What could go wrong? Hezbullah has more rockets than all 27 NATO countries... combined
A report in the Weekly Standard indicates that the Hezbullah terror organization has more than 130,000 rockets in southern Lebanon - a number that exceeds the rockets held by all 27 NATO countries... combined.
Hezbollah currently has a stockpile of over 130,000 rockets, more
than the combined arsenal of all NATO countries, with the exception of
the United States. This number includes long-range rockets and M-600
ballistic missiles, which carry a high payload and would be able to
“wipe out a good chunk of Times Square and maim and kill people four
football fields away from the point of impact,” Stern noted. Hezbollah
also has approximately 100,000 short-range rockets trained on schools,
homes, and hospitals in northern Israel, which could potentially kill
hundreds of civilians.
“You don’t collect 130,000 missiles if you don’t intend to use them,”
said Matthew Levitt, an expert on counter-terrorism and intelligence at
the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Hezbollah’s positioning of this weaponry in civilian areas poses a
challenge to Israeli officers, added Geoff Corn, an international
military law expert at the South Texas College of Law in Houston. “After
exhausting all feasible efforts to reduce civilian risk, IDF commanders
must resolve the decisive question: Is the potential for civilian harm
excessive in comparison to the advantages the attack would provide? When
you talk of an M-600 in the hands of an enemy that targets vital
military assets or the civilian population—even if that apartment
building is full—launching the attack will be necessary to mitigate the
threat,” he explained.
That seems like a no-brainer. When it's our civilians or their civilians, it's pretty clear to this Israeli that the IDF must act to defend Israel's civilians, and damn the rest of the world for facilitating their doing this.
Israeli military officials in May 2015 told the New York Times
how Hezbollah has “moved most of its military infrastructure” in and
around Shiite villages, which “amounts to using the civilians as a human
shield.” A senior military official stated that Lebanese civilians are
“living in a military compound.” He told the Times: “We will
hit Hezbollah hard, while making every effort to limit civilian
casualties as much as we can…We do not intend to stand by helplessly in
the face of rocket attacks.” Stern, who was shown maps of the locations
of Hezbollah weapons, said that they are not only being stored in these
southern villages, but in Beirut itself.
Yaakov Amidror, Israel’s former national security advisor, met
with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in the summer of 2013 and showed
him “detailed evidence of Hezbollah’s deadly arsenal and the fact that
it was strategically placed within densely populated civilian centers.”
When Amidror asked Ban what the Israelis should do, he “offered no
response and no suggestions.” Stern concluded his piece, “Nobody, it
seems, in times of peace is willing to offer Israel a constructive
suggestion on how to deal with an Iranian-backed terrorist organization
in possession of a massive arsenal on its northern border. But these
same organizations stand front and center to criticize Israel for acting
legally and proportionately for protecting its own citizens in
wartime.”
Article 28 of the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 is simple and clear. It
says: " The presence of a protected person may not be used to render
certain points or areas immune from military operations." Hezbullah
violates this provision daily. It is due to Hezbullah's violations of
this provision that Lebanese civilians are being killed.
In an
article published on the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com web
page over the weekend, Orde F. Kittrie, a professor of international law
at Arizona State University and who served in the Office of the Legal
Adviser at the U.S. State Department from 1993 to 2003, summarized the three-part test in determining whether Israeli actions violate the Geneva Convention:
International
law has three major prohibitions .... One forbids deliberate attacks on
civilians. Another prohibits hiding forces in civilian areas, thereby
turning civilians into "human shields." A third prohibition, the
proportionality restriction that Israel is accused of violating,
involves a complicated and controversial balancing test.
Ignoring
the fact that Israel has warned Lebanese citizens to flee the combat
zones dozens of times, given the manner in which Hezbullah has hidden
both itself and its weapons among civilians, it is impossible to assert,
let alone prove, that Israel is deliberately attacking civilians. But
it is clear that Hezbullah has turned what remains of Lebanon's civilian
population into human shields.
...
I have already noted that Orde Kittrie wrote that the proportionality
test "involves a complicated and controversial balancing test." Kittrie
goes on to explain:
Geneva Convention Protocol I contains
one version of the proportionality test, the International Criminal
Court Statute another; neither is universally accepted. As a result, the
proportionality test is governed by "customary international law," an
amalgam of non-universal treaty law, court decisions, and how
influential nations actually behave. It does not hinge on the relative
number of casualties, or the force used, however, but on the intent of
the combatant. Under customary international law, proportionality
prohibits attacks expected to cause incidental death or injury to
civilians if this harm would, on balance, be excessive in relation to
the overall legitimate military accomplishment anticipated.
...
If Israel was mistaken and Hezbollah was not firing from or hiding amongst these civilians, the legality of its action is assessed by the proportionality test. [But we know from countless testimonies that Israel is not mistaken and that Hezbullah is firing from among civilians.
CiJ] Because the test is vague, there have been few, if any, cases
since World War II in which a soldier, commander or country has been
convicted of violating it. In the absence of guidance from the courts,
determining whether Israel's military has failed the proportionality
test depends on an assessment of what civilian casualties it expected,
what its overall military goals are, the context in which the country is
operating, and how the international community has in practice balanced
civilian risk against military goals. [There
is no way to attack a munitions depot hidden beneath a house and a
school without blowing up the house and the school. That would make any
attack in which the civilians have been warned to leave the house and
the school proportional per se. CiJ]
Israel did not expect civilian casualties; it warned civilians to leave Qana [and all areas south of the Litani at this point. CiJ]... The
law of war recognizes that mistakes are inevitable, and does not
criminalize soldiers who seek in good faith seek to avoid them.
Read the whole thing (it describes similar tactics adopted by Hezbullah on a lesser scale during the Second Lebanon War ten years ago).
The two groups of Hamas terrorists who emerged from terror tunnels on the Israeli side of the border on Monday morning wore IDF uniforms according to IDF Southern District Commander Major General Sami Turgeman.
Dozens of terrorists in military uniform emerged from a tunnel, and were successfully stopped by the military, Turgeman added.
Uncovering the tunnels is a complex and challenging task, requiring intelligence and technology, he added.
The
IDF's work in destroying tunnels, both inside Gaza and cross-border
tunnels, "is disturbing the enemy," which spent years digging
them,Turgeman said.
Two terrorist attack cells entered Israel from northern Gaza via a smuggling tunnel on Monday morning.
They
were identified by IDF lookouts, and an aircraft was dispatched to
intercept them. The first cell was struck from the air, and ten of its
members were killed.
The second cell fired an anti-tank missile at a military vehicle.
The
Shin Bet sent an alert to the IDF hours before the attack, warning of
intentions of terrorists in northern Gaza to infiltrate the country.
The
Shin Bet said a serious and complex terror attack has been thwarted
"due to the readiness of the IDF on the ground, following the pinpoint
alert that was sent."
By the way, in addition to it being a war crime to fight without a uniform, I believe it is also a war crime to fight while wearing the other side's uniform.
Hamas holding out for one 'quality' terror attack; American Left complains no Israelis killed
Hamas is sustaining heavy casualties in Operation Protective Edge according to a key official in Israel's defense ministry. Nevertheless, it is holding out for one 'quality' terror attack after which it will declare both a cease fire and 'victory.' That result would please certain commentators from the American Left (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). This is from the first link.
Top Defense Ministry Amos Gilad said Thursday that Hamas
has been “badly damaged” by the IDF's campaign in response to the
terror organizations unending attacks on Israeli civilians.
Gilad, Head
of the Defense Ministry's Diplomacy-Security Department, said that Hamas
was working very hard to keep up its “victorious image,” but was
finding it much more difficult now than in the past.
“Hamas is trying very hard to make headlines,” said Gilad. “They
issue proclamations of 'victory' and time their major rocket attacks to
coincide with 'high pressure' periods,” such as Thursday morning's
attack on Tel Aviv at the height of rush hour. As tens of thousands of
commuters were driving into the Tel Aviv area Thursday morning, Hamas
terrorists fired at least four rockets at the Dan area. All four were
shot down by the Iron Dome defensive system.
Hamas also times its heavy rocket attacks for the early evening
hours, in the hope of making headlines on the evening TV broadcasts and
thus sowing panic among Israelis.
According to Gilad, Hamas is more than ready to end this round of
fighting. “They are hoping for a 'high-quality' attack that they can
point to and pronounce as a victory, and when that happens they will
immediately call a cease-fire. They are sustaining grave losses and
cannot continue at this rate,” he said.
Okay, we knew on Tuesday that Hamas wanted a cease fire. The problem was that they had preconditions.... They just didn't mention was that one of those preconditions was to murder a few Israelis.
The American Leftists at Fire Dog Lake would be thrilled if Hamas would kill a few Israelis. They've been keeping score and the score doesn't look so good for Hamas right now.
The Guardian reports that the U.S., which means Nobel Peace
Prize winner Barack Obama, supports without reservation the air war on a
largely defenseless population:
The White House condemned the rocket
attacks against Israel. ‘No country can accept rocket fire aimed at
civilians and we support Israel’s right to defend itself against these
vicious attacks,’ said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.
Oh of course, the Gazans are vicious for killing no one, but ‘no
comment’ on the Israeli air strikes that have killed 29 civilians according to Reuters.
Israel is targeting Hamas facilities and leadership. The fact that Hamas uses civilians as (all-too-often willing) human shields is Hamas' responsibility, not Israel's. And as to the fact that no Israelis have been killed, we thank God for that every day.
Of course: UN accepts 'state of Palestine' into conventions
The United Nations has accepted the 'state of Palestine's applications to join 15 international conventions, the 'Palestinian foreign ministry' announced on Thursday.
The acceptance of the “State of Palestine” is immediately valid in
the following treaties: the UN Convention against Torture; the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racist
Discrimination; the International Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities; the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the
optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child that
deals with the involvement of children in armed conflicts.
The acceptance into two other conventions will take place on July 2:
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The Palestinian foreign ministry noted that the “State of Palestine”
seeks to work with the rest of the signatories to the conventions to
advance human rights and spread the culture of freedom, justice and
legitimate rights of nations – and especially of the Palestinian nation,
which “has suffered for a long time from injustice and violation of its
rights as a nation and a state under occupation.”
The ministry added that the international conventions help establish
the legal status of "Palestine" as a country like all others, and of the
resistance to systematic violations of the rights of Palestinians by
Israel, the “occupying entity.”
The statement stressed that the Palestinian Authority will continue
down this path until the occupation is removed and until “the
realization of the unrelinquishable rights of the Palestinian people,
including its right to self-definition and independence, and the return
of its refugees in accordance with legitimate international decisions.”
Kerry cancels meeting with Abu Mazen to protest UN applications, but says talks will go on until end of April
US Secretary of State John FN Kerry announced on Tuesday night that he is canceling a scheduled Wednesday meeting in Ramallah with 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen to protest Abu Mazen's announcement that the 'Palestinians' are filing fifteen applications to join United Nations agencies. Nevertheless, says Kerry, the talks will go on until the end of April.
Speaking at a press conference in Brussels, Kerry announced that he
had cancelled a planned meeting with Abbas in Ramallah on Wednesday,
saying "we have certain things we are trying to figure out in terms of
the logistics on the ground and what is possible."
Kerry added "my team is on the ground meeting with the parties even now. We urge both parties to show restraint."
Kerry further claimed that none of the 15 institutions the PA asked
for membership into were part of the UN. The claim contradicts Abbas,
who said earlier on Tuesday "the Palestinian leadership has unanimously
approved a decision to seek membership of 15 UN agencies and
international treaties, beginning with the Fourth Geneva Convention."
Hinting at the reports Tuesday that the US had offered the release of Jonathan Pollard,
now in his 29th year in an American prison on charges of spying for
Israel, in exchange for over 400 Israeli-held Arab terrorists and a
partial construction freeze, Kerry said no agreement had been reached
over "any prisoner."
But Kerry also said this:
Despite Abbas's unilateral move for international recognition in breach
of the peace talk conditions, established last July by Kerry, the
secretary of state noted "President Abbas has given me his word that he
will continue to negotiate until the end of April." The talks are set to
last until April 29.
It starts: 'Palestinians' threaten to take Israel to International Criminal Court
Israel reacted to the United Nations approval of making 'Palestine' a non-member state by announcing that it would build 3,000 new housing units in 'east' Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. Israel also announced that it would begin planning thousands of new units in E-1, the area that connects Jerusalem to Maaleh Adumim. You might recall that the Americans asked us not to do that.
"Israel is considering several other actions in response to the
unilateral Palestinian UN move," Channel 10 quoted a government
official as saying.
Last week, Washington urged Israel
not to allow construction in the area known as E-1 between Jerusalem
and Ma’aleh Adumim as a possible response to the Palestinian UN bid.
Building
in E-1, which would create contiguity between Jerusalem and Ma’aleh
Adumim to the northeast beyond the Green Line, is something various
Israeli governments have long wanted to do, but which US opposition has
prevented.
In recent weeks, following appeals by the US and other
international players not to respond in an overly harsh manner that
would make a future return to negotiations even more difficult, Israel
has moved from suggestions that it immediately annul the Oslo Accords
and annex the large settlement blocs, to “tamer” measures, such as
deducting money from taxes collected on behalf of the PA to cover the
estimated NIS 800 million owed to the Israeli Electric Cooperation.
I would have made it 30,000 units. There are enough people living in storage rooms in Jerusalem to more than fill those apartments.
PLO Executive Committee member Hanan Ashrawi said that the Israeli
decision was a "war crime" and an "act of aggression against the State
of Palestine."
She said that the decision was a flagrant violation of the Fourth
Geneva Convention, which defines humanitarian protections for civilians
in a war zone and outlaws the practice of total war.
Ashrawi said
that Israel was obviously sending a "premeditated" message to the
international community following last Thursday's UN General Assembly
vote in favor of upgrading the status of the Palestinians to non-member observer state.
"Israel's
message is that it is continuing to challenge the will of the
international community and international law," she added. "This
unilateral and systematic policy is in the context of the Israeli
government's scheme to steal the lands of the State of Palestine and the
world must hold Israel accountable for its aggression against the lands
of the occupied State of Palestine."
PA President Mahmoud Abbas told reporters
before heading back from New York to Ramallah that the Palestinians
were now entitled to file a complaint against Israel with the
International Criminal Court.
But, he said, "we don't want to go
the court now. We will go only if we are attacked and if we have to." He
said that he relayed this position to several countries, including the
US.
Abbas's comment was made before the Israeli government announced plans to build new housing units.
"The
Fourth Geneva Convention now applies to the State of Palestine within
the 1967 borders," Abbas said. "The lands of the State of Palestine are
occupied and it is forbidden to make any demographic changes in them. It
is forbidden to transfer the citizens of another country to our state.
The presence of Israeli settlers is in violation of international law."
The good news is that Congress is on our side, and as soon as they get a chance, they will cut off all US aid to the 'Palestinians' and to the United Nations.
How Hamas and Islamic Jihad use 'journalism' as a cover for terrorism
The IDF has documented the use of journalism as a cover for terrorism by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It's not just that the terrorists are using media buildings as hiding places. Some of them are actually journalists by day and terrorists by night.
Al-Shamalah had no connection to anything media-related. But that
isn’t the case for all Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives who try to
claim the title of “journalist”. Some of them do, in fact, carry
cameras, but they are paid by a terrorist organization, and they are
serving the goals of a terrorist organization.
For example, Mahmoud Al-Kumi and Hussam Salama [pictured] were Hamas operatives
and cameramen for Hamas’ Al-Aqsa television network, which regularly
features programming that encourages and praises attacks on Israeli civilians. The IDF targeted Al-Kumi and Salama on Nov. 20.
Faced with serious accusations of Al-Aqsa TV’s connections to terrorism, the head of the network, Mohammad Thouraya, denied that Al-Aqsa was the voice of Hamas — a hard fact to deny, since the channel is financed and controlled by Hamas — but he did admit that his employees were “all part of the resistance.”
Being “part of the resistance”, in other words, could mean that those
carrying a camera during the day could be carrying rockets at night.
Another example: Mohammed Abu Aisha was an employee of Al-Quds Radio,
which some media outlets have labeled an “educational” network. Abu
Aisha was also an Islamic Jihad terrorist, and that’s why his car was targeted in an IDF airstrike on Nov. 20. Abu Aisha appears on Islamic Jihad’s official website — in an Islamic Jihad uniform.
Reporter admits Hamas fired Fajr-5 at Jerusalem from right outside Shifa Hospital UPDATED
I wasn't able to embed this clip, but it's worth clicking through to watch it here.
It's a Canadian television interview with Phoebe Greenwood, a reporter for the London Daily Telegraph, who is in Gaza.
At about 1:50 of the interview, she says that the Fajr-5 rocket that was shot at Jerusalem earlier on Tuesday was shot from right outside Shifa Hospital. That's a violation of the Geneva Conventions if I ever heard one.
Listen to the interview here (it's a telephone interview).
UPDATE WEDNESDAY 1:28 AM
I am mildly surprised, but not totally shocked to find that the video is no longer available. Ms. Greenwood described the rocket that hit Jerusalem as having been launched across the street from the hospital. My guess is that Hamas did not want that description sitting out there, and therefore it bullied Canadian Television into taking the video down.
Jodi Rudoren wrote something similar in the New York Times, which has now been up long enough that it will appear in Google cache even if the Times is eventually forced to take it down. Here's some of what she wrote (emphasis mine).
Suddenly, just after 2 p.m., the crowd was startled skyward as militants
near the hospital fired a missile — most likely one that landed near
Jerusalem. In an instant, anticipation gave way to fear, and horror, as Israel fired back, explosion after explosion in the distance.
...
First six ambulances, one after the other, unloading the bodies of men
identified as militants, at least two of them decapitated. Then three
more, this time with children, dead and injured. Another ambulance
rushed in, then quickly sped back out to collect more wounded.
Even the medics unloading the bodies grimaced.
“There’s a real massacre now,” said Fawzi Barhoum, the Hamas spokesman, who was at the hospital waiting for the diplomatic delegation. “At the same time when the Arab leaders came to Gaza,
10 persons are killed. At this moment, kids playing soccer are hit. It
is a clear reflection of the mind and the thought of the occupation,
thinking how to kill more and more Palestinians.”
It remains unclear whether the intense afternoon bombing was in retaliation for the Jerusalem strike, the second in five days, or an effort to take out as many targets as possible while final details of a cease-fire deal were being discussed. A frenzy of some 200 rockets also flew from Gaza into Israel on Tuesday, hitting the southern cities of Beersheba and Ashdod as well as the Tel Aviv suburb of Rishon LeZion; an Israeli soldier was killed in a week of cross-border battles, along with a civilian, bringing the Israeli death toll to five.
...
Dr. Mads Gilbert, a professor at the University Hospital of North
Norway, said things were better organized this time than during
Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s three-week assault on Gaza in 2008-9, also
waged to try to stop rocket attacks. “They have learned a lot from the
last attack,” Dr. Gilbert said. “So far the capacity is up to the
numbers. But I think we haven’t seen the peak.”
From what's been written here, it should be clear that (a) the rocket was launched in close proximity to the hospital, (b) there were also children in the area from which the rocket was launched, (c) the rocket was launched in close proximity of a children's soccer field, (d) Israel retaliated at the location from which the strike was launched, and (e) (for good measure) Mads Gilbert - who famously lied to the BBC during Operation Cast Lead - is back again.
Red Cross decides Syrian uprising an 'internal armed conflict'
I'm amazed it took them this long to figure it out. The International Committee of the Red Cross has decided that the Syrian uprising is an 'internal armed conflict' - a civil war in layman's terms. What that does is to open the possibility of charging those who order attacks on civilians with war crimes. If you can ever catch them.
The independent humanitarian agency had previously classed the violence in Syria as localized civil wars between government forces and armed opposition groups in three flashpoints – Homs, Hama and Idlib.
But hostilities have spread to other areas, leading the Swiss-based agency to conclude the fighting meets its threshold for an internal armed conflict and to inform the warring parties of its analysis and their obligations under law.
"There is a non-international armed conflict in Syria. Not every place is affected, but it is not only limited to those three areas, it has spread to several other areas," ICRC spokesman Hicham Hassan told Reuters in response to a query.
"That does not mean that all areas throughout the country are affected by hostilities," he said.
The qualification means that people who order or commit attacks on civilians including murder, torture and rape, or use disproportionate force against civilian areas, can be charged with war crimes in violation of international humanitarian law.
For most of the 17-month-old conflict, the ICRC has been the only international agency to deploy aid workers in Syria who deliver food, medical and other assistance across frontlines.
All fighters caught up in an internal armed conflict are obliged to respect international humanitarian law, also known as the law of armed conflict, according to the ICRC. This includes specific sections of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
"What matters is that international humanitarian law applies wherever hostilities between government forces and opposition groups are taking place across the country (Syria)," Hassan said. "This includes, but is not necessarily limited to Homs, Idlib and Hama."
Sorry, but this doesn't appear so significant to me. Given how the Arab world protects its favored dictators, my sense is that this is a fight to the finish. Especially given the minority status of Assad's Alawite tribe, I would say that it's 'kill or be killed.'
Convene the Geneva Conventions high contracting parties?
United Nations Watch has put together a coalition of human rights groups to oppose the election of Syria to the United Nations 'Human Rights Council.' Elections are scheduled for May 20. Syria is running unopposed.
Led by UN Watch, an independent human rights monitoring group based in Geneva, the coalition of rights groups from Africa, Asia, the U.S. and Europe, (see list of members below) also urged action from the UN Security Council and other international bodies to protect Syria's civilian population from government actions that it said may amount to "war crimes and crimes against humanity."
The election of 15 new council members is scheduled for May 20 at the UN General Assembly in New York. However, UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer said that "if the council this week declares President Bashar al-Assad unwelcome as a member, it would sound the death knell for Syria's cynical candidacy to be elected a global judge of human rights."
The coalition called for leadership from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, EU foreign minister Catherine Ashton, Ban Ki-moon, and UN rights chief Navi Pillay.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that leadership. On the other hand, you all know that I believe Syria would fit right in at the 'Human Rights Council' anyway.
What's perhaps more intriguing in Neuer's efforts is this.
Swiss President Micheline Calmy-Rey was asked to convene the high contracting parties to the Geneva Conventions to address the Syrian army's grave assault on thousands of civilians who are protected as non-combatants under the treaties.
That's a nice idea but there are two small problems with it. First, Calmy-Rey is a loon who's enamored with Bashar al-Assad's friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The odds of her convening this type of meeting to condemn Assad are not good.
Second, if such a meeting were to be convened, I would bet on the agenda being hijacked to discuss Israel - and more specifically the Goldstone Report.
Video: How Obama uses 'international law' to bypass the Senate
Douglas J. Feith, former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy under the Bush administration, spoke to the Center for Security Policy's National Security Group on Capitol Hill on the topic of international law. The State Department's top lawyer, Harold Koh, is a strong proponent of following the "norms" of international law. Now, the Obama administration is making the case that a part of the Geneva Convention that the US has NEVER ratified should be accepted in the United States.
Potpourri of Israel haters urge Obama to support 'Palestinians' anti-'settlement' resolution
A long list of former government officials and academics, along with a couple of bloggers and a couple of radical 'rabbis,' has urged President Obama to support the 'Palestinian' resolution condemning Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and 'east' Jerusalem (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
The time has come for a clear signal from the United States to the parties and to the broader international community that the United States can and will approach the conflict with the objectivity, consistency and respect for international law required if it is to play a constructive role in the conflict's resolution.
While a UNSC resolution will not resolve the issue of settlements or prevent further Israeli construction activity in the Occupied Territory, it is an appropriate venue for addressing these issues and for putting all sides on notice that the continued flouting of international legality will not be treated with impunity. Nor would such a resolution be incompatible with or challenge the need for future negotiations to resolve all outstanding issues, and it would in no way deviate from our strong commitment to Israel's security.
If the proposed resolution is consistent with existing and established US policies, then deploying a veto would severely undermine US credibility and interests, placing us firmly outside of the international consensus, and further diminishing our ability to mediate this conflict.
If the U.S. believes that the text of the resolution is imperfect, there is always the opportunity to set forth additional U.S. views on settlements and related issues in an accompanying statement. The alternative to a Resolution - a consensus statement by the President of the UNSC - would have no stature under international law, hence this option should be avoided.
Among the non-government officials (there are a few) are Peter Beinart and Andrew Sullivan, and two extreme Leftist 'rabbis.' The former government officials include former ambassador to Syria (although he seems to have left that one out) Edward Walker, Thomas Pickering and William Harrop (all former ambassadors to Israel), Chas Freeman, and former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci. The letter includes no current or former 'peace processors' and no Walt or Mearsheimer.
The legal basis for the letter's claim that the 'settlements' are illegal is a 30-year old letter written by a former State Department legal adviser, which is based upon the writings of someone who believed that the 'settlements' are legal. They present that letter as unchallenged. That's a lie.
Those who maintain that the settlements are illegal rely on Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, which states:
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power or to that of any other country…are prohibited…
and in the sixth paragraph:
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
They interpret this as applicable to Israel’s settlement of the West Bank and Gaza, understanding Israel to have become a "belligerent occupant" of this territory through entry by its armed forces. They also argue that settlement policy leads to the violation of Palestinian rights under international humanitarian law–specifically, their right to self-determination, equality, property, freedom of movement, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement.Those who maintain that settlements are legal interpret Article 49 (6) of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention as inapplicable to Israel’s settlements.
For example, the late Professor Julius Stone—considered one of the premier legal theorists —maintained that the effort to designate Israeli settlements as illegal was a "subversion. . . of basic international law principles."
Among the 27 books he authored was Israel and Palestine: An Assault on the Law of Nations which dealt with the legal aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In it, Stone set forth the central principles of international law upon which Israel’s right to settle the West Bank is based and discussed the inapplicability of Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the case of Israeli settlement.
Stone drew upon the writings of Professor Stephen Schwebel, former judge on the Hague’s International Court of Justice (1981-2000), who distinguished between territory acquired in an "aggressive conquest" (such as Japanese conquests during the 1930s and Nazi conquests during World War II) and territory taken in a war of self-defense (for example, Israel’s capture of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967 war). He also distinguished between the taking of territory that is legally held by another nation (such as the Japanese occupation of Chinese territory and the Nazi Germany occupation of France, Holland, Belgium and other European lands) as opposed to the taking of territory illegally held. The latter applies to the West Bank and Gaza, which were not considered the legal territories of any High Contracting Party when Israel won control of them. The West Bank and Gaza were never the territory of a High Contracting Party; the occupation after 1948 by Jordan and Egypt was illegal and neither country ever had lawful or recognized sovereignty. The last legal sovereignty over the territories was that of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate which encouraged Jewish settlement of the land.
Regarding Israel’s acquisition of territories in the 1967 war, Schwebel wrote:
Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title. ("What Weight to Conquest," American Journal of International Law, 64 (1970))
Proponents of the view that settlements are legal further argue that Article 49 was intended to outlaw the Nazi practice of forcibly transporting populations into or out of occupied territories to death and work camps and thus cannot be applied to Israel because Israelis were neither forcibly transferred, nor were they intended to (nor do they) displace Arab residents of the territories. Arabs continue to live in these territories and their population continues to grow.
Those who believe settlements are legal also maintain that it is not the existence of settlements that have an impact on Palestinians’ standard of living, right to self-determination, equality, property, and freedom of movement. Rather, the impact upon their freedom of movement and standard of living is directly a result of the threat they pose to their Israeli neighbors and their governance by the Palestinian Authority.
They also claim that 'nine administrations' have regarded the 'settlements' as 'illegal.' That's also not true. Only the Carter and Obama administrations made that claim.
There's lots more that can be said about this subject, but given my current time constraints that will have to suffice for now.
In the bizarre world of the 'Palestinians,' if you sell me your house and I move in to it, the Israeli government is displacing you in violation of the Geneva Convention, at least if you're a 'Palestinian,' I am a Jew and we are in Jerusalem.
UN agencies and EU officials in the occupied Palestinian territory are calling for the implementation of international humanitarian law to protect the Palestinian population in East Jerusalem from forced displacement.
UN, Palestinian Authority and EU officials say East Jerusalem is occupied territory, requiring protection of the civilian population by international humanitarian law, a legal framework which prohibits population transfer into and out of the territory.
Israel says property transfers in East Jerusalem are private transactions governed by Israeli local municipal law. Today East Jerusalem, annexed by Israel in 1967, is governed by Israeli basic law.
How can a transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller be 'forced' displacement? Suppose the person living in the sold apartment is a tenant and not the seller. To say that the tenant cannot be expelled is to read the Geneva Convention as vitiating all private property rights.
And you can bet that the UN will back them up on it - at least so long as it's Israel that is benefiting.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
