T. Belman. The government of Israel has finally and formally taken the position that the settlements are legal. In addition all embassies have been instructed to read this statement carefully and to spread the word. You can do it, too.
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
30 Nov 2015
Attempts to present Jewish settlement in West Bank territory (ancient Judea and Samaria) as illegal and “colonial” in nature ignores the complexity of this issue, the history of the land, and the unique legal circumstances of this case.
The Historical Context
Jewish settlement in the territory of ancient Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) is often presented as merely a modern phenomenon. In fact, Jewish presence in this territory has existed for thousands of years and was recognized as legitimate in the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations in 1922, which provided for the establishment of a Jewish state in the Jewish people’s ancient homeland.
After recognizing “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and “the grounds for reconstituting their national home”, the Mandate specifically stipulated in Article 6 as follows:
“The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use”.
Some Jewish settlements, such as in Hebron, existed throughout the centuries of Ottoman rule, while settlements such as Neve Ya’acov, north of Jerusalem, the Gush Etzion bloc in southern Judea, and the communities north of the Dead Sea, were established under British Mandatory administration prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, and in accordance with the League of Nations Mandate.
Many contemporary Israeli settlements have actually been re-established on sites which were home to Jewish communities in previous generations, in an expression of the Jewish people’s deep historic and abiding connection with this land – the cradle of Jewish civilization and the locus of the key events of the Hebrew Bible. A significant number are located in places where previous Jewish communities were forcibly ousted by Arab armies or militia, or slaughtered, as was the case with the ancient Jewish community of Hebron in 1929.
For more than a thousand years, the only administration which has prohibited Jewish settlement in these areas was the Jordanian occupation administration, which during the nineteen years of its rule (1948-1967) declared the sale of land to Jews a capital offense. The right of Jews to establish homes in these areas, and the private legal titles to the land which had been acquired, could not be legally invalidated by Jordanian occupation – which resulted from their illegal armed invasion of Israel in 1948 and was never recognized internationally as legitimate – and such rights and titles remain valid to this day.
In short, the attempt to portray Jewish communities in the West Bank as a new form of “colonial” settlement in the land of a foreign sovereign is as disingenuous as it is politically motivated. At no point in history were Jerusalem and the West Bank subject to Palestinian Arab sovereignty. At issue is the right of Jews to reside in their ancient homeland, alongside Palestinian Arab communities, in an expression of the connection of both peoples to this land.
International Humanitarian Law in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) or the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) prohibits the transfer of segments of the population of a state to the territory of another state which it has occupied as a result of the resort to armed force. This principle, which is reflected in Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), was drafted immediately following the Second World War and as a response to specific events that occurred during that war.
As the International Red Cross’ authoritative commentary to the Convention confirms, the principle was intended to protect the local population from displacement, including endangering its separate existence as a race, as occurred with respect to the forced population transfers in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary before and during the war.
Quite apart from the question of whether the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure to territory such as the West Bank over which there was no previous legitimate sovereign, the case of Jews voluntarily establishing homes and communities in their ancient homeland, and alongside Palestinian communities, does not match the kind of forced population transfers contemplated by Article 49(6).
As Professor Eugene Rostow, former US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs has written: “the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there” (AJIL, 1990, vol. 84, p.72). The provisions of Article 49(6) regarding forced population transfer to occupied sovereign territory should not be seen as prohibiting the voluntary return of individuals to the towns and villages from which they, or their ancestors, had been forcibly ousted. Nor does it prohibit the movement of individuals to land which was not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state and which is not subject to private ownership.
In this regard, it should be noted that Israeli settlements in the West Bank have been established only after an exhaustive investigation process, under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Israel, and subject to appeal, which is designed to ensure that no communities are established illegally on private land.
Just as the settlements do not violate the terms of Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, they do not constitute a “grave breach” of the Fourth Geneva Convention or “war crimes”, as some claim. In fact, even according to the view that these settlements are inconsistent with Article 49(6), the notion that such violations constitute a “grave breach” or a “war crime” was introduced (as a result of political pressure by Arab States) only in the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, to which leading States including Israel are not party and which, in this respect, does not reflect customary international law.
In legal terms, the West Bank is best regarded as territory over which there are competing claims which should be resolved in peace process negotiations – and indeed both the Israeli and Palestinian sides have committed to this principle. Israel has valid claims to title in this territory based not only on the historic Jewish connection to, and long-time residence in this land, its designation as part of the Jewish state under the League of Nations Mandate, and Israel’s legally acknowledged right to secure boundaries, but also on the fact that the territory was not previously under the legitimate sovereignty of any state and came under Israeli control in a war of self-defense. At the same time, Israel recognizes that the Palestinians also entertain claims to this area. It is for this reason that the two sides have expressly agreed to resolve all outstanding issues, including the future of the settlements, in direct bilateral negotiations to which Israel remains committed.
Israeli-Palestinian Agreements
The bilateral agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinians, and which govern their relations, contain no prohibition on the building or expansion of settlements. On the contrary, it is specifically provided that the issue of settlements is reserved for permanent status negotiations, reflecting the understanding of both sides that this issue can only be resolved alongside other permanent status issues, such as borders and security. Indeed, the parties expressly agreed – in the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement of 1995 – that the Palestinian Authority has no jurisdiction or control over settlements or Israelis and that the settlements are subject to exclusive Israeli jurisdiction pending the conclusion of a permanent status agreement.
It has been charged that the prohibition, contained in the Interim Agreement (Article 31(7), against unilateral steps which alter the “status” of the West Bank and Gaza Strip implies a ban on settlement activity. This position is unfounded. This prohibition was agreed upon in order to prevent either side from taking steps which purport to change the legal status of this territory (such as by annexation or unilateral declaration of statehood), pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations. Were this prohibition to be applied to building – and given that the provision is drafted to apply equally to both sides – it would lead to the dubious interpretation that neither side is permitted to build homes to accommodate for the needs of their respective communities until permanent status negotiations are successfully concluded.
In this regard, Israel’s decision to dismantle all settlements from the Gaza Strip and some in the Northern West Bank in the context of the 2005 Disengagement Plan were unilateral Israeli measures rather than the fulfilment of a legal obligation.
Conclusions
- Attempts to present Jewish settlement in ancient Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as illegal and “colonial” in nature ignores the complexity of this issue, the history of the land, and the unique legal circumstances of this case.
- Jewish communities in this territory have existed from time immemorial and express the deep connection of the Jewish people to land which is the cradle of their civilization, as affirmed by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, and from which they, or their ancestors, were ousted.
- The prohibition against the forcible transfer of civilians to territory of an occupied state under the Fourth Geneva Convention was not intended to relate to the circumstances of voluntary Jewish settlement in the West Bank on legitimately acquired land which did not belong to a previous lawful sovereign and which was designated as part of the Jewish State under the League of Nations Mandate.
- Bilateral Israeli-Palestinian Agreements specifically affirm that settlements are subject to agreed and exclusive Israeli jurisdiction pending the outcome of peace negotiations, and do not prohibit settlement activity.
- Israel remains committed to peace negotiations without preconditions in order to resolve all outstanding issues and competing claims. It continues to ask the Palestinian side to respond in kind. It is hoped that such negotiations will produce an agreed secure and peaceful settlement which will give legitimate expression to the connection of both Jews and Palestinians to this ancient land.
The significance of the new legislation is that it will be easier to build in Judah/Samaria and elsewhere in Israel.
That Lapid is an opponent to the bill actually shows it is a good bill. Livni also hates the bill.
This legislation combined with the assertion of the legality of Jewish Towns in Judah/Samaria and the right to build are steps in the right direction.
@ CuriousAmerican:
I’d very much appreciate it if you get in touch with me at DavidShafir@gmail.com. I’d like to be able to ask you some questions re the Israeli issues, if you don’t mind.
Ted Belman Said:
In a way, it’s too bad you’ve not had this experience. Hundreds of others have had it, some of them over a period of many years. R’ Kahane wrote about it, as did his son Binyamin.
No doubt people you know, and with whom you communicate regularly, have had the experience. I say it’s too bad you haven’t had it not because I want you to be intimidated, but because until you have the experience, it’s easy to agree with what others say about those of us who don’t trust anything that comes from The Jewish Section… that we suffer from “persecution mania” (unfounded, baseless, totally imaginary fear (DSM 5 classification 301.0).
Accusations of “being paranoid” are part of the dissembling tactics used by those who want to prevent criticism and redirect attention. Even the putative “Right” doesn’t hesitate to stoop to such Alinsky tactics when it suits their purposes. Unfortunately the “Right” rarely uses Alinsky tactics against the Left.
Would you be willing to answer this question: Have you ever been asked to provide details showing the IP addresses of those who comment here? This is being done by governments everywhere… usually citing “security concerns” and “exigent circumstances”.
I don’t think you could refuse such a request. In Israel, I don’t believe there’s any real protection regarding ‘free speech’ except for those in the Left and the Muslim MKs, Imams, and Emirs who routinely incite their constituents to violence. Indeed, it’s against the law to ‘insult a public official’. Perhaps you could post something about what happened to Professor Hillel Weiss.
Thanks for your efforts, Ted. I remember when you first came here. I’m sure you know the pseudo-Latin motto “Illegitimi non carborundum”.
“Always speak your mind and a base man will avoid you”. Blake
The government of Israel has finally and formally taken the position that the settlements are legal. In addition all embassies have been instructed to read this statement carefully and to spread the word. You can do it, too.
I’ll do that!!
@ Ted Belman:
yes, missed that, sorry
@ mrg3105:
What you missed is that I didn’t write this, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did.
@ WB:
I have never been criticized by the government let alone called on the carpet.
Perhaps with one exception.I came out in support of Mudar Zahran the leader of the opposition in Jordan with whom I have a very close relation. He was looking for Israel’s help in overthrowing the King. I sent them an article by Zahran and one by myself. A meeting was set up to inform me as to government policy and a request was made that I not promote the idea.
As for the use of westbank or any version thereof, I consciously use J&S or the long form. But I do slip up occasionaly.
So there is an Israeli Gestapo, but this doesn’t answer the question
mrg3105 Said:
This is an important point. Accepting the premises, terms, and definitions of the opposition implies agreement with their conclusions. In my experience, the most common response to such a question (‘why do you use the enemy’s terms?’) has been ‘that’s what people understand’.
Ted has a good reputation, and has spent a great deal of his personal resources attending meetings and reporting on things that may not be completely ‘behind the wall’ but are certainly not part of the full public record.
So far as I know, Ted hasn’t written about any interactions with the Jewish Section. Maybe they’ve left him alone; but it’s hard to believe they haven’t invited Ted to meet them in the Russian Compound for a little palaver.
The scores of people I know who’ve been invited to these informal questioning sessions all report the same things: The Jewish Section operatives are very polite, yet devoid of emotion and empathy. The only emotion they show is when they’re checking to make certain their guest doesn’t have any recording devices. They delight in letting you know they “have a big eye” (presumably also a big nose, big ears, and big generative organs)… what they mean is they have awesome technology and an effective network of informants (few of them paid) who keep them apprised of the activities of ‘suspicious’ people.
The comments about Ted is strictly speculation; but it’s based on experience and what others have told me about their experience. I suspect that Ted does his best to walk along the razor’s edge that everyone else involved in serious pro-Israel cognitive warfare does, hoping not to slip and get cut.
No other nation in the World has more right to their land than Jews have to the Land of Israel. These are: historical rights of more than 3000 years living on this Land; the Land of Israel is the G-d’s promised Land; League of Nations and UN with the support of most Nations confirmed the right of the Jewish people to their Land; also a big portion of this Land was bought by Jews as a formal act of ownership; Israel defended and freed her historical Land – Judea and Samaria against homicidal enemies in defensive wars.
It is more than enough to claim the Land.
Only the loyal citizens of Israel should have rights to vote.
I’m curious as to why Ted continues to use the capitalised ‘West Bank’ as if it is a proper name. He would not for example write that Westminster is located on the North Bank of the River Thames. To repeat a lie is to agree with it.
@ CuriousAmerican:
“1) The people had the right to vote in Ottoman elections prior to World War I. They had a pre-existing civil right to vote.” – this is NOT true.
The Ottoman ‘voting’ system was designed to produce a census, the by-product of which was to register males for compulsory military service. Virtually ALL Arabs tried various strategies of evading participation in this, which is why when the British took over administration under the mandate, there was NO CENSUS, and virtually no Arab family had ANY proof of Land Title since all previous records were usually in the names of the various women in the family which under Ottoman law could not be land owners. The British (and the French) tried and failed to condusct a census in the Mandate territiries until the mid-1930s.
That is, Arabs in the Ottoman Empire had no civil rights since regardless of their vote, they could not secure representation in Istambul, not being Turkish.
In this case, you are right.
International Law will not protect Israel, nor can it, as San Remo was two-faced. Chain Weizmann was furious that it was riddled with escape clauses.
The first and major problem is that it promised a Jewish National Home, not a nation, nor a state. Essentially, nothing was promised more than a reservation.
San Remo is not a good argument.
Is it?! The Poospatuck Tribe has a National Home in Long Island, New York State. New York State has a problem with a lot of National Homes (Reservations) selling cigarettes without collecting taxes.
It is not clear. What is clear is that the British made conflicting promises which were contradictory.
The British reneged on their promises. And the Arabs felt betrayed, as much as the Jews would later feel betrayed.
Let’s read the San Remo document again. Shall we?!
But in back rooms, and letters, Balfour was writing otherwise, as this historian commented.
The British lied. And we can see this with Churchill’s 1922 White Paper.
Yet, while denying in the White Paper, that is exactly what Churchill intended as he wrote elsewhere. He told the Jews one thing, and the Arabs another.
Now to you this is meaningless; but this betrayal is what fuels a lot of Arab rage today. It may be meaningless to you; but it is central to them.
And so, you are placing your claim to Israel on a two-faced document.
I have no problem with Israel.
I have no problem if you claim Judea and Samaria – I do not even refer to it as the West Bank, given the novelty of that term.
But I do have a problem with your use of a very flawed document to defend the acquisition.
Au contraire! It is/was quite relevant. The British thought enough of the right to try and set up elections. The Arabs were willing to pariticipate in 1935, but the Yishuv boycotted the election, thus indicating a contempt for democracy by the Yishuv.
Now, maybe the Yishuv was right; but try and explain to the modern why interfering with democratic elections is a positive good.
This is what you base your claim to Israel on?! Flawed documents, poorly executed, in contravention of promised rights to the Arabs.
It is a civil right. Despite what some say. Southerners had the civil right to vote against Lincoln in the 1860 election. They did not have the political right to form the Confederacy when they lost that election.
But redefining terms for convenience is what the Left does, and if you get into that game they will beat you.
In any event, if the Ottomans, the British, and the Mandatory thought civil rights included voting – which they obviously did, as they enfranchised the Arabs – then that is what matters, not what you think in 2015.
If you want to claim Israel, do not rely on a very flawed San Remo.
Ultimately, the Jewish claim to Israel may rest on either the Bible and/or Right of Conquest.
San Remo is swiss cheese.
Years ago, Naomi Chazen made comments about me that were almost identical to Klein’s Alinsky responses… inversions, disjunctions, distortions, deletions, generalizations, all capped off with a psychic mind reading psychoanalytical diagnosis (I think it’s DSM 301.0)
I guess we should all just go down to the Russian Quarter, and let the Holy Shin Bet Jewish Section give us tattoos. That’s where all this is leading… and a Jew who can’t see this is more than woefully befuddled.
All very interesting, but too-little-too-late. Plus, it’s a precursor to ‘legal’ actions that will result in another massive Judenrein operation. That’s no secret. It’s all set up, just waiting to be taken ‘off the shelf’ and implemented. Elazar Stern and Mickey Oren are ready to repeat all the things they did in 2005.
Note the shift in the argument to a pathetic (maybe bathetic) plea to realize how noble Israel is regarding Gaza. Gaza is within the legal borders of the Jewish National Home.
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm
The withdrawal and forcible eviction of Gaza and Yesha Jews was illegal… it doesn’t matter that a ‘special law’ was passed to give the illusion of legality… it was a fraud, perpetrating a crime under the colour of law, abetting the Islamic enemy.
The Jewish Agency, the Israel Land Authority, and countless other bureaucracies, NGOs, professors, and individuals are actively working AGAINST our national interests. This land is supposed to be A JEWISH STATE. We should apply the same criteria to those who want to reside here as the Islamic states apply, and as Switzerland and a few other states apply.
The Jewish intelligentsia (Left, Middle, and Right) always behaves like a ‘herd of independent thinkers’. That herd is stampeding right now, totally out of control, with no sense of direction, trampling on everybody who gets in the way of a mad dash towards compliance with Saudi-US-EU-UN dictates.
This MFA statement is typical of Israel’s tendency to talk tough, while making ‘painful concessions’ behind the scenes.
Only a consistent, relentless focus on enforcing the 1922 Partition can change the direction we’re going (towards destruction).
There are many many people right now who are scrambling to demonstrate their loyalty to an oppressive regime that has an obsession with Torah observant Yesha Jews.
It’s understandable that so many people who’ve talked tough in the past are currently rushing to join the neo-Judenrat… understandable because their survival depends on not just being obedient to the Socialist State (the Oligarchical Collective), but showing their obedience by obstructing and denigrating those who don’t trust the government to protect us.
That lack of trust isn’t based on imaginary and paranoid ideas… it’s based on things we’ve watched happen for so many years. Too many years.
MALCHUT ACHSHAV!
@ CuriousAmerican:
It is 100% clear that the purpose of the mandate was to establish the Jewish National Home in all of Palestine West of Jordan.
Therefore it is also clear that Arab right to vote could not be part of their civil rights as that would make establishment of the Jewish National Home impossible.
Therefore the fact that Arabs had right to vote in the Ottoman empire in irrelevant. Probably voting should be defined as political right, not civil right.
International law? International law has always been indistinguishable from the law of the jungle.
@ CuriousAmerican:
The Palestinians have for 100 years fought our presence only the form of the violence changes.
Time to forget being politically correct and proportional in fighting Palestinian terrorism. It is time to be determined to win the conflict and not just say the conflict will continue forever. It is not acceptable that every few months or years that Palestinians shoot rockets at Israelis, blow up bombs, kidnap children or resort to other forms of violence against Jews in Israel.
Israel needs to deport and or Jail all terrorists and their supporters. This is a long term war which must be won. Those Arabs that would like to emigrate (polls say up to 80% in East Jerusalem and Judah/Samaria) would like to emigrate, Israel should assist them, including financially. Those Arabs who demonstrate loyalty to the State of Israel (e.g. Druze) are welcome to stay with full civil rights. This will take a long time but the conflict is already 100 years old and Israel needs to be determined to win it. Co-existence with those who deny you any right to exist and raise their children to kill you is not possible.
The terrorists need to be got ridden by whatever means. Peaceful Arabs who do not want to pledge loyalty can be assisted to leave including financially. Until the terrorists are dealt with this will not be practical. This will be a long process.
Ted, both sides do this … LEAVE OUT CRITICAL ISSUES.
I agree with you that Israel has a claim on the land.
But that claim … per San Remo … is contingent upon acting …
The issue is civil rights.
Now, even if we agree that the Palestinians had no national rights (the right to form a state) they did have civil rights (the right to vote within the state formed).
How do we know this?
1) The people had the right to vote in Ottoman elections prior to World War I. They had a pre-existing civil right to vote. San Remo, by mentioning civil rights, enshrined that right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_general_election,_1912
Voting was a pre-existing civil right which could not be withdrawn.
The British tried to run an election in 1923 in the Mandate.
When the Arabs were allotted far less that 50% of the council, they boycotted in 1923, demanding a proportional allotment. At the time they 88% of the population, and felt the allotment was too small. It was!
The British, being embarrassed by this under-representation to the Arabs, agreed in 1935 to give the Arabs 50% representation in 1935 [still a gross underrepresentation – the Arabs were then 75%], and the Arabs then agreed to participate, though still protesting they were shorted. [They were shorted, but not as badly in 1923].
Only this time, he Yishuv got scared. At 50% of the Council, the Arabs could paralyze the Mandatory government. So the Yishuv had Whitehall void the elections by having Jews boycott in 1935.
What this means is: VOTING WAS A CIVIL RIGHT! Both sides staged boycotts, but voting was a civil right.
By this time, the Arabs became apprised that the Yishuv had no intention of respecting Arab voting rights. In 1923, the Arabs were insultingly reduced to only 40% of allotments in the Mandatory Council, and in 1935, the Yishuv would not allow an election to stand if the Arabs got 50% of the allotments on the Council – which was still lower than Arab representation in the demographic.
They British had promised voting rights and the Arabs had even conceded to a lesser representation of 50% rather than the 75% they were entitled to in 1935.
As John F. Kennedy would later say: When democratic change becomes impossible, violent revolution becomes inevitable.
A year later, in response, the Arab Revolt began.
Of course, the Arabs had been violent before 1935, but by 1936, they could claim the British had broken all faith with them — and, like it or not, the Arabs had a strong case.
Britain broke faith with both sides because Britain had made conflicting promises. Britain could not logically claim to set up a Jewish Homeland – against the wishes of the Arab majority at that time – while simultaneously claiming they would respect Arab Civil Rights – which by that time included voting. And indeed, it is easy to verify that Palestinians voted in Ottoman elections and the British offered them the vote. The Arabs boycotted in 1923, the Jews boycotted in 1935.
The Yishuv was terrified of giving the Arabs the vote, even though it was promised to the Arabs by San Remo, and the British. They would not even tolerate parity allotments with the Arabs.
This is the knotty history of the Mandate, like it or not.
What this means today is that in order for Israel to lay claim on the land, by virtue of San Remo, and precedent, and the requirement for civil rights, the Arabs must be given the vote.
This is the clear requirement of San Remo, history, and the Mandatory precedents.
This is why Israel has avoided annexation for 48 years. That Israel has even delayed annexation begs the question: WHY?!
WHY?
Because Israel knows with claim to the land, comes Arab enfranchisement.
One cannot change this now. And fancy, one-sided legalese will not hide this.
I do not like pointing this out, but this is the legal requirement.
Until that requirement is met, Israel’s claim on the land – by virtue of International Law, San Remo, the Balfour Declaration, Ottoman precedent, and even Mandatory Precedent – is contestable; and the Arab side does have a strong case.
If you want to claim the land as STATE LAND, then you must annex and enfranchise.
I do not like saying this … but this is what the documents require.
You cannot bring up San Remo or the Mandate without bringing up enfranchisement.
THERE IS A REASON I RECOMMEND BUYING THEM OUT.
Both sides in this tragicomedy like to point out the sins of the other. Arab complaints can be delusional at times, but the fact is …
SAN REMO is poison. I have said this many times. It is too flawed to defend Jewish rights.
International Law is too flawed.
I know defenders of Israel like to make a legal case, but history is a better argument.
This is not even anti-Israel.
Warning Jews to avoid a legal trap is not hatried, but good advice.
ECC 7:5 Better to be criticized by a wise person than to be praised by a fool.
The Law – especially International Law, written by us: HaGoyim – is no friend of the Jews. Stop trying to appeal to it.
This is a good step. FINALLY!