Israeli Repression and the Language of Liars

[Ned]

Well, Roland, there are quiet a few Europeans (and Americans as well) here that have an anti-Israel stance. They premise their position on Israel being the aggressor. Among the things I have heard here include the following: - that Israel has no right to occupy the West Bank, that the settlements are illegal and must be dismantled, that Israel's actions in the recent weeks is not self defense, but lawless barbarism resulting in genocide.

I am simply address these issues point by point. There is an underlying fear among many that the root cause of the anti-Israeli stance is not based on principle, but on anti-Semitism or something else, such as being anti-European. The Surrealist movement is an example.

If they are anti-Israel on principle, then either we do not share the same value system or we do not understand the facts correctly. A thorough dicussion in warranted.

[Roland]

In that case, I'd appreciate not mixing replies to me with replies to a group of other people.

"- that Israel has no right to occupy the West Bank"

You could make it an issue, but I think it has.

"that the settlements are illegal"

They are.

"and must be dismantled"

Subject to an agreement, those close to Israel will most likely stay.

"that Israel's actions in the recent weeks is not self defense, but lawless barbarism"

Absent a willingness to dismantle at least the settlements that make a palestinian state unviable, it is neither. It is a simple war for territory. Just as it is for Arafat.

"resulting in genocide."

Silly hyperbole.

[Ned]

Roland, OK, then assume the following: the Jews had a right to settle anywhere in Palestine before 1948. If you disagree with this, let's talk about that first.

But assuming this, how did the Jews lose this right?

Ned

[Roland]

Let's assume this. First, there is a difference between individuals moving, and government sponsored settlement policies. But even leaving that one out: They lost this right because "Palestine" no longer was one entity. There were borders. (Right of return is a separate although related topic).

Serbs had the right to settle in Slovenia as long as the SFRY existed. Then it broke apart. If they occupied Slovenia today, their settlements would be illegal.

[Ned]

I just read through all the documents on the Yale site concerning this time period. It appears that the armistices all premised on simple cease fires. There was no resolution of issued of sovereignty or territorial claims. The UN resolutions changed from calling for a Palestinian State to "peaceful resolution" of the disputed territories.

The bottom line, no international institution recognized any sovereignty over the disputed territories.

[Sirotnikov]

If so, Roland, let's assume that Jews had lived prior to 1948 in many places which between 1948-1967 were occupied by Jordan, and are now reffered to as part of the Occupied Territories.

Now, let's furthermore assume that Jews were kicked out of all places in the West Bank, in which they previously had a right to settle. Some were slaughtered too.

I'm asking to assume this, since this is indeed true, but I do not wish to get into a detailed arguement about the extent, since I don't have a scanner.

Now, assuming that, do the Jews who lived there, or their children, do not want to return to those places, which in their view were liberated in 1967?

I'm not claiming that this is the thing about most settlements, but it is indeed true for several, especially the large block near Jerusalem.

[Roland]

Ned:

It is possible that in that period, jordan control was construed as sort of fiduciary. But AFAIK egypt and jordan annexed those territories, yet I'd have to check the international reaction.

Siro:

"I'm asking to assume this, since this is indeed true, but I do not wish to get into a detailed arguement..."

No need for it.

"Now, assuming that, do the Jews who lived there, or their children, do not want to return to those places, which in their view were liberated in 1967?"

Yes, and if you think there is a right of return after having been expelled at least for the generation directly affected, fine.

"but it is indeed true for several, especially the large block near Jerusalem."

It is true for individuals or communities, but Israel is conducting a strategic settlement policy - for anyone who wants to go there. How many returnees are among the 200.000 or so settlers - most of whom came in the 80s and 90s ? How many returnees are in the suburb settlements surrounding the old east jerusalem ?

[Ned]

Roland, Unilateral action by Jordan in annexing the territory was a violation of the both the Armistice agreements with Israel and UN Resolutions of the topic. Egypt simply initiated the 6-day war. Jordan and Syria followed. Israel retook all of Palestine, some of Syrian and some of Egypt.

The UN issued resolution 242 asking Israel to withdraw from these territories. This resolution is marketedly different in kind from the early resolutions that simply called for a cease fire and negotiations. One can argue that the basis for the settlement "illegality" is 242. However, the resolution is remarkable in its hostility to Israel. It is a virtual declaration of war on Israel.

Back to the settlements for a moment. If one Jew has a right to settle in Palestine, does he have a right to settle next to another Jew?

If the answer is yes, do the two have a right to erect fences for security?

If yes, do they have a right to have the Israeli army help protect them?

You can easily see that if Jews have a right to settle in Palestine, they have the all the other rights I just enumerated.

This does not, however, decide the issue of sovereignty. That is a separate question that is the subject of peace negotiations. It is my understanding that Israel will give the new Palestinian state sovereignty over most of these settlements. But it wants to retain sovereignty over some of these, the ones it believes are necessary for security.

Obviously, from Siro's post, there are other issues beyond security as well.

It remains my view that the Palestinians have a right of self-determination. They have a right to negotiate with Israel concerning borders. But, they do not have a right to make war on Israel unless they get all they demand.

[TCO]

does one just have the right to "settle" on land willy, nilly? Who owns the title?

[Sirotnikov]

That's the thing, that prior to 1948 land in palestine was government owned, or owned by private lords, most of them away, or owned by jews.

most of the people who lived there didn't own the land they sat on.

so if jews came and settled in empty patches of land, they could do that.

now it's a problem, i agree.

and i don't even like settlements.

[Sirotnikov]

the problem is that now Palestinians are doing just that inside of israel.

They are illegally coming from the territories and settling in villages and cities.

And the police usually is helpless since if they try to evict them, there are huge riots, and the police is too busy preventing terracts.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
That's the thing, that prior to 1948 land in palestine was government owned, or owned by private lords, most of them away, or owned by jews.

most of the people who lived there didn't own the land they sat on.

so if jews came and settled in empty patches of land, they could do that.

now it's a problem, i agree.

and i don't even like settlements.

Siro, as we discussed before in another thread, in many cases Israel and Israeli's acquired title to settlement property, either prior to 1948 or after 1967, by paying their record owners for it. However, the land that nobody has title to is the real kicker. The chain of title would go from the Turkish Sultan to possibly the British through the Mandate. But then to whom?

Jordan and Egypt occuppied the land by force. However, the armistice agreements contained specific provisions that they would not affect sovereignty. The UN never recognized Jordanian or Egyption sovereignty. Neither has it recognized Israeli sovereignty.

This leaves either the British or the Sultan. However, the British only had a Mandate. Therefore, the Brits could not acquire title through sovereignty.

The last sovereign then was the Sultan. But he no longer exists.

I would argue under these circumstances, that the people who first occupy and develop the land acquire good title.

I am willing to bet there are Israeli court decisions that pretty much say the same as the above.

[TCO]

squatters...

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Ned
The chain of title would go from the Turkish Sultan to possibly the British through the Mandate. But then to whom?

That's the problem.

Jordan occupied the area, but had no actual rights for it.

It was meant to be palestinian, but the resolution was not binding.

So technically it was Jordan's land until Israel took over it. Since it was never legally Jordan's we didn't occupy it from them. Infact, in some cases Jordan occupied Jewish settlements and expelled or massacared the Jews. So in some ways it was liberation.

But, still while Israel is the ruler in action, it's not legally its.

When the PA was established, some 30% of the land were transfered to it, and since it's internationally accepted, I guess it's theirs.

But Israel has to invade those areas to do the dirty work Arafat doesn't do.

Jordan and Egypt occuppied the land by force. However, the armistice agreements contained specific provisions that they would not affect sovereignty. The UN never recognized Jordanian or Egyption sovereignty. Neither has it recognized Israeli sovereignty.

Exactly.

But I think that the PA sovereignity is internationally recognized, even if not by the UN.

This leaves either the British or the Sultan. However, the British only had a Mandate. Therefore, the Brits could not acquire title through sovereignty.

Why not?

Once you have sovereignity you can technically declare the land government property.

That is pretty much what Israel did, and it used special war time laws, which were originally written by the Brittish. Technically those laws allow abuse of democracy, but they have rarely been used.

They are mostly used for administrative arrest for short periods of time, and for land confiscation.

I would argue under these circumstances, that the people who first occupy and develop the land acquire good title.

Then many of the settlements are legal, since they grew in voids between palestinian settlements.

I am willing to bet there are Israeli court decisions that pretty much say the same as the above.

I don't know really. I'm not sure. Technically Israel never annexed the territories so it's not government property.

[Roland]

You need to differentiate between ownership and land and sovereignty. And you need to differentiate between individuals moving somewhere and government policies that are "generous" in that regard, or massively sponsor and plan settlements. I'm not sure which points belong where....

I've been taking a quick look at the legal situation. Even leaving aside the exact status of the former mandate area: the ICJ stated wrt Namibia that the unclear legal status of land does not diminish the protection of the population there. And the SC explicitly stated in resolution 446:

...Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

2. Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and the consensus statement by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976 2/ and General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967, 32/5 of 28 October 1977 and 33/113 of 18 December 1978;

3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;

4. Establishes a Commission....

Adopted at the 2134th meeting by 12 votes to none, with 3 abstentions (Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America).