Thursday, December 10, 2009

  • Thursday, December 10, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
Charles Ettinson notes a wrongheaded initiative by the Israeli Finance Minister to ban importing Arabic books from enemy Arab states like Syria and Lebanon.
Opposing this bill seems nothing less than discriminatory and unjustified. Here is a large, linguistic and ethnic minority who want books in their own language. Provisions exist to ensure that hate materials don't make it into the country, what's the problem? ...

Books are vehicles for culture, for knowledge and for understanding. Preventing their import because they come from the wrong side of a line, punishes a minority who should be allowed to read in their first language, but also means that the culture (including Jewish-Israeli culture) and exchange that could normally have taken place in a mutually beneficial way, is being held up.

In addition to the reasons he states, it is wrong simply because Israel wouldn't want these same states to ban Israeli items, even though they do.

(I will not use this post, criticizing an Israeli minister, to claim that I am now "even-handed" :-)
  • Thursday, December 10, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
Another 15 cases of swine flu have been announced in Gaza, with one more death.

Israel has announced that it will send an additional 30-40,000 vaccines to Gaza.

Despite the panic, Hamas is still hell-bent to have a huge rally to commemorate its anniversary, a move being strongly criticized. (Other organizations have cancelled their own events because of the flu.)
  • Thursday, December 10, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
Tony Judt again finds a venue for his longstanding view that Israel should be destroyed and replaced with a "bi-national state," this time in the Financial Times. He uses Shlomo Sand's book that attempts to deny the existence of a Jewish nation as a springboard.

Judt has argued the same things before Sand's book, and it is curious why such a stupid idea is still respected enough to be published. His similar 2003 essay in the New York Review of Books gets into more detail about how such a state would work - it would require an international police force to stop Arabs from killing Jews! ("The security of Jews and Arabs alike would need to be guaranteed by international force.") Yeah, a state that requires outside help to police its own citizens is really viable! His idea is apparently to return to the good old days in the 1930s when the British were forced to deal with an Arab intifada and "intrafada" that killed hundreds of Arabs as well as many Jews - and British as well.

Critiques of the 2003 article can be seen here, and the comments section of FT has plenty of other interesting criticisms, pointing out that Judt seems to hate only one particular type of nationalism enough to want to eradicate it even though his arguments would pretty much demolish every nation state if applied equally.

The Sand connection is tenuous. I'm not going to go into the details of Sand's sensationalistic and bizarre book here (a good critique can be seen here, and my main question to him would be whether the phrase " מי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ " predates the nineteenth century) but Judt doesn't even use Sand effectively to help his argument, saying that somehow if all the Jews of Israel weren't exiled in the first century CE ... Israel shouldn't have been created. There are a lot of unwritten assumptions in that ellipsis.

Briefly, Sand points out that many, or most, Jews did not leave Israel immediately after the Roman conquest. This is well known. After all, the Jerusalem Talmud was written inside the borders of the Land of Israel centuries after the destruction of the Temple. Judt bizarrely seems to be claiming that if the Jews weren't forcibly expelled, then they have no right to want to return. He might want to glance at the lyrics to Hatikvah to gain a more sophisticated, nuanced and accurate view of the point of Jewish nationalism:
Our hope will not be lost,
The hope of two thousand years,
To be a free nation in our land,
The land of Zion and Jerusalem.
The operative word is חופשי, free.

(The reference to Jerusalem must really drive him crazy.)

There's plenty more to criticize with Judt, but one more point to ponder: if Jewish nationalism, an unbroken idea that spans millennia, is a myth, how real is Palestinian Arab nationalism?
  • Thursday, December 10, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
The Long Island Jewish Star, which serves a modern Orthodox community, wades into the blogosphere's turmoil over Little Green Football's public break with the right-wing. I generally stay away from these issues, but I imagine that many "9/11 Republicans" are equally uncomfortable with some of the rhetoric that is coming out of the American Right nowadays, and the hypocrisy from people who were rightly upset at the Left's demonization of Bush while they happily encourage the exact same kind of disrespect for a sitting American president. Both sides tend to be hijacked by extremists when not in power. (Don't expect me to dwell on this topic.)

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

  • Wednesday, December 09, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
Melanie Philips reproduces a remarkable speech given by historian Andrew Roberts, going over the history of British-Zionist relations and showing how the British Foreign Office, even worse than the US State Department, has always tilted towards the Arabs. Here are some highlights:
One area of policy over which the FO has traditionally held great sway is in the question of Royal Visits. It is no therefore coincidence that although HMQ has made over 250 official overseas visits to 129 different countries during her reign, neither she nor one single member of the British royal family has ever been to Israel on an official visit. Even though Prince Philip’s mother, Princess Alice of Greece, who was recognized as "Righteous Among the Nations" for sheltering a Jewish family in her Athens home during the Holocaust, was buried on the Mount of Olives, the Duke of Edinburgh was not allowed by the FO to visit her grave until 1994, and then only on a private visit.

"Official visits are organized and taken on the advice of the Foreign and Commonwealth office," a press officer for the royal family explained when Prince Edward visited Israel recently privately - and a spokesman for the Foreign Office replied that [quote] ‘Israel is not unique" in not having received an official royal visit, because [quote] ‘Many countries have not had an official visit.’ That might be true for Burkino Faso and Chad, but the FO has somehow managed to find the time over the years to send the Queen on State visits to Libya, Iran, Sudan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan & Turkey. So it can’t have been that she wasn’t in the area.

Perhaps Her Majesty hasn’t been on the throne long enough, at 57 years, for the Foreign Office to get round to allowing her to visit one of the only democracies in the Middle East. At least she could be certain of a warm welcome in Israel, unlike in Morocco where she was kept waiting by the King for three hours in 90 degree heat, or at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Uganda the time before last, where they hadn’t even finished building her hotel.

The true reason of course, is that the Foreign Office has a ban on official Royal visits to Israel, which is even more powerful for its being unwritten and unacknowledged. As an act of delegitimization of Israel, this effective boycott is quite as serious as other similar acts, such as the academic boycott, and is the direct fault of the FO Arabists. Which brings us on to Mr Oliver Miles.

One of the reasons I’m proud to be an historian is that there are scholars of the integrity and erudition of Prof Sir Martin Gilbert and Prof Sir Lawrence Freedman who also write history. If people as intelligent, wise and incorruptible as they choose to be historians, then it must be an honourable profession. Let me quote to you, therefore, word-for-word, what a former British Ambassador to Libya and Greece, Mr Oliver Miles, wrote in The Independent newspaper less than a fortnight ago, commenting on the composition of the present Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War:

‘Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism. Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream British and American media. … All five members have outstanding reputations and records, but it is a pity that, if and when the inquiry is accused of a whitewash, such handy ammunition will be available. Membership should not only be balanced; it should be seen to be balanced.’

Ladies and gentlemen, if that’s the way that FO Arabists are prepared to express themselves in public, can you imagine the way that they refer to such people as Professors Gilbert and Freedman in private? For the balance that Mr Miles is talking about here is clearly a racial balance, that only a certain quota of Jews should have been allowed on to the Inquiry.

Of course there’s a reason why ‘Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream media’, of course, and that is because it is a disgraceful and disgusting concept even to notice the racial background of such distinguished public servants, and one that wouldn’t have even occurred to most people had not Mr Miles made such a point of it.

Because there are 22 ambassadors to Arab countries, and only one to Israel, it is perhaps natural that the FO should tend to be more pro-Arab than pro-Israeli. [There is] an FO assumption that Britain’s relations with Israel ought constantly to be subordinated to her relations with other Middle Eastern states, especially the oil-rich ones, however badly those states behave in terms of human rights abuses, the persecution of Christians, the oppression of women, medieval practices of punishment, and so on.

It seems to me that there is an implicit racism going on here. Jews are expected to behave better, goes the FO thinking, because they are like us. Arabs must not be chastised because they are not. So in warfare, we constantly expect Israel to behave far better than her neighbours, and chastise her quite hypocritically when occasionally under the exigencies of national struggle, she cannot. The problem crosses political parties today, just as it always has. William Hague called for Israel to adopt a proportionate response in its struggle with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2007, as though proportionate responses ever won any victories against fascists. In the Second World War, the Luftwaffe killed 50,000 Britons in the Blitz, and the Allied response was to kill 600,000 Germans – twelve times the number and hardly a proportionate response, but one that contributed mightily to victory. Who are we therefore to lecture the Israelis on how proportionate their responses should be?

Read the whole thing.

  • Wednesday, December 09, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
From Ma'an:
Two tons of plastic nylon bought from Israeli settlements were confiscated by customs officers in coordination with the Palestinian police on Wednesday in Salfit.

Abdul Hamid Mezhar, head of the customs department at the Ministry of Economy, said that products manufactured on illegal Israeli settlements threatened Palestinian traders and the economy.

The customs officers said that the confiscated nylon would be destroyed in front of the media.
If the nylon was manufactured in the territories, chances are pretty good that Palestinian Arabs work there. And items manufactured in the territories would not "threaten Palestinian traders and the economy" any more than goods created to the west of the Green Line.

I cannot find a single Palestinian Arab manufacturer of nylon.

Once again, Palestinian Arab leaders are still thinking in terms of what would hurt Israel rather than in terms of what would help their own people.

I'd love to get a video of the destruction of two tons of nylon, though. Perhaps they will hand out candy on the occasion of actually winning a battle, if the fumes don't overpower them.
  • Wednesday, December 09, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
From UPI:
The United States is doing whatever it can to prevent the coming of the Muslim savior, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says.

The Iranian news Web site Tabnak reported that Ahmadinejad, while speaking to survivors of soldiers killed during the 1980's war against Iraq, asserted that U.S. officials believe the Mahdi -- or the Hidden Imam whom Shiite Muslims believe will be ultimate savior of mankind -- is coming and they are working to prevent it from happening, al-Arabiya said Tuesday.

"We have documented proof that they (U.S. leaders) believe that a descendant of the prophet of Islam will raise in these parts (the Middle East) and he will dry the roots of all injustice in the world," the Web site quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. "They have devised all these plans to prevent the coming of the Hidden Imam because they know that the Iranian nation is the one that will prepare the grounds for his coming and will be the supporters of his rule "
See how rational Ahmadinejad is?
  • Wednesday, December 09, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
Asharq al-Awsat is reporting that George Mitchell is floating a plan to Mahmoud Abbas where Netanyahu will freeze all construction for five months but won't announce it publicly, and asking Abbas to negotiate under those circumstances. Abbas, for his part, continues to say that any solution must involve total capitulation by Israel to all his demands, and he told Lebanese officials that the Palestinian Arab "guests" there must remain there until the "refugee" problem is fully resolved by Israel.

The official swine flu death toll in Gaza has risen to five in three days, and Gazans are starting to panic. Newspapers reported that star anise, cinnamon and honey help prevent the flu, and now there are shortages in Gaza of star anise. Gazans are also wearing masks in public, avoiding hospitals and keeping their children home from school. Hamas is still trying to minimize the threat, possibly for the reasons I reported yesterday.

The moderate government of Mahmoud Abbas sentenced a man to death by firing squad for "collaborating" with Israel.

Hamas continues to arrest Fatah members in Gaza, with three more abducted today.

Another PalArab newspaper misquotes Ha'aretz as saying that Israel plans to demolish the Al Aqsa mosque on March 16, 2010.

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

  • Tuesday, December 08, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
The Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies pulls no punches in its annual report on the state of human rights in the Arab world. While it gratuitously and erroneously slams Israel as well, it heavily criticizes Arab regimes, and provides a nice summary of everything wrong with the human rights record of the Arab world:
Today the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies released its second annual report on the state of human rights in the Arab world for the year 2009. The report, entitled Bastion of Impunity, Mirage of Reform, concludes that the human rights situation in the Arab region has deteriorated throughout the region over the last year.

The report reviews the most significant developments in human rights during 2009 in 12 Arab countries: Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Yemen. It also devotes separate chapters to the Arab League and an analysis of the performance of Arab governments in UN human rights institutions. Another chapter addresses the stance of Arab governments concerning women’s rights, the limited progress made to advance gender equality, and how Arab governments use the issue of women’s rights to burnish their image before the international community while simultaneously evading democratic and human rights reform measures required to ensure dignity and equality for all of their citizens. .

The report observes the grave and ongoing Israeli violations of Palestinian rights, particularly the collective punishment of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip through the ongoing blockade and the brutal invasion of Gaza at the beginning of 2009 which resulted in the killing of more than 1,400 Palestinians, 83 percent of them civilians not taking part in hostilities. [Not quite - we have identified 661 victims who were legitimate targets so far. -EoZ.] The report notes that the plight of the Palestinian people has been exacerbated by the Fatah-Hamas conflict, which has turned universal rights and liberties into favors granted on the basis of political affiliation. Both parties have committed grave abuses against their opponents, including arbitrary detention, lethal torture, and extrajudicial killings.

The deterioration in Yemeni affairs may presage the collapse of what remains of the central state structure due to policies that give priority to the monopolization of power and wealth, corruption that runs rampant, and a regime that continues to deal with opponents using solely military and security means. As such, Yemen is now the site of a war in the northern region of Saada, a bloody crackdown in the south, and social and political unrest throughout the country. Moreover, independent press and human rights defenders who expose abuses in both the north and south are targets of increasingly harsh repression.

In its blatant contempt for justice, the Sudanese regime is the exemplar for impunity and the lack of accountability. President Bashir has refused to appear before the International Criminal Court in connection with war crimes in Darfur. Instead, his regime is hunting down anyone in the country who openly rejects impunity for war crimes, imprisoning and torturing them and shutting down rights organizations. Meanwhile the government’s policy of collective punishment against the population of Darfur continues, as well as its evasion of responsibilities under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the north and south, making secession a more likely scenario, which may once again drag the country into a bloody civil war.

In Lebanon, the threat of civil war that loomed last year has receded, but the country still suffers from an entrenched two-tier power structure in which Hizbullah’s superior military capabilities give the opposition an effective veto. As a result, the state’s constitutional institutions have been paralyzed.

In this context it took several months for the clear winner in the parliamentary elections to form a government. Now, even after the formation of a government, the unequal military balance of power between the government and the opposition will prevent serious measures to guarantee all parties accountable before the law, and greatly undermine the possibility of delivering justice for the many crimes and abuses experienced by the Lebanese people over the last several years.

Although Iraq is still the largest arena of violence and civilian deaths, it witnessed a relative improvement in some areas, though these gains remain fragile. The death toll has dropped and threats against journalists are less frequent. In addition, some of the major warring factions have indicated they are prepared to renounce violence and engage in the political process.

In Egypt, as the state of emergency approaches the end of its third decade, the broad immunity given to the security apparatus has resulted in the killing of dozens of undocumented migrants, the use of lethal force in the pursuit of criminal suspects, and routine torture. Other signs of deterioration were visible in 2009: the emergency law was applied broadly to repress freedom of expression, including detaining or abducting bloggers. Moreover, the Egyptian police state is increasingly acquiring certain theocratic features, which have reduced some religious freedoms, and have lead to an unprecedented expansion of sectarian violence within the country.

In Tunisia, the authoritarian police state continued its unrestrained attacks on political activists, journalists, human rights defenders, trade unionists, and others involved in social protest. At the same time, the political stage was prepared for the reelection of President Ben Ali through the introduction of constitutional amendments that disqualified any serious contenders.

In Algeria, the emergency law, the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation, and the application of counterterrorism measures entrenched policies of impunity, grave police abuses, and the undermining of accountability and freedom of expression. Constitutional amendments paved the way for the installment of President Bouteflika as president for life amid elections that were contested on many levels, despite the lack of real political competition.

Morocco, unfortunately, has seen a tangible erosion of the human rights gains achieved by Moroccans over the last decade. A fact most clearly seen in the failure if the government to adopt a set of institutional reforms within the security and judicial sectors intended to prevent impunity for crimes. Morocco’s relatively improved status was also undermined by the intolerance shown for freedom of expression, particularly for expression touching on the king or the royal family, or instances of institutional corruption. Protests against the status of the Moroccan-administered Western Sahara region were also repressed and several Sahrawi activists were referred to a military tribunal for the first time in 14 years.

As Syria entered its 47th year of emergency law, it continued to be distinguished by its readiness to destroy all manner of political opposition, even the most limited manifestations of independent expression. The Kurdish minority was kept in check by institutionalized discrimination, and human rights defenders were targets for successive attacks. Muhannad al-Hassani, the president of the Sawasiyah human rights organization, was arrested and tried, and his attorney, Haitham al-Maleh, the former chair of the Syrian Human Rights Association, was referred to a military tribunal. The offices of the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression were shut down, and Syrian prisons still hold dozens of prisoners of conscience and democracy advocates.

In Bahrain, the systematic discrimination against the Shiite majority was accompanied by more repression of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Human rights defenders increasingly became targets for arrest, trial, and smear campaigns. Some human rights defenders were even subjected by government agents to threats and intimidation while in Europe.

In Saudi Arabia, the report notes that the Monarch’s speeches urging religious tolerance and interfaith dialogue abroad have not been applied inside the Kingdom, where the religious police continue to clamp down on personal freedom. Indeed, repression of religious freedoms is endemic, and the Shiite minority continues to face systematic discrimination. Counterterrorism policies were used to justify long-term arbitrary detention, and political activists advocating reform were tortured. These policies also undermined judicial standards, as witnessed by the prosecution of hundreds of people in semi-secret trials over the last year.

In tandem with these grave abuses and the widespread lack of accountability for such crimes within Arab countries, the report notes that various Arab governments and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have been working in concert within UN institutions to undermine international mechanisms and standards for the protection of human rights. On this level, Arab governments have sought to undercut provisions that bring governments to account or seriously assess and monitor human rights. This is most clearly illustrated by the broad attack on independent UN human rights experts and NGOs working within the UN, as well as attempts to legalize international restrictions on freedom of expression through the pretext of prohibiting “defamation of religions.”

In the same vein, the Arab League and its summit forums offered ongoing support for the Bashir regime in Sudan despite charges of war crimes, and members of the organization used the principle of national sovereignty as a pretext to remain silent about or even collaborate on grave violations in several Arab states. Little hope should be invested in the Arab League as a protector of human rights regionally. Indeed, the Arab Commission on Human Rights, created by the Arab Charter on Human Rights (a weak document compared to other regional charters), is partially composed of government officials, and the secretariat of the Arab League has begun to take measures to weaken the Commission, including obstructing the inclusion of NGOs in its work, intentionally undermining its ability to engage in independent action, even within the stifling constraints laid out by the charter.

The more detailed English summary is here, but the entire 254 page report is only in Arabic.
  • Tuesday, December 08, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
From Al Arabiya:
Spanish police have arrested nine men suspected of seeking to have a woman killed after they accused her of adultery, claiming they were following sharia (Islamic law), authorities said on Sunday.

The men were arrested on November 14 and seven have been held in jail, a police spokesman said.

According to police, the woman had been taken in March and held in an isolated house in Valls in northeastern Catalonia.

Authorities say the men set up a court there to judge her for adultery.

"These men had formed a kind of court to apply sharia (Islamic law,)" the spokesman said, adding the woman told authorities she was tried and sentenced to death.

She was later able to escape and report what happened to police.
Groups that descended from the Muslim Brotherhood, like Hamas and al-Qaeda, believe that Spain is occupied Muslim territory that must be liberated, where shari'a law can then be practiced openly.
  • Tuesday, December 08, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
Al Arabiya (Arabic) has an article about the first Miss Palestine pageant, to be held on December 26 (with 26 of the 58 contestants coming from Israel.)

One autotranslated paragraph quotes an official from the pageant saying, "[It is] difficult to convince many of this idea, and [there is] the perennial question about whether the contestants will take part in sea bass or not." And [the] answer [is] "Of course, the contestants will not be used for sea bass, because this completely contravenes the nature of the traditional Palestinian society."

Apparently, in Arabic, the word for "sea bass" is the same as "swimsuit."
  • Tuesday, December 08, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
After Hamas' initial denials that there was any swine flu in Gaza, the number of confirmed cases has ballooned in two days to 15, with four fatalities, including a doctor at Shifa Hospital.

Palestine Press Agency investigated why Hamas so strenuously denied any cases of swine flu as late as Saturday.

The agency quotes medical sources in Gaza that confirm that Hamas ordered them to keep any potential H1N1 news quiet. The reason? Hamas is planning a huge rally in a few days to celebrate its 22nd anniversary, and it wanted the largest turnout possible - and Hamas leaders know that the public will stay home of they are afraid that they would catch the swine flu in the crowd!

But Hamas is not shy about putting political concerns above the welfare of the people it controls. After Hamas stopped some 37 patients from entering Israel yesterday, some for already scheduled surgery in Israel and the West Bank, there are reports that another 87 have been stopped today.
  • Tuesday, December 08, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
Foreign Policy magazine has an article entitled "Iran is No Existential Threat." Subtitled "The best way to rescue Obama's failing diplomacy with the Islamic Republic is to stop letting Israel call the shots," the article neatly solves the problem of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons by declaring that it would be no big deal if it happens.

The authors believe that Iran's policy of increasing uranium enrichment is merely a reaction to unfair sanctions by the IAEA and the UN, and if the world would just back down, everything would be great:
These developments again demonstrate the counterproductive futility of enshrining uranium enrichment and sanctions as the keys to resolving the nuclear issue. By prompting Tehran to reduce cooperation with the IAEA, the United States and its European partners have done real damage to the international community's ability to monitor the state of Iran's nuclear program.
Apparently, the authors feel that Iran's insistence on hiding its activities from the IAEA isn't proof that Tehran has anything to hide; it simply is a failure of diplomacy.

We stupid Westerners are forcing Iran to become a rogue state!

The authors go on to say that Iran would be much more cooperative if the UN would lean more on...Israel, of course.

And Israel is just being childish in thinking that Iranian nukes would be a danger:
Even if Iran were to fabricate a nuclear weapon, it is not credible to describe that as an existential threat to Israel -- unless one has such a distorted view of Shiite Islam that one believes the Islamic Republic is so focused on damaging "the Zionist entity" that it is collectively willing to become history's first "suicide nation."
Given that Irans' Supreme Leader and president both fervently believe in a bizarre Shi'ite messianism based around the return of the 12th Imam, it appears foolhardy to assume that they make rational decisions. (I wonder if the authors would be equally sanguine about a US presidential candidate who preaches about the Rapture.)

The authors go on to show that their support of Iran is nothing more than a smokescreen to write an article critical of Israel:
The United States has an abiding commitment to Israel's survival and security. But that commitment should not be confused with maintaining Israel's military hegemony over the region in perpetuity, by continuing to allow U.S. assurances of an Israeli "qualitative edge" for defensive purposes to be twisted into assurances of maximum freedom for Israel to conduct offensive military operations at will against any regional target.
To these analysts, Israeli military operations are arbitrary bullying actions meant to enslave all other people in the region, and Iran is a poor, misunderstood country who is being forced into building nukes by the West listening to their Zionist masters.

If only we let Iran's mullahs "call the shots" for the region instead of Israel, the world will be a more peaceful place.

(h/t Ron)

Monday, December 07, 2009

  • Monday, December 07, 2009
  • Elder of Ziyon
Excerpts from Commentary:
The conviction that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal is now so commonly accepted, it hardly seems as though the matter is even open for discussion. But it is. Decades of argument about the issue have obscured the complex nature of the specific legal question about which a supposedly overwhelming verdict of guilty has been rendered against settlement policy.

Though routinely referred to nowadays as “Palestinian” land, at no point in history has Jerusalem or the West Bank been under Palestinian Arab sovereignty in any sense of the term.

International-law arguments against the settlements have rested primarily upon two sources. First are the 1907 Hague Regulations, whose provisions are primarily designed to protect the interests of a temporarily ousted sovereign in the context of a short-term occupation. Second is the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, the first international agreement designed specifically to protect civilians during wartime.

Article 46 of the Hague Regulations bars an occupying power from confiscating private property. And it is on this point that the loudest cries against the settlements have been based. Israel did requisition land from private Arab owners to establish some early settlements, but requisitioning differs from confiscation (compensation is paid for use of the land), and the establishment of these settlements was based on military necessity. In a 1979 case, Ayyub v. Minister of Defense, the Israeli Supreme Court considered whether military authorities could requisition private property for a civilian settlement, Beth El, on proof of military necessity. The theoretical and, in that specific case, actual answers were affirmative. But in another seminal decision the same year, Dwaikat v. Israel, known as the Elon Moreh case, the court more deeply explored the definition of military necessity and rejected the tendered evidence in that case because the military had only later acquiesced in the establishment of the Elon Moreh settlement by its inhabitants. The court’s decision effectively precluded further requisitioning of Palestinian privately held land for civilian settlements.

After the Elon Moreh case, all Israeli settlements legally authorized by the Israeli Military Administration (a category that, by definition, excludes “illegal outposts” constructed without prior authorization or subsequent acceptance) have been constructed either on lands that Israel characterizes as state-owned or “public” or, in a small minority of cases, on land purchased by Jews from Arabs after 1967....

One of B’Tselem’s most frequently cited publications argues that Ma’aleh Adumim, the largest Israeli settlement on the West Bank, several kilometers to the east of Jerusalem, sits on territory taken from five Palestinian Arab villages and therefore amounts to an expropriation. But because the villagers lack registered title or even unregistered deeds, B’Tselem argues that the nomadic Jahalin Bedouin, who intermittently camp and graze their livestock on land to the east of Jerusalem going down to the Dead Sea, have effectively earned the right of title to the land because of their prescriptive use.

Perhaps. But it is far from clear how a Bedouin right to the land has anything to do with the legal claim of Palestinian villagers 60 years earlier. B’Tselem offers this rather astonishing argument: “They grazed on village land in accordance with lease agreements (at times symbolic) with the landowners—including landowners from the villages of Abu Dis and al’Izariyyeh.” At times symbolic!

In other words, only Palestinian Arab villages may be constructed and expanded on the land because Bedouin have occasionally grazed their flocks thereon pursuant to the implied consent of Palestinian villagers. But those villagers only have a right to the land because of its use by the Bedouin!

The sophistry here masks a deeper issue. Aside from its circularity, B’Tselem’s argument equates whatever rights Bedouin may have with the rights of sedentary Arab villages on the outskirts of Jerusalem. The only reason for such an equation is that both are Arabs and not Jews. B’Tselem’s assertion that the land belongs to these villages collapses into the contention that only Arabs, not Jews, have the right to own and use these lands.

Settlement opponents more frequently cite the Fourth Geneva Convention these days for their legal arguments. They specifically charge that the settlements violate Article 49(6), which states: “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territories it occupies.”

Frequently, this sentence is cited as if its meaning is transparent and its application to the establishment of Israeli settlements beyond dispute. Neither is the case.

To settlement opponents, the word “transfer” in Article 49(6) connotes that any transfer of the occupying power’s civilian population, voluntary or involuntary, is prohibited. However, the first paragraph of Article 49 complicates that case. It reads: “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.” Unquestionably, any forcible transfer of populations is illegal. But what about voluntary movements with the antecedent permission or subsequent acquiescence by the occupant?

To the extent that a violation of Article 49(6) depends upon the distinction between the voluntary and involuntary movement of people, the inclusion of “forcible” in Article 49(1) but not in 49(6) makes a different interpretation not only plausible but more credible. It’s a matter of simple grammar that when similar language is used in several different paragraphs of the same provision, modifying language is omitted in later paragraphs because the modifier is understood. To Julius Stone, an international-law scholar, “the word ‘transfer’ [in 49(6)] in itself implies that the movement is not voluntary on the part of the persons concerned, but a magisterial act of the state concerned.”

Julius Stone referred to the absurdity of considering the establishment of Israeli settlements as violating Article 49(6):

We would have to say that the effect of Article 49(6) is to impose an obligation on the State of Israel to ensure (by force if necessary) that these areas, despite their millennial association with Jewish life, shall be forever judenrein. Irony would thus be pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49(6), designed to prevent repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan territories judenrein, has now come to mean that . . . the West Bank . . . must be made judenrein and must be so maintained, if necessary by the use of force by the government of Israel against its own inhabitants. Common sense as well as correct historical and functional context exclude so tyrannical a reading of Article 49(6).

The ultimate end of the illicit effort to use international law to delegitimize the settlements is clear—it is the same argument used by Israel’s enemies to delegitimize the Jewish state entirely. Those who consider themselves friends of Israel but opponents of the settlement policy should carefully consider whether, in advancing these illegitimate and specious arguments, they will eventually be unable to resist the logic of the argument that says—falsely and without a shred of supporting evidence from international law itself—that Israel is illegitimate.

Read the whole thing.

From Ma'an:
Palestinian refugees in Lebanon will not be offered Lebanese passports, President Mahmoud Abbas said on Monday following his meeting with Lebanese President Michel Suleiman at the Republican Palace. Abbas’ remark quashed recent rumors concerning the issuing of Lebanese passports to Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, adding that the refugees’ presence in the country is temporary, particularly as Lebanon’s membership in the UN Security Council next year will help the Palestinian cause.
Generations have grown up in Lebanon, raised families, and died, but their supposed "leader" is more interested in them keeping their stateless status rather than giving them the simple choice of allowing them to be more integrated into the land of their birth. Mahmoud Abbas, that supposedly moderate leader of the PA, the PLO and Fatah, who claims to represent millions of people of Palestinian Arab descent, has once again told his people to go screw themselves rather than give them the option of happiness as full citizens of other Arab lands. He arrogantly claims to know what is best for his people, and is dead-set against giving them the option of making their own decisions. Because he knows that the majority them would not choose to put their families through the hell that they have gone through thanks to the decisions of Arab leaders over the past six decades. Palestinian Arabs who choose to become citizens of Arab countries will, by and large, never choose to move to an eventual "Palestine." They will identify only peripherally as "Palestinian." They will lose their value as pawns to corrupt, arrogant "leaders" who pretend to know what is best for them, and whose power derives from their very misery. Moreover, if Arab countries would give PalArabs full citizenship, a significant number of Palestinian Arabs in the territories - hundreds of thousands, if not over a million - would happily move to Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Dubai. (Ironically, they would also have a positive influence on most of their host Arab countries, as they tend to be better educated and harder working, and Gulf countries import many workers from Indonesia and Africa, causing many problems that could be avoided if Palestinian Arab workers replaced them.) The operative word here is "choice." Palestinian Arabs are not given the power to choose where to live, and Arab nations specifically deny them the ability to become citizens that they give all other Arabs. Yet there are no "pro-Palestinian" organizations tha lobby on behalf of real Palestinian Arabs. They all repeat the lie that they can best help them by fighting Israel, militarily or politically. It is a myth, and one that is easily disproven - it has not helped them one bit in 61 years. "Human rights" organizations may mention some of these problems in isolation but they do not push for the simplest, fairest and cheapest solution to the problem of millions of stateless people. Abbas, the one person who pretends to represent his people the best, tells his suffering would-be constituents that their six-decade old problem is "temporary." This is a travesty of human rights. The way to tell if someone is truly pro-Palestinian Arab or is simply using the Palestinian Arabs as pawns to help destroy Israel is to ask him one simple question: Do you support giving all Palestinian Arabs the choice to become full citizens of any Arab country that they desire, according to the existing naturalization rules that they have for other Arabs? This is the question that needs to be asked of every Arab leader, every Palestinian Arab leader, every NGO, every human rights organization. It should be hammered in during every interview. They must be forced to answer the question clearly and forcefully. Unless they can answer that question in the affirmative, the inescapable conclusion is that most people who pretend to be "pro-Palestinian" are nothing more than liars and hypocrites who support discrimination against the very people they claim they want to help.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive