A reminder once again that I am in Boston where the local time as I begin this post is 4:29 pm. It is still more than two hours before the Sabbath starts, although it started in Israel quite some time ago.
I'm sure that many of you heard Prime Minister Netanyahu's 'ethnic cleansing' remarks last week. For those who did not, let's go to the videotape.
But as Northwestern University Law Professor Eugene Kontorovich points out, Netanyahu is right. The demand that 'settlers' (in this case another way of saying 'Jews') be removed from a territory as part of ending an 'occupation' is unprecedented.
When pressed, defenders of the Palestinian position characterize the demand as no settlers rather than the uglier-sounding no Jews. The
claim is hard to take at face value, as the Palestinians have never
objected to Israeli Arabs settling across the Green Line, as they have
in significant numbers. But, granting its sincerity, what does
international law say about the demand to remove settlers as part of a
solution to a territorial conflict? To answer this question, as part of a
larger research study on settlements, I examined the fate of settlers in every occupation since the adoption of the Geneva Conventions—eight major situations in total. The results highlight how extraordinary the Palestinian demand is.
There is simply no support in international practice for the
expulsion of settlers from occupied territories. In the many situations
involving settlers around the world, the international community has
never supported expulsion, and consistently backed plans allowing the
settlers to remain in a new state.
Settlement activity is the rule rather than the exception in
situations of belligerent occupation around the world. In places like
Western Sahara and northern Cyprus, the settlers now make up a majority
of the population. In most other places, they account for a much higher
percentage of the territory’s population than Jews would in a potential
Palestinian state. In all these cases, the arrival of the settlers was
accompanied with the familiar claims of seizure of land and property,
and serious human rights abuses. Unlike the Israeli situation, it was
also accompanied with a large-scale expulsion of the prior inhabitants
from the territory.
In internationally-brokered efforts to resolve these conflicts, the
question of the fate of the settlers naturally arose. The answer, across
all these very different situations, has always been the same: the
settlers stay. Indeed, the only point of dispute has typically been what
proportion of settlers receive automatic citizenship in any
newly-created state and what proportion merely gets residence
status. Thus, when East Timor, for example, received independence in an
internationally-approved process, none of the Indonesian settlers were
required to leave. The current U.N.-mediated peace plan for Western
Sahara and Cyprus not only presupposes the demographically dominant
settler population can remain, it also gives it a right to vote in
referenda on potential deal.
This is not because these settlers are beloved by the surrounding
population. The opposite is true. In the Paris peace talks to end the
Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, representatives of the latter tried
to raise the possibility of expelling the nearly million Vietnamese
settlers. Their arguments were familiar: the settlers remind them of the
occupation, rekindle ancient hatreds, and destabilize the peace. Yet
the Cambodian demand for the mass removal of ethnic Vietnamese was
rejected outright by diplomats: One simply cannot ask for such things.
Indeed, uniform international practice shows that the removal
of settlers is an obstacle to peace. In those occupations that have
been resolved—East Timor, Cambodia, Lebanon—such demands would have been
a complete deal-breaker. And those still subject to international
diplomacy, however slim the chances of resolution, there would not even
be a pretense of negotiation had demands similar to the Palestinians
been made.
In short, the Palestinians couching their objection as one about
removing “settlers” rather than Jews does not change the harsh reality.
There is simply no precedent in international practice for the demand.
Whatever term one uses for such a demand, Netanyahu was clearly right to
call attention to the extraordinary nature of the demand. It is also
disappointing that, instead of exercising moral leadership on this
issue, the ADL went against its mission by seemingly excusing singular
treatment for Jews.
Perhaps, instead of referring to a 'Palestinian' demand for 'ethnic cleansing,' Netanyahu should have spoken about a 'Palestinian' demand for a Judenrein state. That would have put the 'Palestinian' demand into its proper context.
The Mayor of the Druze town of Majdal Shams on the Golan Heights dismisses as 'a total joke' a UN assertion that Golan Druze suffer from the 'hardship' of 'Israeli occupation.'
Dulan abu-Saleh, the mayor of Majdal Shams, the largest Druze town in
the Golan, told the Makor Rishon newspaper that the U.N. Economic and
Social Council’s recent statement on the area was “a total joke,” the
daily reported Friday.
...
Abu-Saleh objected to the inclusion of his native area in the U.N.
panel’s statement earlier this month, which said that “economic and
social repercussions of the occupation on the living conditions of the
Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories, including
East Jerusalem and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan.”
“I don’t understand what they’re talking about, it’s laughable,”
abu-Saleh said. Druze in the Golan “don’t serve in the IDF and so far
are only receiving from the state.”
Referencing the war in Syria, he
said: “Why don’t they condemn the horrors in Syria, where dozens of
children are killed daily? Golan residents have a good life.”
He also said: “Although we weren’t included in some major cabinet
decisions on budgets, when we build and make up plans we never felt
discrimination. On the contrary, we always found an attentive ear.”
Prior to the eruption in 2011 of a civil war in Syria, only 1,700 of
the Golan’s Druze claimed Israeli citizenship offered to them. Hundreds
have applied since then.
And Abu-Saleh is not a lone voice.
Karim Batkhish, a resident of the town of Masaada, is quoted as saying:
“The war in Syria is irrelevant to us. Some may say they support [Syrian
President Bashar] Assad but it’s a lie to show Syria we’re with them.
They’re lying, no one wants to see Syria here.”
That kind of matches the 'Palestinian' experience under 'occupation' in Jerusalem, doesn't it?
Note the reference to the concept of
belligerent occupation. Immediately after this paragraph, the Court
makes the following observations, under the heading ‘relevant
international law’ (para. 94):
Article 42 of the Regulations concerning
the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907
(hereafter “the 1907 Hague Regulations”) defines belligerent occupation
as follows:
“Territory is considered occupied when
it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The
occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been
established and can be exercised.”
Accordingly, occupation within the
meaning of the 1907 Hague Regulations exists when a state exercises
actual authority over the territory, or part of the territory, of an
enemy state(1) . The requirement of actual authority is widely
considered to be synonymous to that of effective control.
Military occupation is considered to
exist in a territory, or part of a territory, if the following elements
can be demonstrated: the presence of foreign troops, which are in a
position to exercise effective control without the consent of the
sovereign.
According to widespread expert opinion physical presence of
foreign troops is a sine qua non requirement of occupation(2) , i.e.
occupation is not conceivable without “boots on the ground” therefore
forces exercising naval or air control through a naval or air blockade
do not suffice(3) .
Now, it almost goes without saying that the Court was not discussing Gaza. It was discussing an area called Gulistan on the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan. But....
In para. 95 the Court then proceeds to
cite the ICRC Customary IHL Study as well as Article 49 GC IV regarding
rights of displaced persons. (The same text can be found in paras. 96-97
of the Chiragov judgment). But the really important bit happens in paras. 143-144 of Sargsyan:
143. At this point the Court considers
it useful to reiterate that Azerbaijan has deposited a declaration with
its instrument of ratification expressing that it was “unable to
guarantee the application of the provisions of the Convention in the
territories occupied by the Republic of Armenia” (see paragraph 93
above). In its decision on the admissibility of the present case, the
Court has held that the declaration was not capable of restricting the
territorial application of the Convention to certain parts of the
internationally recognised territory of Azerbaijan (Sargsyan (dec.),
cited above, §§ 63-65) nor did it fulfil the requirements of a valid
reservation (ibid., §§ 66-70).
144. The Court notes that under
international law (in particular Article 42 of the 1907 Hague
Regulations) a territory is considered occupied when it is actually
placed under the authority of a hostile army, “actual authority” being
widely considered as translating to effective control and requiring such
elements as presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to
exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign (see
paragraph 94 above). On the basis of all the material before it and
having regard to the above establishment of facts, the Court finds that
Gulistan is not occupied by or under the effective control of foreign
forces as this would require a presence of foreign troops in Gulistan.
See what I meant? Replace “Gulistan”
with “Gaza”, and there you have it! In fact, I’m pretty sure that this
is at least one judgment of the European Court that Israeli governmental
legal advisors will be citing all the time, whenever the issue of
Gaza’s occupation is brought up (and good for them).
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.
It must have been the 'occupation': First Jewish victim of Arab terror was murdered in 1873
The Ministry of Defense reports that the first Jewish victim of Arab terrorism in Israel was Talmudic scholar Aharon Herhsler HY"D (May God Avenge his blood), who was murdered by Arab terrorists in Jerusalem in January or February 1873.
According to an account of his life provided by the official
governmental site for terror victims, Hershler was a haredi yeshiva
student who studied devotedly.
He was born in Hungary in 1850 to a prominent rabbi, Rabbi Yosef
Shmuel Hershler, who served in the rabbinate of the city of Szabad.
After immigrating to Israel, the rabbi was among the heads of the
Ungarin Kolel, a Hungarian yeshiva in Jerusalem.
The Hershler family lived in Mishkenot Shananim, the first Jewish neighborhood built outside of the Old City walls.
The records note that in 1872 there were ample rains, meaning the
Jews were not forced to buy water from the Arab residents of Shiloach
(Silwan in Arabic). In response, the Arab residents evidently decided to
target the Jews, breaking into their homes and robbing them.
Several Arabs broke into the Hershler home on January 1, at which
point Aharon got up from his Torah studies to confront them, managing to
scare them out of the house and proceeding to chase them.
The Arab terrorists, evidently fearing they would be identified,
callously opened fire on Hershler, shooting 12 bullets into his body. He
was brought to the hospital, where he died of his wounds four days
later after great suffering.
Hershler left behind a bereaved wife and daughter, along with his grieving parents and siblings.
Does anyone actually believe that if we give them a 'state' they will stop trying to murder us?
White House Chief of Staff calls Israel's existence 'occupation'
On Monday, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, who was representing his boss, told the J Street convention that Israel must end 'more than 50 years of occupation (Hat Tip: Eliyahu P).'
McDonough then described the alternate to a two-state agreement: a
one-state solution based on unilateral annexation and abandonment of
democratic rights for Palestinians that, he warned, “would only
contribute to Israel’s further isolation.” In other words, he said, more
divestment, boycotts and efforts to delegitimize Israel in the
international community.
“An occupation that has lasted more than
50 years must end,” McDonough said, one of several times he brought the
crowd to its feet.
While I have occasionally heard American officials refer to an Israeli 'occupation,' this is the first time I have ever heard an American official refer to an 'occupation' starting before 1967 (2015 - 50 = 1965).
Is the Obama administration now asserting - as Fatah and Hamas do - that Israel's very creation constitutes an 'occupation' of Arab land?
If yes, that's not likely to bring about a whole lot of trust for the Obama administration. And that's the least of the problems.
As to 'pro-Israel' J Street, no one should be surprised to see them applauding that assertion.
An amazing Twitter exchange between Northwestern University law professor Eugene Kontorovich and Haaretz US editor Chemi Shalev in which Shalev justifies Wednesday night's terror attack and the murder of three-month-old Chaya Zissel Braun HY"D (May God Avenge her blood).
@EVKontorovich Possibly. Do you think there might be some relation to Silwan? Temple Mount? 47 years of occupation? No? It's all Abbas?
— Chemi Shalev (@ChemiShalev) October 23, 2014
Netanyahu rips Monkey Moon over 'occupation' comment
Prime Minister Netanyahu has slammed UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon for referring to Gaza as 'occupied.'
"The root cause of the
violence that burst from Gaza is not Israel’s occupation in Gaza, for a
simple reason: Israel doesn’t occupy Gaza," Netanyahu explained. "Israel
left Gaza to the very last centimeter, to the very last inch. We
uprooted all the settlements and vacated all the settlers. So there is no Israeli occupation of Gaza."
Netanyahu then pointed out that Ban justified Hamas's rocket barrage despite the fact that it used the UN's own facilities to break international law.
"The root cause of this
summer's outburst of violence was Hamas' rocketing of Israeli cities,
and these rocket attacks often exploited UN neutrality, using UN
facilities and UN schools as part of the Hamas machine of terror," he
thundered. "And when rockets were discovered inside UN
schools, some UN officials handed them back to Hamas – that very same
Hamas that was rocketing Israeli cities and Israeli civilians."
The Prime Minister then reiterated the fact that Hamas is a terror group dedicated to genocide against Jews.
"The root cause of Hamas’ rocket fire on Israel is Hamas’ opposition to Israel’s very existence," he declared. "Hamas
doesn't give a hoot for the 1967 lines. For them, Israel has no right
to live, in any borders. Hamas rejects our very existence. They’re
committed to killing every Israeli and every Jew. You just have to read
their charter – they say that very plainly."
"So Hamas is the enemy of all of us who seek peace," he continued.
Hong Kong riot police fired teargas, pepper spray for the first time
since 2005 to disperse pro-democracy demonstrators during clashes after
thousands of protesters blocked the main street to the financial Central
district on September 28.
Eugene Kontorovich reports that those ever consistent Europeans are ignoring their governments' warnings not to travel to occupied territory. In fact, they're buying real estate there.
Make sure to read the whole thing, to follow all the links and to look at the rest of the pictures. The photos (including the one at the top of this post) are by Wilson Shirley, an undergraduate
at Northwestern University who conducted research in Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus this summer.
The Europeans are just so consistent in their approach to occupied territory, aren't they? /Sigh
Hamas' Marzouk would rather Israeli control of Gaza than the 'blockade'
There are two amazing sides to this amazing coin. First, that Moussa Abu Marzouk, Hamas' number two outside the Gaza Strip, wants Israel to take over the Gaza Strip. And second, that Marzouk has in essence admitted that Israel does not currently 'occupy' Gaza - a contradiction to one of the 'Palestinians' main talking points.
Abu Marzouk told the Rai al-Youm newspaper that Israeli
reoccupation of the Gaza Strip would mean that Israel would have to
provide the Palestinians with electricity, water and jobs.
“We prefer the reoccupation of the Gaza Strip by Israel to returning
to the state of blockade that prevailed before the current aggression,”
Abu Marzouk, who is based in Cairo, said.
“Occupation means providing
electricity, water and jobs. Providing these daily matters is the
responsibility of the occupying state.”
Abu Marzouk said that he
relayed this message to a Norwegian envoy, who met with him in Cairo a
few days ago to discuss the situation in the Gaza Strip.
Abu
Marzouk also held talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud
Abbas, who has been seeking to persuade Hamas to accept the
Egyptian-brokered cease-fire proposal that was announced last week.
Abu
Marzouk said that Hamas and other Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip
reject the proposal “because it encourages Israeli aggression.”
...
Abu Marzouk said that Hamas couldn’t accept Netanyahu’s demands to stop smuggling and manufacturing weapons.
He
quoted Abbas as telling him during the meeting: “We can’t defeat Israel
and we are powerless in front of America. Therefore, there should be a
cease-fire and Hamas must accept the Egyptian proposal immediately and
without any amendments.”
Hamas is looking for Israeli soldiers to target in Gaza. They must be destroyed.
Gazans call for Israel to oust Hamas, reoccupy Strip
At least some Gazans have had enough of Hamas and want the terror organization to be deposed. Those Gazans say that the only way that will happen is if Israel reoccupies Gaza.
“Everybody here hates Hamas,” Gaza taxi drive Abu Ali told the
Associated Press. “But they’re too afraid to say so publicly. Our food
comes from Israel but what we give them in return is rockets — rockets
that don’t even make little holes in the ground.”
Abu Ali, as he indicated, is not alone. In the upcoming issue of Israel Today Magazine,
we spoke to a young Gaza-based peace activist who said he wished Israel
would just reoccupy the coastal enclave so that local residents could
be rid of Hamas rule.
Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz, who is one of Prime Minister Netanyahu's closest confidantes, said on Saturday that the current operation in Gaza may end in the reoccupation of the entire Strip.
The price that both sides will pay is yet unknown. 270 Palestinians
have been killed so far in this most recent wave of violence, and more
than 2,000 have been injured, while two Israelis have been killed and
about 10 Israelis injured. The human cost of the conflict is
unpredictable in part because Israel has not yet decided how far it’s
going in Gaza, and, therefore, what its exit strategy should be. Israeli
Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Friday that the operation would
continue “until it’s necessary and until the quiet returns.”
The main target of Israel’s ground invasion of Gaza are secret
tunnels linking it to Israel, like the one Israel says Hamas militants
used this week in an attempt to infiltrate and attack it. Still, Yuval
Steinitz, Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs, said that Israel’s
“Operation Protective Edge” could result in Israel taking control of the
entire Gaza Strip.
“The tunnels are the target of this operation, but alongside that, I
don’t rule out the possibility of addition stages, of Stage B and Stage
C, and the expansion of this operation,” Steinitz said in a speech
following Netanyahu’s and broadcast on Israel Radio. “We will weigh all
options in coordination with the needs of the operation, and even though
we’re not interested in it, the possibility of taking control of the
entire Gaza Strip to eliminate the possibility of launching missiles
from there.”
Some members of Netanyahu’s cabinet, such as Foreign Minister Avigdor
Lieberman, have been vocal about their assessments that the only
solution in Israel’s eyes is a reoccupation of the Gaza Strip. Israel
seized Gaza in the 1967 Six-Day War, and didn’t remove its settlers and
soldiers from the region until 2005, nearly 40 years later.
But Azriel Bermant, a research fellow at the Institute for National
Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, says that re-taking control of
the Gaza Strip is considered an extreme option among Israel’s security
policy-making circles, and is probably some combination of bluster and
wishful thinking on the part of rightists like Lieberman. Netanyahu,
Bermant says, is more “risk-averse” and unlikely to want to make a move
that would not only be condemned internationally and lead to casualties
on both sides, but could also further complicate things in Gaza.
“The problem with talk of overthrowing Hamas is that you don’t want
to leave Gaza in a state of chaos, and you have no idea what will
replace it. Given what’s going on in the region, I don’t think anyone
really wants to take that risk,” Bermant said, referring to ISIS, the
Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, which has taken control of major swaths
of Iraq after pouring over from Syria’s border amidst that country’s
ongoing civil war.
On Friday, I reported that eliminating Hamas could take 8-12 months. The source of that assessment - which I did not mention at the time - was allegedly Prime Minister Netanyahu himself in a meeting with Haredi MK's that was reported in Haredi media.
I doubt Israel will ever go back to the situation in Gaza as it was before 2005. But I could see a temporary reoccupation and de-Nazification of Gaza, which would include an attempt to totally disarm all Islamist groups. While the 'international community' mightwill complain about that, the al-Sisi government in Egypt would likely be supportive. They feel at least as endangered as we do.
“We are currently expanding our ground operation against Hamas in Gaza,” the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit tweeted.
“Our goal remains, to strike a significant blow to Hamas' terror
capabilities so that the citizens of Israel can live in safety and
security,” read another tweet.
In a statement, the IDF said that ground forces in large numbers have
joined the military activities which are focusing on the terrorist
infrastructure in Gaza.
“The IDF operation was carried out pursuant to the decision of the
political echelon and according to the IDF's operational plans and will
continue, depending on a security assessment by the IDF General Staff,”
said the statement.
“The forces are at high readiness and are prepared for the mission
after a period of increased training and planning and thorough
preparation,” the statement emphasized.
Here's how the Time Magazine article described Phases B and C.
The stage B and C that Steinitz referred to could include going into
urban areas – Gaza City as well as the strip’s many refugee camps – in
search of rocket launchers and rocket stockpiles. Israeli soldiers were
sent to do this kind of high-risk, house-to-house combat during
Operation Cast Lead in 2008-9, and also in the West Bank during the
Second Intifada. Few want to get to a Stage C, which could mean a
reoccupation of the Gaza Strip for a period of months, says Dr. Jonathan
Spyer, an analyst at the Gloria Center at the IDC Herzliya.
“As of now, they’re not headed that far into Gaza. If it stays
focused on the tunnel openings, then they might stay quite close to
Gaza’s border. But my sense is that if the rocket fire on Israel
continues, it raises the possibility of a further incursion.
“A large element of this is punitive: to punish Hamas in order to
build deterrence,” Spyer adds. “But I don’t think there’s any intention
of reoccupying Gaza and bringing down Hamas as an authority. Israel has
no realistic options in that matter – I don’t think that [Palestinian
President] Mahmoud Abbas can just receive the Gaza Strip from Israel on a
silver plate. We’re also not going back to 1992 with an open occupation
of the Gaza Strip.”
The Arabs are reacting the way they always do when someone doesn't see things they're way. They're acting like spoiled children whose candy was taken away by threatening Australia with trade sanctions over its insistence on referring to 'east' Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as something other than 'occupied territory.' This is from the first link.
"We asked the government to reverse this position," Abdulhadi said of the diplomatic protest. He threatened that trade sanctions could be put in place against Canberra if the government persisted with its stance, which he said left Australia isolated.
"It depends on the reaction of the Australian government," he said, adding that the issue could also be taken to the United Nations General Assembly. "Unfortunately I think there will be negative consequences for the (Australian) government."
Australia's export trade with the Middle East is significant, accounting for billions of dollars annually, particularly in wheat and meat, with Qatar and Jordan being major markets for live sheep.
"We want to maintain the trade and we will work very hard with them to ensure that that happens," Australian Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss told reporters on Friday.
Abdulhadi said he would meet Foreign Minister Julie Bishop next week and was hopeful that, after being threatened, Australia could explain the decision.
"Maybe we can avoid all this sort of thing if we can have good discussions," he said.
Something tells me that Julie Bishop is quite capable of handling Mr. Abdulhadi.
'Palestinians' seeking Arab League and Islamic Conference review of Australia
Former 'Palestinian' chief negotiatorbottle washer Saeb Erekat has written a letter to the Australian government saying that the 'Palestinians' will seek a review of relations with Australia by the Arab League and the Islamic conference.
“Palestine will request that the Arab League and the Islamic Conference
[Organization of Islamic Cooperation] review the relations of the Arab
and Islamic world with Australia in light of Australia’s unlawful
recognition of the illegal settlement regime in occupied Palestine,”
Saeb Erekat wrote in the letter, dated June 5.
...
In the letter, Erekat responded to Brandis’
statement, saying it showed that Australia “does not intend to comply
with its duty under international law not to recognize Israeli
sovereignty over any part of the Palestinian territory occupied by
Israel in 1967, including East Jerusalem.”
He added that the term “occupation” reflects a “legal fact” based on UN resolutions.
...
In May, Australia’s ambassador to Israel, Dave
Sharma, drew fire after meeting with Housing Minister Uri Ariel in the
latter’s East Jerusalem office.
“It should be noted that diplomatic
recognition of the situation created by the attempted annexation of our
capital is a flagrant violation of international law,” Erekat wrote to
Canberra after that meeting.
Hey Saeb! If it's illegal, why don't you just take them to court? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Australia says 'east' Jerusalem is not 'occupied'; little rump king seethes
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
This should have made a much bigger splash. The government of Australia announced on Thursday that as far as it is concerned, 'east' Jerusalem is not 'occupied.'
“The description of east Jerusalem as ‘Occupied East Jerusalem’ is a
term freighted with pejorative implications, which is neither
appropriate nor useful,” George Brandis said, reading out a statement
written following a conversation with Australia’s foreign minister,
Julie Bishop.
“It should not and will not be the practice of the Australian government
to describe areas of negotiations in such judgmental language,” he
said.
Brandis said the description of areas, which are the subject of negotiations, by reference to historical events was “unhelpful.”
He added that Australia supported a peaceful solution to the
Palestinian- Israeli conflict that “recognizes the right of Israel to
exist peacefully within secure borders and also recognizes the
aspiration to statehood of the Palestinian people.”
The comments came following a heated debate Wednesday evening in the
Senate, where Brandis took issue when a Greens party senator referred to
“occupied east Jerusalem.”
Bishop - and the Australian government in general - is apparently even more sympathetic to the Israeli position.
In January, Bishop – during a short visit to attend Ariel Sharon’s
funeral – took issue with those calling the settlements illegal. Indeed,
Australia now refrains from using the term “illegal” to refer to
settlements. Canberra also does not refer to the West Bank as “occupied”
territory, but rather “disputed” territory.
Although the European Union routinely states the settlements are
“illegal,” the US – which is adamantly opposed to Israel’s settlement
policy – refrains from using that term, now generally calling them
“illegitimate” or “unhelpful.”
Last month, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat wrote Bishop slamming
Australia’s ambassador to Israel, David Sharma, for meeting Construction
and Housing Minister Uri Ariel in his east Jerusalem office.
Erekat said the meeting had the “effect of attempting to legitimize the
illegal situation on the ground and may be deemed as aiding, abetting or
otherwise assisting illegal Israeli policies.”
The report cited Jordanian government spokesman Barbat Amon as stating
that all territory gained by Israel in the "Six Day War" of 1967 is
considered "occupied territory" by international law. Those territories
include east Jerusalem and the Old City, which were wrestled
from Jordanian control in the war.
It's hard for the Arabs to hear the truth, isn't it? What 'international law'?
Haaretz (presumably unintentionally) puts a huge 'settlement' in Israel.
Know what's happening in Israel and the Jewish world. Click to follow Haaretz for all the latest news. pic.twitter.com/XpXiVsa5zy
— Haaretz.com (@haaretzcom) April 1, 2014
The Wall Street Journal has discovered the concept of disputed territory. No, of course not in Judea and Samaria. In the Western Sahara. But Eugene Kontorovich still thinks it's a hopeful sign.
While addressing the geographic issue, the Journal chooses
to characterize the territory as “disputed” – following Gov. Chris
Christie’s controversial description of the West Bank. The
characterization is accurate – the territory is disputed between Morocco
and the Sawahari Polisario government. Like the West Bank, Western
Sahara was not the territory of a sovereign state when Morocco took
control. Nonetheless, the U.N. Security Council called for Morocco to
withdraw, and several subsequent G.A. resolutions characterizing the
territory as occupied. While it gets less attention, Western Sahara is
treated as occupied in the leading international law texts.
One wonders if the Journal’s characterization of the
territory will encounter the derision that greeted Christie’s comments,
and whether the paper will now also describe the West Bank as merely
“disputed.”
Still waiting for the Washington Post to call it 'disputed' too.
Tom Friedman, who has probably done as much or more to harm Israel than any mainstream media reporter, ,has the unmitigated gall to call Israel's ally, Sheldon Adelson, Iran's best friend.
And now Iran has an ally: Sheldon Adelson — the foolhardy Las Vegas
casino magnate and crude right-wing, pro-Israel extremist. Adelson gave
away some $100 million in the last presidential campaign to fund
Republican candidates, with several priorities in mind: that they
delegitimize the Palestinians and that they avoid any reference to the
West Bank as “occupied territories” and any notion that the U.S. should
pressure Israel to trade land for peace there. Both Newt Gingrich and
Mitt Romney took the money and played by Sheldon’s rules.
In case you missed it, the R.J.C., the Republican Jewish Coalition, held
a retreat last weekend at an Adelson casino in Las Vegas. It was dubbed
“the Sheldon Primary.” Republicans lined up to compete for Adelson’s
blessing and money, or as Politico put it: “Adelson summoned [Jeb] Bush
and Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey, John Kasich of Ohio and Scott
Walker of Wisconsin to Las Vegas. ... The new big-money political
landscape — in which a handful of donors can dramatically alter a
campaign with just a check or two — explains both the eagerness of busy
governors to make pilgrimages to Las Vegas, and the obsession with
divining Adelson’s 2016 leanings.
Adelson
personifies everything that is poisoning our democracy and Israel’s
today — swaggering oligarchs, using huge sums of money to try to bend
each system to their will.
Christie,
in his speech, referred to the West Bank as “occupied territories” — as
any knowledgeable American leader would. This, Politico said, “set off
murmurs in the crowd.”
Some Republican Jews explained to Christie after
he finished that he had made a terrible faux pas. (He called something
by its true name and in the way the U.S. government always has!) The
West Bank should be called “disputed territories” or “Judea and
Samaria,” the way hard-line Jews prefer. So, Politico reported, Christie
hastily arranged a meeting with Adelson to explain that he misspoke and
that he was a true friend of Israel. “The New Jersey governor
apologized in a private meeting in the casino mogul’s Venetian office
shortly afterward,” Politico reported. It said Adelson “accepted”
Christie’s “explanation” and “quick apology.”
Read that sentence over and contemplate it.
I
don’t know if Israel has a Palestinian partner for a secure withdrawal
from the West Bank, or ever will. But I know this: If Israel wants to
remain a Jewish, democratic state, it should be doing everything it can
to nurture such a partner or acting unilaterally to get out. Because,
I’m certain that when reports about the “Adelson primary” reached the
desk of Supreme Leader Khamenei in Tehran, a big smile crossed his face
and he said to his aides: “May Allah grant Sheldon a long life.
Everything is going according to plan.”
How many things does Tom have wrong here? The 'Palestinians' aren't going to vote Israel out of existence any time soon - even if they are given the 'right' to do so - so long as we don't flood the country with 'Palestinian refugees' as Tom would like us to do.
There aren't 2.7 million 'Palestinians' in Judea and Samaria - there are a bit more than half that number.
Judea and Samaria are not 'occupied.' They are at worst disputed. At best, they out and out belong to Israel because they were part of the original 'Palestine mandate' and were designated for close settlement by Jews as part of that mandate. From 1949-67 they were occupied by Jordan, an occupation that was recognized by precisely two other countries: Britain and Pakistan.
It's not up to the US government to pressure Israel to take risks to Israel's security. Israel has never asked the United States to fight its wars for it, and Israel never will.
There is no 'Palestinian partner for peace' now and it is unlikely that there ever will be one. Acknowledging that reality could be the first step in Tom Friedman's road to recovery from his delusions.
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
