B’Tselem’s Report is very misleading. They seem to think that Israel is holding this land on trust for the Palestinians and is violating that trust by building settlements and using the water. The reality is that the Oslo Accords clearly set out what each parties rights and obligations are in C, B and A. These Accords go into great depth as to the use of the water stored in the aquifers beneath Area C. Israel has in no way violated these Accords. Nowhere in the Accords did Israel agree to prevent Jews from building in Area C. According to the Levy Report, the Jews have the right to settle these lands. According to the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians don’t.
B’Tselem ignores all this and starts with the assumption that the lands are Palestinian lands. Not so. No where were these lands granted to the Palestinians. The Palestinian’s agreed to the terms of Oslo. Now they don’t want to abide by them. Any time the Palestinians want to cut a deal with Israel to establish a state they can do so but that would require them compromising their demands. This they are unwilling to do. Oslo contemplated a negotiated settlement. They reject negotiations so can have nothing to complain about.
According to Naftali Bennett Area C has only 60,000 Arabs but B’Tselem says 180,000. The truth is probably somewhere between these numbers. Ted Belman
New B’Tselem report on Israel’s Policy in Area C of the West Bank
On June 5, B’Tselem published a new report that presents and analyzes Israel’s policy on planning and construction in Area C, and the policy’s infringement of human rights of the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank. This policy is grounded in a view of Area C’s land and water as intended to serve Israeli needs.
Therefore, the actions of the Israeli authorities are designed to minimize Palestinian presence in the region and lead to an expansion of the settlements and their areas of control. In other words, in practice, Israel has annexed Area C and brought about circumstances that will influence its permanent status.
This week we marked 46 years since Israel occupied the West Bank. Over the years of occupation, the nature of human rights violations in the Occupied Territories has changed. The sight of a woman in advanced labor stranded at a checkpoint, has virtually disappeared from the landscape of the occupation. It is far easier to travel and get about within the West Bank than it had been. Nevertheless, Israel’s ongoing control of resources and planning in Area C generates a reality that violates a wide spectrum of human rights in the West Bank on a daily basis.
Area C is home to some 180,000 Palestinians. It is also the primary land resource for the entire West Bank. Consequently, Israel’s policy in this area also adversely affects the rights of Palestinians living in Areas A and B. See attached report for a comprehensive explanation of these issues.
Report summary and area C map
@ Salubrius:further to my last comment”
The UN, as LON successor, plus the european nations should be sued for intentionally obstructing the Jewish settlement, to which they have agreed by treaty, and for the libel that jewish settlement is illegal. It appears that they get away with this libel because they refer to Israeli settlement under the GC occupation interpretation rather than jewish settlement. This is another reason why I believe the focus should be on jewish settlement separate and apart from any discussion so of Israel’s sovereignty over YS. A scenario which would confound all would be an organization of non israeli jews demanding to immigrate and be settled in YS; no one could raise the GC issue then. I believe that even if Israel withdrew the UN would be bound to protect those settlement and encourage jewish settlement. Israels detractors would have no problem coming up with schemes like this(e.g. mavi mamara)but Jews appear to be unimaginative and frozen like a deer in the headlights. The rich jew who bankrolled Obama campaign for 100 million, completely thrown away, would be doing jews a much greater service by financing such ventures.
Salubrius Said:
thank you for filling in more details, I knew about balfour, san remo, and LON but added details strangthen the case. I beleive the US has never claimed the settlements illegal but certainly britain and european countries who participated in san remo, LON are guilty of this libel and they should be confronted with it by the GOI either in court or the diplomatic media. This is just one more way in which Israel has disqualified itself from being a trustworthy agent of the “jewish people” If not the NGO then what about any jewish person who is a member of the collective class know as the “jewsh people”( a class action)
Salubrius Said:
Are there documents attesting to the transfer of agency? Certainly the state of Israel has squandered the only asset and interest in YS of the “jewish people” . I would think that in a trust such wasting of assets would constitute a fraud especially when the wasting is intentional and done in order to fulfill the agents self interest in conflict with his trust. The GOI has maintained its interest by squandering the sole interest of the jewish people that it was meant to safeguard. Just like the UK and JOrdan, the GOI has obstructed jewish settlement. It appears to me that diaspora and settler jewish organizations have an interest in wresting the agency from the fraudulent state of israel. I see no way in which the state of Israel can be a trustworthy agent for the “jewish peoples” sole interest in YS. it has proven this fact by its actions. Even if Israel was not interested in extending its sovereignty it has a legal obligation as the current administrator of the area to facilitate the “encouragement of jewish settlement”. In my view the state should be sued to cease obstruction and undertake an affirmative action program of jewish settlement which would mitigate the damage of past obstruction by UK, Jordan and Israel. Furthermore, it appears to me that the issue of Israeli sovereigny over YS is what fuels the GC occupation argument whereas I have heard no detraction of the argument supporting Jewish settlement. Legally, and practically, jewish settlement could take place without Israeli sovereignty being extended over YS.
@ CuriousAmerican: I am not saying OSLO gave Israel the right to build. I am saying it did not cut off World Jewry’s preexisting right to build that it had since 1920. GOI is the agent of Israel for exercising sovereignty within the Green Line. Maybe the ZOA should goose its agent to at least recognize the sovereignty of World Jewry over Judea and Samaria. But it might also be able to delegate its political rights to another agency, maybe the Government of Yehuda-Shomron and later, when the Jewish population grows a little more, the Government of Yesha. Without seeing the documents establishing the relationship between World Jewry and the GOI I can not be sure.
Howard Grief died a few days ago. Send up a prayer for him.
Dear Mr. Ross, There are 5 legal conclusions supporting Jewish ownership of the political rights to Palestine. The first three are under International Law. The 4th is under domestic law of the US and the UK, and the 5th is under Canon law. Remember International law if only a product of treaties or conventions between or among nations, and by long standing custom of nations.
1. Jewish ownership of the political rights to Palestine was recognized as belonging to World Jewry after the Arabs and Jews submitted competing claims at the Paris Peace talks. The European claims were decided in Paris and written up in Part II of the Treaty of Versailles. A treaty between or among Nations makes International Law. Of the 52 nations that entered the treaty authorizing the Mandate for Palestine , putting the political rights to Palestine in trust for World Jewry, 51 were members of the League of Nations, and one was the US who had declined membership. They authorized a two step process with the first step being a Jewish National Home and the second, a reconstituted Jewish state.
2. Jordan’s occupation of Palestine West of the Jordan in 1948 in an aggressive war was illegal. It did not result in Jordan having sovereignty. No other Arab state recognized Jordan’s sovereignty. In the whole world only two states recognized Jordanian Sovereignty over the West Bank, Britain and Paakistan, and when they were driven out in a defensive war by Israel in 1967, the winner may occupy the land until there is a peace treaty. That is International Law based on long standing custom. The peace treaty with Jordan resulted in Jordan giving up any claim to Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. That is International Law based on a treaty between two nations.
3. After announcing its independence in 1948, Israel held the ground against all comers. established unified control and controlled its borders. That was long standing custom before the Treaty of Westphalia and the acclaimed International Lawyer Julius Stone mentions it as a further basis for Israel ownership of the political rights to Israel.
4. The entry of the United States and the United Kingdom into the Anglo American Convention in 1924 was a treaty that made the Balfour policy and the San Remo resolution also the domestic law of the US and the UK. Howard Grief one of the seminal writers on Israeli sovereignty has suggested bringing an action against President Obama for claiming settlement are illegal. Whether or not it is still in effect, under the doctrine of acquired rights, Israel still benefits from it.
5. G-d conveyed, granted and devised Palestine to the Jews in the Holy Bible. Good Canon Law.
The invented Palestinian people do not even have a frivolous claim for Palestine under International Law. The way they sought to obtain the political rights to Palestine was by threats of violence and actual violence. When the Mafia uses that to take someone else’s property we call it extortion. When it is used by a Member of the UN against another member, it is outlawed by UN Charter Article 2 (4).
Case closed. But I couldn’t get Harvard nor UCLA to listen. Instead they listened to Saree Macdisi, and other so called Arab intellectuals at Harvard along with some of the discredited Israeli history revisionists. And UCLA scheduled a “debate” between Reza Aslan and Hussein Ibish, two radical Muslims. So I agree with you. Publicize the history and the legal consequences of that history. Only by traversing — metting head on — the Arab claim to “inalienable rights” to land in Palestine will Israel win public opinion. Not with a wishy washy “not occupied land but disputed land”since 1967 argument based on opinion 2 above. But based on opinion 1 that says “not occupied land but liberated land” in 1967
@ bernard ross:
.
I fully agree with you.
When it suits it, the Israeli government opposes and implements the orders and decisions of the Supreme Court for destruction of Jewish houses, even though they are illegal. The Israeli government is relying upon ignorance of people and fooling the patriots of Yehuda and Shomron.
That is why Jewish People in Israel and worldwide should be made aware of the legal rights they are entitled to.
If you base Israel’s right on San Remo, why are you saying Israel has a right to build settlements under OSLO?
You are inconsistent.
I am NOT in favor of Oslo at all.
I am not being inconsistent.
B’tselem is not lying. It is appealing to useless document that neither side obeys.
I do NOT mind if Israel builds settlements; but if Israel does so, be honest enough to say you are ditching OSLO.
Salubrius Said:
thanks for this information and the rest of your posts regarding the legal issues. I have long thought that a matter of great importance is the education of diaspora and Israeli jews to the legal issues surrounding jewish settlement rights, Israels sovereign rights, Israel’s rights to represent world jewry and to cede Jewish settlement rights in YS, etc. It appeared to me that it can only be ignorance of the history and the issues which have led Jews to this point of ambiguity. I cannot account for Israel’s decision in keeping their jewish citizens ignorant regarding these issues for many decades. I also cannot account for Israels never mentioning in public forums the unexpired jewish legal rights to settle west of the Jordan river. I completely blame Israel for this behavior and believe that if the GOI did not behave thusly then the jewish diaspora would not behaving schizophrenically either, that they reflect the face that Israel presents. If one were to go by the behavior of the state of Israel then one would believe that jews have no rights to the west bank and that the claims of the detractors are correct. I feel that this can only be remedied by NGO’s with an education and PR campaign and political pressure to make it mandatory learning for every jewish school child. Also, there is lawfare against the GOI for obstructing settlement guaranteed by international law and against internationals. Have you any thoughts of the efficacy of bringing suit for estoppel and mandamus against the signatories to the relevant treaties to compel them to cease statements of illegal settlement and shoulder their obligation by treaty to encourage jewish settlement by policy and action. I have never heard the Israeli govt condemn talk of illegal settlement as being lies and libels. .
Curious American refers to what the media said at the time about who has sovereignty. That is indeed a curious American comment. I once asked a reporter if he took the time on such a story to go back in time to learn the history of the Israel. He said no, he had no time. Fortunately what the media thinks or says has no relevance under International Law which is governed solely by agreements between or among nations and long standing custom. The International Court of Justice would have authority only over those who agree to submit their country to that authority. No international agency has any such authority. The UN General Assembly may only recommend. The UN Security Council is bound by Article 80 of the UN Charter and the legal doctrines under International Law of “prior appropriation” and the corresponding doctrine of estoppel. Some 52 nations recognized that the Jews historic association with Palestine justified their recognition of World Jewry’s ownership of the political rights to Palestine but initially recognized only a beneficial ownership, stating that the legal ownership would vest when the Jews in Palestine were a majority of the population and Jews there were capable of exercising sovereignty. Their recognition cannot be changed by a newspaper report. When reference is made to agreements between or among nations and long standing custom, Israel has sovereignty, over at least that part of Palestine situated west of the Jordan River. My legal opinion on that is to be published in the May-June edition of the Think-Isreal blog, but that edition has curiously been delayed from the June 1 date originally stated by its editor. I am one of several lawyers and one non-lawyer that has dug into the history and reached this conclusion. Others include Walt Rostow, Paul Riebenfeld, Douglas Feith, Elliot Green, Ted Belman, Jacques Gauthier, Salomon Benzimra, Cynthia Wallace, and the three authors of the Levy Report. Paul Riebenfeld was on the Palestine Mandates Commission in 1939 when it ruled that the 1939 White Paper blocking Jewish immigration to Palestine was not within the authority of Great Britain as mandatory power. It unanimously held that it was inconsistent with the previous interpretations of the terms of the Mandate for Palestine by the trustee, Great Britain. That might have been cured by the League of Nations Permanent Council — as authorized under Article 27,– but its meeting to consider the matter was put off by the outbreak of WWII. So during WWII Britain was enforcing a blockade that was ruled to be unlawful and Ben Gurion was perfectly correct when he referred to Perfidious Albion’s criminal activity.
As a practical matter the question of who was entitled to sovereignty was decided by the Principal Allied War Powers after WWI and agreed to by the 51 nations in the League of Nations and by the United States. So the matter is res judicata. My article will point out the claims of the Jews and the Arabs, and how the decision of the Principal Allied War Powers was memorialized.
@ CuriousAmerican: The Arabs proposed an express provision for the OSLO Agreement freezing of settlements in the negotiations over the Oslo accord until final agreement but Israel did not agree to their proposed amendment. So it is perfectly clear that freezing settlements was not included in the exclusionary provision of the agreement agreement not to change anything that would arbitrarily affect the outcome. The Jews never agreed that settlements would affect the final outcome. They proved it by moving all the Jews out of Gaza when they agreed to let the Arabs take over. The Arabs were also free to settle under the same conditions as the Jews. Since 1950 they have constructed twice as many settlements as the Jews in this area. And the leftist Supreme Court has required enforcement of the paperwork requirements for new construction far more often against the Jews than it has the Arabs, is my understanding from Professor Steve Plaut.
At 5:25 AM Curious American says there were no negotiations in the Oslo Accords. Even if it were to be agreed there were no negotiations which is false, that makes it a contract of adhesion, not a cession of the political rights to the land — not even a cession of the beneficial interest in the political rights to the land in Area C of the sort that the Jews had in Palestine when it was a Jewish National Home. Under International Law, 52 nations recognized the Jews as having a beneficial interest in the political rights to that land, as a prelude to a legal interest to vest as a legal interest when the Jews attained a population majority in Palestine and were capable of exercising sovereignty. In 1947 the UN General Assembly found they were capable of exercising sovereignty in 1947 in enacting their Partition recommendation, although the Partition itself never had any continuing legal force and effect because it was rejected by the Arabs. In 1950 the Jews attained a population majority in the area it governed. It now has a population majority of 80% within the Green Line that would drop only to 66% if Judea and Samaria were to be annexed. Nothing in the Oslo agreement can possibly be construed as establishing a trust over the land in Area C for the benefit of Arabs residing in Palestine.
Most contracts these days are contracts of adhesion. Likely no one one who reluctantly signs one would not prefer a contract with better terms but they sign them because they think they would be better off. The Arabs would have been better even off if they had kept to their promises under the contract. They have not. It is true that if a nation cannot control its borders it is not free. If it can’t control its borders it is not even a nation. The Arabs in Palestine have never been a nation, they have always been ruled from afar. For 400 years prior to the San Remo Resolution and the British Mandate, they were occupied by Colonialist Turkey. For the next 18 years they were ruled by Colonial Britain from London, for the next 19 years they were ruled by Jordan for Amman. Prior to the Ottoman Empire they ahd always been ruled from afar. The Principal Allied War Power in 1920 did not give political rights to the Jews, they recognized their existing rights based on their long, historic association with Palestine. There had been a continuing Jewish presence in Palestine for 3,700 years. The Jews had never acknowledge their loss of sovereignty and in private ceremonies throughout the world, announced their intention to return, hopefully “The next year in Jerusalem”.
I agree Arafat was a stooge of Soviet Russia who told him to pretend to renounce violence and to pretend to seek peace. The peace process was never intended by the Soviet Union and Arafat to be more than a charade. But in the battle weary population of Israel, at least the leftist segment looked with optimism as the promise of a lasting peace and fell for it as Breshnev told Arafat they and Jimmy Carter would.. And Arafat got for it what Brezhnev predicted he would when he talked him into it. Gold, some six billion dollars, and Glory, the Nobel Peace Prize.
Arafat, when speaking to the Arabs in Arabic who were criticizing him for even conferring with the Jews, contrary to Azzam’s “Jihad and the rifle alone: no negotiations, no conferences, no dialogue.” told them he was only negotiating a hudna like the Treaty of Huddibyah and they would all know how that turned out — 500 adult males beheaded, women becoming sexual slaves, children brought up as Muslims.
Oslo is dead now but unfortunately it has not as yet been buried by annexation of Judea and Samaria out of fear of public opprobrium. But at least the Government of Israel could adopt the Levy report to traverse the mistaken opinions of Theodore Meron and Talia Sasson that were dominated by the leftist Labor Government. There is nothing wrong with giving the Arabs in the West Bank home rule subject to the Knesset deciding whether or not the candidates running for office or their parties were terrorists, but what appears to be an even better plan is eight emirates that has been suggested by Professor Mordechai Kedar. Palestinianemirates.com Giving home rule to the Arabs would satisfy the savings clause in the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Resolution. The Home Rule plan should be accompanied by a requirement for them to swear fealty to the Jewish State to acquire citizenship. Then they could be motivated to leave by compensation but if they were to want to stay and not swear fealty, I would let them remain as non-citizen residents.
At the minimum the Government of Israel should adopt the Levy Report to traverse the continuing propaganda, “OCCUPATION, OCCUPATION, OCCUPATION!”. And it should publish the benefits the Arabs have gained from the time of the first Jewish aliyah and after the 1967 liberation to counter the well funded Narrative of Perpetual Palestinian Victimhood. (google it) Instead the Jews should reply that from 1967 there was “LIBERATION, LIBERATION, LIBERATION” and an ill advised Gaza unilateral action that former Shin Bet leaders pressured Sharon into to in leaving Gaza and that the same guys and one or more others now are pressuring Netanyahu to do the same thing in the West Bank. Anyone with any knowledge of what happened in Gaza, with the 14,000 rockets and missiles rained down on southern Israel would know that only a person without knowledge of that history or a meshuganah would do the same thing with Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem and have more rockets raining down on West Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion Airport.
@ bernard ross:
They did the same thing against Palis in Kuwait after they supported Saddam’s invasion.
I have long maintained that a sunni rebel victory over Assad would let loose a bloodbath against shia Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon. In that respect it;s good for Israel but looks like Assad will survive and he will take it out on the Sunni Muslims in and out of Syria.. Either way a blood bath will ensue.
What debka does not say is that Assad has the support of Iran,Russia, Iraq and China. Jordan will eventually be targeted for helping the reactionary oil states. Instead of Hezbollah Israel will face Hezbollah clones in the Sunni terrorists. Lebanon will fall under domination of radical Sunni terrorists including Palis.
Obama is screwing up the French and British Grand plan by not attacking Assad. Now it may be too late.
“He who hesitates is lost”
Just announced the sudden resignation of Deputy CIA director. Hmmmmm Are the rats abandoning ship?
bernard ross Said:
If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking… is freedom.”
President Dwight David Eisenhower
For Obama to come out squeaky clean in this Clapper The Muslim convert has to be thrown under the bus. If so will he squeel on other stuff he is privy to?
According to Obama Terrorism is not today a major issue and he claims Al-Qaeda is essentially defeated and neutered. How does he justiy NSA overreach which can’t be attributed to Bush. The overreach is on his watch so he does bear responsibility.
If the American people ares o upset about NSA overreach and abuse of 4th amendment rights what do you think after this will be the reaction of
the American people when they begin to understand: The Indefinite Detention Clause: The NDAA has become the most controversial element of President Obama’s foreign policy. Section 1021 of the NDAA bill of 2012 allowed for the “indefinite detention of American citizens without due process at the discretion of the President.” Section 1021 has been challenged as a violation of constitutional principles and the United States Bill of Rights. The indefinite detention clause has been broadly denounced nationally and internationally. It may very well be the only thing that has true bi-partisan support. The Act was strongly opposed by the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and The Center for Constitutional Rights, the Cato Institute, Reason Magazine and The Council on American-Islamic Relations. It was criticized in editorials published in The New York Times, Al-Jazeera, and The Guardian. The ACLU said, “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.” This year’s bill contains amendments introduced in the Senate and the House to remove the indefinite detention clause. The House included sections 1031 through 1033, which affirms the right of habeas corpus and the Constitutional right of due process for American citizens. Senator Rand Paul (R–Ky.) a leading opponent of the clause pointed out, “the bill this year contained the amendment I supported which sharply limited the detention power, and eliminated it entirely for American citizens in the US.”
This bill that basically removes the rights of any American they wish. Under the cover of this bill is the power for the President of the United States to arrest and hold indefinitely and torture any American citizen he deems to be a threat . If the big boys decide you are a ‘terrorist’ and remember, this is the same government that can’t run a post office or anything else correctly, you will be gone. Without a lawyer you will be hard pressed to prove yourself not guilty as they will decide you are guilty without trial. No more innocent until proven guilty.
What can you be arrested and held forever for? Ammunition, weapons, storing food, having a bad opinion of the President or Congress, taking part in demonstrations, criticizing the government, the list goes on and is not limited to these things.
The definition of your crime is up to the President and the military exclusively.
Do you realize how dangerous this is? Americans will think twice now about saying anything about how the government works as their freedom is now gone.
Obama has also stated that despite any authority granted to him under the NDAA, as commander-in -chief of the armed forces and out of a certain respect for the Constitution, he will not authorize the military to indefinitely detain American citizens without charging them with a crime or allowing them access to a trial.
This is a shaky argument, however, because the NDAA of 2013 is now the official law of the land, and unless the authority to let the military engage in indefinite detention of American citizens is overruled by the courts or revoked via legislation passed by Congress and signed by a sitting president, there is nothing stopping future occupants of the White House from exercising that authority.
The stickier question is how he can come to terms with signing into law a piece of legislation that bars him from closing Guantanamo, or using federal funds to send its detainees overseas or even transport inmates from the facility to the United States in order to grant them a federal trial or other basic rights.
@ yamit82:
here’s an interesting take on tactics
HOW NSA SCANDAL IS HELPING OBAMA. ‘The White House happens to gain in a major way from all of this’ – See more at: http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2013/06/12/how-nsa-scandal-is-helping-obama-the-white-house-happens-to-gain-in-a-major-way-from-all-of-this/#sthash.NlQvRoqe.dpuf
@ yamit82:If the following is true it confirms what I have been surmising for months regarding the sunni shia war to weaken Iranian proxies, establish GCC hegemony and ultimately destabilize Iran. I believe that russia seeks a diplomatic solution,that hezbullah is the next target, then the sunni mercenaries will move to Iraq, and then the kurds, sunni mercenaries, and azeris will work towards the destabilization of Iran followed by the possibility of attacks from US or Israel more likely. In keeping with this I also beleive that everything from the fauz pal state, gaza cease fire, GCC renewed peace offer, jordan pal re awakening confed talk, E1, are all connected with the weakening of syria, hezbullah and a carrot for an attack by US or a green light for Israel with support from all. Turkey, the kurd cease fire, etc all appears like a grand deal with benefits and payments for all. I believe that saudi qatar has traded in the israel card for a more stable “peace” process because it got much more scared of Iran’s hijacking the israel/pal issue and wreaking internal havoc on the GCC. they want an Israeli ally or a neutral at their back. Israel mad a budget for a foreign consul in the GCC, qatar is supposed to come in november, qatar had relations with israel before: i believe that qatar(the face of the current GCC) is that nation. everything mysterious comes into place when one takes this perspective. I believe it was evolving for more than a year or two. does not mean it will be successful, depending on the russians getting what they want.
http://www.debka.com/article/23036/Gulf-begins-mass-expulsion-of-Lebanese-Shiites-over-Hizballah%E2%80%99s-role-in-Syria
bernard ross Said:
bernard ross Said:
You are correct and that’s why no effort to make Israels case has ever gained traction. At best it generates confusion for Israelis and non Israelis around the world. We are our own worst enemy, always have been. Arabs and their acolytes speak in a unified voice, simple message and they are always on message. Israel is schizophrenic and our messages reflect it. We are all over the map, opinion and policy wise.
Texas 2 step policy: 1 step forward 2 steps backward. 🙁
Curious that no party put the levy report adoption as part of their coalition demands….. I wonder why not?
there is absolutely no reason to be giving land in area c to the pals which they do not even reside upon. the entire west bank was clearly set aside for settlement of Jews under all relevant treaties and law. On looking at this map i now understand why the govt devoted 500 acres to the PA for a city. Jericho is far to the east near the Jordan river and would likely be a pal connection to jordan. concentrating future development around Jericho provides a magnet which helps to draw away arabs from the west. The problem with everything is Israels lack of asserting jewish rights of settlement and claims to YS. These claims and assertions do not prevent negotiations, they are a starting position which reflects the desire of the negotiating party and their beliefs in their claims. as the Pals, they start by claiming everything to the med in all their public stances. Such a starting position strongly asserted will make EU claims of illegality a preordained falling on deaf ears. The deaf ears will be clearly presented as intentional rather than as a swindler ignoring the issues. I blame only the GOI and other leadership institutions for the current state of affairs. Without GOI negligence the detractors would have little strength. as it is,due to the GOI, ignorant israelis believe the pals are the proper inheritors of “palestine”. Only one or two israeli leaders stand up for jewish rights. Why blame the symptom rather than the cause? Why keep whining about what others do when Israel and the GOI are the cause? attention should be focused on the proper education of Israeli citizenry by Israeli NGO’s. The right probably cant get those NGO’s together.
Ted Belman Said:
Israel has had many years to realize that they should have expected arab lies and propaganda. The best indication is that they continue to train their children to kill jews. One should not expect the world to have any different view than betselem because the ludicrous state of israel never mentions the rights of jews to settle in YS and the starting claim by Israel to all of YS. Israel continues to present the face of a swindler who is seeking to get something for nothing and therefore the world reflects the face that Israel presents. If Israel presented the face that the Jews claim the right of sovereignty over YS then one can expect different results from the world. The pals present the face of confidence in their ownership to the extent that the world accepts their jew killing. The extent of betselem and peace now power is 100% related to the abdication of power of the GOI. It is solely the absence of GOI claims and actions which perrpetuate the canard of palestinian legitimacy and jewish illegitimacy. The price is that there is no legitimacy for jews west of the green line if it is not also legitimate east of the green line: biblically, morally and legally. the same is true for the Israeli people but in their case they have been swindled with ignorance by their own leadership.
CuriousAmerican Said:
if the media said so it must be right 🙂
CuriousAmerican Said:
therefore your impression is the basis of your argument?
CuriousAmerican Said:
betselem a neutral party? what is their funding?
CuriousAmerican Said:
my view is that the christians, eu, uk, un and arabs fund them because they are the cause, you say the others wont so then the jews must pay. you say tomayto and I say tomahto. It appears to me that the most importan point repated by you is the “the jews must pay”.
CuriousAmerican Said:
how about asking all the swindlers to be honest first?
The significance of Oslo is that it represents another naive failure of fool idealistic Jews who just cannot accept the bloodthirsty and murderous intentions of the arabs. Hopefully, at some point, even these fool jews will see the light. Let’s hope it wont be too late.
Busses across the border, deposit the hostiles, then withdraw. After that your proposal can work and the guilty parties will be forced to pay to alleviate the problem now in their lap. start with the plo and fatah using breached Oslo as an excuse for those who pretend to observe law and treaties
CuriousAmerican Said:
MY COMMENT #5 IS IN MODERATION!
B’tselem is lying and not pointless as they are used as a weapon against Israel by all who have a nefarious agenda against Israel. They should be placed outside the law as an enemy entity and given no rights or voice within Israel.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Arabs have built much more than Israel by a factor of 10.
That Israel has shown a willingness to dismantle settlements with and without agreements; Settlements should therefore not be an impediment to a final status agreement. Your argument is specious and not based on fact. Oslo did not prohibit Israel from building in Y&S. The argument never was an impediment to negotiations till Obama took control of the peace process.
Israel makes demands just like the Arabs make demands but if the end result is all Y&S to the June 4th armistice lines then the Arbas demand 100% and Israel gets nothing and is required to pay for that nothing. The principle of negotiations were no preconditions. Keeping major settlements is the bare minimum any objective observer should agree to. It’s on less than 10% of the Territories minus Gaza, including Gaza it’s about 5%.
The Arabs signed on to basically 2 obligations: Cessation of violence and incitement to violence (Education and Media) and abrogating the Palestine covenant. In neither case have they observed those obligations. Israel gave up Land, provided essential services to the ressidents of the territories most without payment, built a modern complex of roads and other infrastructures used by all Palis and provided hundreds of thousands of Palis with gainful employment. Transferred as per expired Paris agreement billions of dollars in rebates. Purchsed at the expense of Israeli farmers agricultural produce from the PA, that we never needed. The PA is given the use of Israeli ports (sea and air) for import and export of locally produced goods and direct imports. Israeli hospitals treat Palis gratis amounting to millions of dollars in free treatment. We don’t get free treatment. Free electric, free water, free land based telephone lines and service.
They have stolen billions of dollars in private vehicles, construction equipment,live stock, bee Hives, all metal they can get their hands on for scrap etc. Theft costs the Israeli economy billions of dollars not to mention hardships imposed on private Jews and enterprises.
You accuse Israel only of expansion of settlements. From the first terror attack the accords should have been declared null and void and Arafat and his 40000 thieves and banditos should have been liquidated or sent back to Tunis.
CuriousAmerican Said:
No the argument is over who gets the Land them or us. Transfer is the logical byproduct of Israel making a decision that the Peace process is dead and declaring and asserting that the territories belong to Israel. It makes little sense to leave some intact on the land while removing most. Most will not do all must leave.
Why do you want them in S America? State your personal reasons WHY?
There is no shortage of money on the west bank the Leaders have it all stashed in Swiss Banks and off shore accounts or in investments. If
Jordan and Turkey can absorb millions of Iraqi and Syrian refugees a few million more will not be noticed.
I want the Palestinians to go to South America. I think Israel such annex J&S, and enfranchise the Arabs who remain after the rest have gone to SA. This is hardly a hostile view.
Since I am not a fan of the two state solution, I will not argue about whether or not Oslo was a slippery deal. It was worded vaguely enough that Israel could play games with it.
For ex:
A) No side was to arbitrarily make any move which would affect the final outcome.
B) Israel expanded settlements
C) Israel says those settlements will affect the map of any final outcome
D) Hence Israel’s arbitrary expansions will affect the final outcome.
E) Hence Israel did not keep Oslo either.
I know the Arabs are worse, but Israel did not keep Oslo either.
Do not think I am in favor of Oslo. I am not. Time and again, I have told people that I think Israel should annex J&S.
Where the argument is is over who should pay for most of it. The Arabs won’t and the West is broke.
That being said, neither side was honest when it came to Oslo.
Israel has justice on its side when it claims J&S, but its adherence to Oslo does not impress me.
I do not mind if Israel builds settlements, but don’t tell me that you are building settlements and abiding by Oslo. (see above) Just be honest and ditch Oslo.
I just do not think B’tselem is lying. I think they are pointless.
CuriousAmerican Said:
What I have said is that Oslo was negotiated by the PLO (Arafat) and Israel and a deal was cut. It was the best Arafat could get and that Israel was willing to give. Sure it was lopsided and so it should have been. It reflected the relative strengths of the parties.
What Israel did not expect was that the world would rewrite the Accords through their propaganda into something that Israel never agreed to.
CuriousAmerican Said:
These terms were not “imposed”.In a way it was take it or leave it. There was no obligation for Israel to be more generous. Israel presented a life line to Arafat who found the terms acceptable in light of the lifeline.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Israel has always been prepared to live by the Accords as them understood them. What she is not prepared to is to interpret them as the world and you want them to. It is the Arabs who pocketed the lifeline and who don’t want now to pay the price. Too bad. A deal is a deal.
You keep mentioning what the media said. Why? It isn’t a party to the agreement.
The media sold it as Israeli civilian and military control, not Israeli sovereignty Israel could require permits, and do military exercises; but Oslo did not give Israel sovereignty. Israel has yet to annex C. So even Israel has not yet asserted sovereignty.
So yes, the general idea was that, apart from minor modifications, it was Palestinian land held in abeyance until a final agreement. That is what the media said.
The media reported it as Take it or leave it. There was no negotiations.
Who wants to abide by imposed bad terms. Did Begin, Shamir, or Ben Gurion abide by imposed bad terms of the British?
Neither side wants to abide by the terms. A lot of Israel wants to annex the land, and Palestinians refuse to give up the right of return.
It was lopsided deal. Even you have admitted that, Ted. Israel would never have ceded real control. Israel was going to keep the aquifers and the central highways that split the Palestinian areas into parts. Israel was going to keep air rights; and probably (wisely) would never have allowed the Palestinians unpoliced borders.
If a nation cannot control its borders, airspace, water, and mineral rights … IT IS NOT FREE.
No Palestinian could have agreed to that. In reality, Arafat was a stooge. An honest Palestinian would have walked out on Oslo as insufficient, even for a start.
I have NO illusions about Arafat, who said Oslo was only a hudna (Click Here). He was a terrorist.
Arafat was not going to end the struggle.
Neither side had any desire to make any real concessions.
The Camp David Accords would have split Palestine in Judea and Samaria into non-contiguous three parts. That is really rough. That was not exaclty reasonable either.
It boils down to this. The minimum that a reasonable Arab leader would accept is much more than Israel will give.
No sane Israeli leader would give the Palestiians free access to the Jordan River. They would drain it.
No sane Israeli leader would give the Palestinians unfettered free borders to the outside world.
Yet, no Arab leader, even a reasonable Arab leader, would accept less.
Arafat was not even reaonable.
None of this has any meaning, now.
Oslo is dead. The only reason Israel does not patrol areas A&B is because it is easier to have the Arabs police themselves than the Jews. Israel can control spillover at the checkpoints. In fact, and I agree, the PA security forces have made life easier for the Israelis. They do not have to deal with petty crime.
Oslo is dead. It never existed.
Rabin never considered giving the Arabs more than an autonomous zone, the Arabs wanted a free, independent state.
B’tselem is not lying. B’tselem is pointless. That is the real matter.
NOW TO ALL THOSE WHO WANT TO ATTACK ME, BEFORE YOU DO!
I am not in favor of Oslo, though not for the same reasons you are against Oslo.
I do not want to divide Jerusalem or Judea and Samaria (Hint: If I was an Arabist, I would have said West Bank).
I favor total annexation with enfranchisement (can be done slowly) with a degree of payments to convince young, landless, unemployed Arabs to leave.
I know it is not the fire and blood solution so many want, but it woulld still keep Israel in one piece.
The present situation is unsustainable.
Ted, even you have admitted that Oslo was a lopsided agreement since Israel was not going to cede any real control.
I remember in 1992, I was under the impression that Area C was sort of going to be held as a trust until the final arrangement. Most of C was going back to the Palestinians in the end; not the leopard spot Bantustans that exist now.
B’tselem is neither right nor wrong. Its point is meaningless.
Oslo is a disaster.
I was lopsided in Israel’s favor; and bad from a Palestinian point of view.
It divided the land and was bad from a Jewish point of view.
My own view is do not dived Jerusalem or Judea and Samaria, so I am no fan of Oslo.
My view is either pay the Palestinians to leave, or slowly start to enfranchise them.
So the Oslo debate is not a core issue to me.
I do not think B’tselem is lying. It was sold to the world as an eventual Palestinian entity.