Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

A very short essay on Zionism

An email correspondent pointed me to a document put out by the United Church of Canada ahead of their 41st Annual Council next month. The document is called "Report of the Working Group on Israeli/Palestine Policy."

A quick glance at the document shows that while it tries really hard to sound even-handed, it gets many basic facts of history wrong. It is also obviously heavily influenced by anti-Israel propaganda; for example it reproduces the infamously wrong map series the Israel haters use that I deconstructed here.

A friend asked me to respond to some of the "working group assumptions." There was plenty that is problematic about those assumptions, but fisking them all would take more time than I have, so I only responded to the first two sentences:

Israel came into existence following recognition of the horrors of the Holocaust. There was wide support throughout the world for the creation of a Jewish homeland.

The implication is that Israel's history begins in 1947.

My response:

Zionism the the movement for self-determination of the Jewish people.

That Jews are a people is beyond dispute. Jews have been considered a nation by the Jewish people themselves as well as by all of the other nations, whether those nations were friendly or not, since before the days of King David. In 1 Chronicles 17 the Bible itself asks rhetorically of G-d, "Who is like Your people Israel, a unique nation in the world?"

Even before the term Zionism was coined, Jews have been returning to their ancestral lands in the Land of Israel for many centuries. Sometimes individually, often in groups, Jews have risked their lives to return to their Land. Many of them, particularly the communities of Jerusalem and Hebron, essentially never left.

This return to Zion accelerated in the mid-18th century as Jews became more organized in their nationalism. Many Christians supported this movement as well, decades before Theodor Herzl or the First Zionist Congress.

A high point of this nationalist movement came in 1917, when Britain's Lord Balfour declared that the British government "favour[s] the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." In the following decades, the Jews of Palestine built up all of the institutions of a nation, from literally nothing.

All of this happened before the horrors of the Holocaust.

While the Holocaust may have provided an incentive for the nations of the world to understand why a Jewish state was necessary, it was not what created the state of Israel. Indeed, even the UN resolution that called for a second division of Palestine (the first one occurred when TransJordan, formerly Eastern Palestine, was partitioned from the lands on the western side of the Jordan) was not the legal basis for the state of Israel, as it was not legally binding and the Arab nations did not accept it.

Israel exists today both because of the two millennia longing for the Jewish people to return to Zion and because the Palestinian Jews managed to successfully resist a war of annihilation unleashed by every one of her Arab neighbors. The Jewish state was not created; it was reborn.

So it is very deceptive, and indeed insulting, to describe the beginnings of the State of Israel in terms of the slaughter of six million Jews, It began over three thousand years ago, and return to the land of Israel has been the focal point of every Jew for generation after generation.

The State of Israel is not a state built out of guilt or pity. It is a state built on centuries of dreams, thousands of lives and millions of tears.

CNN and NYT report on Israeli solar pioneer

Yosef Abramowitz has helped create the Middle East's first commercial solar power on an Israeli kibbutz.

The NYT covered this in April:

Arriving at this bone-dry kibbutz in the Arava Desert late one afternoon in August 2006, Yosef Abramowitz, a social activist, Jewish educator and multimedia entrepreneur from Boston, opened the door of his van and was hit by a wall of heat.

“The sun was setting, but it was still burning,” he said. “I remember the sensation.”

Later, unable to sleep, he rose about 5 a.m. and stepped outside as the sun was coming up over the mountains of Jordan. “It was so hot already,” he recalled. “I said to myself, ‘This whole place must work onsolar power.’ ”

Then he found out that was not true.

So Mr. Abramowitz, who had spent six months at Ketura in the early 1980s as part of a Young Judaea program, quickly abandoned his plans to spend a quiet family sabbatical with his wife and children in southern Israel. Instead, he went into partnership with Ed Hofland, a businessman from the kibbutz, and David Rosenblatt, an investor and strategist from New Jersey, to found theArava Power Company, now the leading commercial developer of solar power in Israel.

After more than five years of political and regulatory battles with the Israeli authorities, the company has transformed 20 acres of a sand-colored field on the edge of the communal farm. It now glistens with neat rows of photovoltaic panels from China — 18,600 in all — that harness the sun. There is no smoke, only a slight buzz in the spotless rooms where the panels’ current is turned into electricity that can be fed into the electrical grid. Small openings in the perimeter fence allow animals to cross the field.

Depending on the time of year and rate of energy consumption, this field provides power for as many as five communities.

Siemens, the German conglomerate, was brought in as a partner and invested $15 million, and its Israeli branch built the field. The Jewish National Fund, a century-old Zionist group most associated with planting trees in Israel, made an unusual strategic investment of $3 million in a twist on the early national ideal of trying to make the desert bloom.

In forging a path for commercial solar energy, Mr. Abramowitz said he endured regulatory battles involving two dozen agencies as big as the Israeli Agriculture Ministry and as small as the local planning agency on issues like zoning changes and renewable energy quotas.

Along the way, Mr. Abramowitz — who left the kibbutz for Jerusalem in 2009 but still visits often — became known in Ketura as Captain Sunshine. “He got his nickname, first, because of his sunny personality,” said Elaine Solowey, a member of the kibbutz, “and, second, because anyone who beats the government bureaucracy is a superhero.”

Monday links

From Ian:

IDF Blog: The Gaza You’ve Never Seen

PA TV: Suicide bombers who killed 19 civilians on buses are "more honored than all of us"
Suicide bombers are a "candle that lights the tunnel of liberty"

Who Is Being "Intransigent"? by Michael Curtis

“The Israeli cabinet also agreed that east Jerusalem would not be returned to Jordan, which had ruled it; that Egypt had no greater claim to Gaza than Israel has, and that Jordan had no greater claim to the West Bank than Israel has, as all three countries had acquired the areas through war.”
“The Israeli documents just released also show among Israeli leaders a startling readiness to compromise, which contrasts with the total disinclination of Arabs and Palestinians to compromise. The documents show clearly that, while there were acute differences among the Israelis about the fate of the territories captured in 1967, almost all Israelis were eager to trade land for peace.”

Guess Who's Helping Assad Get Away With Murder? by Claire Berlinski

Ever wonder why the world's so screwed up? It's because people like Mike Holtzman, who think it's a fine idea to advise clients like Bashar al Assad, are literally the ones running our government.

Syria: UN's Newest Champion of Human Rights by Arsen Ostrovsky

Syria is now running for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. The U.S. caved in to the demands of Syria's allies, who also abuse human rights.

An Anti Israel propagandist get owned by a Caterpillar Rep. on HuffPo!
Robert Naiman is Humiliated

“Well isn't that interesting. Caterpillar does not in fact sell bulldozers to the Israeli military, the US government is a middleman. No doubt this would annoy some people but the fact is that Caterpillar does not "do business" directly with Israel (though they do with the Palestinian Authority dictatorship).”

Palestine, Peoplehood and Presbyterians by David Singer

“The attempt by the Palestinian Arabs to create a second state – in addition to Jordan – reached the hallowed halls of the two million members of the Presbyterian Church in America this week…writes David Singer.”

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood leader: Israelis are rapists of Jerusalem

Israelis are "rapists" and it is a necessity for every Muslim to save Jerusalem from their clutches, Muhammad Badi is reported to have said last Thursday • Iran’s Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani: Time has come for the disappearance of the West and the Zionist regime.

Contradicting Abbas, Hamas says it still believes in ‘armed resistance’ against Israel

“Spokesman acknowledges deal with PA chief giving ‘precedence to popular resistance’ within the West Bank”

Thumbing a nose at BDS campaigns, London conference courts Israeli start-ups
EU, Israel sign joint research agreement

Also, an important story from JPost: German firms still ship dual-use goods to Iran

Germany’s multi-billion euro bilateral trade relationship with Iran continues unabated, even as evidence mounts that the Islamic Republic is determined to build a nuclear weapons capability.

The Jerusalem Post has obtained an uncensored list from late 2011, showing hundreds of German and Iranian enterprises in a flourishing trade relationship.

This is despite Iran’s construction of Fordow, a medium-level uranium enrichment facility buried into the side of a mountain near Qom, and the fact that the German equipment could be used to build more underground nuclear facilities.

And Rabbi Avi Shafran's funny Open Letter to Rahimi about that Zionist drug trade:

As it states clearly in Baba Maiseh 1b: “Any Jew who causes a non-Jew to become addicted to an illegal substance is praiseworthy! Adds Rabbi Narish, ‘he can deduct the expenses from his federal income tax.’ Say the Rabbis: Invest not in nursing homes but in rehab centers, so that thou may prosper.”

While our people in Mexico and Afghanistan have been busy harvesting coca and poppies, you, esteemed vice president, in your enlightenment and sobriety, have personally shunned all narcotics (though perhaps not psychedelic medicines); and the great Islamic Republic of Iran fights tirelessly against our efforts to addle the minds of the masses with our Jewish chemicals, kiddush clubs, and cholent.

Abbas refuses Israeli prisoner release, saying all or nothing

Everyone keeps saying that time is running out on chances for a Palestinian Arab state, but Abbas sure acts like time is on his side.

From Ma'an:

Palestinian Authority Prisoners Minister Issa Qaraqe said Monday that President Mahmoud Abbas refused an Israeli offer for the staged release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for returning to peace talks.

Abbas insists that all 123 prisoners held since before the 1994 Oslo agreement be freed in a single release, Qaraqe said.

Israeli daily Haaretz reported earlier Monday that Israel offered to release some 25 Palestinian prisoners convicted of the murder of Israelis, followed by another 100 prisoners by the end of the year.

Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu would authorize the gesture during or after a direct meeting with Abbas, not before, the report said.

Netanyahu's spokesman Ofer Gendelman denied the report of the prisoners offer.

Whether Netanyahu made the offer or not is besides the point. The point is that Abbas feels confident enough to tell his people that he refuses to allow some prisoners to be released unless his maximal demands are met up front.

And the cost to Abbas is nil - the talks would end like other talks ended, with Abbas refusing to negotiate and only agreeing to hold talks to make the West and the Quartet happy. But he would have lots of photo-ops with the released murderers that the PA will honor with parades.

Well, to be fair, his secular citizens might stone him to death for talking with Zionists. Abbas must find it most convenient that he can rely on a new "right wing" that he can now blame for his reticence to talk to Israel.

And there is no "left wing." No "moderates." No "peace activists."

Yet the West still expects a peace agreement.

Iran promises not to send athletes against Israelis in London. Will the IOC sanction them?

From YNet, June 14:

Refusing to compete against a fellow athlete at the London Games because of nationality or religion would be a "serious breach" of the Olympic code of ethics, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) said last week.

The IOC said athletes and teams should "stay at home" if they are not prepared to compete without discrimination.

"Refusing to participate in an Olympic event because of a fellow athlete/team’s religion or nationality, would not only be unsporting behavior but a serious breach of the IOC’s code of ethics, the principles of the Olympic Charter and the athletes oath," IOC spokeswoman Emmanuelle Moreau said in a statement.

Iran was criticized after some of its athletes withdrew from events against Israelis at the 2004 Athens and 2008 Beijing Olympics.

"If an athlete/team is unable to come to the games in spirit of friendship and fair play, then they should stay at home," Moreau said. "There can be no discrimination for any reason between participants at the Olympic Games."

The Guardian added:

[Head of the International Olympic Committee] Rogge said that all 200-plus nations that will be represented in London had been warned that only serious injury would be accepted as an excuse for not competing, and that sanctions would be taken against any athlete who pulled out of a competition for other reasons. Suspicious withdrawals will be examined by a panel of medical experts.

"We have just told all the national Olympic committees that we expect all the athletes to respect the schedule of competition and not to pull out without a good reason for competition against an athlete of another country," he told the Guardian.

"If nation A does not appear at the competition against nation B we will ask for explanations. If the explanation is not satisfactory and valid at the end of it and is not credible then we will go into cross-examination by an independent medical board. And if the medical board says it is not a genuine reason then sanctions will be taken. That is quite clear."

What about when Nation A announces in advance that it refuses to compete against Nation B? Is it then necessary to go through a farce of "medical tests"?

Because Iran announced exactly that:

Iranian athletes to boycott Zionists also in London Olympics

IRI sports minister said Iranian athletes will just as always refrain from competing against Zionist regime’s representatives if in drawing lots they would have to do so, as Iranians do not recognize legitimacy of forged Zionist regime.

Islamic Republic of Iran Sports and Youth Affairs Minister Mohammad Abbasi made the comment on the sideline of attending a practice session of the Iranian National Wrestling Teams in an interview with an IRNA Sports Desk reporter.

He added in response to IRNA, “Not competing with the Zionist athletes is one of the values and prides of the Iranian athletes and nation.”

On possibility of deprivation of the Iranian athletes from gaining their deserved medals if they would refrain from competing against Zionist regime representatives, he said, “God willing such a thing will not happen, but if it does we would definitely find a way to solve the problem.”

So has the IOC said anything since this direct promise to break IOC rules by Iran that was pledged over two weeks ago?

Not as far as I can tell.

Jordanian official calls Jewish refugees from Arab countries "fabrications"

Jordan's Addustour quotes Jordan's Director General of the Department of Palestinian Affairs, Eng Mahmoud Aqrabawi, about Israel.

He hurled the usual bizarre accusations of Israel "Judaizing" Jerusalem and denying its "historic Arab and Muslim character."

He also praised Jordan's historic role in preserving the holy places of Jerusalem, which is all well and good until you realize that Jordan destroyed scores of synagogues and a large part of the most important ancient Jewish cemetery in the 19 short years they administered the Old City and surrounding areas.

But he really went off the deep end when he said that Israel is "fabricating" the issue of "so-called Jewish refugees from Arab countries."

If no Jews were forced out of Arab countries in the 1940s through 1960s, I guess they must all have been indigenous to Israel, right?

American University of Beirut denies "Zionist agenda"

A couple of weeks ago, the American University of Beirut gave an honorary doctorate to Donna Shalala, former US Secretary of Health, and she was heckled during her address for being a "Zionist."

The criticism of the university continues, forcing the president of AUB to deny that terrible accusation that the university itself is - gasp! - Zionist.

From The Daily Star (Lebanon):

The president of the American University of Beirut has denied that the institution has a Zionist agenda after recent such accusations have been leveled at the school. In an email to AUB alumni, students and staff, Peter Dorman also defended the recent decision to award an honorary degree to Donna Shalala, an event which provoked the latest round of criticism, without naming her specifically.

However, he also stated that the university’s Board of Trustees has asked him to “review the process of vetting candidates for honorary degrees,” without elaborating.

The decision to honor Shalala, president of the University of Miami, was criticized before the June 22 ceremony in an open letter entitled, “Can AUB find only those Complicit with Zionism to Honor?” signed by faculty and staff members, due to her support for engagement with Israel. Shalala also has honorary degrees from three Israeli universities.

“This administration at AUB has no normalization or Zionist agenda of any kind. Those who make that claim or imply it are simply wrong on the facts,” Dorman writes in the email.

In his email, Dorman stressed that “AUB has always respected and complied with the laws of Lebanon, and always will, particularly the laws prohibiting the normalization of any kind of relations with Israel.”

With regard specifically to the Palestine Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel campaign, Dorman wrote that, “I defend the right of those who take such a position; it is a principled stance, and one that many feel passionate about.”

However, Dorman denied that this can be applied at a university level. “Yet institutional decisions cannot be subordinated to an absolute litmus test imposed by the demands of outside groups,” he added.

Had AUB joined the campaign, he wrote, the university would not have been able to honor writer Edward Said in 2003 due to his sponsorship of a Palestinian-Israeli youth orchestra.

Of being born in Lebanon, in 1948, the year the state of Israel was created, the AUB president wrote, “like so many of you, I have never lived in the world without the dreadful specter of Palestinian dispossession and an expanding Israeli settlement agenda, which are deeply immoral and ultimately, in my view, self-destructive.”

I don't know; his denial seems a bit too subtle for the haters. It will be interesting to see the response of the enlightened university faculty who were up in arms over an Arab American honoree who actually supports a two-state solution.

A shrine to the 1930's terrorist Izz al Din al-Qassam - in Haifa

A few months ago, Arabic media reported with their usual lack of accuracy that Israel demolished the grave of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, the Syrian-born 1930's terrorist whose name is used by Hamas for its terrorist wing and its terror rockets.

The articles claimed that the grave was destroyed to make way for a rail line.

That bogus story is forgotten now, but hundreds of volunteers from the Islamist movement in Israel have just refurbished Qassam's gravesite along with other Islamist sites around Haifa this weekend.

While it is admirable for Israel to give maximum rights to Muslim citizens of Israel, it is outrageous that the Islamist movement that explicitly seeks to destroy Israel is given free rein to build monuments to terror within Israel itself.

This grave should be properly moved to Gaza City. And those who object can feel free to move there as well.

Abbas eagerly accepts Ahmadinejad invitation

From Ma'an:

President Mahmoud Abbas has accepted an invitation from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to attend a summit of non-aligned countries in the Iranian capital next month, official Palestinian media said Sunday.

Abbas receiving invitation from Iran's FM in Amman

Iranian Foreign Ministry official Hussain Amir Abdullah Yan delivered the invitation to Abbas at a meeting in Amman on Sunday, PA news agency Wafa reported.

The non-aligned movement, which presents itself as independent of any world power bloc, is meeting in Tehran on August 30 and 31.

According to Wafa, Abbas sent his greetings to Ahmadinejad and pledged to attend the summit.

Iran also invited other nations to the summit - but most of them have not publicly accepted, let alone accepted immediately.

Iran invited Jordan at the same time, and while the Jordanian premier said that Jordan was interested in increasing ties with Tehran, the invitation has not yet been formally accepted as far as I can tell.

Iran also extended an invitation to Singapore, which reacted similarly to Jordan.

On Thursday, Tehran invited Egypt's new president Mohemmed Morsi to the conference, and he also has yet to accept.

Cambodia did accept their invitation. The Sultan of Brunei said that his country would participate, but did not say he would attend.

Notably, Iran did not invite Saudi Arabia.

YNet reports that the conference might not even take place because of animosity towards Iran:

The chances that this convention, scheduled for August 30th, will indeed take place is very low.

The Iranians are trying to convene it as the historic forum of the non-aligned states, yet too many states prefer not to align themselves with Iran. For example, there is a dispute between Iran and Gulf states about the very notion of holding the event in Tehran. Yet who rushes to announce that he is traveling? Abbas. Even if the convention is ultimately held, it is doubtful that heads of state will be arriving. There is a chance, if at all, that lower ranking officials will be coming. Yet the Palestinians are already sending their president.

With the very declaration that he will be traveling to the Tehran convention, which may not even be held, Abbas is not only providing ammunition to those who object to talks with the Palestinians; he manages to annoy every ally and body that helps and donates to the Palestinian Authority. The PA receives an economic backwind from Mideastern princes and kings who despise the Iranians and fear them. It enjoys American funds, infrastructure and sympathy, and of course, the support of the Quartet – which includes the Western European states at the heart of the sanctions against Iran. So why is Abbas doing it? Because he is very weak and frustrated.

Abbas' alacrity in accepting the invitation is in marked contrast with most of the non-aligned nations, and he is not making too many friends because of it.

Except in Tehran.

Rumor: PLO official calling to cut PA funding of Gaza

I have noted in the past that some 60% of the PA's budget goes towards Gaza - more than double the per capita spending in the West Bank -while Gaza is a separate entity in virtually every respect. I've also noted that if the PA has a financial crisis it is because it continues to fund infrastructure and idle workers in Gaza, helping Hamas indirectly.

Arabic news reports now say that an unidentified member of the PLO Executive Committee is saying the same thing.

According to the story, the official said that the PA should cut the salaries of its (nonworking) staff of the Gaza Strip and stop providing services. The official allegedly said that the Palestinian Authority funded the "Hamas coup" against it with more than $138 million a month which prolongs Hamas rule in Gaza.

Hamas demolishing homes of pre-1948 Arabs

Really!

The Gaza government on Sunday began the demolition of several homes in Gaza City, saying they are built on government land.

Abu Al-Abed Abu Omra, whose house is threatened with demolition, told Ma'an that police officers arrived late Saturday night and told residents to evacuate their homes in order to facilitate the demolition.

He said that there are more than 120 families living in the 15-dunams area under threat, near Gaza's Al-Azhar University, and they have been there since 1948.

Yes, Arabs who have lived in the same homes for at least 64 years are being threatened with expulsion and their homes destroyed.

These aren't "refugees" - these are "pre-1948" Palestinians whose homes are being demolished by Hamas.

This is too rich.

Will they now be considered "refugees"? Will UNRWA provide aid for them? Will the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions weigh in on this horror, calling it "racist"? Are they being demolished by Caterpillar bulldozers? If a neo-Rachel Corrie would stand in front of a bulldozer, would it stop? Where is the ISM, anyway? Is anyone protesting outside Hamas offices abroad? What about the internationals in Gaza now with the latest Miles of Smiles trip? Does this mean that Hamas recognizes Ottoman and British land laws as far as private ownership goes?

So much irony in such a small news story...

(h/t Arnold)

Fourth Geneva Conventions, Article 49 - the Travaux Préparatoires

There has been much discussion about the intent of the sixth paragraph of the Fourth Geneva Conventions which many claim proves that Israel has violated by allowing citizens to move, voluntarily, to occupied territory.

The entire text of Article 49 states:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

The only way to determine whether the last paragraph is referring to forced transfers or to voluntary transfers as well is to read the entire discussion about the article that occurred while the Conventions were being drafted - the Travaux Préparatoires.

These aren't easy to find, but here it every reference to the discussions about the article I could gather.

The draft of the Conventions, written at Stockholm, is a little different, and it was called Article 45 in the draft. While the final paragraph remains identical, the discussions around the entire article must be read.

The Stockholm draft of Article 45 stated:

ARTICLE 45. -Deportations or transfers against their will of protected persons out of occupied territory are prohibited, whether such deportations or transfers are individual or collective, and regardless of their motive.

The occupying Power shall not undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area, unless the security of the population or imperative military consi- derations demand. Such evacuations may not involve displacements outside the bounds of the occupied territory, except in cases of physical necessity.

The occupying Power shall not carry out such transfers and evacuations unless it has ensured proper accommodation to receive the protected persons. Such removals shall be effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, healthfulness, security and nutrition. Members of the same family shall not be separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any proposed transfers and evacuations. It may supervise the preparations and the conditions in which such operations are carried out.

The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civil population into the territory it occupies.

Here are the Travaux Préparatoires.

I think they make clear that the entire Article is concerned with forced transfer of populations against their wills, and the last paragraph is no exception, even though there was remarkably little discussion specifically about that last paragraph.

From the 16th meeting:

The CHAIRMAN said that four amendments had been submitted to Article 45, viz. by Canada, Greece, Finland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (see Annex No. 270).

The Canadian Delegation had withdrawn its amendment.

The Greek amendment was to delete the words "against their will" in the first paragraph.

The Finnish amendment only concerned a drafting point, which the Finnish Delegation felt needed no explanation.

Mr. MOROSOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that the purpose of the Soviet amendment was merely to define certain points in the Stockholm text, with which his Delegation fully agreed. The insertion of the words "by force" would ensure a formal prohibition of the deplorable practices carried out by certain European countries, where men had been loaded into trucks like cattle, and sent to distant countries to do forced labour.

The Soviet Delegation further proposed deletion of the words "against their will", because in occupied territory no one had the right to express an opinion. There was a risk of abuses arising out of the words "against their will".

It would also be advisable to lay down in the second paragraph that an evacuated population should be transferred back as soon as hostilities ceased in a given area. The Soviet Delegation's view was that it should not be possible to transfer civilians except within occupied territory. It would therefore be desirable to strengthen the prohibition in the first paragraph by adding the words "into the territory of the occupying Power or the territory of any other country" after the words "out of occupied territory".

His Delegation wished mass evacuations to be prevented in future. For those reasons it would perhaps be preferable to say "forcible removals" rather than "deportations by force" as first proposed by the Soviet Delegation.

Mr. SLAMET (Netherlands) agreed with the principles underlying Article 45. In Indonesia, during the last war, numbers of women and children had been transferred to unhealthy climates and forced to build roads, and had died as a result. He would like to see it made clear in the first paragraph that the territory referred to was the national territory inhabited by the protected persons.

Moreover, the third paragraph should also lay down that such persons might provide themselves with money for their journey, and carry with them their luggage and personal effects; the occupying Power would have to provide the necessary means of transport for the transfer or evacuation of such persons and their property.

Mr. MARESCA (Italy) said that in the last war the flower of Italian youth had been sent to Germany in cattle trucks. Such forced transfers must at all events be prohibited in the future. The term "deportation" in the last paragraph of the Article had better not be used, as "deportation" was something quite different.

Mr. CLATTENBURG (United States of America) had read the Soviet amendment with interest. He felt, however, that the words "except in cases of physical necessity" which that amendment wished to delete might be of value in the interest of protected persons. He quoted the case of part of the population of the little island of Wake who had been transferred to Japan. In spite of the bad treatment inflicted, nearly all had survived, whereas the inhabitants left on the island had died as a result either of the fighting or of the brutality of the Japanese field forces.

The CHAIRMAN, before declaring the discussion on Article 45 closed, noted that the Committee was unanimous in condemnation of the abominable practice of deportation. The sole purpose of every speaker had been to strengthen the interdictory provisions of the Article. He suggested that deportations should, in the same way as the taking of hostages, be solemnly prohibited in the Preamble.

He added that only three amendments had been submitted to Articles 46 to 55, two by the Canadian Delegation on Articles 47 and 54, and one by the Finnish Delegation on Article 49. The Canadian and Finnish Delegations had· no comments to offer on their amendments, which only concerned drafting points.

From the 40th meeting:

Colonel Du PASQUIER (Switzerland), Rapporteur, said that the text proposed by the Drafting Committee (see Annex No. 271) set forth a principle on which all the members of that Committee had had no difficulty in agreeing, namely, the need to prohibit, once and for all, the abominable transfers of population which had taken place during the last war. The procedure for giving effect to that prohibition had, however, been difficult to determine.

In the first paragraph, as the result of a proposal by the Soviet Delegation (see Summary Record at the Sixteenth Meeting), the words "against their will", which occurred in the Stockholm text, had been omitted. The Drafting Committee had considered that they were valueless in view of the pressure which could be brought to bear on internees. The words "to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not", took account of a Soviet amendment (see Summary Record ot the Sixteenth Meeting), and of a Netherlands amendment. The reservation contained in the second paragraph ("Nevertheless...") took account of a suggestion made by the Delegate of Finland (see Summary Record of the Sixteenth Meeting).

A United Kingdom amendment to the third paragraph, which involved the insertion of the words "to the greatest practicable extent" after the word "ensure", had been rejected by 3 votes to 3. The fourth paragraph took into account the impossibility of the Protecting Power being informed in advance of any transfers and' evacuations (in the light of the necessity for secrecy in regard to military operations). The new fifth paragraph included part of the subject matter dealt with in Article 24 of the Stockholm text (see Summary Record at the Twenty-Ninth Meeting).

The sixth paragraph was identical with the fifth paragraph of the Stockholm text.

Mr. PASHKOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) wished the Article to prohibit not only forced transfers but also the transfer of workers in the service of belligerents. It would be sufficient for that purpose to add the words "any other transfer" in the first paragraph after the words "as well as". The Soviet Delegation was prepared provisionally to accept the words "les transferts forces, en masse ou individuels" (individual or mass forced transfers) in the French text, in place of the phrase "rapts ou transferts" which they had proposed; but in the English text they wished the words "forcible removals" to be included in the wording adopted. Again, they maintained their proposal to omit the words "except in cases of physical necessity" from the second paragraph. Finally, his Delegation objected to the provision, in the fifth paragraph, under which protected persons could be detained in dangerous areas. He proposed a return to the wording used in Article 24 of the Stockholm text.

Mr. CLATTENBURG (United States of America) believed that the addition (suggested by the Soviet Delegation) of the words "any other transfer" would have hampered the evacuation of the religious and political minorities which the Allies, on entering Germany; had discovered in labour and concentration camps. As regards the proposed suppression of the words "except in cases of physical necessity", there were cases where, owing to the limited size of the territory, it was physically impossible to evacuate the population otherwise than to places outside the occupied territory. That was the case, for example, in the islands of Wake and Guam, where the whole of the territory could be considered as dangerous.

Mr. BAGGE (Denmark) said that the fifth paragraph had arisen out of a proposal by the Danish Delegation which wished to avoid a repetition of the disastrous consequences of the mass flight of civilians on roads exposed to bombardment. He hoped that the Committee would adopt the Article as it stood.

Mr. DAY (United Kingdom) proposed an alternative wording for the third paragraph. The proposed wording which had been agreed to by a minority of the Drafting Committee (Canada, United States of America, United Kingdom), read as follows:

"The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest possible extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, security and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated."

The above wording provided, everything considered, a better safeguard for the population of towns menaced with destruction. If accommodation had to be provided in advance for the population of such towns, it was almost certain that the evacuation would never take place.

Mr. MOROSOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) felt that the amendment proposed by his Delegation had not been fully understood by the Delegate of the United States of America. If it was desired to avoid mass transfers of the population, such as had taken place during the last war, the Soviet amendment should be supported.

Mr. WERSHOF (Canada), like the Delegate of the United States of America, opposed the Soviet amendment for the insertion of the words "any other transfer" in the first paragraph. Such an addition might interfere with the liberation of workers or deportees.

The CHAIRMAN declared the discussion closed and put the amendments to Article 45 to the vote.

The Soviet amendment for the insertion of the words "any other transfer" after the words "as well as" in the first paragraph, was rejected by 22 votes to 7.

The Soviet amendment proposing the omission of the words "except in cases of physical necessity" in the second paragraph, ,vas rejected by 16 votes to 9.

The wording proposed for the third' paragraph by the minority of the Drafting Committee (Canada, United States of America, United Kingdom), was rejected by 14 votes to 13.

The Soviet amendment proposing that the fifth paragraph should be replaced by the Stockholm text of Article 24, was rejected by IS votes to 1O. The subsidiary amendment submitted by the Soviet Union Delegation, proposing the omission of the words "unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand" at the end of the fifth paragraph, was rejected by 17 votes to 9.

The whole of Article 45, as proposed by the Drafting Committee, was adopted.

From the final report summarizing the proceedings:

Article 45
Although there was general unanimity in condemning such deportations as took place during the recent war, the phrase at the beginning of Article 45 caused some trouble in view of the difficulty in reconciling exactly the ideas expressed with the various terms in French, English and Russian. In the end the Committee have decided on a wording which prohibits individual or mass forcible removals as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to any other country, but which permits voluntary transfers. [I know this is not the same paragraph, but still...]

The second paragraph deals with the problem of evacuations made necessary in the interest of the security of the civilian population, or for imperative military considerations. In principle, these evacuations take place only within an occupied territory which distinguishes them from the transfers envisaged in the first paragraph. Never~ theless, when it is physically impossible to retain evacuees in such territory, for example, if the latter is an island of limited size, they may be evacuated to another territory. This special case constitutes an exception to the first paragraph. A new provision has been added to the effect that persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased. ..

The third paragraph is unchanged from the Stockholm text, although considerable doubt has been expressed as to whether the wording employed is in the best interest of the protected persons concerned.

The fourth paragraph has been altered because discussion showed that for reasons of military security it was impossible to inform the Protecting Power in advance of proposed transfers and evacuations; the Committee, therefore, confined itself to imposing on the Occupying Power the obligation to lodge the necessary information as soon as the transfer or evacuation had taken place.

The fifth paragraph derives from Article 24: the latter provided that no protected person could be sent to, or retained in areas which are particularly exposed. Discussion showed that the problem was more complex than it seemed at first sight; in fact, it could happen-and it frequently did happen during the war-that the population of a district, believing their homes threatened, might leave them so as to escape the danger. Such persons, however, are often more exposed to danger on the roads or in the battle zone than if they stay at home. It is also necessary to take into account, in addition to the principle of freedom of movement, the restrictions demanded by the security of the population or imperative military considerations such as the need to keep the roads open. A qualification to this effect has been included in the paragraph.

Finally, the sixth paragraph consists of the fifth paragraph of the Stockholm text.

All of the discussions of that article assumed that the entire article dealt only with forced population transfer. The final paragraph would be very out of place if it alone included voluntary transfer on the part of a population, after five paragraphs that are clearly about forced transfers, deportations and evacuations all actively done by the occupying power.