don’t know.

UN Spokesperson: I’ll ask. I am sure there is a fairly clear response to it. I need to check, and then I’ll come back to you. All right, okay, have a good afternoon. Thanks very much.

Link: http://www.unwatch.org/cms.asp?id=2844458&campaign_id=63111

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.
.

No Occupied Territories

Eli E. Hertz
mythsandfacts.org
02 November '10

A UN coalition sought to rewrite history by labeling the Territories 'Occupied Territories,' thus endowing them with an aura of bogus statehood and a false history. They used capital letters for 'Occupied Territories' and then shifted to 'Palestinian Occupied Territories' and 'Palestine,' as if title or ownership could be assigned out of thin air.

No legal binding authority has empowered any UN organ, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ), to decide that the territories of the West Bank, known as Judea and Samaria, and Gaza could be transformed into 'Occupied Palestinian Territories' or 'Palestine.' UN organs' the EU and the U.S. use of these dishonest, loaded terms empower terrorism and the Palestinian Arabs with the right to use all measures to expel Israel . The phrase 'illegal occupation' is a "careless language" and "perilous threat to the diplomatic search for peace," says Professor George Fletcher, an expert in international law: [1]

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been insistent, not least as regards questions of territorial title, that the rules and concepts of interna tional law have to be interpreted 'by reference to the law in force' and 'the State practice' at the relevant period." [2]

(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.
.

International Justice (1998)

Today's Golden Oldie is from ten years (11) ago this month. July 1998.

Saying that Israel is judged by a double standard is a waste of time. We know it. They know it. So in this cartoon I tried to wring a wry laugh out of the unfair and ugly situation.

A classic goal of much of Jewish Humor.