The UN's Very Selective Outrage on Occupied Territories - by Brenda Shaffer, Svante Cornell and Jonathan Schanzer

In fact, when it issued its blacklist, the UN Human Rights Office may have inadvertently opened the flood gates. In today's interconnected world, aggrieved parties are keenly aware of developments in other protracted conflicts. They will want to know why the world's most prominent multilateral organization is willing to apply sanctions in one protracted conflict, but not others. The UN Human Rights Office must now be prepared to explain why some occupations are inconsequential, but only Israel's control of the West Bank is deserving of a blacklist.

Brenda Shaffer, Svante Cornell and Jonathan Schanzer..
Pundicity.com/Real Clear World..
04 March '20..
Link: http://schanzer.pundicity.com/23885/the-un-selective-outrage-on-occupied-territories

Yesterday during remarks at the AIPAC annual conference, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo referred to the recent publication by the UN Human Rights Office of a database of companies that operate in the West Bank. Pompeo defined the report as "a real threat" that "only serves to facilitate the BDS movement and delegitimize Israel." Pompeo declared that the United States will take actions on behalf of the "members of our business community that are being threatened by this release."

The UN Human Rights Office on Feb. 12 published a database of 112 companies that operate in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The vast majority of the listed companies provide basic goods and services to the people living in these disputed territories.

The database was originally slated to be released in March. However, it appears the United Nations released it early as part of its effort to counter the Trump administration's new Middle East peace plan. The plan seeks to legalize Israel's control over some of the territory it conquered in the 1967 Six Day War and has controlled ever since.

As Pompeo pointed out, the release of the database is also designed to do one more thing: to give a boost to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign that seeks to wage an economic war against Israel. The database is deliberately designed to assist their efforts to deter businesses from working with Israel.

The best evidence that the UN Human Rights Council does not seek to act against foreign occupation of lands, but against Israel, is the fact that the database collects information on activities only in territories controlled by Israel, and not all territories regarded by the United Nations as under occupation. Indeed, the list does not include companies operating in Russia's occupations in five regions in neighboring countries. Nor does it include businesses in Northern Cyprus, Western Sahara, Kashmir, Nagorno-Karabakh, to name just a few. The list immediately lacks credibility because it ignores these conflicts.

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. 

.

Israel’s Rights in Judea-Samaria Under International Law - by Amb. Alan Baker

Understanding law and justice in the world’s most disputed territories

Amb. Alan Baker..
Tablet Magazine..
18 November '19..

The issue of Israel’s rights in the West Bank under international law, as simple as it sounds, conceals a complex and extensive web of historic, legal, military and political issues that, for many years, have engaged and continue to engage the parties to the conflict, as well as the international community as a whole.

This article will briefly analyze the three major elements defining Israel’s rights in the West Bank.

Firstly, and underscoring all other considerations, are the international legal rights emanating from the indigenous and historic claims of the Jewish people in the area as a whole, virtually from time immemorial. These rights were acknowledged in 1917 by the Balfour Declaration’s promise of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, and subsequently recognized internationally and encapsulated into international law through a series of international instruments.

Secondly, Israel’s legal rights following the 1967 Six-Day War, as the power administering the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria (so described in the U.N. 1947 Partition Resolution 181), and the concomitant, unique sui genesis status of the area.

Thirdly, Israel’s rights under international law following the 1993-1995 Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO, and especially the 1995 Interim Agreement, (commonly known as Oslo 2) which established a unique territorial arrangement as a form of lex specialis, that divided the control and governance of the West Bank areas between a Palestinian Authority established for that purpose, and Israel.

***

(Continue to Full Article)

Alan Baker currently directs the international law program at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He served as the legal counsel of Israel’s foreign ministry and Israel’s ambassador to Canada. He was involved in all the negotiations on the various agreements between Israel and its neighbors.

Israel's Major Wars and the Legal Aspects of Coming into Possession of the Territories - by Eli. E Hertz

International law makes a clear distinction between defensive wars and wars of aggression. All of Israel’s wars with its Arab neighbors were in self-defence.

Eli. E Hertz..
Mythsandfacts.org..
05 September '19..

About six months before the War of Independence in 1948, Palestinian Arabs launched a series of riots, pillaging, and bloodletting, then came the invasion of seven Arab armies from neighboring states attempting to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in accordance with the UN’s 1947 recommendation to Partition Palestine, a plan the Arabs rejected.

The Jewish state not only survived, it came into possession of territories – land from which its adversaries launched their first attempt to destroy the newly created State of Israel.

In the first critical weeks after the British left the region and Israel declared its independence, the combined Arab armies of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Trans-Jordan, Iraq, and contingents from Saudi Arabia and Yemen,2 aimed at a small Jewish militia with three tanks and five artillery pieces. Israel had no air force, and until arms were rushed in from abroad and a regular army could be organized, it relied on the only strength it had: 70 years of social solidarity inspired by the Zionist endeavor.

Israel’s citizens understood that defeat meant the end of their Jewish state before it could even get off the ground. In the first critical weeks of battle, and against all odds, Israel prevailed on several fronts.

The metaphor of Israel having her back to the sea reflected the image crafted by Arab political and religious leaders’ rhetoric and incitement. Already in 1948 several car bombs had killed Jews, and massacres of Jewish civilians underscored Arab determination to wipe out the Jews and their state.

There were over 6,000 Israelis killed and over 15,000 wounded as a result of that war, in a population of 600,000. One percent of the Jewish population was gone. In American terms, the equivalent is 3 million American civilians and soldiers killed over an 18-month period.

What Is “Palestinian Territory”?

Mainstream media often refer to “Palestinian territory,” yet there is no such legal entity. This land—Judea-Samaria—is disputed and awaits a peace agreement.

FLAME..
Facts&Logic About the Middle East..
June '19..
Link: https://www.factsandlogic.org/ad_170-what-is-palestinian-territory/

The phrase “occupied Palestinian territory,” implies illegal Israeli control over the ancient Jewish heartland. In fact, Israel’s presence in Judea-Samaria (the West Bank) is rooted in Biblical history, population realities, agreements with the Palestinians and international law.


What are the facts?

Israel’s administration of Judea-Samaria, far from being illegal, has a powerful basis. In fact, Israel is in full compliance with international law: It is not occupying others’ land, its settlements are lawful, and Palestinians have no documented legal claim to this territory. Israel’s authority in Judea-Samaria is based on four unassailable grounds: 1) past Jewish presence; 2) current Jewish presence; 3) international mandates; and 4) international conventions. While sovereignty over these territories is disputed, this will ideally be resolved through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

1) Jews have a 3,000-year history in the Biblical homeland. The Bible provides strong documentation of a Jewish presence, including the Jewish Kingdom of David in 1000 BCE. Biblical archeology confirms that Jews have lived in the cities of Hebron, Shiloh, Jericho, Bethlehem and Jerusalem in the heart of Judea-Samaria continuously for some 3,000 years, except during Jordan’s illegal occupation, 1948-1967, when Jews were ethnically cleansed.

2) Jews are the majority population in 60% of Judea-Samaria. Around 600 CE, Arabs invaded and colonized what was then called Palestine. While today Arabs are the majority population in about 40% of Judea-Samaria, Israeli Jews are the majority in some 60% of this territory—the so-called Area C, designated by the Oslo II Accords, These Accords, agreed to by Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization in 1993-95, give Israel full control over administration and security in this region. No Palestinians have been forcibly removed from Area C, and land on which Israelis live there does not violate private Palestinian land rights.

3) Israel has sovereign rights in Judea-Samaria by international law. About 500 years ago—between 1512-1520—the Middle East was conquered by the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans ruled this huge territory until World War I (1918), when they were defeated by the Allies. Allies Britain and France helped create new Middle East nation-states through a series of “mandates,” which were approved by the League of Nations, pre-cursor of today’s United Nations. In 1922, the Mandate for Palestine gave Jews rights to immigrate, settle and buy land for a national home between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. Land to the east of the Jordan River was ceded to the Arabs and later became Jordan.

Israel’s Rights in the Territories under International Law - Amb. Alan Baker

The international community’s constant referral to the “Palestinian territories” is a complete fallacy and has absolutely no legal or political basis. There has never been a Palestinian state, as such, and therefore the territories never belonged to any Palestinian entity. There’s no international agreement, there’s no contract, there’s no treaty, and there’s no binding international resolution that determines that the territories belong to the Palestinians.

Amb. Alan Baker..
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs..
07 September '16..
Link: http://jcpa.org/israels-rights-territories-international-law/





Israel Is Not an “Occupier”

International law defines “occupation” as one power occupying the lands of a foreign sovereign. In Israel’s case, Israel is not occupying any foreign sovereign’s land; Israel entered the area known as the West Bank in 1967 and took over the authority to administer the land from Jordan, which was never considered to be a sovereign in the area.

In actual fact, Israel and the Jewish people have got claims to the area that go far back into history. Anybody who reads the Bible can appreciate the fact that there is a very solid historic legal basis to the claim of Israel with respect to the territories and therefore Israel considers the territories not to be occupied, not to be Palestinian, but as in dispute.



We appreciate that the Palestinians also have claims with respect to the territory. Israel considers that its claims are far better based and better documented than any other claims, but Israel is committed to conduct negotiations with the Palestinians in order to find a permanent settlement to the issue.

The Jordanians, who occupied the territory after the 1948 war, annexed it, but this annexation was never really recognized or acknowledged by the international community. At a later stage the king of Jordan voluntarily gave up any Jordanian sovereignty or claim to the territories to the Palestinian people. So the Jordanians came and went, and the issue remains an issue between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Occupying the minds, resources and time of the UN tsars and world community

Do you agree on the subject of territorial claims, wars and occupation, that there should be one law for the Jews (well, against the Jews actually) and another entirely different law for everyone else.

Ilya Meyer..
Ilyameyer.com..
18 August '13..




This business of keeping territory after winning it in war: where do we draw the line?

Well, read Bret Stephens on the issue of Gibraltar, and it appears that no issue regarding territory taken in war is ever going to go to the UN for debate: not Gibraltar in Spain, not Tibet, not Ceuta and Melilla in Africa, not Turkish-occupied northern Cyprus, not the Malvinas off the coast of Argentina, not Western Sahara, not the vast tracts of Algeria from which the pieds noir were unceremoniously ejected, not New Caledonia, not French Guyana, not Alsace, not Greenland.

There is only one territory won in a defensive war that occupies the minds, resources and time of the UN tsars and indeed the world community: that part of the Jewish homeland known as Judea and Samara from which Jews were “successfully” ethnically cleansed between 1948 and 1967.

The UN argues that because that ethnic cleansing was total and absolute and not one single Jew remained in those territories during that period after being forcibly evicted, the area is to be de facto declared as belonging to the nascent state of Arab Palestine.

Hello? It's Not about the Settlements, Stupid

Leo Rennert..
American Thinker..
19 December '12..

The Washington Post, in its Dec. 18 edition, runs an article by Jerusalem correspondent Joel Greenberg about Israel proceeding with plans "for a surge of settlement building on occupied land" ("Israel's building plans advance," page A12).

"Israel's continued expansion of settlements is at the core of an impasse in peace efforts," Greenberg writes. "The Palestinians, who seek a state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with a capital in East Jerusalem, have refused to resume negotiations with Israel unless it halts settlement building in occupied land."

Greenberg is wrong on two critical points. First, there is ample historical evidence that settlements are not an obstacle to advancing the peace process. And, second, the land in question is not "occupied."

Who do the territories belong to? With Golan Azulai

Moetzet Yesha
Title Translation by LisaLiel



Every day we hear in the news about "occupied territories" and "illegal settlement activities." And it seems everyone knows the story ... or do they? Golan Azulai gives a short, and to the point review, of what we may not have ever considered. Enjoy!



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.
.

Language Matters in the Middle East

Michael Rubin
Commentary/Contentions
22 May '11

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/22/language-matters-in-the-middle-east/

One of the more irresponsible press habits during the Iraq war was the inconsistent use of the passive voice. Americans might kill five Iraqis in an operation gone awry, but when a bomb went off in a school yard, the major networks and newspapers would passively report, “20 children killed in Iraq.” Never would they say, “Terrorists killed 20 children in Iraq.” Over time, the message of the language matters: When people talk about the tens of thousands of civilians killed after Saddam’s fall, they ironically assumed American responsibility rather than realize that it was the terrorists killing Iraqis whom the Americans and Iraqi government jointly were fighting. To abandon Iraq amidst the terrorist insurgency would not (and will not) bring peace and security, but would be the equivalent of handing Cambodia to the Khmer Rouge.

In the Arab-Israeli conflict language also matters. Israel’s borders today are the 1967 borders, modified only by the annexation of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and some minor arbitrated settlements with Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. Why do we talk about President Obama demanding that Israel go back to the 1967 borders when he technically means withdrawal from the West Bank and portions of Jerusalem to return to the pre-1967 border, i.e., the 1949 Armistice Lines?

Technically, the West Bank is disputed territory, not occupied territory. There was no independent Palestine in 1967 before the Six-Day War. The status of the territory was just as unresolved before 1967 as it was after. If the Israelis “occupy” the portions of the West Bank unresolved under Oslo and subsequent accords then the Palestinian Authority also “occupies” those areas. To resolve the dispute takes negotiations and compromise, not mob rule or executive fiat. Make no mistake: I personally favor a two-state solution and believe that Israel will not ultimately possess the entirety—or even the majority of the West Bank—but I also believe that after so many wars launched from the West Bank, peace requires defensible borders, not an advanced front line for Arab, Iranian, and perhaps Turkish rejectionists bent on Israel’s annihilation.

Along the same lines, the term settlement shows tremendous bias. If portions of Jerusalem are unresolved, then new Palestinian construction on disputed lands are as much “settlements” as new Israeli construction. To speak of Palestinian civilians and Israeli settlers is to accept a false narrative and a dehumanizing one.

It behooves those who believe that Israel matters and its security and Jewish identity are important to be accurate with language. Otherwise, they simply cede points in negotiations and risk putting Israel in an even more precarious position as diplomacy continues.

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.
.

Palestinians Draft UN Resolution Against Israeli Settlements

Eli E. Hertz
mythsandfacts.org
29 December '10

Calls for a freeze on Jewish construction in disputed Territories - while Arab construction, which far exceeds Jewish development, continues unfettered - are clearly biased.

Arabs claim that Jewish settlements "change the status" of the Territories and represent a distortion of the Oslo Accords. The phrase applies to acts that change the political status of the disputed territory - such as outright Israeli annexation or a Palestinian declaration of statehood. Since Jewish settlements are legal, any halt in construction should be reciprocated.

The Oslo Accords do not forbid Israeli or Arab settlement activity. Charges that further Jewish settlement activity preempts final negotiations by establishing realities, requires reciprocity. If the West Bank and Gaza were de jure part of the British Mandate, and if the Mandate borders are the last legal document concerning this territory; and if Jews were forcibly expelled from the West Bank and Gaza in 1948 during a war of aggression aimed at them—then these Territories must be considered disputed Territories, at the least.

The Israeli-Palestinian border dispute is like every other major and minor boundary dispute around the globe. Since the West Bank and Gaza were redeemed in 1967 in a defensive war and are not "Occupied Territories" gained illegally by a bellicose power; and since this fact is recognized in the wording of UN Resolutions 242 and 338 that call for a settlement to institute "secure and recognized borders," calling for a construction freeze on Jewish settlements should, logically, be paralleled by a freeze on Arab construction in the West Bank.

According to a former policy planning official, the tempo of Arab construction is "more than 10 times the number of buildings under construction [in the Territories] than those approved [by the Israeli government] for the [Jewish] settlers."

(Read full "Palestinians Draft UN Resolution Against Israeli Settlements")

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.
.

Israel's Right to the 'Disputed' Territories

Danny Ayalon
Wall Street Journal
30 December 09

The recent statements by the European Union's new foreign relations chief Catherine Ashton criticizing Israel have once again brought international attention to Jerusalem and the settlements. However, little appears to be truly understood about Israel's rights to what are generally called the "occupied territories" but what really are "disputed territories."

That's because the land now known as the West Bank cannot be considered "occupied" in the legal sense of the word as it had not attained recognized sovereignty before Israel's conquest. Contrary to some beliefs there has never been a Palestinian state, and no other nation has ever established Jerusalem as its capital despite it being under Islamic control for hundreds of years.

The name "West Bank" was first used in 1950 by the Jordanians when they annexed the land to differentiate it from the rest of the country, which is on the east bank of the river Jordan. The boundaries of this territory were set only one year before during the armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan that ended the war that began in 1948 when five Arab armies invaded the nascent Jewish State. It was at Jordan's insistence that the 1949 armistice line became not a recognized international border but only a line separating armies. The Armistice Agreement specifically stated: "No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations." (Italics added.) This boundary became the famous "Green Line," so named because the military officials during the armistice talks used a green pen to draw the line on the map.

(Read full article)

Mr. Ayalon is the deputy foreign minister of Israel
.