The West maintains that Israel occupies Palestinian territory in the “West Bank.” This is untrue. There has never been any “Palestinian territory.”
After the death of Shimon Peres, BBC radio’s flagship current affairs show Today interviewed Israel’s ambassador to the UK, Mark Regev.
The presenter persistently suggested to him that Peres’s record as a peacemaker ran contrary to Israel’s subsequent record of failure to make peace with the Palestinians, and that the absence of a two-state solution was all the fault of Benjamin Netanyahu.
Her questioning reflected the grotesque false assumption underlying Western hostility toward Israel: that if only it wasn’t so belligerent there would be peace. Repeatedly challenged with this claim, Regev refused to engage. Instead he mouthed platitudes about how Peres would always have answered such a question with hope and optimism about a peaceful solution.
This was a missed opportunity. The overwhelming requirement for Israel is always to nail the big lie behind the questions thrown at it.
Regev should have said that the reason for the absence of a two-state solution was displayed last week at the UN, where the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas made a speech expressing hostility to Israel’s very existence.
He falsely presented the Jews of Israel as squatters in the Palestinians’ own land. He even demanded that Britain apologize for the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which first committed Britain to reestablish the Jewish homeland in what was then called Palestine.
Through this declaration, said Abbas, Britain had given “without any right, authority or consent from anyone, the land of Palestine to another people.”
This preposterous speech was notable for three things. First, it rewrote the Jews out of their own history by fabricating an entirely fictitious Palestinian story. The only people for whom the Land of Israel and the disputed territories have ever been their national kingdom are the Jews.
Second, Abbas blamed Israel for his own people’s aggression and murderous violence over the Temple Mount.
Third, his speech showed that the Palestinians’ complaint is not about the absence of a state of their own. It is about the existence of Israel which they want gone.
The full speech received no mainstream coverage in the West. Abbas could be confident, however, that it reflected two entirely false Western beliefs: that Israel acts in contravention of international law, and that the land originally belonged to the Palestinians.
With the West duly softened up, Abbas is thought to be planning a maneuver at the UN. He says he will be pushing a UN Security Council resolution against the settlements. What worries Israel more is the rumor that President Obama will refuse to veto a proposed French UN resolution recognizing a Palestinian state.
If Obama does this, the US will be complicit in tearing up international law and bringing into being a terrorist state whose existential purpose is the extermination of Israel.
As the international law expert Prof. Eugene Kontorovich argued in The Washington Post in September, the proposed French measure repudiates UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed in the wake of the Six Day War. Resolution 242 represented a territorial compromise, with Israel agreeing to cede some but not all the territories it seized during the Six Day War in return for peace.
According to Kontorovich the French resolution, which would push Israel back behind the 1949 “Auschwitz” armistice lines, would repudiate 242 and amount to “a fundamental reversal of 50 years of Middle East diplomacy.”
Instead of a negotiated settlement, the US would therefore not only be aiding the unilateral imposition of a new terrorist entity in the Middle East but would also show its contempt for international law.
In fact the US, Britain and Europe have long displayed this contempt by supporting the big lie that Israel behaves illegally or belligerently.
The West maintains that Israel occupies Palestinian territory in the “West Bank.” This is untrue. There has never been any “Palestinian territory.”
Israel’s presence in the disputed territories cannot be legally defined as an occupation. Under the Hague and Geneva conventions, an occupation can only take place on sovereign land. The territories were never anyone’s sovereign land.
Israel is furthermore entitled under international law to continue to hold onto them as a defensive measure as long as its Arab aggressors continue to use them for belligerent ends.
The West says Israel’s settlements are illegal. This is also untrue.
In the 20s, the Mandate for Palestine gave Britain the legally binding duty to settle the Jews throughout what is now not just Israel but the disputed territories too. That Jewish right has never been abrogated.
The Geneva conventions, cited as the reason the settlements are illegal, prohibit an occupying power from transferring people en masse into occupied territory. This was drafted after World War II to prevent any repetition of the Nazis’ forced displacement of peoples. Israelis resident in the disputed territories, however, have not been transferred but moved there through their own free choice.
Kontorovich has looked at every modern example where occupied territories have been settled. In none of them did the international community denounce such action as illegal or demand that settlers had to vacate the land as a condition for peace or independence. If world powers asked the occupying force to withdraw, they referred only to the army and not the settler population. The only exception has been Israel.
The West makes a fetish of international law. Yet it denounces Israel, the one Middle East state that upholds it. It’s time to call out the US, Britain and Europe for aiding the repudiation of law and justice and thus helping promote the Arab agenda of exterminating Israel.
Melanie Phillips is a columnist for The Times (UK).
Bernard so wrong. The world can and has. Consult Yugoslavia especially Kosovo.
the position of bibi has now become obsolete. muslems will NEVER accept the existence of a jewish state, period. Bibi, there is no magic tric: use ALL the force at your disposal cause reason IS NOT part of Islamic thinking. Time for a true leader, but WHO….
IN the end all paths must lead to Israels agreement, without it the world cannot implement any pal state. therfore all pressure should first be on the Israeli political, cultural, and social leadership to set the example to the world by declaring without equivocation
“JEWISH SETTLEMENT IN JUDAH SAMARIA IS LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE”
intially all the defamers will go mad because they will consider it a jewish fraud as they have relied on Israels compliance with their false narrative to date….. however, the more the muslims menace the world is the more they will ease up on Israel, they will have to deal with their own existential problems.
IL cannot count on Liberal Jews for defending her in the compromised court of liberal and antisemitic biases.
It really is time for the Jewish leadership to expose the lies of Occupation, Apartheid and the fabricated “illegalities” of Israel’s actions w.r.t. Israel’s existence, the fake Palestinian Nation and Israel’s right to Judea and Samaria.
You cannot win a war with lies, yet the Palestinians think they can because the West supports the lies and the Israeli leadership not strong enough (or has little faith in their G-D) to speak out and destroy these fabrications with the truth.
Agnes Forrai Said:
If Obama does not use a veto it will be after the election in the lame duck period. The best interim solution to this potential problem is the election of Trump who will support Israel against the UN and invoke US law against those nations violating US boycott laws. He wont be able to change the UN resolution but the resolution will menaingless without US support.
Its does not change the “legal” standing as the UN is not chartered to legislate law. The current lynch mob situation will remain but Israel would have the opportunity to use the crisis to end Oslo and all the subsequent 2 state notions. As the resolution would probably speak of freezing settelement this should be the red line which violates Oslo, which does not include banning jewish settlement…. but also it is a major violation of the LON mandate prime directive to “immigrate and settle jews in all of Israel and especially on vacant gov lands”. the only obstacle to jewish settlement has been Oslo and its related agreements.
However, it is unlikely that the man who has NEVER, NEVER, NEVER said these words would take the greatest opportunity for world Jewry and Israel…
“JEWISH SETTLEMENT IN JUDEA SAMARIA IS LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE”
The goyim in the LON mandate said that Jewish settlement was to be encouraged and facilitated but PM’s of Israel seek to obstruct Jewish settlement.
Netanyahu would likely use the resolution to make Jews pliable to giving away more of YS.
The last time I checked, we have historical documentation clearly indicating the geographical limits of Eretz Israel dating back thousands of years.
It is obscene to keep on setting ourselves up as children of sticks in front on the Goyim leading the so called “world” powers.
WE MUST have true Jewish leaders not JINO’s ready to parcel out our Heritage for medallions or Nobel prizes.
Either we fez up and remove the cardboard props fellow, our speechster with TV faces abilities and a freezing wand or… curtains.
Netanyahu must be set aside and so are the self elected trash passing as judges. The political generalitos must also be vamoosed.
Wonderful article by Melanie Phillips. It is time she
says, “to call out the U.S, Britain and Europe for aiding the repudiation of justice and thus helping the Arab
agenda of exterminating Israel.” Israel has every right
to be in this location.
@ Agnes Forrai:
Hello Agnes Forrai,
Good question.
As I see it, of the many hundreds of UN resolution ever passed, only a handful are legally binding (Chapter VII); and all of those were only enacted after several similar resolutions had failed. (Note: There are no ‘similar’ resolutions to what the French et al are now proposing; eg: a “timetable.”)
Moreover, as much as Obama would no doubt like to withhold the US veto, he is unlikely to do so because Hillary is in a tough election fight to safeguard Obama’s “legacy”; and she has modeled much of her candidacy on continuing Obama’s policies.
However, should the worse come to pass, Israel would have to fight it, at the very least as she successfully fought the scurrilous UN3379 Resolution (Zionism is racism).
Beyond that, as the ICC/IJC are merely extensions of the perfidious UN, the courts seem unlikely, so Israel would be forced to ignore it, knowing no Western countries would ever invade to enforce it.
Ultimately, additional Western pressure could push Israel to move on an alternative solution, eg: Prof Martin Sherman’s “Humanitarian Paradigm.”
UN: the perfidious house of Antisemitism!
That’s all very well. But if the Security Council now votes against Israel and the US refuses to use it’s veto, how does it affect Israel’s legal standing, claim and RIGHT to her land.
Defensive Wars and Legal Acquisition of Territory (Pt III)
Inalienable Rights & the Social Contract
The Right of Self-defense
The right of self-defense is inalienable for both the individual and the collective (eg: nation).
Where the “acquisition of territory,” by defensive war, is made necessary for self-defense (both in the present and foreseeable future; ie, systemic war), any law/rule that could restrict or contravene said right would – by definition – violate this inalienable right.
The Responsibility of Consequences
Lastly, the immutable principle of consequences cannot be disregarded; any notion that a collective should be any less accountable than an individual, and therefore should not be subject to adequate responsible consequences for engaging in an illegal coercive war is an untenable violation of the social contract between the People and their government.
It is beyond-the-pale to even consider that a victim-nation should not only suffer violence/death/genocide and worse, but have to bear unreasonable risk of future repetitions!
The People have a right to get on with their lives after winning a war.
It therefore becomes ‘just’ (fair and responsible), that, in the absence of a peace treaty &/or the immediate cessation of all hostilities, that a war be recognized as ‘systemic,’ rendering any ‘acquisition’ (capture/re-capture) of territory legal and final.
Any ‘egalitarian’ considerations for a still violent ‘defeated’ enemy that, by terrorism, etc, would force the winners to put-their-lives-on-hold-indefinitely, would be unjust; a perfidious postmodern liberal ‘tolerance’ for the intolerant!
To conclude, Israel has every right (legal, moral, and otherwise) to annex any and all territories acquired in a ‘defensive’ war – and doubly so where a systemic “clear and present threat” remains de facto (not to mention de jure) undiminished.
Defensive Wars and Legal Acquisition of Territory (Pt II)
Resolution 242 was created under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, rendering it non-legally binding; ie, it is a “recommendation” only. (Only a few Chapter VII Resolutions are legally binding.)
Additionally, the clause is ‘preambulatory’ (eg: “Emphasizing”), not ‘operative’ (eg: “Affirms”); ie, even within the interested office of the UN, it holds no recognized authority what-so-ever.
Moreover, it’s founding basis, the UN’s earlier doctrine of “Territorial integrity” has been effectively supplanted by the UN’s later adoption of the right to “Self-determination” – thereby voiding the already marginalized, non-legally binding clause, as the two are mutually exclusive.
Additionally, the clause is widely deemed perfidious because of its singlatory targeting of Israel.
Just 19 years earlier, the contested territory was captured by the Arabs (in a coercive war of aggression), occupied, and ethnically cleansed.
To then closely follow that beyond-the-pale-violation and carelessly create a resolution without acknowledging this fact is the epitome of perfidy.
And yet, even with the passage of another 50 years, the US et al still (mostly) uphold this racist diktat that alone bars the Jews from acquiring security-mandated territory in not just a defensive war, but a systemic defensive war; they still cling to this untenable violation of the right to self-defense – and do so all for no higher ‘justification’ than it might appease Arab oil & Islamic intolerance.
Such blatant double standards and utter disregard of existential inalienable rights is – at best – despicable.
(Note: The territory’s borders, before colonizing European powers had imperially waved their hands to reshape them (the infamous Sykes-Picot Agreement), dated back to antiquity. Before this ‘secret’ illegal treaty, the borders for Palestine (now Israel) included the Golan, Jerusalem, Judea, Samira, and Gaza; those pre-colonial borders being established by the most legitimate of means: they were forged by the imperative of secureable borders; proven just through the test of defensibility: ie, they were requisite for survival – a quality that never diminishes in the passage of time!)
(See: ‘Inalienable Rights & the Social Contract’ below)
Defensive Wars and Legal Acquisition of Territory
The two official documents most cited in claims that territory is “inviolable” and that the acquisition of territory by force is “inadmissible” are the 1933 Montevideo Convention and 1967 UN Resolution 242.
(Note: Only Montevideo is legally binding.)
Coercive Measures
“In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime” – the operative word being “crime.” (Note: Self-defense/defensive war is never classified as a “crime.” There are no defensive “measures” that may be deemed “coercive.”)
In common language, ‘defensive’ and ‘offensive’ are natural antonyms. War however, is complicated by the sanctioning of ‘preemptive strikes,’ which – by definition – is an offensive/aggressive action, but is still held legal when employed as a self-defense measure.
The term “force,” by itself, is inherently neutral. It is only with the qualifier “coercive” that the application of the Montevideo Convention is found directed at acts of criminal violence; illegal wars, unjust injury, etc.
The term “coercive” is more encompassing, precise, and more concise than employing ‘wars of aggression’; and more precise (and non-contradictory) than ‘offensive’ wars.’
Because the dichotomy of ‘defensive’ and “coercive” is valid, the phrase, “or in any other,” renders the term “coercive measure” exclusive, ie, it must preclude any consideration of non-coercive measures (eg: defensive war).
The Montevideo Convention employs the term “coercive measure,” which, because it does not additionally include any consideration of ‘defensive measures,’ makes its entire mandate exclusive to “coercive measures,’ eg, wars of aggression.
“for any motive whatever”
Here, it must be noted that self-defense is not a “motive,” it is an ‘imperative.’ (Note: If the authors had meant for instance: “for any ‘reason’ whatever” – they would not have used the limiting term “motive.”)
Additionally, the distinction between coercive wars and defensive wars is manifest in the Montevideo Convention’s unmitigated prohibition on “military occupation…” (ie: illegal), and the Geneva Convention’s codifying of laws & obligations for legal “military occupation,” which is only applicable for defensive wars.
These two diametrically opposed clauses are not contradictory, as they may only be applicable exclusively within a deliberate distinction held between ‘wars of aggression’ and ‘defensive wars.’
Lastly, all the examples originally cited to establish just cause “not to recognize territorial acquisitions,” were “coercive” wars of aggression; none were defensive wars.
***
By all metrics, the defining terms, the examples cited to validate its founding basis, and the noted otherwise immutable contradiction re ‘occupation,’ the Montevideo Convention was not designed to be applicable to, cannot be bent to be applicable to, and is in fact incontestably not applicable to defensive wars – period.
(See: ‘UNSC Res 242’ below)
Israel, the exception confirming the rule. The people of ETHICS. It is all about antisemitism and keeping the ME in turmoil!
France gets what she deserves: Eurabia; not the expected Eurabia, not the colonial way! This is reverse engineering by the Islamists.
but how can we expect Regev to behave otherwise, wasn’t he appointed by Netanyahu? After all, this is completely in line with Netanyahu MO for the last 8 years… he has very specifically kept away from, avoided the subject of, and refused to utter these words:
“JEWISH SETTLEMENT IN JUDEA SAMARIA IS LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE”
No one wonders about this behavior, Jews and Israelis are non plussed that an Israeli PM does not debunk the claims of illegality or illegitimacy…. that is the reason why the Jews are seen to be thieves stealing the land of others… if the PM of Israel does not protest the moniker of thief then why would this surprise any Jew?
Why do Jews whine, moan and cajole when non jews simply mimick Israeli Jews, and diaspora Jews simply mimick Israeli Jews. If Israeli Jews beleive they are illegal and illegitimate then perhaps they really should consider giving back the land to the rightful owners and return to Poland. Why would Hashem allow the Jews to retain such a generous gift if they throw it back in his face? Why would he allow them to remain if they are so ungrateful as to not even utter the words? What possible meaning could it have to utter “next year in Jerusalem” and when the year arrives they act like squatters and thieves as if their G_D is a G_D who brought them illegally and illegitimately to eretz yisroel. Would Hashem bring them legitimately to Tel Aviv and not to Judea Samaria? I dont beleive that this gift will remain available forever if the recipients cannot even recognize its magnaminity and regard it as illegitimate.
Frankly, I am tired to hear Jews whining about foreigners not uttering properly when they do not themselves. The legality and legitimacy of Jews in Israel is disappearing because the majority of Jews in Israel do not demand of their leader, their representatives to utter these simple words:
“JEWISH SETTLEMENT IS JUDEA SAMARIA IS LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE”
(folks here must be tired of me writing those words and I am indeed tired of repeating them, at some point I will stop and say them no more)
There appear to be only a few jews in Israel and the diaspora carrying this burden to keep this alive. I laud Melanie Phillips for being one of the few who persistently propagate this unpopular viewpoint, ….even umpopular with the majority of Jews in Israel apparently, based on their behavior.
I will not be surprised if things go badly for this ungrateful behavior. Once YS is gone it will not be long before the Jewish state disappears… surely Tel Aviv has less legitimacy and legality than Judea Samaria…so why should TA remain?
this guy feels the same way
I cannot blame him because each time he and a euro say these lies they see that there is no rebuttal from Israel. Its time to give it back and return to Poland so that the world can laud the moral Jews and stop calling them thieves… until the next pogrom.