The Levy Report asserted that Israeli construction in Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria is legal, and that Israel ought to legalize the 'illegal outposts.' When it came out, the media went ballistic, and Prime Minister Netanyahu was urged by 'American Jewish leaders,' to bury it in order to appease the Obama administration. And in fact, that's what happened: the report was quietly buried.
Now, with the mendaciousness of the Obama administration on full display, the government wants to resurrect the Levy Report.
A political campaign to push the government to adopt the report
petered out after Netanyahu was elected to a third term as prime minister in
January 2013.
“It’s our duty to ensure that Justice Levy’s report is
adopted by the government,” Rotem said on Tuesday.
He added that its
passage would repair the damage that had resulted from private attorney Talia
Sasson’s initial government commission report on West Bank outposts, which the
government received in March 2005.
Her report focused on the creation of
illegal outposts and argued for their removal.
In contrast, the Levy
report seeks to authorize them and normalize the treatment of land issues in the
West Bank as much as possible.
The Constitution, Law and Justice
Committee debate may be able to shine a political spotlight on the report, but
cannot advance it legally.
New legislation on settlement building would
need Netanyahu’s support and the initial approval of the Ministerial Legislative
Committee.
Since entering office, Netanyahu has rejected the option of
dealing with issues of Jewish building in the West Bank through Knesset
legislation, preferring instead to use existing mechanisms.
First, it could be advanced as a private member's bill, but that's almost beside the point.
Look, I love the Levy report (if you read the links at the top of this post, I think that comes through loud and clear), and I think it should have been adopted over a year ago when it first came out. But pushing it now, like all the housing announcements for Judea and Samaria this week (which I didn't bother to post because I didn't have the time and I don't believe they will ever happen), makes us look like a bunch of spoiled children throwing a tantrum because we didn't get our way on Iran. If you want to push the Levy Report, please, go ahead and push it, but don't drop it like a hot potato when and if (which is admittedly unlikely) Obama gives up on an arrangement with Iran.
And the same goes for all the housing announcements. Do it because it's the right thing to do and not because of Iran. As Teddy Roosevelt said, "speak softly and carry a big stick."
Following the request of the Habayit Hayehudi (Jewish Home-New
National Religious Party) and Yesh Atid parties, senior sources in the
Likud party say the party has expressed a willingness to re-open the
coalition agreement it signed with Tzipi Livni's Hatenu'ah party and
reconsider the authority given to Livni in negotiations with the
Palestinian Authority, according to a Friday report by Ma'ariv/nrg. Under the agreement, Livni stands to be Justice Minister.
The
sources told the newspaper that all of Livni's authorities will change
and some will be taken away from her. Until now Likud-Beyteinu has said
that the agreement cannot be re-opened.
The reason that Jewish Home does not want Livni to be Justice Minister is that as Justice Minister, she could prevent the adoption of the Levy Report. Of course, the Levy Report should have been adopted before the elections....
Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to have the Levy report adopted before the Knesset electionso on January 22. The Levy report asserts that it is legal for Israel to build in the Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria. Netanyahu's father Ben Tziyon z"l (pictured with the Prime Minister) would be pleased.
The government commission report, which also calls for the
authorization of West Bank outposts when possible, was submitted to
Netanyahu in July.
At the time Netanyahu said he would bring to
the Ministerial Committee on Settlements for debate, but never made good
on that pledge, in spite of pressure to do so from his party’s right
wing flank.
In advance of the Likud primaries later this month and
the upcoming elections, they have renewed their pressure on Netanyahu
to approve the report either through the Settlements Committee or the
cabinet.
Rumors surfaced last week that Netanyahu would deal with
it on Sunday, but that Weinstein had acted to prevent that in light of
the upcoming elections. Netanyahu and Weinstein’s office have been quiet
on the topic.
Last week Weinstein wrote a memo to the ministries
urging them not to make any major policy decisions, now the country was
heading to elections and the government was a transitional one.
On Sunday, however, politicians at the Likud’s weekly ministerial meeting urged Netanyahu to act on the report now.
"Netanyahu's
government must act immediately to adopt the report by [former Supreme
Court] Judge Edmund Levy," Sports and Culture Minister Limor Livnat said
at the meeting.
Weinstein has no legal reason by which to prevent the cabinet from adopting the Levy report, Livnat said.
"We
are not a transitional government, we are a sitting government. We have
the full legal and political authority to adopt the report,” Livnat
said.
But before you all go celebrating....
There is some speculation that if Netanyahu were to bring the document
to the cabinet or the Ministerial Settlements Committee now, he would
only present a modified version, absent some of elements that the
international community would find most controversial. Aside from its
broad legal opinion on the status of West Bank settlements under
international law, the report also argues that land disputes in the West
Bank should be determined by a separate judicial system created
specifically to handle those cases. This would include instances in
which both Israelis and Palestinians claimed ownership of the same tract
of land.
It should be clear to all of you that Leftist Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein does not want to bring this report to the government for approval. And neither does Netanyahu. This is pure electioneering.
But what disturbs me far more is their predictions of disaster if Israel holds to its traditional interpretation of its legal rights as per the Levy Report. The authors claim that the Report’s legal analysis will force Israel either to “undermine the Zionist ideal of Israel as the state of the Jewish people” by granting citizenship to the Arabs living in the West Bank and threatening Israel’s Jewish majority, or, alternatively, to “adopt a governing structure for the territories amounting to a form of apartheid.”
Frankly, this argument is preposterous. Having legal rights does not limit policy options; if anything, it expands them. Whether Israel adopts the Levy Report or not, Israel has the same policy options – to surrender the West Bank unilaterally, to compromise on its territorial rights in an agreement with the PLO (should the latter ever return to the negotiating table), to take advantage of its rights and expand Israel’s jurisdiction, or to mix and match among these possibilities.
The scenarios offered by Weiler and Zilbershats are, at best, fanciful.
The first scenario relies on a misplaced fear that Israel would cease having a Jewish majority if it were to incorporate the West Bank. The demographics of the West Bank are a matter of debate, but even using the most inflated estimates of the Palestinian population, incorporation of the West Bank would boost the Arab percentage of Israel’s population to roughly 40% (the more realistic estimates would put the Arab percentage at closer to 35%). Incidentally, if Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank were to act like their brethren in Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in response to the extension of Israeli law, they would overwhelmingly reject Israeli citizenship. Even with the West Bank in the fold, Israel would continue to be both Jewish and democratic.
Giulio Meotti's blasts Daniel Gordis for supporting ethnic cleansing of Jews
I wasn't the only one who was upset to see Daniel Gordis joining the Leftists to urge Prime Minister Netanyahu to bury the Levy report. So was Giulio Meotti, who was published an open letter to Gordis.
Here's some of it. Daniel, isn't ethnic cleansing of Jews from Judea and Samaria, using political, diplomatic and economic pressure - such as denying them government land, forbidding building, abolishing town planning - illegal, constituting a breach of the settlers' human rights, as well as a betrayal of Judaism?
Unfortunately, even important Jewish intellectuals like you are sending out the message that the blood of those living on the wrong side of an imaginary line on a map is not as red as that coursing in the veins of their fellow countrymen in Tel Aviv.
Daniel, where the Israeli media will stop to use the dehumanizing, dejudaizing language to distinguish between Jewish and Arab residents of Judea/Samaria? The "settlers" are not even qualified by the adjective "Jewish", while the Palestinians are "local residents". A "settler", of course, is meant to suggest an alien interloper who will be sent back where he came from; a "local resident" is supposedly an indigenous citizen.
Daniel, why do you repeat the canard that without Israeli concessions, the "Palestinian problem" will never be resolved and the Arab-Israel conflict will continue ad infinitum? It's like Hitler Big Lie. For the Islamic world everything Jewish is “illegal”. Everything is “stolen land”.
Peace can only be true if the Jews are no longer characterized as foreign occupiers, but as native sons who have returned home.
Destroy the outposts and you will see the domino effect: all Israel will be in lethal danger. "The colonist" is a very tiny figure in the Middle Eastern conflict, but for many reasons the civilization's future lies on his shoulders.
Daniel Gordis defends his signature on a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Significantly, he does so at Haaretz - Israel's Hebrew 'Palestinian' daily - and not at the Jerusalem Post where he normally writes his op-ed's (Hat Tip: My Right Word) (Full article here).
The question is how Israel should conduct itself in the face of that stark reality. A wise Israeli leadership would do everything in its power to communicate to the world that beyond those two existential issues, which are not negotiable, Israel will discuss virtually anything. There are matters on which Israel will compromise, and others on which it will not. Israel, though, must continually and publicly urge the Palestinians to come to the table; and when they refuse, Israel’s leaders must then make clear that it is the Palestinians, not the Israelis, who are the obstructionists.
Adopting the Levy Commission report would make it impossible for Israel to make that point. While the Levy Commission insisted that its findings were legal and not political, that distinction would be utterly lost on the international community. Observers everywhere would read the adoption of the Levy report as tantamount to annexing the West Bank. It would be read as putting the Palestinians on notice that Israel plans never to evacuate any settlements, and that hopes for a Palestinian state are dead. The damage to Israel – in the international community and even among more Zionists than this government realizes – would be profound.
Internally, the damage would be no less significant. Israel today faces a profound educational challenge, one that it has not even begun to address. Intentionally or not, adopting the Levy Commission report would signal to Israelis that their political leadership believes that the status quo is actually the ideal and that young people should give up even dreaming that the conflict might, one day, be behind us. Can we imagine ourselves in an interminable conflict without numbing our moral sensibilities? How do we encourage our citizens to be willing to fight for this country, without making hatred of our enemy a foundation of their Israeli ethos? Israel needs to educate a generation of young people and new leaders passionately committed to the proposition that a Jewish State needs to be defended vigorously, all the while hoping that our enemies might someday become simply neighbors.
I cannot buy into Gordis' argument for three reasons.
First, because a report issued by a former Supreme Court Justice that asserts our legal rights certainly does not close the door to the sovereign State of Israel deciding on its own and of its own volition to waive some of those rights. The current situation - in which we stand silently as the world asserts that we have no rights - just encourages the 'Palestinians' and their Arab, Muslim and European sponsors to maintain their maximalist demands.
Second, because the 'two-state solution' is not a holy grail and has no rights of exclusivity. There are other possible ways to resolve or live with the conflict - yes, including the status quo - that are less risky to the lives and livelihoods of Israelis. From 1967-93, almost no Israelis advocated for a 'two-state solution.' Even in Prime Minister Rabin's last speech to the Knesset in 1995, he said that there would be no 'Palestinian state.' And in the time in which Israelis have declared themselves open to a 'Palestinian state,' the 'Palestinians' have asserted and proven time and time again that their intention is that a 'Palestinian state' be a stepping stone to the replacement of the State of Israel, and not a final result of coexistence. It is time for Israelis to acknowledge that reality and act accordingly. It is time to move on from the Oslo paradigm.
Third, the truth is that we ought to annex Judea and Samaria. Now. What form that annexation should take - whether it ought to include the Arab population that lives there today or only the Jewish towns and the land on which they sit plus access roads to them - is a matter for discussion. But we ought to annex Judea and Samaria if for no other reason than once we have done so, it will give the 'Palestinians' an incentive to compromise on their outrageous demands. We have expelled Jews from their homes before for the sake of an illusory peace. No one should doubt that Israel would expel Jews from their homes (hopefully in a more humane way that was done until now) for the sake of a real peace. But we have to acknowledge that a real peace is nothing but a pipe dream today and to stop living in FantasyLand and ignoring reality.
For the last 19 years, we have gone around in circles and have sacrificed over 1,500 Israeli lives to 'Palestinian' terrorism while pursuing a 'two-state solution.' It is time for another solution.
Say it ain't so: 40 prominent US Jews urge Netanyahu to bury Levy report
If you're wondering the extent to which the 'two-state solution' has become an article of faith, I was shocked to find Daniel Gordis among 40 'US Jews' (that's in scare quotes because Gordis is technically an Israeli, and the letter also included Edgar Bronfman, who is Canadian) who signed a letter urging Prime Minister Netanyahu to bury the Levy report.
More than 40 prominent American Jewish leaders and philanthropists sent a letter to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Sunday in which they implored him not to approve the judicial report that says Jews may settle freely in Judea and Samaria.
"As strong advocates for Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish and democratic state, we are deeply concerned about the recent findings of government commission led by Supreme Court Justice (Ret.) Edmond Levy,” the letter said.
"We fear that this report, if approved, will place the two-state solution, and the prestige of Israel as a democratic member of the international community, in peril.”
The letter's signatories letter include philanthropists Charles Bronfman and Lester Crown; Marvin Lender, Former National Chairman of UJA; Rabbi Daniel Gordis, President of the Shalem Center; Deborah Lipstadt, an expert on Holocaust studies at Emory University; Bernard Nussbaum, former White House Counsel; Thomas Dine, a former executive director of AIPAC; E. Robert Goodkind, a former president of the American Jewish Committee; Richard Pearlstone, former chairman of the Jewish Agency; and Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.
The Levy Committee's report determines that Israel cannot be characterized as "an occupier" of Judea and Samaria because the territory never legally belonged to Jordan before Israel regained it in 1967.
The letter was initiated by the Israel Policy Forum (IPF), which was attacked in 2007 by veteran Jewish leader and columnist Isi Liebler as a group that "delegitimizes" Israeli policies.
I'm deeply disappointed to see Gordis on there, but while many of these people are considered prominent 'thinkers' I wouldn't characterize most of them as leaders of the Jewish community (unless being wealthy makes you a leader).
But in their letter to Netanyahu on Sunday, the US Jewish leaders said they were concerned that approval of the report would “place the two-state solution, and the prestige of Israel as a democratic member of the international community, in peril.”
The letter added, “At this moment, it is more critical than ever that Israel strengthen its claim in the international community that it is committed to a two-state vision, which is, in turn, central to Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state.”
...
In their letter, the US Jews called on Netanyahu to take a stand against the report. “Securing Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state requires diplomatic and political leadership, not legal maneuverings,” they said.
They asked him to “ensure that adoption of this report does not take place,” the letter stated.
Signatories to the letter included: Michael Berenbaum, former Project Director of the US Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC; Charles R. Bronfman, philantrhopist; Lester Crown, Chairman of Henry Crown & Co.; Thomas A. Dine, Former Executive Director of AIPAC; Rabbi David Ellenson, President, Hebrew Union College –Jewish Institute of Religion; Peter A. Joseph, Chairman, Israel Policy Forum; and Richard Pearlstone, Former Chairman, Jewish Agency.
Again, most of these people are not recognized leaders of the Jewish community.
What this letter shows is how wedded the American Jewish community is to the 'two-state solution' and how they have lost any ability to think of alternatives outside the box. When the community's supposed original thinkers have a knee jerk reaction of rejecting anything that varies from the conventional wisdom, something is really wrong.
At the President's Conference last month, Caroline Glick mentioned that she is working on a book that argues in favor of Israel annexing all of Judea and Samaria. While some people may fear that solution (because they have bought into the demographic lies that claim that annexing all that land would mean that we would either no longer be a Jewish state or no longer be a democratic state), Caroline's book probably will stand a chance of being the first to prompt a serious reevaluation of the two-state paradigm since the 90's. The sooner she can get it out, the better.
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Friday, July 13.
1) False history
A reader has provided Elder of Ziyon with a translation of some important parts of the Levy committee's legal reasonning. One of the central features of current critiques of Israel is claiming that it violated (or is violating) the Fourth Geneva Convention with its policy of allowing Jews to live in Judea and Samaria.
We do not believe that one can draw an analogy between this legal provision and those who sought to settle in Judea and Samaria not as a result of them being "deported" or "transferred" but because of their world view - to settle the Land of Israel. We did not ignore the view of those who think that one should interpret the Fourth Geneva Convention as also prohibiting the occupying state to encourage or support the transfer of parts of its population to the occupied territory, even if it did not instigated it (on this issue see note 13 here). But even if this interpretation is correct, we would not change our conclusion that no analogy should be drawn between Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria, in light of the status of the area under international law, and for that matter a brief history is required.
The history repeated here is often forgotten and, unfortunately, obfuscated.
The Palestinian Arab assault on the Jewish connection to Jerusalem continues apace aided and abetted not only by radical Islamists or angry Silwanites but by fellow travelers in the media and in academia, including Israeli Jews. Consider the tours carried out by Emek Shaveh, an Israeli nonprofit organization, and Palestinian residents of Silwan with a view to rebuffing the "political archaeology of the Jews" and to prove the area's "true" archaeological significance.[49] Emek Shaveh's founder Yonathan Mizrachi, who has voluntarily left his job at Israel's Antiquity Authority, spares no effort to downplay the Jewish biblical history of the area. As he put it: "After three hours on [an Israeli-organized] tour, you are convinced that you are at a totally Jewish site where evidence of Canaanite, Byzantine, and Muslim, and, of course, Palestinian [civilizations] are pushed aside. Jerusalem has 4,000 years of history. They only focus on the marvelous stories of King Solomon, David, and Hezekiyah, of which, by the way, they haven't found any archaeological evidence that ties them to the place."[50] ... Sadly, the battle over Silwan (and for that matter the wider Palestinian-Israeli conflict) is likely to continue as long as Palestinian Arabs and their brethren refuse to recognize that another people, the Jews, have a claim to the Land of Israel.
It should surprise no-one that sponsoring Qatar and Saudi Arabia to build the rebellion in Syria will result in a Sunni Islamist-dominated insurgency. The Qataris back the Muslim Brothers, so that is who is now growing stronger. The Saudis support the Salafis, so they are growing too. It is the Sunni Islamists who have the shiny new hardware that is destroying Assad’s tanks and his helicopters. But even the officers and men of the Free Syrian Army, most of whom oppose Islamism, appear firmly within the familiar boundaries of Arab nationalism. The distrust of non-Arab minorities, the paranoia regarding the west and Israel. All are easy to discern. Hence the almost entirely Sunni Arab complexion of the rebellion against Assad preceded the current rise of the Sunni Islamists within it. I have seen the regime side less close up, for obvious reasons. But when imagining the convoys across the mountains bringing money to the rebels, one should also picture the Russian ships bringing gleaming new arms and machines to the regime.
There's a lot more there, much of it unsettling, but well worth reading.
3) The secret connection
Shortly after the United States invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein an Iraqi infant was flown to Israel for life saving surgery. That led some to hope that post-Saddam Iraq might be a changed place with respect to Israel. That hasn't happened.
Iraq and Israel do not enjoy diplomatic relations but the Israeli port of Haifa has been secretly serving as a conduit for trade between Iraq and Europe for a long time, Haifa mayor Yona Yahav told Al-Jazeera. Trucks from Jordan carrying Iraqi merchandise arrive at Haifa port and load it onto ships that travel to Europe. A WikiLeaks document published in October 2010 revealed a conversation between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. Senator Benjamin Cardin in February 2009 in which Netanyahu spoke of “strong but unpublicized trade between Haifa port and Iraq via Jordan.” Yahav said the Israeli government is investing $70.6 million in a train line between Haifa and Beit She’an, on the border with Jordan. Trade expert Matanis Shahadeh told Al-Jazeera that from Iraq’s point of view, the Iraq-Haifa route is much more direct and cost-efficient than the alternative maritime route through the Persian Gulf.
Well, okay, let me explain: I suppose that Israel could indeed have unincorporated territories, like the U.S. does, if the people who lived in the those unincorporated territories wanted to live as "resident aliens" of Israel. But they don't. This is one difference between the West Bank and Samoa. The people of Samoa seem content to be citizens of a territory of the United States. At the very least, they're not in perpetual revolt. If they were in perpetual revolt, or even sporadic revolt, does James Taranto really believe that the President, Congress and people of the United States would attempt to force Samoa, through arms, to remain a territory of the U.S.? Or we would we let the Samoans have their independence, or whatever it is they said they wanted? I imagine the American people would choose the latter option. If the Palestinians of the West Bank choose, through a free and fair referendum, to become non-voting resident aliens of the State of Israel, well, who are we to tell them they're wrong? But so far there's no indication that Palestinians would freely choose such an arrangement.
In Goldberg's hypothetical, would the Samoans have chosen to object to American sovereignty by supporting a terrorist organization dedicated to America's existence? Would that terrorist organization have violated every single agreement it made with the United States? If the previous conditions existed would Goldberg still claim that the mechanism through which the Samoans were seeking independence from the United States was legitimate?
The problem with using the term "occupation," is that it prejudges Israel's status. If Israel occupies Judea and Samaria then it is in violation of international law and potentially illegitimate until that occupation is over. Goldberg and others like him insist that the occupation can't be over until the Palestinians are satisfied with Israeli concessions. But why should that be?
Secretary Rogers accordingly inferred that, in the absence of such peace and agreement, withdrawal of Israeli forces from Egyptian territory would not be required. That is to say, he appeared to uphold the legality of continued Israeli occupation of Arab territory pending "the establishment of a state of peace between the parties instead of the state of belligerency."[3] In this Secretary Rogers is on sound ground. That ground may well be based on appreciation of the fact that Israel's action in 1967 was defensive, and on the theory that, since the danger in response to which defensive action was taken remains, occupation - though not annexation - is justified, pending a peace settlement.
In other words it is peace that must precede an end to occupation, not the other way around. That would mean that it isn't only Palestinian demands that must be satisfied, but Israeli requirements too. (Given that some of these are mutually exclusive, that means that each side must give up something to get a deal done. The current paradigm only requires Israel to make concessions.) "Occupation" has become leverage for requiring Israeli action even in the absence of any Palestinian action. This has been one of the most perverse aspects of the last nineteen years of the peace process and it has been counterproductive.
(Another problem with the term "occupation" is that it only addresses Palestinian losses. If there's a principle of "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," why doesn't that apply to Hebron or the Etzion bloc; areas from which the Jews were forcibly evicted?)
Even if one accepts Levy's ruling, that doesn't mean that Israel can't cede territory for peace. It doesn't suggest that Israel should reverse any of its concessions (though those concessions have brought Israel new threats, not the security we were assured). It just means that Israel should not be the only party that is obligated to make the necessary concessions for peace.
The other day the New York Times condemned the ruling made by Judge Levy and his committee. Alex Margolin observed:
Maybe the people who write editorials at the New York Times don’t follow the news. That’s the only way to explain how, just one day after Mahmoud Abbas rejected Israel’s offer to release 125 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for nothing more than a new round of peace talks, the Times is back to blaming Israel for the current impasse.
Margolin is being generous here. The editors of the New York Times aren't ignorant; they're arguments are made in bad faith. Several editorials over the past year explicitly place most of the blame on Netanyahu for the lack of a peace agreement, ignoring any evidence to the contrary. The attacks of the editors of the New York Times are willful.
“Occupied” is the verb used by the UN, the U.S. and other third parties. Levy and his two fellow panelists don’t see it that way. They argue that Israel is not an occupying force in the West Bank because Jordan’s previous control was never legitimized. Yet that’s a rare view even in Israel. Many officials there dislike the term, but international law regarding occupation has been the basis of Israeli jurisprudence in the West Bank for 45 years. In the first military orders issued after taking the West Bank, Israel cited the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with the responsibilities of an occupying power.
For more than four decades Israel’s acquisition of Judea, Samaria and Gaza in the 1967 Six Day War has been portrayed by those who oppose the right of Jews to settle these areas as “illegal” and “immoral.” Some include eastern Jerusalem and the Golan as well. These prominent politicians, jurists, former and serving military officers, literati and media personalities represent a small but powerful elite that has shaped government policy.
The reason the editors at Bloomberg News (and Jeffrey Goldberg) find the ruling "rare" is because they are much more familiar those whom Dann identifies as a "small but powerful elite." But how does the average Israeli feel? I suspect that (especially after Oslo) most Israelis don't believe that Judea and Samaria are "occupied." I suspect that the average Israeli sees the continued Egyptian animosity towards Israel despite the sacrifice of the Sinai and the buildup of Hamas since disengagement from Gaza , and wonders if future concessions will bring peace or greater threats.
This is why Netanyahu and not Tzippi Livni and not Yossi Beilin is currently Prime Minister. It's easy, of course, to dismiss Netanyahu as a right winger whose views need not be taken seriously. It's easy but that doesn't make it honest. It also doesn't make such labeling constructive.
Maybe if the editors of the New York Times and Jeffrey Goldberg were saying that Israel was making peace because it wanted to and not because it had to, they would be more generous in their evaluation of Israel's predicament. Maybe they'd also be forced to acknowledge that it isn't mostly Israel's fault that there isn't yet Arab-Israeli peace. And maybe if Israelis didn't feel that that peace required one sided concessions with or reward or even appreciation, they'd be convinced of the good faith of those promoting the "peace process."
Mahmoud Abbas refused to negotiate with Binyamin Netanyahu, because the latter wouldn't release enough murderers from jail.No New York Times editorial condemned the intransigence.
An Israeli committee concluded on the basis of historical fact, that Israel is not an occupying power. A New York Times editorial condemned the history.
Palestinian hopes for an independent state are growing dimmer all the time. Israel is pushing ahead with new settlements in the West Bank and asserting control over new sections of East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claim as their capital. Meanwhile, peace talks — the best guarantee of a durable solution — are going nowhere.
As noted above, Netanyahu made an offer to get talks restarted. Abbas refused the offer. There is no such entity as "East Jerusalem." In any case whatever Israel is doing (and building "settlements" isn't one of them) it is the Palestinians who refuse to talk. But there is no criticism for that.
Now comes another, potentially disastrous, blow. An Israeli government-appointed commission on Monday issued a report asserting that Israel’s 45-year presence in the West Bank is not occupation. The commission endorsed the state’s legal right to settle there and recommended that the state approve scores of new Israeli settlements. It proposed stripping the military of its authority to force settlers off land claimed by Palestinians.
"Occupation" has a specific meaning. It does not apply here for a number of reasons. The most obvious reason is that there was no clear ownership of the land before 1967. Another is that the Six Day War was a defensive war (closing the Straits of Tiran was an act of war.) Those who resort to the term "occupation" (especially post-Oslo) are trying to erase that history.
But what the editorial fails to recognize is that the term "occupation" makes peace less, not more, likely. As long as Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria is recognized as illegitimate it gives the Palestinian Authority no incentive to compromise. As long as the PA claims that Israeli concessions are not enough, Israel is illegitimate in the eyes of much of the world (and all those years of engaging in terror to get recognized are forgotten.)
... it is correct to say that "The statement "Israeli settlements are illegal" is not a statement of international law; it is an opinion on applying international law to a specific circumstance." The "international consensus" about Israeli settlements cannot possibly be a rule of customary international law. Customary international law is the result of common international practice combined with "opinio juris" (the belief that the practice is required by international law). By the nature of things, there cannot be a common international "practice" concerning Israeli settlements. That is something that only Israel can have a "practice" concerning. There can be a customary law about allowing one's citizens to settle in territory one has captured, not one about the specific case at hand. As to whether there is an international customary law concerning practices of this type, more generally (i.e., allowing one's citizens to settle in territory captured in international conflict), there is not. Many states have allowed citizens to settle in such territory, and even encouraged them to do so. In some cases (e.g., Morocco and Western Sahara), the practices have been considered illegal, and in others (e.g., India and Goa), the practices have been considered obviously legal. There is no principled line on which to draw the bounds of a rule. In any event, in no case has the world reacted the way it does to Israel. For instance, the EU does not discriminate against products from Western Sahara "settlements" in its free trade agreement with Morocco. The international anti-Israel consensus certainly exists, but it is just as clearly not an expression of customary international law. It is not even a principled application of a rule of law. It is very clearly a singular standard applied to the Jewish state.
The Times promotes its policy preferences — again, we’re really talking about Mr. Sulzberger’s policy preferences — every day, using ink it buys by the barrel. The Times sees that as part of its mission, correctly. But private citizens are entitled to the same free-speech rights as the media — unless, of course, one embraces as a serious principle what I’ve always assumed the great journalist A. J. Liebling intended as a quip: “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.” It should not go unobserved that the Times rarely allows opposing views to be aired on its op-ed pages. Much of the money that Mr. Adelson, Mr. Soros, and others give to political candidates is spent on communications — ads in newspapers (including the Times) and on television and radio. The ads run by the politicians Mr. Adelson is likely to support often rebut the opinions articulated by the Times and other mainstream media, as well as the “public media,” which are subsidized with taxpayer dollars. Mr. Adelson recently spent more than $20 million to support the presidential candidacy of Newt Gingrich. The Times calls that an attempt to “buy influence” but, more objectively, it was an attempt to persuade voters and, in my view, a net contribution to the national policy debate. Now Mr. Adelson is supporting Mitt Romney. That support, the Times fears, could help push the Republican candidate “over the top in a close race like this year’s.” The Times sees that as unfair. What the Times views as fairer: The Times supporting President Obama and pushing him over the top in a close race like this year’s.
I know Sheldon Adelson and I have worked with him on several matters relating to Israel and the Jewish community. I have spoken on behalf of the wonderful school he has built in Las Vegas. And have had the pleasure of teaching one of the brilliant graduates of that school. Adelson was deeply involved in the creation of the Birthright Israel Program, which has had extraordinary success in exposing young Jews to Israel. It's hard to find anyone who has done as much for the Jewish community as Sheldon Adelson. Adelson grew up in Boston in near poverty and is a shining example of the American dream. He is a self-made multibillionaire who has contributed significantly to the world of modern technology and to the economic growth of Las Vegas and other areas. His generosity has helped repair the world. I am a Democrat and do not agree with many of Adelson's political views, but I think it's outrageous for the National Jewish Democratic Council to level unfounded allegations against Adelson. They do not speak for me, and for the many other Jews who admire Adelson's contributions to the world, to America, to Israel and to the Jewish community. I don't know who Harris purports to speak for as President of the National Jewish Democratic Council, but his partisan gamesmanship is an embarrassment to many Jewish Democrats. The attack comes with particular ill grace from a Jewish organization, considering all that Adelson has done for Jewish causes, and considering the fact that there is nothing uniquely "Jewish" about the questionable allegations against him.
It's interesting that he's been a supporter of Birthright.
David Bernstein has followed up on an earlier post in which he critiqued Peter Beinart's analysis of data to "prove" that younger Jews were growing alienated to Israel. That was the cue Beinart used to argue that it was "settlements" that were alienating younger Jews. This week Bernstein observed:
The data didn’t support him then, and I pointed out that the data were even less likely to do so in the future, given Birthright and the Internet. (Beinart parlayed the fame achieved from his essay into a book that from all indications has been a commercial flop despite much publicity.)
Editorially, the New York Times (despite a negative review of Beinart's book) has been supportive of Beinart's argument and similar ones.
Maybe the reason the editors of the New York Times loathe Adelson is because he supports a program that undermines one of their articles of faith.
For more than 40 years, the international Left in collusion with the mainstream media (MSM) has attempted to impose a narrative on Israelis that would strip us of the fruits of a defensive war and jeopardize our continued survival at the same time. They have done so using a two-pronged argument: First, that there is a demographic time bomb that will force Israel to choose between being a Jewish state and a democratic state somewhere down the road, and second, that allowing Jews to live in areas liberated from their Jordanian, Egyptian and Syrian occupiers in 1967 is somehow 'illegal.'
In order to sustain this narrative, the international Left and the MSM have turned the United Nations resolutions that were passed in the aftermath of that defensive war on their face by adopting a narrative that was specifically rejected by the Security Council at the time. Moreover, the international Left and the MSM have accepted demographic data from a source that is even less reliable than the City of Chicago's voter rolls: The 'Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics.'
I'm not going to discuss demography in this post - I have discussed it many, many times previously (sampling here). Instead, I am going to discuss the panic being sown on the Left with the publication of the Levy report last week (I discussed the report previously here, here and here).
In an editorial in Wednesday's editions, the New York Timesblasts the Levy report. Of course, the editorial makes it sound like Israel has construction saws revving away around the clock in Judea and Samaria. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.
The Times blasts the report as "bad law, bad policy and bad politics." I'd like to take each of those arguments and disagree. Let's start with 'bad law.'
Most of the world views the West Bank, which was taken by Israel from Jordan in the 1967 war, as occupied territory and all Israeli construction there as a violation of international law. The world court ruled this way in 2004. The Fourth Geneva Convention bars occupying powers from settling their own populations in occupied lands. And United Nations Security Council resolution 242, a core of Middle East policy, calls for the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
The fact that 'most of the world' views Judea and Samaria, which were liberated by Israel in 1967 from an illegal occupier (only Britain and Pakistan recognized Jordan's occupation) as 'occupied territory' does not make it so. Nor does the fact that 'most of the world' views Israeli construction there as a violation of 'international law' make that construction a violation of international law.
International law has two sources: Treaties and something known as 'customary international law.' The only treaties that govern Judea and Samaria pre-date the State of Israel and grant sovereignty over Judea and Samaria to the Jewish people. Proceedings of the International Court of Justice are only binding on countries that accept its jurisdiction (Israel did not in that 2004 case), and customary international law is not binding on any country that does not adopt the custom. Thus, the statement "Israeli settlements are illegal" is not a statement of international law; it is an opinion on applying international law to a specific circumstance.
Moreover, any "international consensus" about Israeli settlements cannot possibly be a rule of customary international law. Customary international law is the result of common international practice combined with the belief that the practice is required by international law. Therefore, there cannot be a common international "practice" concerning Israeli settlements. Only Israel can have a "practice" concerning Israeli settlements. There can be a customary law about a country allowing its citizens to settle in territory it has captured, not one about another country's answer to a similar dilemma.
As to whether there is an international customary law concerning practices of this type, more generally (i.e., allowing one's citizens to settle in territory captured in international conflict), there is not. Many states have allowed citizens to settle in such territory, and even encouraged them to do so. In some cases (e.g., Morocco and Western Sahara), the practices have been considered illegal, and in others (e.g., India and Goa), the practices have been considered obviously legal. There is no principled line on which to draw the bounds of a rule. In any event, in no case has the world reacted the way it does to Israel. For instance, the EU does not discriminate against products from Western Sahara "settlements" in its free trade agreement with Morocco. The international anti-Israel consensus certainly exists, but it is just as clearly not an expression of customary international law. It is not even a principled application of a rule of law. It is very clearly a singular standard applied to the Jewish state.
In other words, the world's branding of Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria as an 'illegal occupation' meets Natan Sharansky's 3-D's test for modern anti-Semitism. And you expected better from America's 'newspaper of record'....
The Times goes on to make its 'bad policy' argument.
The recommendations would annul a number of past Israeli Supreme Court rulings and orders, including a 1979 decision forbidding the expropriation of land for “military needs” when the real goal is settlement construction. It is alarming to see this latest attack on the court, which has tried to temper government excesses, ruling that several outposts and buildings constructed on private Palestinian land should be dismantled. Thirty families were evicted from five such buildings last month.
In other words, the Times is arguing that Israel's Supreme Court ought to reign supreme rather than being a co-equal branch of government, and that the Knesset - the closest thing we have to a democratically elected polity in in this country - ought to have no say. Were the Times to adopt that standard for the United States, there would be no income tax today. There would have been no New Deal in the 1930's (some people might argue that the US would be better off that way...). Clearly, declaring an unelected Supreme Court infallible and more equal (to use George Orwell's term) does not comport with democratic values. The Times ought to know better.
The commission, led by Edmund Levy, a former Supreme Court justice, was established in January under pressure from settlement leaders.
And therefore? Is that supposed to invalidate its conclusions? Does that mean that it can and should be ignored? The previous report on 'settlements' - the Sasson Report - was the result of pressure from the Left. Why is that more valid in the Times' view (except for the fact that the Times likes its conclusions better)?
If its conclusions are not firmly rejected by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, there is likely to be new international anger at Israel.
There's 'international anger' at Israel because we exist. It has nothing to do with whether or not there are a few hundred Jews living in Beit El or Shilo or Hebron or Kfar Tapuach. So the Arabs will seethe a little more? Let them. The only chance that they might (and admittedly this is unlikely) seriously come to the negotiating table is if they see the status quo on the ground changing to their detriment. The Times would have us continue the limbo of the last 45 years. Where has that gotten us?
That could divert attention from Iran just when the world is bearing down with sanctions and negotiations to curb Tehran’s nuclear program.
Linkage was discredited three years ago. Even President Obama (who was its chief proponent) has given up on claiming that there has to be a 'Palestinian state' in order for the West to stop Iran. It's nonsense. Iran has to be stopped for many reasons, many of which have nothing to do with Israel. Ask the Saudis and the Gulf States.
It would also draw attention to a dispiriting anomaly: that a state founded as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people is determined to continue ruling 2.5 million Palestinians under an unequal system of laws and rights.
The 2.5 million number is nonsense. For those who don't remember why, go here (among other places). And as to the 'unequal system of laws and rights,' let's leave aside the fact that the Arabs in Judea and Samaria are better off in every way than any Arabs in any other Arab country in the world with the exception of those who live within the 1949 armistice lines. What would the Times say if Israel proposed annexing Judea and Samaria outright? What excuse would the Times have then to decry Jews living in Judea and Samaria as 'bad policy'? Go ahead and do it? Well, isn't that where the Levy Report would have us heading?
Finally, there's the Times 'bad politics' argument. It essentially says, "Netanyahu has a large enough coalition that he can do whatever we want him to do, and therefore if he doesn't do it, that's bad politics."
That is unsustainable, and it is damaging to Israel’s security and regional peace. Now that Mr. Netanyahu has expanded his ruling coalition, his excuse is gone for not ending his counterproductive settlement policy and using his new political clout to advance a peace agreement with the Palestinians.
We didn't elect the Times editorial writers to be Prime Minister, did we? So why does Netanyahu have to listen to them?
The Levy report injects a fresh new element into the debate over Judea and Samaria, and gives exposure to a view that is under-represented. It should be taken seriously by all who believe in the pursuit of justice and peace in the Middle East, because for the first time an Israeli government panel has made the legal case for Israel holding onto Judea and Samaria. But it won't be taken seriously. Certainly not by the Times.
UPDATE 10:51 PM
Part of the discussion of international law came from an email that I received this morning from Professor Avi Bell. I redacted parts of that email. A large quotation from that email is contained in Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler, which is a few posts up from here.
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
