Jewish Settlements are legal according to International Law

[humus_sapiens]

Makes sense to me, especially the last paragraph.

On the Question of the Legality of the Jewish Civilian Communities In the Disputed Areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza
Yisrael Medad

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/settlementslaw.html

Within the context of international law, attention must be focused on the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The text of the Declaration, it should be emphasized, was coordinated with the United States (the Palestine Royal Commission Report of 1937, p. 22, notes that it had been approved by U.S. President W. Wilson prior to its publication). Indeed, the Inquiry Commission established by President Wilson affirmed “that Palestine should become a Jewish State” and that “Palestine...was the cradle and home of their vital race”, a succinct statement of the essence of the principle of self-determination.

That Declaration, issued by the British Government and later to serve as the basis for the League of Nations Mandate approved in 1922, refers on the one hand to “a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine” while on the other, refers to “non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.

The distinction is not coincidental.

National and historical rights are recognized clearly in the context of the Jewish people only, whereas the opposing parallel, that the land in question ‘belonged to an Arab people’ as Arabs claim, was not mentioned and purposefully ignored. What was included in the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate were a nebulous phrase relating to the “civil and religious rights” of non-specified “non-Jewish communities”, without reference to Arabs at all.

Furthermore, the aforementioned Mandate text acknowledges that “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country”. In Article 6, the administration apparatus of the Mandate, a temporary form of government, was charged with facilitating and encouraging “close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and wastelands not required for public purposes”.

It is worthy to note that the United States House of Representatives and the Senate adopted resolutions supporting the Mandate, on June 30, 1922 and May
3, 1922 respectively. President W. Harding signed a proclamation on September 21, 1922 that stated that “the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People...and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected”. These acts reinforced the position fully understood that the rights accruing a national grouping belonged solely to the Jewish people and that non-Jewish elements could claim but protection for singular and individual buildings and sites.

What cannot be ignored is the historical connection of the Jewish people to this Land. The continuous presence of Jews in their homeland over many centuries under Jewish independent rule (tribal federation and monarchy) and centuries of foreign rule is itself a proof of right and legality. This presence included, indeed primarily so, the areas known as Judea, Samaria and Gaza. This presence was maintained despite destruction of political sovereignty, conditions of exile, oppression and persecution by the Babylonian, Greek-Syrian, Roman, Persian, Arab and Ottoman Empires. Despite the early favorable attitude of the British Empire, the pursuance of the internationally recognized goals of the Mandate necessitated acts of national liberation akin to those of the American Colonies in 1777, as well as other countries such as India, Ireland and African nations. This struggle for freedom forced Great Britain to turn to the United Nations in 1947.

The resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 29, 1947 and accepted by the governing institutions of the Jewish People is to be seen as the fountainhead of the recognition of Israel as an Independent State possessing sovereignty. In rejecting that resolution and in declaring war on the nascent state of Israel, the Arab communities and neighboring states severed all legal connection to claims they did or would, in the future, make. In a sense, that rejection of the compromise proposal of partition revived the full and inalienable rights of Jews to all the territories included in the Mandate. These territories include Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

As a result of armed acts of aggressions, the Jordanian entity subsequently conquered portions of the Palestine Mandate and Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip district. The non-Jewish communities of the areas of Judea and Samaria, never having expressed themselves in criteria of nationhood and geo-political sovereignty previously, never established a state on this territory following the 1947 Resolution and, in fact, requested, at the Second Palestine Arab Conference convened in Jericho on December 1, 1948, that these territories be enjoined to the Hashemite Kingdom. Indeed, a resolution of unification was signed into Jordanian law on April 24, 1950, which purported to transfer to the Hashemite Monarchy sovereign rights to those areas of Western Palestine not under Israeli control following the 1948-49 War of Independence. That law negated the terms of international law, and, in any case, was only recognized by Great Britain and Pakistan.

In the matter of General Assembly Resolution 242, we refer you to the testimony of Eugene V. Rostow who participated in the negotiations of that Resolution. For example, in The New Republic issue of October 21, 1991, page 14, Mr. Rostow treats the issue of illegality. He makes it plain that Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria is indeed legal, and that the Jewish right of settlement west of the Jordan River is “unassailable”.

We now briefly address another point. The status of the areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (YESHA) can in no way be conceived as being governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention for the simple reason that they are not occupied territories as defined in this document. Paragraph (6) of Article 49 of the said Fourth Geneva Convention is irrelevant to the question at hand in that Article 2 stipulates that the territory under issue must belong to a High Contracting Party. This is not the case, as the territory under discussion did not belong to any such Party. Furthermore, the drafting history of Article 49 was directed against the practices of the Nazi regime in forcibly transporting populations. It would border on the ridiculous to claim that Article 49 (6) which was fixed so as to prevent a return of heinous Nazi practices of Judenrein should now be understood as meaning that Judea, Samaria and Gaza (YESHA) must become empty of Jews.

Moreover, the Convention does not and could not prohibit the establishment of communities, towns or other civilian centers. Even government economic incentives cannot be considered as “mass deportation” or “transfer”. Over 90 percent of the communities populated by Jews are located on state land, not land privately owned by Arabs. Indeed, some of the communities are built on land that was either owned by Jews prior to 1967 or purchased afterwards. One last point. The basis for an Arab claim to Palestine, formulated by the PLO which represents itself as the legal vehicle for that claim, is the Palestinian National Covenant. This document can only be described as racist and invalid on humanitarian grounds and unacceptable in international law. In fact, a Palestinian identity has always been a tactical move by Arabs who always viewed themselves as belonging to a greater Arab nation as in the case of the request of the General Syrian Congress on July 2, 1919 “that there should be no separation of the southern part of Lebanon [that is, the Palestine territory] from the Syrian country”, a position repeated ever since as, for example, by Yasser Arafat when he declared over the Voice of Palestine on November 18, 1978 that “Palestine is southern Syria and Syria is northern Palestine”.

In an interview with Matt Lauer on NBC’s The Today Show on October 1, 1997, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright related to building in Yesha and said: “I wasn't happy…I felt that going forward with those kinds of buildings was not helpful. Mr. Lauer pressed her and stated: “ It's legal. “, and Albright admitted: “It's legal.”

The need for this legal commentary stems from the fact that Arabs aligned with the PLO have announced that Jewish communities established in the territories of YESHA are a priori “terrorist” in nature and are a form of “aggression”. Having thus defined Jewish civilian in this way, Arabs make the claim that they are defending themselves and are justified in using all means at their disposal including shooting, bombing and stabbing such as has been used in this latest wave of violence. We reject such an approach as immoral, illegal and reminiscent of war crimes of the recent past.

[Kapiti]

humus_sapiens - Your comments are of great interest to me. I will happily declare my hand that I do not agree with you but would like to learn more about what you believe.

Will you discuss this further with me ?

I am happy for you to ask me any "hard" questions but want that right also myself. Sort of being subject to cross-examination in court. That sort of thing.

In particular I think hypothetical questions can make things enlightening.

I will begin with the first one.

You say " The resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 29, 1947 and accepted by the governing institutions of the Jewish People is to be seen as the fountainhead of the recognition of Israel as an Independent State possessing sovereignty. In rejecting that resolution and in declaring war on the nascent state of Israel, the Arab communities and neighboring states severed all legal connection to claims they did or would, in the future, make. In a sense, that rejection of the compromise proposal of partition revived the full and inalienable rights of Jews to all the territories included in the Mandate. These territories include Judea, Samaria and Gaza."

If the Arabs had accepted the land proportioned to them by the United Nations and lived in peace since that time, is it your view that Israel would not have had any "legal" claim to the land given to them by the UN. This is my first question.

I hope you will enter into this debate with me, in the right spirit. I also will approach it with an open mind.

Thankyou.

[Communication]

Hi Kapiti,

May I enter the debate?

As to your question, had the Arabs accepted the partition plan and thus declaration by the UN General Assembly of both an independent Israel and and independent Palestine, there would have been international recognition of the two states, with legal validity stemming from the historical rights of both peoples, having had a continuous presence in the land for many generations as well as the allocation of the land by the controlling power, Great Britain. UN General Assembly Resolutions, by themselves, are not binding on international law. This is why many of the Arab states that are UN members to this day do not recognize Israel's right to exist, even though Israel itself is a UN member and recognized by every other nation on the planet.

[Kapiti]

Communication.

Yes sure but since humus_sapiens started it all I would be happier if he got involved also.

In any event your answer is Yes that given my scenario (of Pallestinian acceptance of the 1948 UN split up and peace since that time) then present Israel would have had no valid legal claim to the land described now as the West Bank and Gaza.

I think your agreement to this point is logical and makes perfect sense. I am not sure how anyone would argue other wise but if there is an argument that given my scenario as quoted above I would be happy to hear it.

If I can show (or at least argue) that indeed nothing since 1948 has caused the Pallestinians of the WB and G to lose their rights to the land then what happened before 1948 becomes irrelevant. (at least for the purposes of this discussion) That is the Balfour Declaration, the argument of continous presence etc is over-riden by the authority of the UN (or Britian which gave the UN the authority).

Does anyone dispute this.

[Mediocrates]

Accepting the original plan one assumes would be predicate to actually forming their own state. So it's moot. If they had formed their own state these are the only possible scenarios:


-Nothing happens, the sheep lies down with the lion.
-Two independent countries go to 'war' anyway
-Three continued non-war brush wars a-la terrorism


I'm sceptical of the first option. It's possible but unlikely. Monkeys might fly out of my ass, too.

I discount the second option because Jordan never really posed a threat to the eastern flank of Israel other than to draw resources away from the bigger fronts. Since most of Yesha is really Jordan it's unlikely that a free Palestine would present much of a real organized military threat in the conventional sense.

So I'm left with option number three. Which is much like what we see today except the logistical complexities of the border are different. Instead of protecting Jewish suburbs the Army would be protecting a continuous front. This also assumes that with the Golan the Syrian army would present a constant threat to the safety of Israel. It also assumes that the smaller geography of Israel would present an open invitation to Egypt to maintain constant aggression.

[Communication]

I thought that this thread was only about legal fictions. If you want to talk about reality, population growth alone will kill peace at some point in the future.

[Communication]

But then what can we do? Israel should have forced Egypt to take back Gaza and Jordan to take back parts of the Judea/Summaria.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Communication
I thought that this thread was only about legal fictions. If you want to talk about reality, population growth alone will kill peace at some point in the future.

Point is, if such and such had been 'legally accepted' then the realities on the ground would be somewhat different but not by a great deal.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by Kapiti

Yes sure but since humus_sapiens started it all I would be happier if he got involved also.


Sorry I was away. I tend to agree with Comm and Medio (even when they disagree :p). Did I make you happier? :)

Even _if_ you would have been able to prove that the Arabs (NOTE the Jews of Palestine were called Palestinians then) have accepted the UN partition plan of 1947, it does not negate the _fact_ that the Arabs have started the War of 1948 with the goal to annihilate Israel and finish Hitler's job. BTW, their goals haven't changed.


If I can show (or at least argue) that indeed nothing since 1948 has caused the Pallestinians of the WB and G to lose their rights to the land then what happened before 1948 becomes irrelevant.

Cute! "Let's forget the 4000 year history ever happened". If you can revive the victims of terror, I might consider it.


I do not agree with you but...

Exactly where?

Isn't it time to stop calling Jewish communities of YESHA "illegal settlements" just because they are Jewish?

[Kapiti]

Since you started this, yes I am happier you are involved.

This clearly is going to be a very sensitive and emotional issue for you which you feel very strongly about. I think if an analysis is going to achieve anything it should be a slow process so that mis understandings are avoided. If my reference to what happened to the region before 1948 as irrelevant offended you then please accept my apologies. I was not trying to be offensive and I did try and qualify my remarks.

Homus_sapiens I am not sure you have answered the question.

Easier if I repeat it :

If the Arabs had accepted the land proportioned to them by the United Nations and lived in peace since that time, is it your view that Israel would not have had any "legal" claim to the land given to them by the UN.

If Israel would still have had a valid claim to parts of the WB and G given my assumption how would it have been based.

Thanks.

[Communication]

Even though I already gave my answer, I'll just add that had that happened, you probably would have still had a war in order to transfer populations between the two newly created nations (similar to Greece/Turkey). Many of today's settlers are people who moved to Jewish areas destroyed in the 48 war and before. So, assuming that those communities hadn'r been destroyed, they would have ended up in Palestinian territory.

[humus_sapiens]

Kapiti, your hyper-politeness is disarming.


Originally posted by Kapiti

This clearly is going to be a very sensitive and emotional issue for you which you feel very strongly about. I think if an analysis is going to achieve anything it should be a slow process so that mis understandings are avoided.

Sounds like a shrink. Is this some kind of 12-step program?



Homus_sapiens I am not sure you have answered the question.

Easier if I repeat it :

If the Arabs had accepted the land proportioned to them by the United Nations and lived in peace since that time, is it your view that Israel would not have had any "legal" claim to the land given to them by the UN.

Sorry I was unclear. If... , then yes, I think. Both the Q & A are hypothetical, and history cannot be undone. BTW, the focus on the territories is Muslim/Arab POV. Look at the map of the ME. It is not about territories at all.

BTW, you haven't answered to any of my Q's.

[Kapiti]

Humus_sapiens

Your comments "Both the Q & A are hypothetical, and history cannot be undone." are well and truly noted. There are many who would not get involved because the questions are totally hypothetical. I appreciate you have given me an answer.

You say I have not answered your questions. Can you ask it again and I will be as explicit as you have been.

My argument will be that if Palestine has done nothing since 1948 to give up good legal title to the whole land then it must still reside with them. Clearly you will say they have done plenty but I think it is a consaquence of your earlier answer that if they had not, or I can show they have not in international law, (what ever that means) then legal title still resides in the palestinians and the Israeli settlements are indeed illegal.

But first put again any questions I have not answered.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by Kapiti
You say I have not answered your questions. Can you ask it again and I will be as explicit as you have been.

Sure! You said you disagree with the article but have not specified where.

Do you agree this conflict is not about territories?


My argument will be that if Palestine has done nothing since 1948 to give up good legal title to the whole land then it must still reside with them.

IMHO, the problem is much deeper and older. It is socio-cultural. From the beginning, (early Zionists, 1880s), the Jews have not intended to fight the Arabs. They bought the land, not conqured or colonized it. They hired the Arabs, thereby giving them additional income, opportunities, markets and technologies. The Arab leaders saw it as a threat for themselves. The internal Arab conflict between the rich effendis living abroad and the poor peasants renting the land only added oil to the fire. Of course, Jews, Ottomans, British made some mistakes too.

But IMHO, the Arabs' inability to coexist in peace, make concessions and compromises is the main cause of the conflict. What do you think?

Please don't make a big deal out of my answer.

[Kapiti]

I did not read the article but rather only your commentary. This was what I was expressing disagreement with.

Do I agree the conflict is not about territories. These days I think it is largely about the territories. In the past certainly it was not. Time has changed things. To begin with the Pallestinians and the other Arabs just wanted to drive the Israelis into the sea. I am sure many still do. These days I suspect most Pallestinians probably want to get rid of Israel.

Your question is too general and involved for me to really go into but the above is a simple answer.

"But IMHO, the Arabs' inability to coexist in peace, make concessions and compromises is the main cause of the conflict. What do you think " Firstly excuse my ignorance but what does IMHO mean ? Secondly I think you are half right. I think the Arab's and the Israeli's inability to co-exist in peace, make REASONABLE concessions and compromises is the main cause of the conflit.

These are my answers. They are too short by far because your questions are of a very general and all encompassing nature. If I give them (and my own views) their just deserts then this thread would go to a tangent not related to the settlement legality issue. Can we leave this do a different thread.

In the first message of this thread it was said " In rejecting that resolution and in declaring war on the nascent state of Israel, the Arab communities and neighboring states severed all legal connection to claims they did or would, in the future, make. In a sense, that rejection of the compromise proposal of partition revived the full and inalienable rights of Jews to all the territories included in the Mandate. These territories include Judea, Samaria and Gaza"

Can you explain to me how failing to accept the UN land split in 1948 meant that they gave up justifiable title to the land they were living in.

To my mind the Arabs/Pallestinians did not say "We do not accept the land split so we want no land here at all including the land we are now living on"

Rather they said "We do not accept the land split because we want not only our existing land (as given to us) but also the land given to the new state of Israel."

If the former interpretation is to be relied on can you show me some evidence because the first interpretation does not make sense.

[Communication]

Morally and practically, the land must be divided in some reaonable manner because regardless of what happened pre-48, people are being born there every day and neither the Jews or the Arabs being born there know of any other homeland. Yes, Jews have historically lived in communities throughout the territories and they continue to be born there, but some of the Arabs living in the territories have a historical connection to the land inside Israel. Seeing as how the two groups have two competing nationalist aspirations, they will have to compromise, with Jews giving up some of their historical rights and Arabs giving up some of their historical rights.

Technically, that land has passed through the control of many successive governments/empires. The Jews were forced out of that land to begin with. So does the passage of time invalidate a people's claim to the land? Maybe. One could argue that as long as other nations provide citizenship to the refugee, whether it be Jew or Arab, that they no longer have a historic right to the land. Such is the case for any other people who have been expelled through war (and it has happened to just about every people on the face of the planet). The Palestinians are unique because with few exceptions (Jordan being the only newly formed Arab state), they were not allowed citizenship anywhere else.

Do the 48 Palestinians or the 48 Jews who lived in communities in the territories, who are still alive...have a greater claim versus the decendents of those people? International law says "Yes." A right of return can not be inherited. But this is a whole other debate involving the right of return, which I would be happy to address in a seperate post or thread.

The land passed from Ottoman control to British control when the British conquered the region, resulting in the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Under Ottoman rule, there were no territorial distinctions between Jordan, Syria, and what later came to be known as Palestine. The British put Palestine on their maps. You won't find it on Ottoman maps. The British promised the land to both peoples, and they actually gave the Jews much more land under the Balfour Declaration than what was allocated to them by the UN. But the British eventually threw up their hands, not knowing what to do about the situation they helped create, and so it went to the UN. The Arabs rejected it and then Jordan and Egypt took control. After the 67 war, Egypt and Jordan ceded their right to the land. SInce there was never an independent country called "Palestine," Israel had two legal options at that point. They could either incorporate the land into Israel, giving the inhabitants of the land Israeli citizenship, or they could give the land to the inhabitants to create their own state. Israel actually tried to do the latter, offering the PLO the land after the 67 war in exchange for peace, but the PLO refused it, instead continuing with their stated agenda of not recognizing Israel's right to exist in any part of the region.

Now, here's where the argument about the legality of the settlments comes in:

International law is very clear that you cannot forceably transfer the existing population from their land during a time of war. But the law states nothing about moving people into an area where there is no recognized government. The PLO wasn't recognized as an official quasi-governmental agency until Oslo, and many of the early settlers were either reclaiming Jewish land lost during the 48 war or being put into place for security reasons. There was nothing illegal about settlements from 67 up until Oslo.

As for settlments after Oslo, you have to look to what was agreed upon by both parties. It's not what most people think. Setting aside the fact that Arafat did in fact break every provision outlining his obligations under the Oslo agreement, Oslo actually provided "natural growth for existing settlements" and left the final status of those settlements, Jerusalem, and all boundaries to be decided by a final agreement after the intial stages of the Oslo agreement were carried out. Of course those benchmarks in the initial provisions were never met, but the parties continued with the Oslo agreement anyway, met at Camp David to negotiate a final settlement, couldn't agree on anything and now here we are.

So, there are some settlements that are not illegal, and some that are. Those settlements that existed prior to Oslo, or are part of "natural growth" (a hot topic of its own) are not illegal. Those settlements that are newly constructed are illegal.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by Kapiti
I did not read the article but rather only your commentary. This was what I was expressing disagreement with.


My comment was one line: "Makes sense to me, especially the last paragraph."
So, you disagreed with it without reading the article? Hmm, interesting.

The article is still at:
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/settlementslaw.html


Do I agree the conflict is not about territories. These days I think it is largely about the territories. In the past certainly it was not. Time has changed things. To begin with the Pallestinians and the other Arabs just wanted to drive the Israelis into the sea. I am sure many still do. These days I suspect most Pallestinians probably want to get rid of Israel.


Why don't you explain what has changed from "the past" to "these days"? It seems you want to make me believe some things have changed to the positive? Please back up your argument with facts.

Meanwhile, the Three No's of Khartoum are still in force. The Arab "education" of hatred, the trade and political boycotts, the Nazi-like Big Lie propaganda, the child sacrifices have only increased. The only thing that's changed is the Arabs finally realized they cannot defeat Israel in an open war, so they launch guerilla wars, attrition wars, and despicable terror attacks.


"But IMHO, the Arabs' inability to coexist in peace, make concessions and compromises is the main cause of the conflict. What do you think " Firstly excuse my ignorance but what does IMHO mean ?


In my humble/honest opinion


Secondly I think you are half right. I think the Arab's and the Israeli's inability to co-exist in peace, make REASONABLE concessions and compromises is the main cause of the conflit.


1. Thanks for giving me 50% credit. But IMHO you are only half right.

2. The only "reasonable" concession the Arabs want Israel to make is to dismantle Israel. You want proof? Look at any map by PLO, FATAH, HAMAS, etc. No Israel there, only Falastin from the river to the sea. 81% Pales support Intifada (mass murder of Israeli civilians). The Temple Mount is shut down to the Jews. The Joseph's Tomb is desecrated and destroyed. The "refugee camps" that's 55 years old are full of poor people who are kept in misery with the sole purpose: to have them as pawns for attacking Israel. Nowhere else in the wolrd you can find refugees in the 3rd generation! So I wonder, what compromises have the Arabs made?

3. Israel made every possible compromises when met with a partner committed to peace. For example, Sinai (a war-won territory, rich with resources, strategically located and even bigger than Israel proper) was given away to Egypt for peace. If this is not a concession, then what is?


To my mind the Arabs/Pallestinians did not say "We do not accept the land split so we want no land here at all including the land we are now living on"

Rather they said "We do not accept the land split because we want not only our existing land (as given to us) but also the land given to the new state of Israel."

If the former interpretation is to be relied on can you show me some evidence because the first interpretation does not make sense.

Let's imagine, I attempt to grab your property and still want to keep all mine in any case? On this planet, by starting an aggression, I risk being punished and lose some of my property or freedoms as a result. So I'll think twice.

[Kapiti]

humus_sapiens : This thread was started by you and had a subject matter being the legality of the settlements.

I do not understand why you seem so interested in baiting me and leading off into discussions about various important but side issues which are not directly relevant to the issue of legality of the settlements.

I said before and repeat that I am happy to answer any questions on the subject of the legality of the settlements, but it appears that you lack the focus (or maybe interest) to apply yourself to this single issue.

There are plenty of threads which deal with all the other issues which you want to bring up. Maybe I will deal with one of those some other time but most of what you say is not relevant to the issue of settlement legality.

I still don't know what IMHO means ?


Communication - It appears it is back to you. Humus_sapiens has lost the plot a bit but your comments are interesting.

Right of Return - Interesting comments you make. I suspect we will find it easier to agree on this one. In the settlement that I would envisage I would see either minimal or no right of return. You are right however this is best left to another thread.

Your paragraph starting "The land passed from Ottoman control...." is very interesting. You say " The Arabs rejected it and then Jordan and Egypt took control. After the 67 war, Egypt and Jordan ceded their right to the land."

The Arabs you refer to were the people we are calling the Palestinians. If in 1948 the Pallestinians did not want to have control imposed on them by Jordan and Egypt then these two countries as illegal occupiers would have had no right to cede the right to the land. Also what do you mean cede the right to the land. I thougth the Egyptians and Jordanians got beaten up in the 1967 war and simply lost it as a spoil of battle so to speak.

Can you explain why you think the word "cede" is appropriate as "cede" certainly has an element of volontary decision which I had thought was lacking.

You also say "International law is very clear that you cannot forceably transfer the existing population from their land during a time of war. But the law states nothing about moving people into an area where there is no recognized government." If there is no Government and no people I agree that it makes sense that anyone should be able to move to that land. However if International law says that you cannot forcibly transfer people from their land I am not sure why the existance of a Government rather than the existance of the people themselves would be more important. Also, where is the international law defined as you make reference to it ?

Your comments about Oslo and there after I think I largely do not disagree with. For your reference I think that for reasonable reasons of security temporary settlements as part of an over all peace plan and peace timetable are entirely reasonable.

Enough for now.

[Communication]

Ok, this is going to be a long one:


Originally posted by Kapiti
The Arabs you refer to were the people we are calling the Palestinians. If in 1948 the Palestinians did not want to have control imposed on them by Jordan and Egypt then these two countries as illegal occupiers would have had no right to cede the right to the land. Also what do you mean cede the right to the land. I thought the Egyptians and Jordanians got beaten up in the 1967 war and simply lost it as a spoil of battle so to speak.

Can you explain why you think the word "cede" is appropriate as "cede" certainly has an element of voluntary decision which I had thought was lacking.

Under Ottoman rule, there was no separation of "Palestine" from the surrounding area. It was one huge land mass. In fact, when the Arabs rejected the partition plan, they did so saying that the area the British referred to under the Mandate as "Palestine" was part of Syria and could not be divided. Moreover, during the Ottoman period, when someone talked about "Palestinians," they were referring to the Jews. Thus, no separate notion of "Palestinian" identity until well after the 48 war and no separate Palestinian administration. All of the countries in that region are modern fictions imposed on them by Britain and France for the most part, and later by the UN.

Whether Jordan, Egypt or had Syria (as was originally argued) taken control over the area is then not as important as what Jordan and Egypt did with the population at that time. Egypt never gave the people in Gaza citizenship when they controlled the area. So you could argue that the indigenous population there never gave up their right to self-determination because the Egyptians didn’t give them the option of Egyptian citizenship. Jordan, however, did allow Palestinians to become citizens of Jordan and they are the only Arab country that provided that option to them. Jordan’s population contains some 70% Palestinians, all whom were given citizenship in the Hashemite Kingdom under Jordan's 1949 Law No. 56. As an interesting side point, many of the “Palestinians” living in East Jerusalem are not ethnic Palestinians in the way that we refer to them these days. The Hashemite Kingdom transferred their own native Jordanian population into East Jerusalem following the 48 war and their capture of the area. You could argue the other way, however, since most of the Arab world rejected Jordanian control over the area. But then, most of the Arab world also refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist, even though Israel itself is a UN member.

So when it comes to the former “West Bank” of Jordan, my argument about Jordan having ceded their right to the land after Jordan and Israel made peace subsequent to the 67 war applies. Although Israel won the war, they later transferred large portion of land to the Egyptians (Sinai) and Jordanians (Transjordan) under land for peace agreements, with the two Arab states abandoning their claim to the land in the deal. In my opinion, Israel should have forced Egypt to take back Gaza and Jordan to take back most of the West Bank (keeping those areas that are strategic for security purposes only) when Israel signed their peace agreements. In not taking back those areas, however, it provided the people living there with the opportunity to assert an independent claim to the land for themselves. This is why many Jews complain that the notion of a separate “Palestinian” identity didn’t really come into existence until after the 67 war.


[i]You also say "International law is very clear that you cannot forcibly transfer the existing population from their land during a time of war. But the law states nothing about moving people into an area where there is no recognized government." If there is no Government and no people I agree that it makes sense that anyone should be able to move to that land. However if International law says that you cannot forcibly transfer people from their land I am not sure why the existence of a Government rather than the existence of the people themselves would be more important. Also, where is the international law defined as you make reference to it?
[/B]

I’ll have to dig for the information about settlement of civilian population in disputed land. The fact that there was never a sovereign Palestinian state before means that the territory is still disputed, which was acknowledged by both the Palestinians and Israelis in the Oslo Accords as well as Resolution 242, which calls for only an undefined withdrawal from a portion of the land and only to the extent required by “secure and recognized boundaries.” What does “secure boundaries” mean?

Since it is disputed land, there is nothing that can prevent voluntary movement of civilian population into the area, especially when there is a historic claim by Jews that is equal to the historic claims of the Palestinians there. You just can’t force any of the people now living there out. Just as you say that the war didn’t distinguish the historic rights to the land by Palestinians, it also doesn’t distinguish the historic rights of the Jewish people who for the most part lived in Judea and Samaria for the past 400-1500 years, not Tel Aviv.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by Kapiti
humus_sapiens : This thread was started by you and had a subject matter being the legality of the settlements.

I do not understand why you seem so interested in baiting me and leading off into discussions about various important but side issues which are not directly relevant to the issue of legality of the settlements.

The settlements don't exist in the vacuum, but rather in the historical, legal, territorial context. You are attempting to pursue here your own out-of-reality, out-of-context "idee fixe", without even reading the original article.


I still don't know what IMHO means?

It's an acronym.
IMHO = In My Humble Opinion.
http://kb.indiana.edu/data/adkc.html

[Kapiti]

Communication- Thankyou.

What you say is very interesting and in parts enlightening.

What information do you have about what the inhabitants of the WB and G did during the 48 to 67 period as far as the pursuit of their own independance is concerned. Surely this is as relevant if not more relevant than what the occupying governments were doing and saying.

Swap the positions.

The USA invaded Israel in 1948 to protect it/maintain an interest in the region but then later in 1967 after being beaten in a local ME war gives up Israel to the Saudi Arabians to guarantee access to oil.

Apart from being mighty pissed off are you suggesting that Israel would simply have to accept this even though the intention had been to give Israel independance in 1948 ?

It does not seem a fair result.

Not much more to say just now but am thinking.

[elke]

Kapiti, while hypotheticals may be useful at times to illustrate a specific concept, they are not a good way to understand complex situations, since the whole purpose of them is to simplify the issue.

The situation in MidEast in particular, due to the historical and political complexity, does not lend itself to good analysis based on hypotheticals: it is simply too convoluted.

[Communication]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Communication- Thankyou.

What you say is very interesting and in parts enlightening.

What information do you have about what the inhabitants of the WB and G did during the 48 to 67 period as far as the pursuit of their own independance is concerned. Surely this is as relevant if not more relevant than what the occupying governments were doing and saying.

Well, many Palestinians pledged their loyalty to Jordan's Kingdom and live there today. But, the Arabs were worried from the beginning that citizenship in Jordan would extinguish their claim of a right to return, so there was always an element of the Palestinian population that did not want to accept Jordanian citizenship. Yassir Arafat, who curiously was born in Egypt, not Palestine, created his Fatah organization based in Jordan to fight Israel using guerilla style tactics. He wound up creating what has been referred to as a "state within a state" inside Jordan, and fighting between the Fatah forces (later the PLO) and the Jordanian government became a contest for the political control over the country. The same thing happened again in Lebanon, after Jordan kicked Arafat and the PLO out of the country. Arafat set up a state within a state terror network there, leading to a whole host of problems in Lebanon as well.



Swap the positions.

The USA invaded Israel in 1948 to protect it/maintain an interest in the region but then later in 1967 after being beaten in a local ME war gives up Israel to the Saudi Arabians to guarantee access to oil.

Apart from being mighty pissed off are you suggesting that Israel would simply have to accept this even though the intention had been to give Israel independance in 1948 ?

It does not seem a fair result.

Not much more to say just now but am thinking. [/B]

well..unlike Palestinians and Jordanians, Jews and Muslims are two different religious and ethnic groups. Jews living as dhimmis in the Ottoman Empire is no longer acceptable as a political reality in the modern world.

Look at the situation with the Kurds. They want the right to self determination too. But they are a genuine ethnic group. Even though they share a common religion with their neighbors, their differences are historical and cultural, not simply political. The Arab people are one people. All of the modern nations (Israel included) are political fictions that were imposed through colonial domination. See my post on Arab nationalism, below.*

So I don't see the hypothetical as being that similar. That being said, over the past 50+ years, the people living in the occupied territories have been pissed on by everyone, Jew, European, American, and Arab. Out of all this strife, they have at least for the time being, come to view themselves a seperate and distinct people. So who am I living in the US in 2003 to tell them any different? Also, when it comes right down to it, the people known as Palestinians live there right now. Since Israel doesn't want to grant them citizenship, then they need their own state.

[Communication]

What the West hasn't been able to see for almost 100 years is that what the Arab/Muslim world want is unity. Whether through Baathism, Nasserism, Islam the Arab street is rejecting the false nation states imposed upon them along with the illegitimate leaders in their eyes. This is the biggest grievance they all have. What Saddam, Qadaffi et al., have all been doing is focusing on Israel/Palestine and the West to keep their disgruntled masses in place and satisfy the need for Arab unity without threatening the nation state structure and their power basis. The big conclusion here is that war against the West and Israel is ironically the big stabilizing force of the illigitimate leaders of the Arab world.

Historically, the social structure of Arab societies has either been at the supernational level or the subnational level. At the supernational level is the "Ummah" -- the Arab nation and Islam as the unifying religion. At the subnational level are the family, the clan ("hamoula") and sometimes the city. The Arab nations are a Western invention that have no basis in Arab history. Lawrence of Arabia expressed surprise at the fact that very few of those known by the West as "Syrians" refer to themselves that way. Rather they refer to the two structures -- supernational and subnational and a person from Aleppo for example would see him/herself no more related to a person in Demascus than a person in Baghdad. The Sunni/Shiite division is much more real than the nation state and Shiites for example feel closely alligned with each other and less so with others who share their nation state.

The Sykes-Picot agreement and the carving up of the Middle East is the number 1 grievance of the Arab people. As many Middle East experts have observed the forces driving for unity in the Arab world have dominated since the Sykes-Picot agreement. The Arab leaders who gain their power from a condition that is deemed illegitimate by the people are strongly motivated to rally the people behind them and satidfy the desire for Arab unity without threatening the nation-state structure. Israel and the West satisfy this very well. The American "discovery" that the Saudis are financing the Wahhabi Sheiks that incite against the US is a perfect example. The Saudis essentially pay these religious leaders to vent the anger and frustration away from them to an outside source so their own position remains unthreatened.

Israel is a very good target to rally the Arab people and it is no coincidence that the "El Aqsa" riots erupted right before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 91 and right after Arafat payed Saddam a visit. By doing so Saddam could portray himself as both the leader of the Arab people and the defender of Muslim holy sites.

As long as Israel serves as a primary method of venting the anger of the Arab street away from the Arab leaders there will not be peace. That does not mean they don't want American pressure on Israel -- they certainly do. When the flames in the territories are too high it threatens their stability as well. A good example of that are the Egyptian attempts to cool hings down between Israel and the Palestinians every time there is a big eruption -- it threatens the stability of Egypt as well.

For peace to even be a remote possibility the Arabs need to get what they have been struggling for for years -- Arab unity. Ironically, both Israel and the Arabs are worried about this possibility. If Arab unity is achieved the Arabs will immediatly lose ground regarding Palestine. It is one thing to be a "people" struggling for independence and another thing to be one part of a great nation with much land and resources that just wants more. For Israel the idea of An Arab nation is appealing for this reason, but threatening because the divisions in the Arab world have weakend it's ability to confront Israel. This would really take us back to the famous Faisal-Weitzmann agreement that if it had materialized would have saved us a lot of agony over the years.

See: http://www.atrueword.com/index.php/...cleview/18/1/2/

It's a Muslim based piece that is very biased, but look through that to the substance.

The idea that all Arab countries should become one country follows Arab history. The image of Saladin uniting the Arabs and liberating them from the infidels is a strong part of Arab nationalism. When the Muslim brotherhood was created in Egypt in 1921 it's goal was pan-Arab unity under the wings of Islam. In the 60's you had Nasser in Egypt on the one hand and Said of of Iraq on the other. They both vowed to unite the Arabs under one leadership except America alligned itself with Said and the USSR with Nasser and unity was obstructed. The Baath party that rules both in Syria and in Iraq is based on the idea of Arab unification -- that is the essence of their ideology. The rift between the Baath parties of both countries is very much the result of a conflict of who should rule the Arab world Assad or Saddam. The desire for unity is a major force in the Arab world. I am not even saying that all should become one country, but that at some point in time all WILL become one country. It's only a matter of time.

[Kapiti]

ELKE - What a cop out. The biggest problem with any discussion in this forum is that it does get too convoluted and too much seems to go no where or over old stuff. Often deteriating into name calling.

Hypthotheticals can be very enlightening because the do simply to focus on single issues.

If you are brave enough answer my swapped position hypthothetical. Put one to me if you like.

Communication - I think your piece on the Arab Nationalism is off the point but very interesting all the same.

" For Israel the idea of An Arab nation is appealing for this reason, but threatening because the divisions in the Arab world have weakend it's ability to confront Israel. " Not sure what you mean by this ? How is the weakening of the Arab wold because of past divisions not actually appealing to Israel. I would have thought that a united Arab world would be a greater threat to Israel.

Sorry family duties call me away. More later.

[elke]

Kapiti, treating complicated issues by simplification, which is what you are suggesting, is akin to treating heart disease in the population by open heart surgery only. If the issue is complicated, you cannot simplify it and expect to solve it through that. That's not a "copout", it's reality. In fact, this simplification is precisely what has been hounding the MidEast conflict, among many other societal and political problems.

It's not the matter of "bravery" to take a hypothetical example, devoid of any standing in reality, and trying to figure out "what would happen if": it's pure fantasy. US has never acted in the manner you describe in that last hypothetical, and there is no indication that it would act this way. US could have held onto large chunks of Germany, Japan, continue with the Phillippines, and in more recent years, - Iraq. Instead, Germany is now independent, as is Japan and Phillippines, and a second war has erupted in Iraq because the job was not completed last time.

But even if we were to take Russia, which has indeed acted in this kind of manner, the hypothetical would still not make any sense in today's conflict - as today's conflict wouldn't be there in its current form. What I am trying to say is that the hypotheticals are a form of "alternate history": interesting to speculate, but ultimately not very useful in order to understand what is currently happening.

Communication's "dissertation" on the subject of Arab culture is more than interesting, it's very much to the topic, as it is part and parcel of what is happening. It is not the only underlying reason for this conflict, but it is certainly one of the major ones.

[Kapiti]

ELKE - Again you disappoint me. Maybe you are not copping out. I cannot say for certain. What I can say is that there is a legitimate question which you are refusing to answer.

If it makes you feel any better : Yes , Yes, Yes Of course the hypthothetical is a complete fantasy. I know America has never acted in the way I suggested but that it not at all the point.

You seem very sensitive on this one. ???????????

Elke - If you don't like the way this thread is going, you really don't need to come back. You seem to be contributing criticism of this process of examination and discussion rather than making any worthwhile contribution of substance. Pity.

I would love to hear your answer to my last hypthothetical question.

COMMUNICATION

Arab Nationalism - Inspite of Elke's comments I don't see great relevance. I certainly see that there have been various Arab leaders recently with the dream of being a pan-Arabic leader. Saddam fits into this category. I don't think that Israel is a big enough threat to them to unite them and for my money I don't think that there will be one Arab country in the forseeable future.

Getting back to a more original point.

You said " well..unlike Palestinians and Jordanians, Jews and Muslims are two different religious and ethnic groups. Jews living as dhimmis in the Ottoman Empire is no longer acceptable as a political reality in the modern world. " I don't know what you mean. I accept both statements but don't follow the relevance.

I also accept what you say that " The Arab people are one people"

If the inhabitants of the WB and Gaza resisted intergration within Jordan and Egypt I think that you can certainly argue that Jordan and Egypt did not have the right to make treaty decisions with a country considered by the people, (the subject of the treaty) to be their enemy. I agree the Arab borders are all colonial markers and probably only that but don't see that this changes anything.

"Also, when it comes right down to it, the people known as Palestinians live there right now. Since Israel doesn't want to grant them citizenship, then they need their own state" I am sure that in the end most (but not all) people accept this even from the very far right. The issue is where to draw the borders.

[Communication]

Originally posted by Kapiti

Communication - I think your piece on the Arab Nationalism is off the point but very interesting all the same.

" For Israel the idea of An Arab nation is appealing for this reason, but threatening because the divisions in the Arab world have weakend it's ability to confront Israel. " Not sure what you mean by this ? How is the weakening of the Arab wold because of past divisions not actually appealing to Israel. I would have thought that a united Arab world would be a greater threat to Israel.

Sorry family duties call me away. More later.

The weakening is appealing because Israel isn't forced to confront one unified Arab world. Israel was able to negotiate treaties with two of it's closest neighbors, so even though they are surrounded, they have less of a chance of being attacked by at least two of its neighbors. But a unified Arab world would have been appealing, because then, you wouldn't have a Palestinian refugee problem and the world would view the situation as it had prior to 67, with Israel being perceived as the underdog.

[Communication]

Originally posted by Kapiti

COMMUNICATION

Arab Nationalism - Inspite of Elke's comments I don't see great relevance. I certainly see that there have been various Arab leaders recently with the dream of being a pan-Arabic leader. Saddam fits into this category. I don't think that Israel is a big enough threat to them to unite them and for my money I don't think that there will be one Arab country in the forseeable future.


We were talking about origins of the conflict, the creation of the modern ME states and what ifs...

Did you read the link on the Feisal-Weizman treaty?

Here is the treaty, and then I'll state the relevance:

Agreement between Emir Feisal and Dr. Weizmann

3 January 1919

His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their natural aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following:

Articles:

Article I
The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in the respective territories.

Article II
Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.

Article III
In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine, all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government’s Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917.

Article IV
All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.

Article V
No regulation or law shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further, the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Article VI
The Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control.

Article VII
The Zionist Organization proposes to send to Palestine a Commission of experts to make a survey of the economic possibilities of the country, and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will place the aforementioned Commission at the disposal of the Arab State for the purpose of a survey of the economic possibilities of the Arab State and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will use its best efforts to assist the Arab State in providing the means for developing the natural resources and economic possibilities thereof.

Article VIII
The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony on all matters embraced herein before the Peace Congress.

Article IX
Any matters of dispute which may arise between the contracting parties hall be referred to the British Government for arbitration.


Given under our hand at London, England, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen
Chaim Weizmann Feisal Ibn-Hussein


Reservation by the Emir Feisal
If the Arabs are established as I have asked in my manifesto of 4 January, addressed to the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I will carry out what is written in this agreement. If changes are made, I cannot be answerable for failing to carry out this agreement.

[Communication]

I bolded Feisal's reservations, because the British didn't follow through with their promises to either the Arabs or the Jews. Instead of handing over the former Ottoman territory to the Arabs, the British and French carved the place up and the present dictators were placed into power by the colonial powers.

All of this is instrumental in understanding the conflict. If you want to deal with the fictions of the ME and what ifs, then you have to understand how the modern ME ame into existence, what the original goals of the two sides were, and what people want today.

[Communication]

Originally posted by Kapiti




You said " well..unlike Palestinians and Jordanians, Jews and Muslims are two different religious and ethnic groups. Jews living as dhimmis in the Ottoman Empire is no longer acceptable as a political reality in the modern world. " I don't know what you mean. I accept both statements but don't follow the relevance.

Esentially, what I am saying is that European style nationalism infected both the Jewsh and Arab people. Just as you have the Kurds fighting for self-determination today, the Jews of the ME would also want the right to self-determination, irrespective of the influx of European Jewry. It's no longer acceptable to Jews to live as second class citizens.


[I also accept what you say that " The Arab people are one people"

If the inhabitants of the WB and Gaza resisted intergration within Jordan and Egypt I think that you can certainly argue that Jordan and Egypt did not have the right to make treaty decisions with a country considered by the people, (the subject of the treaty) to be their enemy. I agree the Arab borders are all colonial markers and probably only that but don't see that this changes anything.

[/B]

As I mentioned before, the problem with the PLO was that they wanted to control the political environment in Jordan. They competed for control of Jordan with the Hashemite Kingdom, which lead to Black September, and them being expelled from the country. The PLO wasn't rejecting Jordanian citizenship, they were rejecting the fiction of Jordan. They created their state within a state for the purposes of stages their attacks against Israel with the goal of having one united "Palestinian" country, which included both Palestine and Jordan. So it's not that they resisted integration in Jordan because the majority of the Jordanian population was and still is "Palestinian." The 1967 war dramatically changed the political situation in the ME and so political strategies were modified. But many question whether Arafat's ultimate goals ever really did change, or whether he just changed his methods for achieving them through incremental acquisitions of additional land and demographic shifts.

[l_prior]

This conflict has nothing whatsoever with the settlements. Where were the settlements through 1920's-1940's when the arabs where going nuts. 1948 war of independance where were the settlements in 1967? this is about any excuse to attach jews in ME.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by l_prior
This conflict has nothing whatsoever with the settlements. Where were the settlements through 1920's-1940's when the arabs where going nuts. 1948 war of independance where were the settlements in 1967? this is about any excuse to attach jews in ME.

Good point, and thanks Communication for continuing enlightenment!

I'm afraid, Kapiti doesn't like anything that doesn't play into his little fanciful hypothesis.

Still wondering if the questions here will be granted a favor of reply: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=47362#post47362

Or should we assume, case closed? So much for honest discussion...

[Kapiti]

l_prior - You are missing the obvious. Prior to 1948 the settlements the Arabs were going nuts about were where-ever the Jews were. In 1967 the "settlements" were Israel.

No question the great majority of the Palestinians / Arabs wanted to push Israel into the Sea.

Times change and people's attitudes can become more accepting.

humus_sapiens - Sorry but I actually have a life. It involves periods when I do not have access to the internet. Is this hard for you to understand.

Repeat any relevant questions and I will answer them. Please try and make them relevant to your original topic because you seem to have a real problem with focus.

Communication - I have had a re-read of this and accept most of what you say. I don't have time to take it further at the moment but I am still failing to see the direct relevance of much of what you say. It is not that I disagree with what you are saying (in large part). I need to spend some more time to explain but now is not it. I fear I am missing your point.

Esentially, what I am saying is that European style nationalism infected both the Jewsh and Arab people. Just as you have the Kurds fighting for self-determination today, the Jews of the ME would also want the right to self-determination, irrespective of the influx of European Jewry. It's no longer acceptable to Jews to live as second class citizens

I accept all this.

Let me review it some more.