Quartet takes stand against Palestinian efforts to impose statehood on Israel

12 Comments / 12 Comments

1. @ ArnoldHarris:
   although I agree with you in general principal regarding civil control and planning authority I still beleive that Jewish settlement should not wait for those issues to come first. Extending Israel state law is a state soveriegnty issue whereas Jewish settlement is a Jewish rights issue which preceded the state of Israel and can proceed separately outside of annexation of YS. Therefore steeletment of Jews should not depend upon nor wait for the state of Israel to decide what it wants for itself. I see no legal impediment to Jewish settlement. The supreme court has interpreted a state of occupation but even a state of occupation should nbot impede Jewish settlement as the mandate was also a state o occupation albeit legal. The GOI infers that Jewish settlement is a security risk and interferes with negotiations. However, Jewish settlement, not Israeli settlement was an international legally binding obligation which superseded and preceded the state of Israel and those rights of world Jewry were never canceled. Israel is acting as a hostile occupation force with regards to Jewish settlement rights, acting in obstruction to those rights no less than did the state of Jordan As long as Israel occupies that land it has a legal occupation to facilitate and encourage the immigration and settlement of world Jewry into THAT land. I see the rights and obligations of the state of Israel separately from those of world Jewry as world Jewry has an ignored interest in YS whereas the state of Israel only has a security interest in YS. Israel should administer YS in the same role as the British mandate and in that way YS after being settled could opt for a separate Jewish state. Extending Israeli civil law is synonymous with Israeli annexation but annexation need not occur to facilitate the settlement of Jews.

2. We are aware that the EU is building hundreds of structures for their allies, Islam, in our Area “C” in Yehudah and Shomron as we speak?
   Is it true or not?
   And how that meshes with the posted claim?

3. @ yamit82:
   but did this deal with the specific issue I raised which I find no one else has raised?

4. @ bernard ross:
   @ Ted Belman:

   United Nations Security Council Resolution 242

   Interpreting its Meaning and Relevance for the State of Israel

   “In this paper, I will posit not only that Israel has fulfilled her obligations as required by the Resolution, but also that Israel has adhered to the Resolution above and beyond what was required of her, by international law (and, indeed, by common sense). Moreover, as a result of violations by the other parties involved, Israel has been legally and morally absolved of any further obligation to this Resolution.”

   When the Israeli War of Independence ended in 1949, the Jewish State controlled a much larger territory than was envisioned by Resolution 181. However, the Gaza Strip was conquered by Egypt, and Judea, Samaria, and the eastern half of Jerusalem were captured by Jordanian forces. In yet another violation of Resolution 181, which granted religious and minority rights throughout the newly-partitioned land,[13] the Jews who resided in communities in Gaza, Judea, Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem were either massacred or expelled by their Arab conquerors. Yet it is worthy to note that since Resolution 181 was neither accepted by the Arab side nor officially implemented, the Mandate for Palestine was never legally terminated. Thus, the State of Israel, as the governing instrument of the Jewish People in the former Mandatory territory, still retained the legal title to [albeit without possession of] the portions of Mandatory Palestine which had been captured by force illegally by Egypt and Jordan. As Resolution 242 would later emphasize, the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible in regards to legal title. (The legal rule of jus ex injuria non oritur means that “no legal right can arise from a wrong”. In this case, Egypt and Jordan could not gain legal title as a result of their illegal conquest and occupation of Gaza and Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem, respectively. Similarly, Syria could not gain legal title over the Golan Heights due to that territory’s illegal transfer to the French Mandate for Syria in 1923.) The de facto control of these territories had no effect whatsoever on the de jure rights of the State of Israel to these territories.

   The Armistice Agreements, signed between Israel and four Arab States (Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) at the end of the war, defined ceasefire lines for the relevant military forces, but were explicitly regarded only as separation-of-forces lines, and not as final boundaries. Thus, for example, Article V, Paragraph 2 of the Egypt-Israel Armistice Agreement of February 24, 1949 stated: “The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.”[14] (See Article II, Paragraph 2 of the Lebanon-Israel, Syria-Israel, and Jordan-Israel Armistice Agreements for similar clauses.) It should be noted that at the end of the War, Israel had conquered portions of southern Lebanon and northern Sinai, however it returned these territories to Lebanon and Egypt, respectively, as part of the Armistice Agreements. The Israeli leadership at that time and afterwards expressed its willingness to have the ceasefire lines formally and legally acknowledged as internationally-recognized boundaries, however the Arab states refused this request, going so far as to make sure that “Israel” was not even mentioned by name in the Armistice Agreements themselves (although, out of linguistic necessity, the adjective “Israeli” was employed – but only once – to describe Israel’s army in the Israel-Syria Armistice Agreement; see Article V, Paragraph 1). Thus, this Arab intransigence allowed Israel to retain its pre-War claims to the territories of Gaza, Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights, as only Israeli acquiescence to the relinquishment of Jewish title to these territories could turn the Arab de facto control into de jure possession and sovereignty.

5. @ bernard ross:

   BR,

   A steady stream of Jewish settlement in Area C is vital in order to win this national struggle. But to facilitate that, I seriously think civil Israeli administration must supplant military administration. There have been too many instances in which Zahal commanders have manifested significantly negative attitudes toward the Jewish settlers. A civil administration with ties to the local communities would serve in a more supportive manner. And as a trained urban and regional planner who spent much of the 1973-1974 study year in the city and regional planning curriculum of the Department of Geography at the Hebrew University, I think that civil agencies are better at planning new communities for much the same reason that army officers are better at planning and commanding military defense or assaults.

   Arnold Harris
   Mount Horeb WI

6. ArnoldHarris Said:

   all Israel and the Jewish nation needs is de facto recognition, and that can be gained more or less by putting Area C under Israeli civil administration,

   Actually, in my view ALL Israel need do is to facilitate and encourage Jewish settlement in YS and over time everything else will happen naturally.
   ArnoldHarris Said:

   Either Israel Judaizes Area C, or

   settling jews is the key. It is also the path of least legal resistance. The reason why settlement is so opposed is because it is the one absolute legal right derived from the LON charter and remaining unexpired, unrescinded and uncancelled. All Israel need do is to continue the mandate prime directive to settle Jews in the pal mandate territory: its already international law even though it is not international consensus.

7. Ted Belman Said:

   I don’t think so. Before that treaty was entered into Jordan relinquished all its rights to any land on the “West Bank” to the PLO or the PA, I don’t recall. Thus the PLO became a new party for Israel to deal with regarding the “West Bank”.

   Wrong… he made an announcement that he was abdicating his rights in favor of the PLO but that announcement has NO LEGAL IMPORT; it was a PR stunt. I could find no document which supported that announcement having been followed through with action. Furthermore, as 242 was an agreement based upon performance by the parties or states one could not substitute a non state party in an agreement without the permission of the other parties(e.g. Israel who recognized the PLO as a terror org only at the time) Most importantly when Jordan negotiated a treaty with Israel there was no mention of any PLO interest in the treaty in the land. If Jordan had transferred its rights it would have alluded to that transfer in the treaty and even inserted protection clauses to ensure the intended goals. Furthermore, how can Jordan agree international borders with Israel at the Jordan river if it had already transferred their interest to the pals: they would have had to set a border instead with the pals also.

   CAN YOU FIND A DOCUMENT WHICH SHOWS THE TRANSFER OF THE JORDANIAN RIGHTS TO THE PLO OR ANYTHING IN THE TREATY WHICH PROTECTS THE SO-CALLED PLO RIGHTS TO LAND?

   If not then the announcement of the king can only be considered to be his intention at the time which was later abandoned as his later action of the treaty proved a conflicting intention.

   Everyone assumes that hearsay is both factual and legal but I say produce the documents which are binding AND enforceable. The so-called transfer of rights narrative is as weak as water through a sieve. In fact, I believe the king did it on purpose to screw the pals.

8. @ Ted Belman:
   What “rights” did Jordan have to relinquish? None that I’m aware of.

9. bernard ross Said:

   My view is that 242, wrt YS, was superseded by the Israel Jordan treaty which stipulated recognized international borders between israel and Jordan at the Jordan river.

   I don’t think so. Before that treaty was entered into Jordan relinquished all its rights to any land on the “West Bank” to the PLO or the PA, I don’t recall. Thus the PLO became a new party for Israel to deal with regarding the “West Bank”.

10. As I have studied the practical outcomes of such issues, I almost universally classify the legalities of Western civilization as applied to Jews, the Jewish nation, and the Jewish State of Israel, as more or less meaningless. So my only concern is for Israel to harden its general control over all the land located west of the Jordan River, and especially the 62% of Shomron and Yehuda comprised in Area C of the Oslo Accords. That can only be accomplished by steadily increasing Jewish settlement spread out in such a way and in sufficient density that a two-state solution becomes impossible. I have not yet seen the end of 2014 Jewish population numbers from the Israeli ministry that maintains the population register, but I think the Jewish population of Area C now approaches 400,000, plus whatever the number is for the annexed part of Jerusalem. Assuming a steady increase of 4 percent per year, the Jewish population of Area C will then double in 18 years.

    As I have been commenting recently, it is not necessary at this stage for Israel to formally annex Area C. The USA and Europe will not grant de jure recognition of anything Jewish, as all of you well know. But all Israel and the Jewish nation needs is de facto recognition, and that can be gained more or less by putting Area C under Israeli civil administration, limiting Zahal to guard duty along the Jordan River and the Arava Valley south of the Dead Sea down to Eilat. In case of another intifada breaking out in Fatahland, troops and their equipment can be gotten in place rapidly, considering that the geographic size of the entirety of Shomron and Yehuda is no greater than Dane and Rock counties in southern Wisconsin where I live.

    Once that is accomplished, you will see Fatah control much easier to break up and get rid of.

    But don’t forget that the same process must take place in Gaza. Otherwise, Israel will find itself fighting not just Hamas as soon as they manufacture enough homemade rockets, but ISIS, which now claims to have organized a Gaza branch.

    These issues are as clear and concise as a well-cut diamond. Either Israel Judaizes Area C, or the EU, UN, US State Department or some other Jew-hating bunch will increasingly interfere with Jewish national rights, not just in Shomron and Yehuda, but certainly in Jerusalem, and ultimately, they will start arguments that maybe there will be peace in the Middle East if Israel is broken up and dissolved altogether.

    And if Netanyahu has the innate Jewish common-sense that the Jewish nation has a right to demand for anyone who has the top job in controlling the destiny of the Jewish state, he will realize that no peace with Fatah or Hamas ever shall be achievable, and that the time has come to turn to a strategy to grind away their power and in their place, negotiate separate local autonomy agreements in all the Area A cities with leaders of the traditional Arab hamulas, whose forbears ran local Arab affairs in all those cities during the centuries of rule of the Ottoman Empire.

    Arnold Harris
    Mount Horeb WI

11. T. Belman. Whenever I read that the EU or the US did something favourable to Israel, I always wonder what promise was extracted from Israel in payment.

    I share your concern and tend to agree that there are under the table understandings. I think the understanding will be to maintaining the status quo. My reason for this is that without the current Oslo accord and subsequent road map being operative there would be no other way or agreement that can give the euros, etc what they want. a palestinian entity of any sort relies completely on Oslo, madrid and road map. 242 is a can of worms and a ticking bomb if reverted to as the only operative agreement, for them.

    While the resolution the resolution the Palestinians brought to the UNSC in December would have contradicted UN Security Council resolution 242, which never called for a full return to the pre-1967 lines, the Quartet statement reiterated that a negotiations toward a “lasting and comprehensive peace” be based on “UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, the Madrid Principles including land for peace and the agreements previously reached between the parties.”

    they must preserve Oslo because without it there is no legal basis for a pal state or entity.

    I brought up before with you, but we never concluded, that I have an interpretation of the legally binding nature of 242 wrt YS as different from that commonly accepted.

    My view is that 242, wrt YS, was superseded by the Israel Jordan treaty which stipulated recognized international borders between israel and Jordan at the Jordan river. 242 was both a resolution AND an agreement and primarily derived its legal basis from being an agreement between the warring parties. The territorial withdrawals were to be remedied between the parties and the Jordan Israel treaty concluded that issue wrt YS with the treaty. The PLO was not a party to the 242 agreement. The touted Jordanian assignment of rights prior to the I-J treaty is not evidenced by any legal documentation and disputed defacto by Jordans exclusion of any clause binding Israel to negotiate land with the PLO. In my view 242, wrt YS, is a dead cause as the recognized parties disputing the land resolved it by treaty.
    the only contention by some is the contention of acquiring territory by force by Israel was illegal at the time. However, again as there was no other party to the agreement, or in contention over the land, other than Jordan and Israel then the territory was defacto acquired subsequently by Israel by treaty with the only other recognized party in contention at the time in the Israel Jordan treaty.
    PLO acquired no rights to Jordans interest in the west bank simply by an announcement by the king to that effect. Were there any document agreements to that afterwards? Did Israel agree to the substitution? Most importantly, Jordan’s omission of the pals supposed land interest in the subsequent treaty demonstrates the non existence of their interest beyond the original PR announcement.

    In the same way that Israel has satisfied 242 over Sinai and gaza byt superseding treaty so has she satisfied 242 over YS with superseding treaty with Jordan. Only the golan is still outstandig wrt 242, the plo, pals have NOTHING in 242 related to LAND!

    I would love someone with a legal qualification in international law to look into this perspective.

12. Good question, Ted.