Northwestern University law professor Eugene Kontorovich points out some of the hypocrisy in the way that the French government (25% shareholder) is relating to the Israeli 'occupation' of Judea and Samaria, as compared with how it relates to the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara and the Turkish occupation of Cyprus.
On Wednesday the CEO of the French telecom firm Orange announced that
he sought to “drop” his business in Israel, done through an Israeli
subsidiary. Speaking at a meeting in Cairo, he emphasized that this was
action was mostly to win the “trust”
of Arab countries. But there was also a suggestion that this is because
the Israeli affiliate has some cellular antennae across the Green Line.
The French Ambassador to the U.S., (and formerly Israel), defended the Orange CEO’s statement on Twitter:‘
“4th Geneva convention : settlement policy in occupied territories is illegal. It is illegal to contribute to it in any way.”
That
statement is entirely baseless. Even if settlements are illegal, there
is no ban on business in the territories, or with settlers. Certainly
there is no tertiary obligation to not do business with businesses that
have some tangential business in such territory. All this is
demonstrated extensively in my new paper, some of which I tried to share
with Amb. Araud.
...
The Orange incident, and the Ambassador’s legal claim, are also bad
news for a number of French companies, like the oil giant Total, which
is active in Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara against the vociferous protests of the indigenous Sawahari people. (There are many other examples, like Michelin in Turkish-occupied Cyprus.)
The French government has never criticized any of these controversial
activities in any way. But if the Ambassador’s legal claim is right, he
has provided the basis for war crimes prosecutions of France’s leading
executives.
Amb. Araud responded to my question
by revealing that he had no idea one of his country’s largest companies
was engaged in an major project that, by his account, is a war crime.
The Ambassador, after blocking me, revealed that his international law claims are not really about international law:
I
speak of one occupied territory. I am answered on other territories. I
conclude that everybody agrees on what I say on the former.
In other words, no fairs to cite precedents and practice. But of course, if you are talking about international law, “other territories” are entirely relevant. First, for something to be law, it has to be a rule that applies to similar situations. And for it to be international, well, those situations will involve different countries.
So we have a diplomat blocking a university professor on Twitter for pointing out that he was mistaken. And notfor the firsttime, we have proof that those who oppose the Israeli 'occupation' of Judea and Samaria are incapable of passing Natan Sharansky's 3D test.
Moroccans say ISIS doesn't speak for us, support Zionism(!), offer (metaphorical) sex to Kurds fighting ISIS
MEMRI posts two videos showing how Moroccan activists are opposing ISIS. The first one is just called 'Not in my name: Moroccan campaign against Islamist extremism.'
Let's go to the videotape
In the second video, a female activist of the Amazigh movement defends Zionism and explains her (metaphorical) offer of sex services to Kurds fighting ISIS.
With Britain sending a warship to enforce its claim to Gibraltar, thousands of miles away, Bret Stephens implants his tongue firmly in cheek, and without even mentioning Israel mentions some of the other occupied territories in the world, and wonders why no one worries about them. In fact, in none of those cases, is the territory in question necessary for the occupier's security, a thought that appears lost on those who criticize Israel as an 'occupier' in Judea and Samaria, which I can literally see from my front door. (Those without access to the Journal's web site can find the full article here.
Rather than waste time and money on a fruitless diplomatic brawl,
Prime Minister David Cameron should say he’s prepared to relinquish
Gibraltar to Spain—on just one condition.
That would be a declaration by the Spanish government that it will
renounce its own claims to the cities of Ceuta and Melilla, which lie
opposite Gibraltar on the northern coast of Africa. Morocco has long
claimed these Spanish enclaves for itself, and in July 2002 it even sent
troops to seize an uninhabited Spanish islet near Ceuta. Madrid
responded a week later by deploying its navy, air force and special
forces to bloodlessly retake the island, but tensions still simmer.
Spaniards might object to returning the two cities on the grounds that
local inhabitants overwhelmingly consider themselves Spanish and wish to
remain a part of Spain. Then again, the last time Gibraltarians took a
vote on their sovereignty, 99% of them wished to remain British.
Of course, Madrid couldn’t just turn over Ceuta and Melilla without
asking Morocco to readjust its own territorial claims. Since 1975, Rabat
has occupied the Western Sahara—a territory larger than the U.K.—though
no other country recognizes Moroccan sovereignty. The Moroccan position
is contested by an Algerian-backed group called the Polisario Front,
which administers a “country” called the Sahrawi Arab Democratic
Republic.
But the leadership in Rabat could hardly be asked to deliver such a
political prize to its arch-rivals in Algiers without expecting some
commensurate sacrifice.
It’s been more than 50 years since Algerian independence led to the exodus of nearly one million pieds-noirs
and the seizure of their properties by Ben Bella’s government. And
though the French government did pay some small indemnities to their
displaced kinsmen, the Algerian government has never recognized, much
less atoned for, the injustice it did to an indigenous community that
had considered itself Algerian for generations.
Obama maintains Israel's qualitative superiority... by selling tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood
Remember President Obama's commitment to maintain Israel's qualitative military superiority? Well, here's a rather strange way of keeping it: Obama is planning to sell 200 M1A1 Abrams tanks - the top of the line - to the Muslim Brotherhood-led government of Morocco (Hat Tip: MFS - The Other News).
The Government of the Kingdom of Morocco has requested a possible enhancement and refurbishment of 200 M1A1 Abrams tanks, provided as part of a grant Excess Defense Article (EDA) transfer notified to Congress on 27 April 2011, to the M1A1 Special Armor (SA) configuration. The possible sale will also provide 150 AN/VRC-87E and 50 AN/VRC-89E Exportable Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems (SINCGARS), 200 M2 Chrysler Mount Machine Guns, and 400 7.62MM M240 Machine Guns. The possible sale also includes 12,049,842 Ammunition Rounds (including 1400 C785 SABOT, 1800 CA31 HEAT, and 5400 AA38 SLAP-T), 200 M250 Smoke Grenade Launchers, support equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, communication support, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related logistics support. The estimated cost is $1.015 billion.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a major Non-NATO ally that continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in Africa.
This package of M1A1 tank enhancements will contribute to the modernization of Morocco’s tank fleet, enhancing its ability to meet current and future threats. These tanks will contribute to Morocco’s goal of updating its military capability while further enhancing interoperability with the U.S. and other allies. The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
Put this together with last year's sale of the same tanks to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, and you have to wonder what Obama had in mind when he said that he would ensure that Israel maintains qualitative military superiority.
Is the result of the Arab Spring to be a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Arab world? That's what appears to be the case after the Brotherhood won the recent election in Morocco (whose King, Mohamed VI, is pictured at the top of this post) after the Brotherhood won the elections in Tunisia a few weeks ago.
In Egypt, the three-stage elections begin on 28 November 2011, and the Muslim Brotherhood has a chance to make substantial gains. The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, which is fighting to overthrow the Alawite regime of Assad, is backed by Turkey, which regards it as an alternative to the existing government. In Libya, the new government has undertaken to make Sharia law a primary source of legislation. In Yemen, the Islamist movements have played a central role in the revolt against the rule of Ali Abdullah Saleh. Earlier, in 2006, the Hamas movement – the branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Palestinian territories – triumphed in the Palestinian Authority elections, and since then Hamas has entrenched its rule in Gaza and, for all intents and purposes, has become an independent political entity.
The Muslim Brotherhood branches in the various countries are full partners to the worldwide movement’s ideology. Each one, however, has freedom of action to devise its own tactics in line with specific political conditions. In Morocco, the Justice and Development Party chose to downplay the extreme Islamist message and mainly focus on fighting corruption and improving the economy, issues that took the lion’s share of its electoral platform.
That platform, in its brief political section, stated that the party would aim to strengthen dialogue and cooperation with all of the EU countries and Canada while, in Morocco’s relations with the United States, pursuing an appropriate diplomacy and safeguarding national interests. The formulation in the Israeli context was restrained, and included a commitment to the “defense of the just issues of the people and first and foremost the issue of Palestine, and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the establishment of its independent state whose capital is Jerusalem, the Palestine problem being a national problem.”1
But the moderate face presented in Morocco is not the true face of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The ideological platform of the parent party, the Uniqueness and Reform movement, reveals its true Islamist face. The section on the movement’s goals states that it seeks to instill the Islamic religion in the heart of the individual, the family, the society, the state, and the ummah, and to help spread Islam throughout the world.2 The movement expressed unequivocal support for the armed struggle against Israel in the context of the Second Intifada, and for the terror attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq. It referred to “Zionist and American aggression” as “the greatest and most dangerous manifestations of terror that modern history has known.”3
In recent years Abdelilah Benkirane, leader of the Justice and Development Party and the designated prime minister, has made harshly anti-Israel statements that deny Israel’s right to exist and favor the armed struggle against it.
In sum, the Muslim Brotherhood is hiding its real goals. While I could tell you how the Brotherhood's election shows that there is more to democracy than a free vote and that the local populations just don't get it, I should probably also point out that the United States also fell for a 'moderate' who turned out to be a radical three years ago. No one is immune.
Building on the successful breach of Israel's borders with Syria on Sunday, the 'Palestinians' are putting out the call for a massive effort to approach and cross the Arab countries' borders with Israel.
The effort is scheduled for Friday and has nearly 100,000 'likes' on Facebook. The group – "Third Palestinian Intifada" – urges Arab activists in neighboring countries to storm Israel's borders in reaction to the recent "Nakba Day" events and ensuing casualties.
Several Facebook groups urge a third mass popular uprising against Israel, and one of them sports a "Friday of response" page, bearing the date May 20. The page, which currently has 100,000 "Like's", does not however give any details on how or exactly when these marches should take place.
Still, various reports in the Arab media, including in al-Jazeera, suggest that activists in Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon plan to march on the Israel's borders; and that Palestinians from Gaza Strip and the West Bank are also expected to stage such marches.
Meanwhile, the United Nations, the Europeans and the shmuck in the White House, all of whom are pretending that if only Israel would return to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines all of this would stop, are ignoring the fact that there is precedent for breaching borders in this region and that it's considered an act of war.
For this is not the first time in modern Middle Eastern affairs that an Arab autocracy has used massive marches of nominally civilian personnel to invade and undermine a neighboring state. In the past, such attempts have been denounced by the international community for what they are: a use of force against the territory of another state in violation of the U.N. Charter. International law is based on practical precedents, on the way given actions were legally judged by the world community in the past. It is a testament to the selective use of international law in the case of Israel that Morocco’s “Green March” into Western Sahara, by far the closest parallel to this week’s events, has not even been mentioned by world leaders.
...
The press has taken to calling the Arabs marching across the Israeli frontier “protesters.” In fact, “protests” are contained within a country; the organized crossing of a frontier is an invasion. In 1975, when Western Sahara was the victim, the world community was clear on this point (even though the Moroccans were unarmed, while the Syrians and Lebanese attacked Israeli soldiers with stones and other objects). Other Arab leaders called the Green March “a violation of the sovereignty of” Western Sahara and “an act contrary to international law.” Prominent international scholars described it as an illegal use of force, a “stealing of the Sahara,” in the words of one of the leading international lawyers of the time. The U.N. Security Council passed a measure that “deplored” Morocco’s invasion.
Moreover, despite the nominally civilian character of the marchers, several U.N. General Assembly resolutions recognized that the enterprise constituted a military occupation by Morocco. Observers noted that the march could not have gone off without the permission, and indeed encouragement, of King Hassan of Morocco, and thus he must take responsibility as if he had ordered army units across the border. It was a conquest despite the lack of arms: A large organized mob can be as forceful as an armed military unit. Indeed, as the Spanish capitulation proved, a march could be a more effective tool of conquest than a military strike against Western armies reluctant to fire on civilians.
Perhaps world leaders today would rather not remind anyone of the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, which in many ways showcases how the international rules applied to Israel are not those that govern the rest of the world. Rabat has occupied Western Sahara almost as long as Israel has occupied the West Bank, and with much less legal pedigree. Yet international efforts to end Morocco’s occupation have been scant and half-hearted. The occupation has been effectively accepted since the “peace process” in the region collapsed in 2004, when Morocco rejected a peace plan endorsed by the Security Council, with no damage to its international relations. Moreover, Morocco has implemented a massive policy of government-orchestrated settlement of Western Sahara. Yet the failed U.N. peace proposals did not contemplate uprooting a single Moroccan settler. Indeed, in the Security Council’s failed plan, the settlers, who now outnumber the natives, would get to vote in a plebiscite on the territory’s future.
Many observers have suggested that infiltrations represent a powerful new Arab tool for influencing world opinion against Israel. Yet the march tactic is not civil disobedience: It is an attempt at foreign conquest by the Arab states, just as when Morocco did it.
The wave of protests against autocratic Middle Eastern regimes spread to Morocco on Sunday.
Thousands of protesters took to the streets in Morocco on Sunday to demand changes to the nation's constitution, defying predictions that this thousand-year-old monarchy would prove an exception to the demands for greater democracy that are sweeping the region.
In Rabat, the capital, a crowd of as many as 10,000 people marched through the streets chanting: "Down with autocracy" and "The people want to change the constitution," as well as slogans against the government, corruption and state television.
Smaller crowds also gathered in Casablanca, the nation's business center. Video clips uploaded to Youtube overnight showed what purported to be groups of protesters in Tangier, Fes, Marrakesh and other cities Sunday, including several clashes with police and apparent vandalism.
A clip from Al Hoceima, a port in northern Morocco, showed a hotel gutted by fire and young men milling around among broken glass from the blown-out windows. Clips purporting to be from Tangier and Sefrou, a town near Fes, showed skirmishes with police. In the clip from Sefrou, a group of police severely beat one protester with clubs. It wasn't immediately possible to confirm the scenes shown in these videos.
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
