Priorities: As the world burns, Obama worries about Israeli 'settlement' bloc expansions
As the world burns around him, President Hussein Obama's obsession with Israel is interrupted only for his golf games. On Friday, the Obama-Kerry State Department condemned
Israel's incorporation of an abandoned former tuberculosis treatment center into the Etzion bloc.
Settlement activity is “illegitimate and counterproductive to the cause
of peace. Continued settlement activity and expansion raises honest
questions about Israel’s long-term intentions and will only make
achieving a two-state solution that much more difficult,” Kirby told
reporters in Washington on Friday.
He spoke days after Defense
Minister Moshe Ya’alon agreed to expand the Gush Etzion bloc to include a
4-hectare site with eight stone buildings that is located off of Route
60 between the Gush Etzion junction and the Kiryat Arba settlement.
Settlers
want to operate a tourist center on the property geared to helping
visitors take advantage of Jewish tourist sites in the area, including
the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron.
The property was owned by
the US Presbyterian Church until 2008 where it ran a tuberculosis
hospital and then a hostel on the site. Inclusion of the site within the
Gush Etzion boundaries would make it easier for settlers to further
develop the property.
When queried about the compound by a
reporter at the daily briefing, Kirby said the US was “deeply concerned”
about the move, “which effectively creates a new settlement on 10 acres
in the West Bank.”
He then spoke in general about Area C of the West Bank, which is under Israeli military and civil rule.
“It’s
important to note that some 70 percent of the West Bank’s Area C has
already been unilaterally designated as Israeli state land, or within
the boundaries of these regional settlement councils,” Kirby explained.
“The
new decision only expands this significant majority of the West Bank
that has already been claimed for exclusive Israeli use. “Along with the
regular retroactive legalization of unauthorized outposts and
construction of infrastructure in remote settlements, actions such as
this decision clearly undermine the possibility of a two-state
solution,” Kirby said.
He added that “continued settlement
activity and expansion raise honest questions about Israel’s long-term
intentions and will only make achieving a two-state solution that much
more difficult.”
The US has asked both the Israelis and Palestinians to demonstrate their commitment to a two-state solution, Kirby said.
“Actions such as [the Gush Etzion] decision, we believe, does just the opposite,” he stressed.
I'm sure the
starving Syrians in Madaya and the
molested German women in Cologne found Obama's priorities heartwarming.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Germany, Gush Etzion, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, Religion of Peace, religion of rape, settlement blocs, settlements are legal, Syria, Syrian uprising
The Obama-Kerry State Department comes out in favor of BDS
Read the statement in the tweet below, and it becomes quite clear that the Obama administration has come out in favor of boycotting, divesting from and sanctioning Israel.
No, this administration is different than previous administrations. Previous administrations (with the exception of Carter) may have referred to Jewish settlement of Judea and Samaria as 'unwise' and may have called it 'illegitimate.' But only the Obama and Carter administrations have called it 'illegal.' (Which it's not). And the Bush administration did support some Israeli 'settlement' and did issue a letter saying that it expected that some of those 'settlements' would be made apart of Israel as part of a final agreement with the 'Palestinians.' But then came the Obama administration and
disavowed the letter.
More importantly, every administration until the Obama administration has said that peace between Israel and the 'Palestinians' must come about as a result of a negotiated solution. Only the Obama administration - in a mad rush for a 'Palestinian state' that would immediately be consumed by terrorists - has attempted to impose a solution on Israel. Only the Obama administration has forced Israel to release terrorist murderers from its jail. And only the Obama administration has forced a 'settlement freeze' on Israel.
No, this is not the same as every other US administration.
Here's more on the
State Department statement quoted above:
The U.S. State Department on Tuesday punched a big hole in Israel-led
efforts to induce the Obama administration to regard boycotts of
settlements as identical to boycott
of Israel proper. In doing so, it provided the Israeli government and
the pro-Israel lobby with yet another painful lesson in the pitfalls of
being too clever by half and biting off more than one should chew.
A special statement issued by the State Department
Press Office on Tuesday afternoon made clear that while the
administration “strongly opposes” any boycott, divestment or sanctions
against the State of Israel, it does not extend the same protection to
“Israel-controlled territories.” Rather than weakening efforts to
boycott Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, as Israel
supporters had planned, the State Department was actually granting them
unprecedented legitimacy.
The statement came in the wake of President Obama’s
signing of the Trade Promotion Authority bill, which grants him the
authority he had sought to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership
accord. But as the bill deals with free trade agreements in general, a
clause was inserted in the Senate by Democratic Senator Ben Cardin and
Republican Senator Rob Portman and by Representative Peter Roskam in the
House of Representative that instructs American diplomats to include
opposition to any boycott of Israel - or of persons from “territories
controlled by Israel” - in their free trade negotiations with the
European Union.
The State Department statement, however, makes clear
that the bill will not change U.S. policy towards the settlements. “The
U.S. government has never defended or supported Israeli settlements or
activity associated with them, and, by extension, does not pursue
policies or activities that would legitimize them,” it said. It went on
to note: “Administrations of both parties have long recognized that
settlement activity and efforts to change facts on the ground undermine
the goal of a two-state solution.”
This anti-Israel administration cannot end soon enough. 'Most pro-Israel administration evah' my tuches.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, BDS, boycott divest sanction, free trade, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Peter Roskam, settlement product boycott, settlements, settlements are legal, US State Department
New study proves conclusively UN didn't intend to force Israel back to '49 armistice lines
Draftsman Eugene Rostow argued for years that UN Security Council Resolution 242 was
not intended to force Israel back to the 1949 armistice lines. Now, in an upcoming article in the Chicago Journal of International Law, Northwestern University Professor Eugene Kontorovich proves by comparing 242 with five other Security Council resolutions that dealt with territorial withdrawals that Rostow was right: The Security Council never intended to try to force Israel to withdraw to the '49 armistice lines and
never intended to make 'settlements' illegal.
Kontorovich cites five pre-167 UN withdrawal resolutions obligating
withdrawals of: the USSR from Iran in 1946, the parties to the
Israeli-Arab 1948 war to withdraw to positions held on October 14 in
1948, North Korea to withdraw from South Korea to the 38th parallel in
1950, Belgium to withdraw from Congo in 1960 and India-Pakistan to
withdraw to August 5 positions in 1965, as decisive in explaining the
resolution.
He writes that the USSR had to withdraw from "the
whole" of Iran, that Belgium had to withdraw from "the territory"
(whereas 242 is missing the definite article "the") of Congo and that
the other three resolutions give definitive dates or markers for
withdrawal.
In contrast, Kontorovich writes that 242 intentional
dropping of "the" and leaving out of a set date or geographic marker
shows that the UN intentionally left the issue vague – which he argues
could be a decisive proof for the pro-Israel reading of the resolution
that Israel only has to withdraw from some territories as agreed in
negotiations.
Next, the article cites 13 more territorial
withdrawal resolutions post-1967 running all the way up to a 2012
resolution ordering Sudan and South Sudan to withdraw to their set
borders where the word "the" appears five times, signifying an
obligation of a complete withdrawal, and the other resolutions also
appear to signal a full withdrawal.
Former UN Ambassador and
Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs Director Dore Gold responded to the
article saying, "Unfortunately there are voices that believe the whole
discussion of the absence of the definite article 'the' in 242 is being
picky. What they don’t understand is that the language of the
resolution was drafted at the highest levels of US government at the
time."
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Eugene Rostow, settlements are legal, UN Security Council Resolution 242
We must be doing something right....
Heh.
Labels: settlements are legal
Did you miss this too?
Did you miss
this on the eve of Passover?
"The time has come to acknowledge reality:..There will be no peace
along the lines of the model that has stirred such a mighty uproar here
for the past decades, over which Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was
assassinated. In fact, let’s admit it -- the uproar has been fading for
some time. The burning issue has consumed itself and turned to dust. All
that passionate, feverish arguing has grown hollow. All that remains is
an empty shell that echoes with the raucous shouts of the ghosts of Rabin Square.
There won’t be two states for two peoples. It’s not going to happen.
Jerusalem will not be divided, no arrangement will be found for the Holy
Basin, settlers will not be evacuated, construction in the West Bank
will continue, the occupation will not end, no agreement will be signed
and there won’t be any unilateral withdrawal, no land swaps will take
place, America won’t present an ultimatum, Vladimir Putin won’t put a
gun to our head, Europe won’t boycott until the situation becomes
unbearable..."
Haaretz actually published this. Of course, the fact that they did so after 3:00 pm on the eve of Passover may be one reason why you missed it.
Can't get to the rest of it - it's behind a paywall. But it sounds pretty good.
Labels: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Middle East peace process, one-state solution, settlements are legal, two-state solution, Yitzchak Rabin
Chris Christie calls Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria 'occupied territories'
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who sees himself as a possible Republican Presidential candidate in 2016, used the term '
occupied territories' to describe Judea and Samaria in a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition on Saturday.
Invoking a 2012 trip he and his family took to Israel,
Christie recalled “I took a helicopter ride from the occupied
territories across and just felt personally how extraordinary that was
to understand, the military risk that Israel faces every day.”
While the story was intended to forge common cause with Adelson and
the several hundred donors to the Republican Jewish Coalition to which
Christie was speaking, his use of the term “occupied territories” set
off murmurs in the crowd.
Let's go to the videotape.
Christie apologized for the gaffe.
Not long after his speech, Christie met with Adelson privately in the
casino mogul’s office in the Venetian hotel and casino, which hosted
the RJC meeting.
The source told POLITICO that Christie “clarified in the strongest
terms possible that his remarks today were not meant to be a statement
of policy.”
Instead, the source said, Christie made clear “that he misspoke when
he referred to the ‘occupied territories.’ And he conveyed that he is an
unwavering friend and committed supporter of Israel, and was sorry for
any confusion that came across as a result of the misstatement.”
Adelson accepted Christie’s explanation, the source said.
...
Before the meeting, Adelson ally Morton Klein, president of the
hawkish Zionist Organization of America, had confronted Christie about
his use of the term, telling POLITICO he explained to the New Jersey
governor that “at minimum you should call it disputed territories.”
Christie was non-committal, said Klein, who concluded afterwards that
the governor “either doesn’t understand the issue at all, or he’s
hostile to Israel.”
Hmmm.
Labels: Chris Christie, Judea and Samaria, Morton Klein, occupation, Republican Jewish Coalition, settlements are legal, Sheldon Adelson, US presidential campaign 2016
Abu Bluff: 'Peace talks' at an impasse
'
Moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen returned to Ramallah on Thursday and announced that the 'peace talks' are at an impasse. As usual, he blamed the '
settlements.'
A spokesman for Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas
said on Thursday that Israeli construction in Judea and Samaria had
caused the U.S.-sponsored peace talks to reach an impasse.
"Israel's settlement activity caused the negotiations to fail and led
them to an impasse," the spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, told the AFP news agency.
He was reacting to a report earlier that Israel had advanced construction plans for over 2,000 new housing units in six Judea and Samaria communities.
...
The PA consistently blames
“settlement construction” as being an obstacle to peace. It does so
despite the fact that it was informed in advance that Israel will
continue to build as talks continue. The areas in which Israel plans to
build are areas that even the PA has previously accepted will be part of
Israel in a future deal.
Abbas threatened two weeks ago that unless a building freeze was imposed on
Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, the peace
talks would come to an end. Such a freeze was not stipulated as a
pre-condition to resumed talks.
There was never going to be a real peace agreement. But I hope that this 'impasse' becomes official. We have nothing to gain from these 'talks' continuing.
Here's an interesting and perceptive reaction from an
Israeli official:
One Israeli government source responded to the rally by saying it was
reminiscent of Yasser Arafat’s return from Camp David in 2000, when it
appeared that the Palestinians were celebrating the failure of peace
talks. The second intifada broke out shortly thereafter.
“If the
Palestinians celebrate rejectionism, they’re closing the door to
Palestinian statehood, because the only way to achieve a Palestinian
state is through negotiations and agreement with Israel,” the official
said. “A rejectionist position makes Palestinian statehood impossible,
and in maintaining such a position ultimately the Palestinians are only
hurting themselves.”
Third intifada coming? Thank you Obama and Kerry!
Labels: Abu Mazen, Judea and Samaria construction, settlements, settlements are legal
Your Sunday entertainment: The actual real truth about Palestine (and West Bank)
Palestine - To was or not to was? That is the question, which 2 Palestinian chicks tried to answer in an attempt to debunk, pwn and otherwise refute claims made in another video titled "Israel Palestinian Conflict: The Truth About the West Bank" - from the crafty hands of Danny Ayalon who seems to be enjoying making videos ever since he left the Israeli parliament. Well, now the poor girls got a Joniversity response.
Language warning.... But it's entertaining....
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip:
Shy Guy via
Elder).
Labels: Danny Ayalon, Israel is a Jewish state, Judea and Samaria, Palestine, Palestinians, settlements are legal
Will she have to apologize to Kerry too?
In an interview with the Times of Israel, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said that
Israel's 'settlements' are not illegal under international law.
In an exclusive interview with The Times of
Israel, Julie Bishop suggested that, contrary to conventional diplomatic
wisdom, the settlements may not be illegal under international law. She
refrained from condemning Israeli initiatives to build additional
housing units beyond the Green Line or from calling on Israel to freeze
such plans, merely saying the fact that settlements were being expanded
showed the need for the sides to quickly reach a peace agreement.
“I don’t want to prejudge the fundamental
issues in the peace negotiations,” Bishop said. “The issue of
settlements is absolutely and utterly fundamental to the negotiations
that are under way and I think it’s appropriate that we give those
negotiations every chance of succeeding.”
Asked whether she agrees or disagrees with the
near-universal view that Israeli settlements anywhere beyond the 1967
lines are illegal under international law, she replied: “I would like to
see which international law has declared them illegal.”
...
“Our interest is in a negotiated peace between
the Israelis and the Palestinians and we believe that every opportunity
should be given to those negotiations to proceed to its solution,” said
Bishop, who came to Israel on Monday to attend the funeral of former
prime minister Ariel Sharon. “I don’t think it’s helpful to prejudge the
settlement issue if you’re trying to get a negotiated solution. And by
deeming the activity as a war crime, it’s unlikely to engender a
negotiated solution.”
The issue of Israeli settlements should be determined in the course of the current US-brokered peace talks, she added.
...
Bishop also condemned what she said was
excessive pressure exerted on Israel by Western states and civil
society, including the threat of boycotts.
“Israel has
to be ever vigilant against such tendencies on the part of the
international community,” the minister said. While private organizations
were free to boycott whomever they wanted, any Australian body that
received state funding should be barred from calling for boycotts, she
continued.
She also
strongly condemned the global anti-Israel BDS movement: “It’s
anti-Semitic. It identifies Israel out of all other nations as being
worthy of a boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign? Hypocritical
beyond belief.”
Will Bishop have to apologize to Kerry for undermining his 'peace efforts'?
Labels: BDS, Julie Bishop, Middle East peace process, settlements are legal
Jeffrey Goldberg: The Middle East conflict isn't about 'settlements'
Jeffrey Goldberg
gets it partly right:
But there is danger in thinking that the removal of these settlements
would bring about a liberal, enlightened Middle East. The danger is
analytical: If you don’t understand what ails the Middle East, how can
you possibly fix it? It is also dangerous to scapegoat Israel for
problems it didn’t cause, in the same way that it has historically been
quite dangerous to blame the Jewish people for problems they didn’t
cause. Brzezinski’s native Poland provides lessons in this regard.
That's true. The problem is that Goldberg thinks that we should expel 500,000 Jews from their homes anyway, because it would put us on what he sees as a 'higher' moral plane.
Before I go on, the usual caveats: The settlement project -- especially
those settlements far from Jerusalem that have been planted in the
middle of thickly populated Palestinian areas -- is a strategic and
moral disaster for Israel. The settlements should be dismantled. They
threaten Israel’s standing in the world; they threaten to undermine the
very nature and purpose of Israel. And so on. I’ve written before about the threat that settlements pose, at great length.
What Goldberg misses is that not only won't dismantling the 'settlements' bring about a 'liberal enlightened Middle East.' Dismantling the 'settlements' will also do nothing for Israel's standing in the world. You see, the world only likes Jews when we're on the verge of being exterminated. The rest of the time, they consider us fair game.
Labels: Jeffrey Goldberg, Judea and Samaria, settlements, settlements are legal
They agree on everything, don't they?
US National Security Adviser
Lazy Susan Rice piled onto US Secretary of State John FN Kerry's attack on Israeli 'settlements' on Thursday, reiterating that the
United States Obama administration considers them '
illegitimate.'
Echoing Palestinian complaints, National
Security Adviser and former US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice’s remarks
to a Washington think tank came a day after lead Palestinian negotiator
Saeb Erekat resigned for what he said was a lack of Israeli integrity, as ostensibly demonstrated by continued building activity in the West Bank.
“We have seen increased tensions on the
ground. Some of this is a result of recent settlement announcements. So
let me reiterate: The United States does not accept the legitimacy of
continued Israeli settlement activity,” Rice told the Middle East
Institute, echoing similar
comments made by US Secretary of State John Kerry last week.
Calling Israeli 'settlements' 'illegitimate' isn't the first lie Lazy Susan told. Here are four videos of Lazy Susan lying about what happened in Benghazi 14 months ago.
Let's go to the videotapes (Hat Tip for all videos:
Mike P).
Spontaneous? Hijacked? Substantial security presence? You mean the one that wasn't allowed near the consulate? Direct result of 'heinous and offensive video'? Really? Not anti-American? Outpouring of sympathy for Ambassador Stevens? As they were dragging him through the streets?
Let's go to the videotape.
There's the 'hateful video' again - the one that Rice knew was a lie by then.
Let's go to the videotape.
There's the 'spontaneous reaction to a video' story again, long after she knew that it was a lie. President ordered additional reinforcements to Tripoli? There's another lie.
And here's the 'spontaneous reaction to a video' lie again. Let's go to the videotape.
Is anyone aware of Rice ever having an independent thought? How did she ever write a PhD thesis?
Labels: Benghazigate, John Kerry, settlements are legal, Susan Rice, US-Israel relationship
Important letter to Kerry on 'settlements'
Here's an important letter from former foreign ministry legal adviser Alan Baker to US Secretary of State John Kerry about 'settlements.' I've uploaded it to ScribD and am embedding it below.
Labels: Alan Baker, John Kerry, settlements, settlements are legal
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Thursday, May 2.
1) Might? May?
In March, a report from the UN suggested very strongly that Omar Masharawi (or Mishrawi) was killed by a Hamas rocket.
In response, Robert Mackey of the New York Times wrote "might have been caused by 'a Palestinian rocket that fell short of Israel.'"
Mackey's counterpart at the Washington Post, Max Fisher wrote, "... Omar Mishrawi may actually have been killed by a Hamas rocket."
(Emphases mine.)
Now, Elder of Ziyon quoting Electronic Intifada should put the end to all such equivocation.
The UN fact-finding mission’s conclusions were largely based on
Al-Mezan’s fieldwork, though this is not mentioned in its report,
Suliman said. Suliman explained to me that Al-Mezan’s fieldworker
visited the Masharawi home in the wake of the strike and conducted
interviews with people in the area. Its findings at the time were that
baby Omar was most likely killed as a result of a Palestinian-fired
rocket.
Al Mezan’s findings are based on the type of damage caused to the family
home, which it says is not characteristic of an Israeli F-16, Apache
helicopter or drone strike. Meanwhile, Palestinian armed groups were
firing rockets towards Israel half a kilometer from the Masharawi home
and Israeli strikes were targeting the sites of the rocket-launchers at
the time of the incident, he said.
Elder of Ziyon comments:
Of course, Al Mezan (and EI) then try to spin this incident into saying
that baby Omar's death is really Israel's fault anyway using their usual
tortured logic and sickening spin to absolve terrorist rockets in
civilian neighborhoods. They ignore that Omar was not the only child
killed by Hamas rockets that was publicly and loudly blamed on Israel.
When looking at actual facts, however, it is increasingly clear that I
was right and the BBC was wrong - and that the BBC has been purposefully
shading the truth about this case for the past five months. So has
Human Rights Watch and other media and organizations that are
reflexively anti-Israel whenever possible, even though the evidence on
the ground from OCHA-OPT as early as late November indicated that Hamas
rockets killed civilians in Gaza including Omar.
Which brings me back to Max Fisher. Fisher quoted Paul Danahar, the BBC's Middle East Bureau Chief.
“We’re all one team in Gaza,” Danahar told me, saying that Misharawi is a
BBC video and photo editor. After spending a “few hours” with his
grieving colleague, he wrote on Twitter, ”Questioned asked here is: if
Israel can kill a man riding on a moving motorbike (as they did last
month) how did Jihad’s son get killed.”
Now we know that the BBC "team" was involved in promoting a falsehood.
Will Mackey (who is oh so fond of quoting Electronic Intifada) or Fisher
acknowledge that they were played by BBC? Will Margaret Sullivan, the
public editor of the New York Times or the Washington Post's newly
minted reader representative, Doug Feaver examine how their own
reporters and bloggers were duped by this willful deception?
2) How do you say "illegal settlement" in French?
Eugene Kontorovich reports on an extraordinary court case in France, Landmark French Ruling on West Bank Construction and International Law. Kontorovich concludes:
Israel’s critics have long claimed that “everyone agrees” that all
“settlements” (a term referring to all Israeli activity in the West
Bank, at least that benefits Jews) clearly violates international law,
and that only Israeli apologists could believe the arguments to the
contrary. I assume the Versailles Court of Appeals won’t be accused of
being unduly sympathetic to the Jewish State.
Indeed, many might share my surprise on such a decision coming from a
European court, especially given the supposed uniformity of views on the
underlying legal issues. Perhaps two factors may explain the surprising
decision: this is not an international court, but an ordinary municipal
one, and it was an important French industrial concern, rather than
Israel, in the dock. International lawyers may have what could
positively be described as professional or scientific knowledge of the
matter, or more cynically as guild orthodoxy. Judges unversed in these
verities might see things differently. And of course, here international
law is being used against important and powerful domestic interests.
3) The API. Again
The AP reports Arab League sweetens Israel-Palestinian peace plan:
The original 2002 Arab peace initiative offered Israel peace with the
entire Arab and Muslim world in exchange for a "complete withdrawal"
from territories captured in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians
claim the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, all seized by
Israel in 1967, for their future state.
The initiative was revolutionary when it was introduced by Saudi
Arabia's then crown prince, King Abdullah, and endorsed by the 22-member
Arab League. The 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation later
endorsed the plan as well. However, it was overshadowed by fierce
Israeli-Palestinian fighting at the time and greeted with skepticism by
Israel.
In Washington Monday, Qatari Prime Minister Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Al
Thani tried to allay some of the Israeli concerns. Speaking on behalf of
an Arab League delegation, he reiterated the need to base an agreement
between Israel and a future Palestine on the 1967 lines, but for the
first time, he cited the possibility of "comparable," mutually agreed
and "minor" land swaps between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Barry Rubin cautions in Why the ‘Arab Peace Initiative’ Is Both a Good Thing and a Scam:
Then there is the list of countries involved. I have no difficulty in
believing that the governments of Bahrain, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are
ready for a deal. Jordan has already made peace; Saudi Arabia proposed a
reasonable offer a decade ago (before it was sharply revised by
hardliners before becoming an official Arab League position), and
Bahrain’s regime is desperately afraid of Iran and has become a
semi-satellite of the Saudis.
But what about the other three countries? Are we to believe that the
Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt, the Hizballah-dominated regime in
Lebanon, and the quirky but pro-Hamas and pro-Muslim Brotherhood regime
in Qatar have suddenly reversed everything that they have been saying in
order to seek a compromise peace with Israel? Highly doubtful to say
the least.
In other words, the reportage ignored the interesting detail about the
three most radical regimes (Qatar’s regional policy is radical; not its
domestic policies) suddenly making a concession to Israel that had been
previously unthinkable? It’s sort of like taking for granted, say,
Joseph Stalin’s supposed embrace of capitalism or France’s rulers
proclaiming that American culture is far superior to their own.
In a lengthy analysis of the original initiative, Joshua Teitelbaum wrote (.pdf):
Several aspects of the Arab Peace Initiative represent significant and
positive developments in the official, collective Arab view of the
future of Israel in the Middle East. However, Israel should refrain from
accepting the initiative as a basis for peace negotiations because it
contains seriously objectionable elements. Israel should also reject the
“all or nothing” approach of the Saudis and the Arab League.
Peacemaking is the process of negotiation, not diktat.
Nothing in the current reporting suggests that this aspect of the initiative has changed.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, Arab League, France, Hamas rockets, Middle East Media Sampler, Operation Pillar of Defense, settlements are legal, Soccer Dad
International law and 'human rights' v. Israel
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Thursday, January 31.
International law and human rights vs. Israel
Yesterday the New York Times published an op-ed, Why Palestine should bring Israel to court in the Hague by George Bisharat. Elder of Ziyon cited Professor Eugene Kontorovich, an expert on international law, exposing a number of fallacies of Bisharat's op-ed:
1) The ICC can only act when the home state refuses to investigate
crimes; that is not the case for any Israeli acts in Gaza or the
territories.
2) ICC has never prosecuted a case referred by a country against
nationals of a non-member state. Such an action would terrify US
officials and permanently sour American relations with the Court, as it
would expose U.S. military and civilian officials to liability for U.S.
armed action anywhere in the world, and particularly for the
controversial drone strikes program of President Obama.
3) The ICC has never even considered taking a case that does not involve
killing and personal violence; a settlements suit would be far outside
the kind of things they've dealt with in the past.
4) The relevant actions would have to be on the territory of Palestine,
which is a problem since they do not have defined territory, and most of
what the op-ed talks about precedes their nominal statehood, so that
would be out of bounds.
5) The ICC would also have jurisdiction over all Palestinian war crimes.
Bisharat, who is a professor of law, is very much an activist in service
of a cause. Another professor of law, William Jacobson, showed that Bisharat is a poseur, who uses a false family history to justify his campaign against Israel.
Yet much of Bisharat’s family narrative is exaggerated, at a minimum.
I previously documented Bisharat’s claim that his father was forced to
abandon an art show at a Jewish-owned art gallery due to his father
having spoken up for Palestinian rights. That claim, made by Bisharat
long after both his father and the gallery owner had died, leaving no
witnesses, was disputed by people affiliated with the gallery.
Bisharat regularly and for decades has played upon his family history as
forming his narrative of Israel’s lack of legitimacy, and his call for a
single state encompassing what now is Israel, the West Bank and Gaza
...
Jacobson has critiqued Bisharat and his views other times too.
Today, the Times takes another angle to use international law as a cudgel with which to beat Israel, an editorial, titled Israel Ducks on Human Rights.
Yisrael Medad and Daled Amos both identify the contradiction at the heart of the editorial.
The third paragraph reads:
In May, Israel said it planned to stop participating because the
council was a “political tool” for those who wanted to “bash and
demonize” Israel. The council, whose 47 members are elected by the
United Nations General Assembly, is clearly not without faults. More
than half of the resolutions passed by the council since it started work
in 2006 have focused on Israel and its treatment of Palestinians, and
Israel is the only country that is a standing item on the agenda for the
council’s biannual meetings.
But two paragraphs later, the editors tells that "universal standards" in human rights are important!
Human rights reviews are an important tool for judging all countries
by universal standards and nudging them to make positive changes. By
opting out, Israel shows not only an unwillingness to undergo the same
scrutiny as all other countries, but it deprives itself of an
opportunity to defend against abuse charges. The decision could also
undermine the entire review process by providing an excuse for states
with terrible human rights records — like North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe
— to withdraw as well. It certainly will make it harder for Washington
to argue for reviews when an ally rejects the process.
It would be one thing for the New York Times to acknowledge that the
Human Rights Council is flawed and that Israel should submit to its
authority, if the flaws were not relevant to Israel's standing. But one
of the flaws that the Times itself acknowledged is the council's
obsession with Israel, meaning that Israel will not be judged by the
"universal standards" it claims to champion.
Israel Matzav outlines the degree to which the editorial downplays the rather substantial flaws of the Human Rights Council.
The Times' willful blindness to what the 'council' is and what it
represents is beyond appalling. The 'council' has nothing to do with the
protection of human rights (note - without the scare quotes this time)
and everything to do with promoting the use of 'human rights' as a means
of bashing Israel as was decided at the Durban I conference in 2001.
That is why the 'council' has had nothing to say while 60,000 Syrians
have been murdered by the Assad regime in the last two years, and that
is why the 'council' had nothing to say about the green revolution in
Iran in 2009 (behavior in which the Obama administration was
unfortunately and shamefully complicit).
There is no reason for countries like North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe to
skip their universal periodic reviews because, unlike Israel, which is
the only democracy in the Middle East and the only place in the world in
which Arab Christians and Muslims have human rights, countries like
North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe will benefit from the automatic pass of
the Organization of Islamic Countries at the Council.
He also cites a recent article by Anne Bayefsky, telling how Syria fared at the Human Rights Council:
So here’s how the UPR rubber hit the road of crimes against humanity
in Syria. On October 7, 2011, the Syrian vice-minister of foreign
affairs and his entourage took their places in the Council chamber. And
then the Cubans said: “the Syrian government is working for the human
rights of its people.” The North Koreans said: “we commend Syria on its
efforts taken to maintain security and stability.” The Iranians said:
“we appreciate the efforts of the government of Syria to promote and
protect human rights.” Ditto Sudan, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Algeria,
Lebanon, China, Zimbabwe, Burma/Myanmar, and so on.
Four days later, on behalf of the three countries charged with compiling
recommendations, Mexico reported to the Council: “Syria received a
total of 179 recommendations…It is a pleasure to inform you that 98
recommendations were accepted and 26 shall be considered.” Among the
recommendations that "did not enjoy the support" of Syria were
“immediately end attacks on peaceful protesters and bring violators to
account,” “put an end to secret detentions” and “allow journalists to
freely exercise their profession.” At the end of this stage of the UPR,
the President of the Council turned to Syria and signed off with “I
thank both you and your delegation for your participation in the UPR.”
At the time, there were 2,600 dead Syrian citizens at the hands of their
own government. And Assad got the message about the human rights bona
fides of the UN.
In fact, just using the name "human rights" in an organization's title
does nothing to ensure that it supports human rights. That appears to be
the operating assumption of the New York Times.
Of course it's entirely possible that there's no reason to assume that
the editors of the Times are naive. On successive days they've published
an op-ed filled with bogus legal jargon written by a known anti-Israel
activist and an editorial lacking in logical coherence. The only reason
to publish both, short of editorial malfeasance, is that the New York
Times is leading a campaign to "bash and demonize" Israel.
Labels: East Jerusalem, George Bisharat, International Criminal Court, Judea and Samaria, settlements are legal, United Nations Human Rights Council, universal periodic review
Britain 'deeply disappointed' they have to boycott another university
British Foreign Office Minister Alastair Burt described his country as being '
deeply disappointed' that Israel is putting his country out to boycott another university - this one over the green line.
"Ariel is beyond the Green Line in a settlement that is illegal
according to international law," Burt stated. "This decision will deepen
the presence of the settlements in the Palestinian territories and will
create another obstacle to peace."
He reiterated the country's call to reverse recent decisions to approve the construction of new housing units beyond the Green Line along with the latest move in Ariel.
He
added that in a conversation with Palestinian Authority President
Mahmoud Abbas last week, he had commended the PA's "measured response"
to the recent settlement decisions.
"We welcome that President
Abbas has publicly rejected the recent inflammatory statements by Hamas
leaders, and that he has stated clearly the position of the legitimate
Palestinian Leadership which has accepted the State of Israel in 1967
borders," Burt continued.
A few thoughts:
1. Mr. Burt might have some credibility were his country's academics not already boycotting every Israeli university that's within the '
green line'
1949 armistice lines.
2. The '
settlements' are not
illegal under '
international law.' Mr. Burt might gain some credibility if he at least acknowledged the matter as being under dispute.
3. The commendation of the 'Palestinian Authority's 'measured response' is the icing on the cake. Were it not for the support of Britain and other Western countries, the 'Palestinian' end run around negotiations would not have been anywhere near the event it was.
In summary, Mr. Burt and his foreign office have little to no credibility in the eyes of Israelis and will be overwhelmingly dismissed by them. Given that Britain did more to thwart the establishment of a Jewish state than any country in the world (including the Arabs), his country starts from a point of zero credibility anyway. What is he trying to accomplish by issuing statements like this one?
Labels: 1949 armistice lines, academic boycott, Ariel University, British anti-Semitism, British Foreign Office, settlements are legal
For the first time in nearly 20 years, a Jewish municipality in Samaria is allowed to expand
It was disclosed on Thursday that this week, the IDF signed the orders allowing the municipality of Beit El to expand onto state lands that were outside its boundaries. I believe that this is the first time since the Oslo Accords in 1993 that the state has allowed a Jewish city in Samaria to expand beyond its municipal boundaries.
The expansion was part of the agreement with the residents of the Ulpana neighborhood pursuant to which they were
expelled voluntarily from their homes in late June. Another part of that agreement was the construction of 300 new housing units in Beit El - ten times the number of families who were expelled. It is likely that 150-200 of those units will be built in the
newly expanded part of the municipality. 'Peace Now' is seething, and undoubtedly the 'Palestinians,' the Europeans and the Obama administration will also seethe once they find out.
Yariv Oppenheimer, executive director of Peace Now, said that to the best of his knowledge, the land on which the Border Police base was located was state land, and did not belong to the nearby Palestinian village of Dura al-Qara.
Still, he attacked the expansion plan, which he said awarded a prize to settlers from Beit El who had built the Ulpana outpost without permits on private Palestinian property.
“They broke the law, and now they are getting more space from the government,” Oppenheimer said.
He added that expanding the boundary line of a settlement also flew in the face of Israeli pledges to the international community not to take more land for West Bank settlements.
But Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has supported settler construction on state land. He has, however, taken a stand against unauthorized Jewish building on private Palestinian property.
It's time to admit the reality that the 'peace process' has failed and to stop keeping 22% of Israel's land mass and 10% of its population in limbo. Nineteen years is long enough. We cannot wait forever.
Labels: Beit El, Judea and Samaria construction, Peace Now, settlements are legal
Netanyahu's dirty trick or Netanyahu's brilliant move?
The one night I close the computer by 1:30 am, the big news breaks at 2:30.... Prime Minister Netanyahu cut a deal during the night with Kadima party chairman Shaul Mofaz to add Kadima to the coalition. Let's start with why it happened and then we'll look at the implications.
Prime Minister Netanyahu did not want new elections, but felt forced into them by pressures regarding the Tal Law (the invalidated law that allowed yeshiva students to defer army service), and the prospect of the Supreme Court forcing the government to dismantle Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria, which would have forced Netanyahu to confront the right in his own coalition. But when he saw at the Likud convention on Sunday that he was going to see his own party lurch sharply right (a process Netanyahu has been fighting for the last four years), Netanyahu felt he had to act.
Mofaz did not want to go to elections because it would have seen Kadima shrink from 29 seats to 14 or less according to current polls.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak did not want elections because polls showed his party would not make the minimum to stay in the Knesset.
The biggest losers in this are the Labor party, which stood to jump from five seats to 15, and Yair Lapid, whose new party stood to start out at 11 seats.
The current parties in the coalition - Yisrael Beiteinu, Shas, United Torah Judaism and Jewish Home - are staying put for now. Yisrael Beiteinu is in danger of its leader being indicted. Given that Shas and UTJ are staying in, it seems unlikely that Yisrael Beiteinu will get the 'equal service' they are seeking to force all the yeshiva students into the army, and in fact, there is word this morning that Netanyahu has promised the two ultra-Orthodox parties that everything regarding the IDF will be done cooperatively.
Shas gains because it keeps Aryeh Deri from returning to the Knesset. Israel Radio reports that Shas is likely to go along with whatever replaces the Tal Law, while United Torah Judaism is likely to leave the coalition if the replacement of the Tal Law is not to its liking (as is likely to be the case). Well, maybe. I don't see what UTJ has to gain by leaving the coalition.
The Ulpana neighborhood in Beit El is unlikely to be destroyed as the Supreme Court has decreed. The country overwhelmingly opposes its destruction, and either the Supreme Court will 'reconsider' or it will face the reality of a government coalition that will pass a law circumventing their ruling (as the Knesset is entitled to do). That's the attraction that keeps Jewish Home in the coalition.
Aside from Labor and Lapid, another potential loser is Moshe Feiglin, whom Netanyahu is trying to expel from the Likud. Netanyahu's best chance of winning that battle is to fold Kadima back into the Likud. Will that happen? That depends on the egos involved.
Don't bet on the election system being changed - something that comes up every time there is a large coalition. Likud - or a Likud merged with Kadima - are the only parties with any incentive to do that right now. No one else is strong enough. The only way we will change to direct election of Knesset members is if we get a single party winning a majority, or two parties that can form a coalition by themselves. That's not the case now.
The budget seems likely to pass, which was another problem Netanyahu was trying to resolve.
And Iran? That's probably where Netanyahu has the most freedom of action, at least until November 6. Obama can't do anything to stop him if a coalition of 94 MK's out of 120 decides to attack, with another 15 supporting it from the opposition.
Those are my first thoughts on the drama that happened last night. I think it's a dirty trick against all the losers described here, but I also think it's a brilliant move on Netanyahu's part. We'll see how it plays out - I suspect they won't be as dramatic as a lot of people this morning think they are going to be.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, IDF, Judea and Samaria, Kadima, Knesset elections 2012, Likud party, settlements are legal, Shaul Mofaz, Supreme Court
EU slams outpost legalization
EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton has condemned Israel for legalizing three 'settlements' that were
established in the 1990's, and has called on Israel to 'reverse' the decision.
The European Union on Wednesday stated that it is "extremely concerned" about a government panel's Monday decision to recognize three West Bank outposts as legal settlements, calling upon Israeli authorities to backtrack.
The EU statement is the latest in an international chorus of condemnations against the Israeli decision, as the US, UN, PA, France and Jordan have all slammed the move.
In a press statement, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said that "settlements are illegal under international law, an obstacle to peace and threaten the viability of a two-state solution."
"I am extremely concerned about the decision... in the occupied Palestinian territory. I call upon (Israeli authorities) to reverse this decision," Ashton said.
The United States on Tuesday also expressed "concerned" over the move and was seeking clarifications from Israel, according to a State Department statement.
"We are obviously concerned by the reports that we have seen. We have raised this with the Israeli government," US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters. "We don't think this is helpful to the [peace] process, and we don't accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity."
I guess if you can insist that Israel reverse the results of the Six-Day War 45 years ago, you can also insist that it expel people from homes in which they have lived for 20 years. Maybe they don't teach 'adverse possession' in Property Law courses in Europe.
YNet adds:
"I am extremely concerned about the decision of the Israeli authorities regarding the status of the settlements of Sansana, Rachalim and Bruchin in the occupied Palestinian territory," said EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.
"I call upon them to reverse this decision," she said in a statement.
...
"The EU has repeatedly called on Israel to end all settlement activity. Settlements are illegal under international law, an obstacle to peace and threaten the viability of a two-state solution," Ashton said.
The chief EU diplomat said the Israeli decision ran counter to the spirit of an April 11 statement by the Quartet of Middle East peacebrokers, the European Union, United States, Russia and United Nations.
The Quartet, she recalled, "expressed concern about unilateral and provocative actions, including continued settlement activity."
Of course, Israel did not endorse or adopt the EU statement.
Meanwhile, the Syrian rebels anxiously await the arrival of 100 EU monitors who will observe the Assad regime slaughtering Syrian citizens. They are expected to arrive in about three months.
As Shy Guy always writes, '
Keep knitting Madame Defarge!'
Labels: Catherine Ashton, European Union, Judea and Samaria, Middle East quartet, settlements are legal
Legality of Israeli building in Judea and Samaria a US election issue
The
legality of Israeli building in Israel's heartland has become an election issue in the US according to my friend, Yisrael Medad.
The roots to this dispute lie with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who claims that, on U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, “Prime Minister [Menachem] Begin ultimately acknowledged its applicability in all its parts,” as Carter wrote, for example, in the Washington Post on Nov. 22, 2000, where he linked this to the issue of building Jewish communities "in occupied territory."
In fact, it was the Carter administration that initiated the "illegality" terminology. He had Herbert Hansell, the State Department legal adviser, declare that the communities "violated international law," marking a reversal of the approach taken by all previous administrations. Following Carter, however, President Ronald Reagan reinstated the traditional approach, declaring on Feb. 2, 1981, that the communities were "not illegal." He did criticize them on policy grounds as being "ill-advised." Even Carter's Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, stated on July 29, 1977, that "it is an open question as to who has legal right to the West Bank."
Carter, of course, will not forgive Begin's resistance to bow to him on this matter. As scholar and author William B. Quandt notes quite plainly on page 246 of his book, “Camp David: Peacemaking and Politics," Begin rejected Carter's interpretation of Resolution 242 and its relevance to portions of the Jewish people’s historic homeland in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Just after the Camp David Accords' signing, on Sept. 20, 1978, Begin declared that 242's preamble of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" was unacceptable. He viewed the 1967 Six-Day War as one "of legitimate self-defense, of saving a nation surrounded and attacked and threatened with annihilation." He added, "We refused. On behalf of the people of Israel, on behalf of the Jewish people, in the name of simple of human justice and dignity, above all, on behalf of truth, we refused to give this signature for those words."
The resolution needed to make clear that Judea and Samaria, as well as Gaza, were part of the territory to which Jews had the right of "close settlement," as the League of Nations decided by international law. The British Mandate gave recognition "to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine." That history, including recent history, cannot be separated from Judea, Samaria and Gaza. It was only in 1929 that a campaign of violent ethnic cleansing by Arabs forced Jews out of their homes in Hebron, Nablus and Gaza, to be followed, similarly, in the 1948 expulsions of Jews from Jerusalem, Gush Etzion, Kibbutz Beit Haarava, Neve Yaakov and Atatrot.
Despite not being a member of the League of Nations, the U.S. accepted the mandate's terms and its territorial applicability in a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress on June 30, 1922. The resolution was signed on Sept. 21, 1922, by then President Warren G. Harding, and was further supported by the Anglo-American Convention, a treaty signed by the U.S. and British governments in 1924, stipulating that the U.S. fully accepted the mandate for Palestine.
In Talmudic jurisprudence we say, "
Kol ha'mishaneh, yado al ha'tachtona" (whoever seeks to change an accepted convention bears the burden of proof). That rule has largely been adopted by other Western legal systems as well. Carter - and the Obama administration in his wake - have not proved that Israeli construction of Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria is 'illegal.'
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Judea and Samaria construction, settlements are legal
The next time someone tells you 'settlements' are the issue, believe them
Maybe
'settlements' are the issue between us and the 'Palestinians' after all.
In the first place, although some Palestinian negotiators have given the impression that they would accept Israeli retention of the large settlement blocs in return for the surrender of some Israeli territory elsewhere, the official Palestinian and Arab position has remained that Israel must withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, which are invariably referred to as the “1967 borders.” When the Palestinians ask individual countries to declare their support for the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, the boundaries of that state are always described as the “1967 borders.” All this creates the impression that one of the main reasons why the Palestinians are not interested in a negotiated settlement is precisely because they are not willing to accept the existence of any Israeli settlements, whether big or small, beyond the 1949 armistice lines. This impression is further reinforced by the repeated statements by Abbas and other Palestinian leaders that they do not intend to accept the presence of even one single Jew within the territory of their new Palestinian state.
In the second place, even if the Palestinians were willing to accept some Israeli settlements while insisting that others be dismantled, Israeli agreement to this demand would not in fact represent a compromise but rather a capitulation to Palestinian antisemitism. In return for voluntarily evicting tens of thousands of Jews from their homes, with all the attendant strife and dislocation which such a step would engender within Israeli society, Israel would receive nothing in return save a meaningless promise of future peaceful intentions. A genuine compromise on the issue of the settlements would see some placed under Israeli sovereignty and some under Palestinian sovereignty, but no one thinks in these terms because everyone knows that the Palestinians would immediately move to attack any Jewish settlements placed under their authority. While the supporters of the Palestinians rave and rant against Israel as an “apartheid state,” the Palestinians themselves loudly proclaim their refusal to permit any Jews to live under their rule. And this stance is not unique to the Palestinians but is true of the entire Arab world, where hardly any Jews now remain from what were once large communities dating back literally thousands of years.
In the third place, even if a genuine compromise on the issue of the settlements were possible, there are so many other issues on which the Palestinians are not willing to compromise that no peace agreement between them and Israel is conceivable any time soon. In particular, for 20 years the Palestinians have not budged one inch from their demand for the “right of return” of millions of Palestinians to “Israel proper.” They have also continued to demand full sovereignty over the Temple Mount, plus a corridor under their exclusive jurisdiction between Gaza and the “West Bank,” plus sufficient control over their borders and air space to enable them to import offensive weapons. It would be suicidal for Israel to agree to these demands, nor do the Palestinians expect Israeli agreement. For the Palestinians, the whole point of persisting with impossible demands is to validate their strategy of trying to secure United Nations approval of the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. Such approval would not actually give the Palestinians physical control over the territory which they claim, but what it would do is create the basis for a political, diplomatic and military offensive against the Jewish settlements. Eradication of these settlements is the Palestinian short term goal, which means that for Israel as well as for the Palestinians, the settlements are indeed the issue.
...
Jewish settlement of Judea and Samaria is the only effective response that Israel can make to the Palestinian refusal to make peace. It is neither just nor reasonable to expect Israel to maintain Judea and Samaria in the same Judenrein condition in which the Arabs left it in 1967. Judea and Samaria formed the heartland of the ancient Jewish kingdoms of Judah and Israel, and Jews have every right to settle there while waiting for the time, perhaps many years from now, when the democratization of Arab society has proceeded to the point where the Palestinians are ready to make peace with Israel. If the Palestinians are concerned that the progress of Jewish settlement will gradually shrink the area available for a future Palestinian state, they have only to make peace now in order to stabilize the situation. It is both just and reasonable that they should stand to lose something by persisting in a stance of relentless hostility towards the state of Israel and the Jewish people.
Read it all.
Labels: Judea and Samaria, settlements are legal
