The Israeli Foreign Ministry wrote on Sept 18, 1967.
TOP SECRET
To : Mr Adi Yafeh, Political Secretary to the Prime Minister
From : Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Subject: Settlement in the Administered Territories
At your and Mr Raviv’s request, I am enclosing herewith a copy of my
memorandum of 14.9.67 on the above subject, which I submitted to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Regards,
[signed]
T. Meron
Here is the attached memorandum:
14.9.67 TOP SECRET
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Legal AdviserMost Urgent
Subject: Settlement in the Administered Territories
Mr Raviv wrote to me to say you had asked for my opinion “on restrictions and dispensations under international law for occupying states where it concerns the cultivation of lands”.
The above question is very general and difficult to answer but I understand it in the context of what I have heard from Mr Adi Yafeh, that is to say, in relation to the possibility of Jewish settlement in the [West] Bank and the [Golan] Heights as well as the settlement of Arab
refugees from Gaza in El-Arish or the [West] Bank. In this opinion, I will deal only with the first question, which, from a political and legal point of view, seems to me to be the most delicate. I am afraid there is in the world very great sensitivity to the whole question of Jewish settlement in
the administered territories and any legal arguments that we shall try to find will not counteract the heavy international pressure that will be exerted upon us even by friendly countries which will base themselves on the Fourth Geneva Convention. These countries may claim that, while
they expect for Israel to settle Arab refugees, Israel is busy settling the administered territories with its citizens.From the point of view of international law, the key provision is the one that appears in the last paragraph of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel, of course, is a party to this Convention. The paragraph stipulates as follows:
“The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.
The Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1958 states:
This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference. It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.
The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words “transfer” and “deport” is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
The prohibition therefore is categorical and not conditional upon the motives for the transfer or its objectives. Its purpose is to prevent settlement in occupied territory of citizens of the occupying state. If it is decided to go ahead with Jewish settlement in the administered
territories, it seems to me vital, therefore, that settlement is carried out by military and not civilian entities. It is also important, in my view, that such settlement is in the framework of camps and is, on the face of it, of a temporary rather than permanent nature.Even if we settle an army and not civilians, we must, from the point of view of international law, have regard to the question of ownership of the land that we are settling. Article 46 of the Hague Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Annexes to the Hague Convention (IV) of 1907), regulations that are regarded as a true expression of customary international law that is binding on all countries, states in relation to occupied territory that:
“private property … must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated”.
As regards state lands, Article 55 of the Hague Regulations stipulates that an occupying state is permitted to administer the property and enjoy the fruits of the property of the occupied state. Even here there are certain limitations on the occupying state’s freedom of action, which
derive from the occupying state not being the owner of the property but having merely enjoyment of it.In relation to the property of charitable, religious or educational institutions or municipalities, they are treated under Article 56 of the Hague Regulations as private property.
It will be noted that an order concerning abandoned property (private property) (Order No. 58), issued by Brigadier Narkiss as IDF Commander in the West Bank region (and Order No. 59) concerning state property are in fact in keeping with the provisions of the Hague Regulations on the observance of property rights.
I will now go on to discuss a number of concrete issues pointed out by Mr Yafeh.
A. Regarding the possibility of engaging in any kind of agricultural activity and settlement on the Golan Heights, it has to be pointed out that the Golan Heights, which lie outside the area of the mandated Land of Israel, are unequivocally “occupied territory” and are subject to the
prohibition on settlement. If it is decided to establish any settlements, it is essential that this be done by the army in the form of camps and that it does not point to the establishment of permanent settlements.B. In terms of settlement on the [West] Bank, we are trying not to admit that here too it is a matter of “occupied territory”. We argue that this area of the Mandate on the Land of Israel was divided in 1949 only according to Armistice Lines, which, under the Armistice agreements themselves, had merely military, not political, significance and were not determinative until the final settlement. We go on to say that the agreements themselves were achieved as a temporary measure according to Security Council action based on Article 40 of the United Nations Charter.
We also argue that Jordan itself unilaterally annexed the West Bank to the Kingdom of Jordan in 1950 and that the Armistice Lines no longer exist because the agreements expired due to the war and Arab aggression.We must nevertheless be aware that the international community has not accepted our argument that the [West] Bank is not “normal” occupied territory and that certain countries (such as Britain in its speeches at the UN) have expressly stated that our status in the [West] Bank is that of an occupying state.
In truth, even certain actions by Israel are inconsistent with the claim that the [West] Bank is not occupied territory. For example, Proclamation No. 3 of the IDF Forces Commander in the West Bank of 7.6.67, which brings into force the order concerning security regulations (in Section 35), states that:
“A military court and the administration of a military court will observe the provisions of the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilians in Time of War in everything relating to legal proceedings and where there is conflict between this order and the aforementioned Convention, the provisions of the Convention will prevail”.
With regard to Gush Etzion, settlement there could to a certain extent be helped by claiming that this is a return to the settlers’ homes. I assume that there are no difficulties here with the question of property although the matter requires close examination. With regard to Gush Etzion too, we have to expect, in my view, negative international reaction on the basis of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention. Furthermore, in our settlement in Gush Etzion, evidence of intent to annex the [West] Bank to Israel can be seen.
On the possibility of settlement in the Jordan Valley, the legal situation is even more complicated because we cannot claim to be dealing with people returning to their homes and we have to consider that problems of property will arise in the context of the Hague Regulations. I cannot go further into this question without having a lot more detail.
On the issue of the settlement of Arab refugees, which is, in my opinion, a less complex issue from both a political and a legal point of view, I will write separately.
Regards,
[signed]
T. Meron
In hindsight it is easy to see where Meron erred. The ICRC interpreted “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” as follows:
-
It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories.
Meron assumed that that was what Israel was trying to do. But he was wrong. What was proscribed was a situation where the occupying power forcibly transferred or deported its own populations into the occupied territories for “political or racial reasons”. He was wrong because Israel wasn’t forcibly doing so, as happened in WWII nor was it even transferring or deporting. There is no prohibition against Jews moving to the territories.
The Arabs are trying to arguing that this clause should be read as “indirectly” transferring or deporting. They argue that Israel by providing roads and services was indirectly transferring. But that is not what it says and was not what it meant in 1949 when it was passed.
Let us assume that Israel by doing so ran afoul of the law. If so the Israeli leaders who were behind the transfer must suffer the consequences and such consequences are severe as this is considered a war crime.
But that doesn’t mean the settlements are illegal or that Jews cannot independently move to the territories. Bottom line is that there is no law saying the settlements are illegal or that the Jews who settled there, can’t live there.
Welcome to FT November 6, 2013
Israel set to become major gas exporter
By John Reed in Tel Aviv
The Tamar deepwater natural gas platform rises 290m from the seabed off Ashdod, in southern Israel, emerging above the waterline only for the last 50 metres or so.
The $3.5bn project is described by its investors Delek of Israel and Noble Energy of the US as the largest private sector infrastructure undertaking in Israel’s 65-year history. The gas from Tamar, which began sending its output onshore in late March, will contribute about a percentage point of the country’s gross domestic product this year.
comment in moderation pls release
@ honeybee:
I made a typo it was actually British Gas BG not BP
Actually I did enjoy it. Did you suspect otherwise?
Is there any truth to our enemies claims?
Lebanon’s Energy Sector Stalled by Government Crisis
Lebanese citizens became optimistic when they heard about the possibility of the discovery of gas reserves in Lebanon’s territorial waters. But this optimism was followed by a question raised by all Lebanese: Who will benefit from the revenues? Will the politicians put their hands on them? What is remarkable is that this question is being raised by most citizens, regardless of their religion or sect. Meanwhile, the discovery of petroleum reserves in Lebanon would be a golden opportunity that opens the doors to a new economic sector, away from pessimism that prevails in the country.
There is an Israeli drilling platform a short way north of the Gaza Marine Zone. Although there is no evidence supporting speculation at this time it is feasible for the Israelis to access the gas deposits located in the Marine Zone. Slant drilling techniques allow bits to reach 10-15000 feet horizontally from a standing platform. Iraq accused Kuwait of stealing its oil using this technique.
@ yamit82:
Screwed BP holes with a slant drill, did you enjoy it. Kosher drilling!!!!!!!!!Darlin
@ bernard ross:
Slant drilling, Old Texas trick.
yamit82 Said:
Me too! I think its funny that some expect a country at war to respect the enemy claims and assets. some of those whining articles make me laugh. Gazans at war should expect to be plundered and the same for lebanon. My view is that the enemy has no rights except to die.
Ted, did you write this? I do not understand why lip service is paid to the GC when treaties, etc. speak of the obligation to “…facilitate the immigration and encourage the close settlement of the Jewish people..”. How can GC even be relevant to a territory specifically set up to encourage Jewish settlement.
There is not only no law AGAINST Jewish settlement but the law specifically obligated its encouragement!
why does this even get discussed among Jews????
Furthermore, there is another issue which speaks to the inapplicability of the GC. It is my understanding that Laws which are not equally applied cannot be legally enforced. The pals and the Jews were both created as refugees as a result of the same conflict in which the expelling arab nations allied with the pals against the Jews. As the GC was not applied on behalf of the expelled Jews then it is ludicrous to assert it is applicable to another participant in the same conflict. By waiving its applicability wrt the Jews then its applicability should be waived for anyone in that conflict. there is an attempt by pal supporters to cast the expelled jews as not being connected with the same conflict or with the pals as it is different locations but I believe this is rubbish as WWII was global and considered one conflict.
Is there any truth to our enemies claims?
War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields
Lebanon accuses Israel of stealing gas it doesn’t know it has
Egypt Did Deal With Israel To Sell Natural Gas At Below Cost Price
The Gas field off Gaza still belongs to Israel. Barak gave up the rights (illegally) to Arafat not to Hamas, BP paid Arafat 50 million $$$ for the rights to drill but nobody would buy as Israel deceided to buy Egyptian Gas instead. a few years Ago BP after trying to get Israel to agree and failing to buy the gas gave up their leases.
In the meantime Israel has been milking Gazan gas by horizontal or Directional drilling
I hope most of the gas being pumped suposedly from our adjacent wells is in fact Gazan Gas thus preserving our own for the future.
bernard ross Said:
Apartheid, both economin and physical, is found in all nations.
I thought qatar was hoping for this deal?
@ yamit82:
for your interest:
Qatar’s foreign minister: Iran has ‘crucial role’ in Syria
Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/01/qatar-geneva-ii-syria-opposition-iran.html#ixzz2rF6Ky0ef
they act as one in spite of pretending to be in competition running “different jihadis”
Qatar telling their jihadi proxies to support the saudi jihadi proxies. there is one GCC and the many groups are an obfuscation.
He does not think, he knows! After all he is one of the GCC who sent them there and gave them instructions. they have already been “fading” to Lebanon and Iraq.
this should be interesting to watch.
Felix Quigley Said:
You obviously do not read my comments to which you pretend to be respond.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Saudi Deports Quarter Million Migrants in 3 Months
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/saudi-deports-quarter-million-migrants-months-21619784
Something to learn here. On that schedule I wonder how long it would take to be rid of the 5th column
CuriousAmerican Said:
the charge of apartheid is obviously spurious and is not driven by a need for logic. therefore the same is true with problems resulting for re annexation or transfer. It wont matter what the content of the accusation is and therefore it makes no sense to comply with such arguments now or later. Israel will always have problems from their perennial detractors: the question is when will the Jews get it? The Jews might as well get something in exchange for all the false accusations. No reason to avoid any behavior for which Israel is already demonized.
CuriousAmerican Said:
are there areas on the globe where it is overlooked, are there any UN members who are guilty of similar things to which Israel is accused or maintain undemocratic govs who disenfranchise their citizens? Until those are dealt with and cleared up I see no reason for Israel to bow to double statndards.
yamit82 Said:
Felix Quigley Said:
Where and when have I ever said I was prepared to surrender Gaza or any other part of The Land of Israel? You must have me confused with CA or some other enemy of the Jewish people. 🙂
Keep trying Felix, it’s fun deflecting your feeble inane attempts to cast me as a villain when it comes to Israel and the Jewish people.
Stolen by foreign conquest and given up by Jewish fools more than once, (At least 3 times in the last 66 years).
Our rights to Gaza and all of the Land of Israel is derived from the Torah. Rights established by the creator of all things referenced and acknowledged in the San Remo Agreement as the primary basis of Jewish rights to all of Palestine then under British control.
“To your descendants I have given this land, from the Egyptian River (the Nile) as far as the great river, the Euphrates.”
Bereshit (Genesis) 15:18) 😛
So are the Litani, the Nile and the Euphrates rivers.
The Jew has come home for the third and last time. “But the third shall be left therein” (Zecharia 13:8). “The first redemption was that from Egypt; the second, the redemption of Ezra. The third will never end” (Tanhuma, Shoftim 9).
The real reason Israel retreated to the perimeters of Gaza was to ditch 1.5 Million Muslims.
Do you want them back?
I can understand annexing Judea and Samaria. (I advocated it)
But Gaza is tricky.
You would be running into very real demographic problems if you re-absorbed Gaza. Even Ted gave a qualified sort of approval of the withdrawal from Gaza for that very reason.
If you think Israel has problems with the charge of Apartheid wait until in re-absorbs Gaza.
But do it. Just plan ahead.
To Yamit and Ross
I find it remarkable if not disgusting that both of you so voluble and “militant” are prepared to surrender Gaza
Yamit also asks why I am holding fast to Gaza
1. It was stolen by a combination of Jewish traitors and Gentile deceit
2. As I argued in 2005 Gaza is Jewish as per San Remo
3. I also argued that the sea is a natural defensive border
My view is that if the law is used to swindle Jews then screw the law. The end conclusion is simple: the europeans exiled the Jews, the arabs invaded from arabia, the Jews came back and tried repeatedly to live in peace with the arab squatters they found, living in peace has proven impossible, therefore its time for the arabs to go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dpylr2H7h7E
the bottom line is they control today over 80% of the former palestine mandate territory and EVERY inch of what they control is JEW FREE. This says it all as to any possibility of peaceful coexistence. Furthermore, there is no reason to discuss arab refugees as the 800,000 expelled Jews from the arab nations resulting from the same conflict have not been dealt with. The GC is irrelevant because it was not used wrt the Jewish expelled refugees therefore it cannot be expected to apply to the jews but not the arabs in the same conflict.. The rest doesn’t matter because there is no solution of peace with the arabs remaining within Israel.
@ watsa46:
Even if it were “ALL” and not some (which it is not), it matters not as Yamit as so comprehensively pointed out simply because Res. 242 IS NOT BINDING (Chapter VI not Chapter VII)whereas the Mandate rights are and they confirm exclusive national and settlement rights to the Jews and nothing can abrogate those rights. Even the consent of Israel can’t abrogate settlement rights that are irrevocably granted to the “Jewish people” as that concept includes Jews of the future as much as the present.
CuriousAmerican Said:
What blowback do you envision might happen with a degree of certainty?
It doesn’t really bother me much because I know some of the truths few are willing to publicize and expound on. Of course it will bother some, so what?
What the world thinks? You gotta be kidding? 🙂 What will they do besides threaten?
If Israel does most of what I suggest we will be dealing with it.
If Israel is ever seen to really be in danger a lot of what you antisemites have always thought about and characterized us (I think enough of us)… will become a reality for as long as the danger is perceived to be present.
Then as in the past the Jews will revert to where they were before.
Problem with those like you is you underestimate the power and strength of Israel and the Jewish people.
You are willing to believe and accept the worst about us and that defines you but not us.
Were Israel to mobilize all her strengths and power we will come through any threat and adversity whole and strengthened for the effort.
Is it possible to give an unbiased legal opinion when U have a gun at your head and most of the whole world against you?
It is clear as off today, that the international community in general sides with the Muslims to undermine any legal document that defends or protect IL rights or positions. The world wants to read what is not in legal documents in order to modify the meaning and the spirit of the many Int and UN resolutions that are supposed to protect any state INCLUDING Israel. The single most known example refers to the need for the IL forces to vacate ALL VS conquered territories. The witnesses present at the writing of the doc clearly stated that specifically “ALL” was out of question. Borders would have to be negotiated and IL will be allowed to keep some territories to assure her security. The EU and US in their deviousness want to impose “ALL”. This vicious undermining is what Kerry and the EU are doing day in day out. This MUST be ABSOLUTELY REJECTED no matter the PRICE. Western Gvts are full of closet antisemites besides the Jews from the left/far left.
@ CuriousAmerican:
It comes down to the “Territories” either being taken by Israel or by murderous enemies that exist solely to eradicate the Jewish nation. So the choice is really quite simple, all “blowback” from the world notwithstanding.
As for the blowback, we have the examples of Jerusalem and the Golan and the blowback really was no problem.
The choice is existential and therefore really no choice at all. In the end the only answer is annexation and what to do with the Arabs and the blowback from the world are secondary concerns.
@ yamit82:
Thanks for the history of military law in Israel; but the problem is: It cannot continue without blowback from the world. That may not bother you, but it will bother some.
military law will not be overlooked by the world community any more. Maybe it should be overlooked, but it won’t.
Israel will have to deal with the issue.
yamit82 Said:
This is the only reasonable conclusion of those who are repeatedly swindled through the application of the “law” only when it suits others and only after twisting it out of meaning. Basically it appears that they all recognized the historical rights of Jews to Israel, they put it into law, and then proceeded to swindle the Jews at every opportunity. Law is only as good as those who subscribe to it or enforce it. However, I think lawfare should be pursued as the Jews case is nowhere to be seen, especially not in Israel, the one place one would have such an expectation. further, if Israel experiences sanctions or takes drastic unilateral action(annexation or transfer) it would be wise to enable those who would prefer not to partake in sanctions an argument to that end.
yamit82 Said:
thank you Ted, now I can pay for my new Navaho jewlery!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Felix Quigley Said:
that would be nice but Israel appears to have given it up. In that case Gaza would be a good place to deposit fatah/PLO to reminisce with hamas. Syria and lebanon are good destinations because they have no treaties with Israel so their agreement is unnecessary. Re gaza, israel should take territory back and push them further to egypt each time a rocket is fire under “territory acquired under a defensive war”
One comment of mine was blocked by spam filter.
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE RIGHTS OF SETTLEMENT AND SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL
When it suits its diplomatic interests, even the United States — Israel’s closest ally — directly promotes international ostracism of the Jewish State. In September 2011, in an effort to more effectively combat terrorist groups, the U.S. created the “Global Counterterrorism Forum”, with an initial membership comprised of the European Union and 29 countries. Among the latter were 10 Muslim countries (namely, Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates), many of which (via tolerating, hosting, funding or providing ideological justification) have themselves facilitated acts of terrorism, most of which do not recognize Israel’s existence, and none of which regard attacks by “Palestinians” against Israel’s civilian population as terrorism. Although, due to existential necessity, Israel has become the World’s foremost expert in the field of counterterrorism, the U.S. barred the Jewish State from membership in the Forum and from attending its inaugural meeting in June 2012. Underscoring Israel’s exclusion from the Forum as well as from the Forum’s raison d’être, the speech given at the inaugural meeting by U.S. delegate Maria Otero (in her capacity as the U.S. State Department’s Undersecretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights), entitled “Victims of Terrorism”, conspicuously omitted the Jewish State from its recitation of countries that were under attack by terrorist groups.
And then, of course, there is the matter of Jerusalem. Israel is the only State in the World whose capital city — Jerusalem — is not recognized by the international community (including the United States) as actually being its capital city. Rather, the international community prefers to treat Tel Aviv as being Israel’s capital city. This non-recognition of a nation’s capital is unprecedented in the annals of international diplomacy. However, lest one think that this is the case merely because the international community does not recognize the legality of Israel’s post-1967 possession of the eastern portion of Jerusalem, it should be recalled that, since its establishment in 1948, modern Israel’s territory has always included the western portion of Jerusalem. Nonetheless, the international community (including the United States) has refused, from 1948 until the present Day, to recognize even the western portion of Jerusalem as being Israel’s capital. In furtherance of this international policy, the official website of the 2012 Olympic Games initially listed Jerusalem as being the capital of a nonexistent “Palestine” and initially listed no capital for Israel. However, after a protest from Israel, the website was subsequently “corrected” to list no capital city for either “Palestine” or Israel.
Lastly, the international community has acquired the insidious habit of equating binding U.N. Security Council resolutions (issued pursuant to Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter) directed against evil and aggressive dictatorships (such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Stalinist North Korea and Islamo-fascist Iran) with non-binding U.N. resolutions directed against the terror-targeted Jewish State.
Remarkably, the international community’s strident isolation of Israel was foretold by the gentile prophet Balaam who — gazing upon the Hebrew tribes as they advanced towards the biblical Land of Israel — declared: “’For, from its origins I see it rock-like, and from hills do I see it; behold! — it is a people that [physically] shall dwell in solitude and [spiritually] shall not be reckoned among the nations.’” (Numbers 23:9).
Clearly, Israel has no obligation to honor the malevolent Will of the international community as expressed through the U.N., especially when such hostile sentiment conflicts with the U.N.’s own Charter and with international law as expressed through the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
READ MORE
@ bernard ross:
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE RIGHTS OF SETTLEMENT AND SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL
Furthermore, the hypocritical United Nations, which is so adept at condemning Israel’s lawful possession of its ancestral lands, is equally adept at condoning or ignoring the many contested occupations of recent memory, such as those:
by Great Britain: of the northern portion of Ireland (which occupation has prompted that country to officially denominate itself as “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”), and of the southern tip of Spain (known as “Gibraltar”), and of the Falkland Islands (which are within the territorial waters of Argentina and known as the Malvinas Islands to that nation) and of two areas of Cyprus (both used as British military bases, one known as Akrotiri located near Limassol in the southern portion of the island and the other known as Dhekelia located between Larnaca and Famagusta in the southeastern portion of the island;
by the United States: of the southeastern tip of Cuba (known as “Guantanamo Bay”);
by Spain: of the cities of Cueta (known as Sebta to the Arab world) and Melilla (known as Maliliyya to the Arab world) on the northeastern coast of Morocco as well as several islands within the territorial waters of Morocco plus a small nearby peninsula of Morocco, and of a small region of Portugal on the Guadiana River (called Olivenza by Spain and Olivenca by Portugal);
by France: of territory on the northern coast of South America (known as “French Guiana”), and of the island of Mayotte (known as Mahore to the Arab world) within the territorial waters of Comoros;
by Spain and France: of Euskadi (the Basque homeland);
by Armenia: of the southwestern portion of Azerbaijan (namely, the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave and additional surrounding territory)
by India: of the larger part of Kashmir;
by China: of Tibet and of the Uygur homeland of Xinjiang Uygur (known as East Turkestan to the Uygur people);
by China and Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) of the Wa (also known as the Lawa, Va, Hkawa, Kawa, or Kala) homeland;
by Russia: of four Japanese islands at the southern tip of the Kuril archipelago (known as the Northern Territories to Japan), and of the Abkhazia and South Ossetia provinces of Georgia, and of the Transnistria (also known as Trans-Dniester or Transdniestria) province of Moldava, and of Chechnya, and formerly of Afghanistan, and formerly of the 14 nations which (together with Russia) comprised the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (commonly known as the Soviet Union)
by Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey: of Kurdistan;
by Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan: of Baluchistan (also known as Balochistan);
by Algeria: of (the remnant Berber homeland of) Kabylia;
by Turkey: of the northeastern portion of Cyprus (denominated as “The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” by Turkey) and of the Iskenderun region (denominated as the Province of Hatay by Turkey) which was originally part of the territory included in the League of Nations Mandate for Syria and is claimed by modern Syria (known as the Alexandretta region to the Arab world);
by Syria: formerly of Lebanon;
by Iran: of the oil-rich region of Khuzestan (known as the region of al-Ahwaz to the Arab world) which has been populated almost exclusively by Arabs for the past 600 years, and of the islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Abu Moussa located within the territorial waters of United Arab Emirates, and of the southern portion of Azerbaijan;
by Morocco: of Western Sahara;
by Ethiopia: formerly of Somalia;
by the United Nations itself: of the Kosovo province of Serbia; and
by nations (such as Great Britain, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Ecuador, France, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Yemen): of islands that lie well beyond their own territorial waters.
In fact, while the international community has always employed the pejorative label “Occupation” to describe Israel’s lawful reacquisition of its ancestral lands, it has never employed that label to describe any of the above-enumerated occupations. Moreover, none of the above-enumerated occupations has ever been declared by the International Committee of the Red Cross (which deems itself to be the official interpreter of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949) or any component of the U.N. system to be subject to — let alone in violation of — Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (which, inter alia, prohibits an occupying power from deporting portions of the occupied population from, or transferring portions of its own population to, the occupied territory). Only Israel’s lawful reacquisition of Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem and Gaza has ever been declared by the I.C.R.C. and the U.N. system to be subject to (and simultaneously in violation of) Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
This inversion of Morality was lamented by Solomon, third monarch of biblical Israel, who presciently observed: “There is a Futility that takes place on the Earth — there are righteous ones who are treated as [if they had performed] the actions of the evil ones; and there are evil ones who are treated as [if they had performed] the actions of the righteous ones — I declared that, also, this is a Futility.” (Ecclesiastes 8:14). His father, David, second monarch of biblical Israel, had earlier warned the World: “The evil ones will surge forward on every side when Baseness is exalted among the Sons of Man.” (Psalms 12:9). And the Prophet Isaiah had, in a later generation, declared: “Woe unto those who speak of Evil as [if it were] Good, and of Good as [if it were] Evil; who make Darkness into [the semblance of] Light, and Light into [the semblance of] Darkness; who make Bitter into [the perception of] Sweet, and Sweet into [the perception of] Bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20)
@ bernard ross:
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE RIGHTS OF SETTLEMENT AND SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL
@ bernard ross:
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE RIGHTS OF SETTLEMENT AND SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL
Resolution 242
@ bernard ross:
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE RIGHTS OF SETTLEMENT AND SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL
All this beating around the bushes on this semantic issue is the outcome of what the popular saying of “No good deed ever goes unpunished” is as true
as the Bible..
The Ghetto Jew mentality one would believe went out through the crematorium smokestacks is, to this day still dictating Israeli policy and GOD only
knows till when…
When the Wast Bank was in the hands of Jordan’S Arab Legion, everything was hunky-dory with world’s public opinion, RIGHT…???
Then, what prevented the outright annexation of it as a result of the 1967 Six days War…????
Shimon Dzigan once said in one of this sketches that an American politician is so smart, so sherewd, it is next to impossible to tell where the “Jajam”
(wise) and the “NAR” (fool) begins but I’ affraid thatb it can be fully pinned on the Israeli politicians as well…!!!!!
My beloved father (z’l) used to tell us that when the hooligans went to hit Jews, the Jewish youth was prevented from fighting back as doing it “Might
make matters worst” and therefore, when subjected to a beating, they will thank GOD for not being hit in the head….
Was it triumph euphoria or sheer fear what prevented DAYAN from taking the Temple Mount keys from the justly terrified WAQF and by this stupid action,
opening the floodgates of Muslim rewriting of History as we see now from their claims on the Temple Mount with the blessing of the Israeli “leadership”
as per the remark of the Canadian Minister…???????
@ bernard ross:
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE RIGHTS OF SETTLEMENT AND SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL
@ bernard ross:
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE RIGHTS OF SETTLEMENT AND SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL
@ bernard ross:
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE RIGHTS OF SETTLEMENT AND SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL
@ bernard ross:
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE RIGHTS OF SETTLEMENT AND SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL
Felix Quigley Said:
Why?
AND
Your reasons are?
Bernard Ross
Gaza must be won back for the Jewish people.
Bernard Ross
I was Reading your comments on this site and you are prepared to hand over Gaza to the enemies of the Jews and place it outside of Israel. Why do you do that?
Does anyone know how many Jews were ethnically cleansed by the Jordanians and the Egyptians from Judea, Samaria and Gaza during the War of Independence?
I haven’t been able to find that number out anywhere.
yamit82 Said:
Furthermore: the use of law to the advantage of one side only should be unaceptable to all Jews. There is no discussion here of the Jewish refugees from arab nations as a direct result of this conflict. It is as if only the interests of one side are being considered. If the GC did not protect the Jews cleansed from arab lands in the same conflict it is absurd to then claim the GC in any other matter related to the same conflict.
The internationals will try and swindle the Jews with any possible spurious argument but it is up to the Jews to accept or repudiate these ludicrous narratives emanating from the same filth who tortured and swindled Jews for 2000 years. I would not accept these swindles regardless of what the law says. Jews should realize that they would have accepted any crumbs and bones thrown to them by their perennial tormentors, but this is no reason to continue to comply with these swindlers. No agreement is legally valid when obtained under duress and the international community applied duress on the Jews immediately after they slaughtered half the Jewish population. The fact that these despicable, primarily european , swindlers tout their narratives today indicates the depravity to which they will sink in their war against the Jews.
They are vermin personified!
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE RIGHTS OF SETTLEMENT AND SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL
(Read Full Article)
CuriousAmerican Said:
We have legal Israeli precedents re: Arabs under Israeli sovereignty considered to be disloyal or politically antagonistic to the Jewish State.
Military administrative government was in effect from 1949 to 1966 over some geographical areas of Israel having large Arab populations, primarily the Negev, Galilee, and the Triangle. The residents of these areas were subject to a number of controlling measures that amounted to martial law. The Israeli army enforced strict residency rules. Any Arab not registered in a census taken during November 1948 was deported. Permits from the military governor had to be procured to travel more than a given distance from a person’s registered place of residence, and curfew, administrative detentions, and expulsions were common. Although the military administration was officially for geographical areas, and not people, its restrictions were seldom enforced on the Jewish residents of these areas. In the 1950s, martial law ceased to be in effect for those Arab citizens living in predominantly Jewish cities, but remained in place in all Arab localities within Israel until 1966.
Following the 1967 war, in which the Israeli army Liberated the West Bank and Gaza Strip, a military administration over the Palestinian population was put in place.
Settlement in what has been referred to as “the territories” since Israel conquered them in June 1967 never has been constrained by law; but only by a curious mixture of Israeli politics, and of typically Jewish fear of reproach from non-Jewish governments, quasi-governmental international agencies and various medias of journalism.
But the reality of the matter is that such settling is about power. After migrating en masse from Egypt about 3400 years ago,the ancient Hebrew-speaking tribes that became the Jewish nation invaded and settled the Kenani territories at the east end of the Mediterranean Sea and founded there a thriving and growing Jewish commonwealth. Many hundreds of years later, the Assyrian Empire conquered the Kingdom of Israel and deported most of it inhabitants. That was followed by a similar conquest of the Kingdom of Judea by the Babylonian Empire, then a half-millenium later by the Roman Empire. After that, for some 2000 years, Jewish populations were routinely abused, robbed, expelled or murdered by the majority of the countries of the Jewish diaspora. Finally, immediately following the declaration of the State of Israel, the Jewish populations of most of the Arab states were robbed by those countries and expelled.
But Jews were not the only targets of expropriation of lands and their settling by foreigners. Here in the United States, where the leaders of the United States of America determined they had a “manifest destiny” to conquer and settle all of this part of North America from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans, some hundreds of great and small tribes and sub-tribes of Native Americans who had possessed their lands for as many as 30,000 years, were conquered, jammed into reservations — which, like concentration camps, they could not leave — and their lands stolen and settled by our large white population which was being expanded annually by large-scale immigration from all parts of Europe.
I remind also that following World War II, the entire German-speaking populations of Jugoslavia, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic States and Poland — all told, some 14 million persons — were robbed of their property and expelled into the shrunken German state established after that war. I think the peoples of eastern Europe, under control of the Soviet Empire of Josef Stalin, had the correct permanent solution to the German problem, considering the mass murders by the Germans of most of the Jews of Eastern Europe, and their announced and intended enslavement of most of the non-Jewish populations of that part of Europe. But the main lesson here is that it was done by countries that had the power and the will to despoil and deport large populations and settle those lands with their own countrymen did exactly what they could get away with.
Israel has been in a continuous state of war with the Palestinian Arabs since the first large-scale Jewish immigration into lands awarded them a few years earlier by the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Now, despite almost 50 years of foolish and mostly laughable efforts by one US Secretary of State after another to make and enforce peace in the Middle East, no leadership of any Palestinian group has been willing or even able to declare a statement of permanent recognition of the Israel as a Jewish state.
So the Jewish state, which in fact has the power to do so, is allowing and facilitating an ever-increasing Jewish population on the soil of the ancient Jewish districts of Shomron and Yehuda. As a result, the two-thirds of Shomron and Yehuda accounted for in Area C as delineated in the Oslo Accords. The Jewish population is now growing there at an annual rate of 6%, which is about three times the rate of population growth of the State of Israel as a whole. Before long, in about a dozen years, the current Jewish population in Shomron and Yehuda of about 380,000 permanent residents will double to about 760,000 and will double again to about 1.5 million in another dozen years. As a trained urban and regional planner, with a master’s degree in that field, I have watched the processes of urban sprawl create massive new populations around American urban centers. Here, that phenomenon is frowned upon by persons such as me, who live on rural properties that get overrun by such sprawl. Nevertheless, urban sprawl happens, regardless of the preaching of urban planners or the screeching of UNO committees. Because nobody ever has found a way to stop human migration, either around large American cities, along the southern borders of this country, or in the districts of the ancient Jewish nation now being redeemed.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
He is right about one thing. If Israel asserts that the contested areas are Jewish territory, then Israel cannot apply Military Rule over the people, but must have civil law.
Right now, Palestinians come in under Military Law. While this may be necessary, it undercuts the Israeli position.
This dichotomy has to be addressed.
This rather flawed analysis neglects to address the key point – “occupation”. Exactly whose country is being “occupied”. Jordan? No, Jordan was never the rightful sovereign of Y&S as it illegal seized these land in 67 and it’s control of them for the next 19 was never internationally recognized. The Ottomans? No they lost it in WWI. The High Contracting Parties? Well, yes as the victors in WWI they became the sovereign so to speak and at St. Remo and the League of Nations set up a “trust” known as the British Mandate for Palestine to set aside these lands as the “national home of the Jewish people”.
So you can debate all you want deportation or transfer versus voluntary relocation, the bottom line is – you can’t be considered an “occupier” of YOUR OWN COUNTRY!. No one but the Jews have a better claim and title to Y&S.