The last few weeks have seen a European-led political and economic assault on the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria (commonly referred to as “West Bank settlements”). The British government has advised her citizens not to do business in the ancient historical Jewish homeland, including parts of Jerusalem. Some European supermarkets have even begun labeling our produce to encourage boycotts. This well-orchestrated effort to demonize and delegitimize our communities is bearing its poisonous fruits. However, it will not bring peace any closer nor will it serve the cause of justice or advance the values in which Europe holds dear, as in reality, the “settlements” are legal, legitimate and necessary for peace.
Israel’s claim over Judea and Samaria is legally stronger than any other claim. It stems from the never-revoked 1922 League of Nations resolution, which allocated the entire area for the “establishment of a Jewish national home” and even encouraged “close settlement by Jews on the land.” Although, UN Resolution 181 called for the establishment of two separate states, one Jewish and one Arab, it was rejected by the Arabs, making it null and void.
The Kingdom of Jordan, which conquered the area in 1948 during the armed Arab attempt to prevent the creation of the State of Israel, illegally annexed it. The 1949 Armistice Demarcation Lines, popularly known as the “Green Line”, therefore have no legal or diplomatic significance. The Armistice Agreement explicitly states that the lines are purely military in nature and devoid of any political significance. Forty-six years ago, Israel did not capture Judea and Samaria from a Palestinian State that never existed, but rather from Jordan, which has since relinquished all its claims to the area.
Therefore, the claim that anything west of the 1949 armistice line is Israel and anything to the east is “Palestinian Occupied Territory” in which Israelis may not reside is baseless from a legal perspective.
The Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria are not only legal but are impeccably legitimate. Shiloh in Samaria and Hebron in Judea are the cradles of Jewish civilization, and as such the centers of the Jewish sovereignty, preceding even Jerusalem. These are the sites in which the ancient Jewish Tabernacle stood and where the founding fathers and mothers of the Jewish people were buried, where King David set up his first capital and where Jews have lived from time immemorial.
Nevertheless, Israel has agreed time and again – for the sake of peace– to relinquish these areas. When the UN decided in 1947 to partition the Land of Israel, establishing a diminutive Jewish state with implausible boundaries – that even excluded Jerusalem. The Jews went out to the squares of Tel Aviv to dance the hora in celebration. The Arabs attacked that very same night, attempting to take it all by force.
Between, the wars of 1948 and 1967, the Jordanian occupiers of Judea and Samaria, didn’t establish a Palestinian state or make peace with Israel – they founded the Palestine Liberation Organization, dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Then came the Arab aggression against Israel in 1967, defined by the leader of the PLO Ahmed Shukeiri as an attempt “to throw the Jews into the sea.” Israel prevailed.
After surviving two attempts of extermination, it would be immoral for Israel to wind back the clocks and go back to square one. It would mean giving the aggressor immunity, and a retroactive security net that assures him no harm if he does not succeed with his heinous goal of wiping Israel off the map.
Israel did not capture Judea and Samaria as part of a grand expansionist design, but rather in a defensive war for survival. We returned to the heart of our ancestral homeland despite our readiness to give it up for the sake of peace and coexistence. Nothing could be more legitimate than to renew Jewish presence there.
Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria is also necessary for true peace. Twenty percent of Israel’s citizens are currently Palestinians. While this poses numerous challenges to Israeli society, it also enriches it. Jewish cities and villages in Judea and Samaria, alongside the Palestinian ones, are no different. Peace is not achieved through ethnic separation. Reconciliation is not achieved by the disappearance of your adversary but by your learning to coexist with him. The Palestinian President’s demands to establish a Jew-free Palestinian State are the true obstacle to peace. Peace is not achieved through ethnic separation. Reconciliation is not achieved by the disappearance of your adversary but by your learning to coexist with him. That could well be Nelson Mandela’s most important teaching.
The possible paths toward a political resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are diverse. But none should include the exclusion of the right of Jews to reside, build and thrive in their ancestral homeland. Only when Jews and Arabs, Palestinians and Israelis can live side by side, will there be a true chance for peace.
“Reconciliation is not achieved by the disappearance of your adversary but by your learning to coexist with him.”
That may be true in theory, but there is no chance of reconciliation in this case because our Arab/Moslem adversary can never coexist with Israel without violating the commands of their God, their prophet and their sacred texts. In other words, the Moslem Palestinians would have to renounce their religion in order to coexist with Israel. The Koran (Allah speaking!) commands Moslems to make war on the Jews and subjugate them. Their prophet, Muhammad, commanded Moslems to make war on the Jews and kill them. You can read that in the Hamas Charter. Therefore, there can be no “reconciliation.” It is not a coincidence that the entire Moslem world, not only the Arabs, refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist.
@ yamit82:
Wow spending New Year with dweller. Que romantica!!!!!!!!!!!
Robert_K Said:
No way Jose’!!! There are too many of them. We could assimilate only small numbers in each generation otherwise they will overrun us.
They would assume the status of a Ger Toshav – a Resident Stranger (Gentile) who dwells in the Holy Land.
(N.B. Currently in this era nobody can become a Ger Toshav, until the Jubilee Year is reintroduced in Israel when the King Moshiach comes).
Rambam’s Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah 14:7
What is meant by a Ger Toshav (resident alien)? A gentile who makes a commitment not to worship false deities and to observe the other six universal laws commanded to Noah’s descendants. He does not circumcise himself nor immerse. We accept this commitment and he is considered one of the pious gentiles. Why is he called a resident? Because we are permitted to allow him to dwell among us in the land of Israel, as explained in Hilchos Avodah Zarah.
Rambam’s Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah 14:8
We accept resident aliens only during the era when the Jubilee year is observed. In the present era, even if a gentile makes a commitment to observe the entire Torah with the exception of just one minor point, he is not accepted.
Rambam’s Hilchot Avodat Cochavim 10:6
‘The laws concerning the sale of property and support of the poor, et cetera, mentioned in this chapter apply only when the Jews are exiled amongst the nations, or when they are attacking the Jews, but when we are attacking them it is forbidden to have them in our midst. Concerning temporary residence or moving from one rented house to another; we may not allow a gentile into our land unless he has accepted upon himself the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah, for it is written, “They shall not dwell in your land”, even for a single hour. If a gentile accepted upon himself the Seven Commandments then he is classed as a settling stranger. Settling strangers are accepted only at a time when the Jubilee is observed, but a righteous stranger, i.e. a convert, is accepted at all times.’
dweller Said:
Have you?
What is your source for “Contracts mean nothing”?
You should try doing business with the Chinese and Russians.
Do you have any clue how many American business’s default on contracts especially when it comes to honoring contracted delivery schedules. I have lost many clients due to being screwed by American companies failure to meet contractual obligations and not a few times had to pay penalties due to their contractual failures to meet contracts terms.
One must assume that the Arabs in business are no worse than any other especially when every major vender in the world is doing business with them.
@ Robert_K:
Don Isaac’s take is most thought provoking.
A reasonable enough proposition under normal circumstances. Certainly it might be workable in much of the West, and in much of the Far East as well.
But what is the value of a ‘pledge’ among those who have routinely shown themselves to dishonor such things? Have you ever trying to do business in the Arab world?
— Contracts there are meaningless.
There would have to be some reliable (and broadly accepted) means of enforcing such a pledge.
A few months ago, I responded via email to Anne Schuit, a co-founder of Young Professional Research Initiative (“YPRI”). As of today, I have not received any response.
She and co-founder Maral Khajeh seek to “provide a platform for the many young professionals worldwide that are confronted with a gap between academic and professional life, and who experience difficulties with connecting to the work field of international law, international security and related areas.” Based on the attached article “EU Import of Products Originating from the Israeli Settlements on the West Bank” it appears to be a typical European anti-Israel group.
Below is a link to the article noted above and my email:
http://www.ypri.org/research/34-eu-import-of-products-originating-from-the-israeli-settlements-on-the-west-bank
To Anne Schuit,
I am shocked by your claim and what you deem as supporting evidence that the West Bank is territory
“Occupied” by Israel in your article titled “EU Import of Products Originating from the Israeli Settlements on
the West Bank.”
Based on international law, both the West Bank and Gaza legally are that of Israel.
What shocks me most is your use of Article 42 of the Hague (1907) Regulations and Geneva IV to justify your
claim. Without any formal legal experience, it is clear to me from a cursory reading of said Article that territory
is occupied when the territory of the Hostile State is actually placed under the authority of a Hostile Army.
While the text of Article 42 refers only to “territory” in a general sense, the heading of Section III under which
Article 42 appears – “Military Authority over Territory of the Hostile State” – makes it clear that the word
“territory” can only be a reference to the “territory of the hostile state,” of which there was none.
Neither has Israel violated Article 49 of Geneva IV, as all Israeli citizens in the West Bank are there
voluntarily. Further, this aspect of Geneva IV dealt with mass forced population transfer in the millions and has
no relevance in regard to the “West Bank,” to which there have been no forced population transfer(s) in either
direction. All settlement activity is voluntary.
Despite the above, Israel repossessed that territory in a defensive war in 1967. As such, it is not required by
international law, including UNSC Resolution 242 and the UN Charter itself, to return “territory” to any prior
High Contracting Party, of which there was none other than Israel.
For someone with your qualifications, such a careless interpretation of these treaties is unacceptable.
Continuing to keep a beggar attitude towards Arabs, US and EU is insane.
Begging for a permission to live in our own homeland is outrageous.
Removing portions of the Land of Israel is a sin.
“Indeed, judging from the manner in which various Israeli governments have surrendered Jewish land to the Palestinian Authority, it would seem that the Land of Israel belongs not to the people of Israel but to their rulers.” [Dr. Paul Eidelberg]
Arabs have nothing to do in the Land of Israel: sooner or later They Must Go.
If the Arabs are made to pledge loyalty to the Jewish State and do National Service, then they could stay. Otherwise, they must go. Even Hagar was given a chance to return to Abraham’s home, provided that she obey Sarah. Don Isaac Abravenel interprets the verse “He will be a wild-ass of man”(Genesis 16:12) meaning if Hagar leaves Abraham’s household, then Ishmael would be a wild-ass of man. But if she would return then “his hand would be in everything” – he would be successful in commerce, etc. This interpretation seems to parallel very well the current situation of the “Arab Spring” and the situation of the Arabs in Israel. The Arabs who cut off contacts with the Jews are wild-ass of men, while those who work with the Jews prosper.
@ NormanF:I agree. The last two paragraphs are not realistic.
I think Dayan is simply trying to make the point that Jews should have the right to stay in their homes and this is a prerequisite to peace.
Dani Dayan is being generous.
Given the Nazi attitude amongst the Arabs, I don’t see peace at hand any time soon.