JEWISH SETTLEMENTS ARE LEGAL Under International Law and Treaties, EU IS TOLD

JEWISH SETTLEMENTS ARE LEGAL, EU IS TOLD

A petition, containing the signatures of over 1,000 respected diplomats and legal experts from around the world, has been delivered to the EU’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

According to the text of the petition, the EU is wrong to believe that Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria are illegal, and that the term “1967 lines” does not exist in international law.

Legal scholars from South Africa, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Singapore, India, Greece, Malta, Holland, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden, Italy, Belgium, Bolivia, Chile, Brazil, Mexico and Peru, have signed the petition.

The man responsible for the petition is British-born Alan Baker, director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

It comes as the EU considers whether to introduce separate labeling for products made by Jews in Judea and Samaria, a policy that would apply to all 28 EU member states.

In an interview with Israeli news organization Arutz Sheva, Mr Baker explained why it is incorrect to distinguish between Israel and Judea and Samaria, saying there is “no such thing” as the 1967 lines.

“There never was such a thing. The matter of the borders is on the agenda of the negotiations. The EU cannot dictate a subject that is on the agenda of the negotiations. The pre-1967 lines are [1949] armistice lines. These are not recognized lines or security lines. In the Oslo process, it was agreed between us and the Palestinians that the matter of borders will be negotiated.”

He continued: “The term ‘1967 lines’ does not appear anywhere in our agreement with the Palestinians, therefore it is a legal and factual aberration to determine that these are our lines.”

Mr Baker also told Arutz Sheva that the settlements should be considered legal under international law because Jewish settlers have freely chosen to live in Judea and Samaria; they have not been forcibly transferred to the territory by the Israeli government.

Given the opportunity, I am sure Mr Baker would draw upon several other lines of argument to support the case for the Jewish settlements. In his stead, I shall attempt to outline the main legal underpinning of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

We have to go back nearly a hundred years to discover the origin of the settlements’ legality. Firstly, there was the 1920 San Remo conference, in which Britain (following the collapse of the Ottoman empire) was instructed to establish a Jewish national home on territory covering what would become Israel, Jordan and part of the Golan Heights.

Then came the British Mandate for Palestine, a legal commission established and confirmed by the League of Nations (an early version of the UN) in 1922, which formalized the creation of two states – a Jewish homeland in “Palestine” and an Arab homeland called Transjordan (now simply Jordan).

Significantly, the Mandate not only legalized the immigration of Jews to Palestine, it encouraged close settlement of all the land, including Judea and Samaria.

Two years after the Second World War, the British handed the Mandate to the UN, which recommended (rather than enforced) a partition of the nascent Jewish homeland. Despite already having Transjordan, the Arabs rejected the offer of partition and declared war on the Palestinian Jews. This resulted in the Jordanian annexation of Judea and Samaria (and renamed the West Bank). At the insistence of the Arabs, the 1949 armistice line was “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary.”

In 1967, Israel won control of the West Bank after a war of self-defense. UN Security Council Resolution 242 recommended Israeli withdrawal from territories in return for the right “to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” At a conference in Khartoum the Arabs refused to negotiate or make peace with Israel. In fact, they refused to recognize Israel at all.

Israel’s critics sometimes employ the Fourth Geneva Convention to argue that the settlements are illegal. But the Fourth Geneva Convention pertains only to cases of occupation of a sovereign entity. Because of the Arab refusal to reach an agreement in 1948, the West Bank never became the legal territory of any sovereign entity, not even Jordan.

A territory is only occupied if it is captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. Jordan was never an established or recognized sovereign of the West Bank. Therefore, Israel is not an occupier and the West Bank is not occupied land.

As such, Judea and Samaria is unclaimed Mandate land and should therefore be referred to as “disputed” territory. Israel’s capture of the West Bank in 1967 merely restored the territory to its legal status under the Mandate of 1922, which has never been superseded in law, not even by the 1947 partition plan.

In short, the settlers are simply enacting the Mandate and they should be allowed to continue with this enterprise without interference or condemnation. This legal truth should form a core part of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

THE LEGALITY OF ISRAEL’S “LAND GRAB”

A plan to build homes for Jews triggers international outrage. A scheme to build homes for east Jerusalem’s Arab populations is virtually ignored by the international media? Why the disparity?

When Israel recently declared its intention to develop 400 hectares of land in Gush Etzion (an area settled before 1947, destroyed by the Arab Legion in 1948 and recaptured in 1967), the world loudly condemned it as a “land grab.” But when Jerusalem’s building committee announced 2,200 new homes for Arabs in the east Jerusalem neighbourhood of Arav al-Swahara, there was almost total silence.

The message is loud and clear. Despite residing in the land of Judea and Samaria for millennia, today’s Jews are now forbidden to live there at all.  Arabs, on the other hand, are endowed with a natural entitlement to “Palestine.” It is no surprise, then, that the Obama administration has officially demanded Israel reverses its land appropriation in Gush Etzion, saying it is counterproductive to the so-called peace process.

If Obama had any sense he would he see that Israel’s appropriation of land is both practically and legally comprehensible. Israel’s decision to bring the land under state control is simply an attempt to create contiguity between the Green Line and the settlements in Betar Ilit, Kfar Etzion and Gevaot. It is widely understood that this land will one day form part of an agreed land swap between Israel and the Palestinians.

Plus, if Obama knew his history (and he obviously doesn’t) he would know that the “West Bank” is unclaimed land. Contrary to popular opinion, Israeli settlements are entirely legal as long as they are within the parameters of the 1922 Mandate of Palestine. This is the same mandate that legalized and encouraged the immigration of Jews to all parts of historic Israel.

Israel’s critics may be surprised to know that the 1922 Mandate has never been superseded in international law, not even by the United Nation’s 1947 partition plan. Because the Arabs refused to recognize the partition of “Palestine,” the legal status of Judea and Samaria reverted back to the 1922 law . The capture of Judea and Samaria from Jordan in 1967 was the first step in the restoration of the territory’s true legal status.  It also means that Israel’s recent “land grab” is actually the fulfilment of the original 1922 Mandate.

(Quoting the Fourth Geneva Convention to argue that the settlements are in fact illegal is nonsensical. The Fourth Geneva Convention pertains only to cases of occupation of a sovereign entity. Because of the Arab refusal to reach an agreement between 1947 and 1949, the area popularly referred to as the West Bank never became the legal territory of any sovereign entity – not even Jordan, despite its occupation of the territory until 1967. Only Israel has a legal entitlement to Judea and Samaria.)

If anyone is in any doubt, they would do well to consult a document boasting the signatures of over 1,000 respected diplomats and legal experts from around the world, ranging from South Africa and Canada to Norway and Brazil. The file was delivered to the EU’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in the form of a petition just over a year ago.

According to these legal experts, it is factually incorrect to refer to the settlements as illegal for the simple reason that the term “1967 lines” does not exist in international law. The pre-1967 lines are in fact 1949 armistice lines, and are not recognized lines or security lines. Moreover, the issue of borders is on the agenda of the peace talks and is subject to final status negotiations.

All of which means that the Palestinian claim that statehood is an unassailable right should not be taken at face value. Arab hatred of Israel has never been about the settlements or even about land. The primary obstacle is an ideological refusal to recognize the Jewish people’s deep-rooted historic, cultural and legal connections to the entire land of Israel. Until the Arabs and the rest of the world accept that the Jews have an inalienable and legal right to live in Judea and Samaria, there will never be peace.

First published on September 10 for the Jewish Media Agency

http://jewishmediaagency.com/legality-israels-land-grab/

EURO IMPERIALISM THREATENS ISRAEL’S INTEGRITY

Since the announcement of the John Kerry peace talks, a number of left-wing pundits in Israel and abroad are promulgating the view that the existence of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria poses an existential threat to the State of Israel. In the same vein, other left-wing commentators say the building of homes and business beyond the Green Line is a severe blow to Israeli-EU relations.

All of this is nonsense and it feeds the tired narrative that the Jewish settlements are the main obstacle to peace with the Arab world. But there is something to be said about the way the Jewish settlements are perceived by the international community. In other words, it is perception and not reality that is the real existential threat to Israel.

Despite a major petition bearing the signatures of more than 1,000 lawyers, scholars, jurists and diplomats from around the world – all of whom agree the Jewish settlements are legal and that the concept of “1967 lines” does not exist in international law – the European Union remains stubbornly committed to the delegitimization of Israeli communities beyond the Green Line. A spokesperson for EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton (who was the recipient of the petition) has proclaimed that EU policy towards Israel remains unaltered.

This misperception of Israel’s legal position in the so-called occupied territories is the reason why Catherine Ashton is lobbying EU commissioners with the express aim of issuing guidelines on the labeling of Jewish settlement products that would apply to 28 European countries. The EU has also issued guidelines advising member states not to give grants, awards or loans to Israeli entities operating over the Green Line.

One of the byproducts of this European embargo is Palestinian job losses. The economic destruction of Israeli businesses could result in thousands of Palestinians losing their livelihoods. Needless to say, these Palestinians arenot happy with the prospect of an embargo. Apart from the unfairness, there is a real security issue. Unemployed men with families to feed are likely to become restless and resentful. Resentment breeds violence – and violence in the “West Bank” usually results in Israeli casualties.

The EU’s position vis-à-vis grants and loans also damages Israel’s higher education and research sectors. As things stand, Ariel University (where five per cent of students are Palestinians) is ineligible to participate in the lucrative Horizon 2020 research and development program. But worst of all is the fact that the EU –in tandem with Obama administration – is using the threat of boycotts to force Israel into making painful and potentially lethal concessions, such as the release of 104 Palestinian terrorists.

Why is the EU so hung up about Jews living and working beyond the Green Line? After all, the existence of the Jewish settlements in the so-called West Bank is not particularly contentious. A two-state solution (should it ever happen) would allow for land swaps, thereby “legitimizing” many of these Jewish communities. It is the final status of Jerusalem and the Palestinian myth of the “right to return” which are the issues most likely to derail John Kerry’s peace talks.

Perhaps Europe’s obsession with the location of Jewish homes and businesses is a hangover from those dark days (or centuries) when a litany of princes, popes and priests (and ultimately the Nazis) all decreed where Jews were allowed to live and work. Fast forward to the 21st century and we have a situation where Jews are being ostracized because they dare to build houses, schools and yeshivas – not in central or eastern Europe but in Israel’s biblical heartland.

How is it that Europe, which is responsible for extermination of one-third of world Jewry, has the audacity to dictate policy to a tiny country that is home to the descendants of Holocaust survivors? I cannot be the only person in Europe who is repulsed by this hypocrisy. Or has Europe fallen so low that nobody even notices the EU’s selfish duplicity?

Antipathy towards Jewish self-determination may be one explanation for the EU’s attitude towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But perhaps Europe’s unquestioned support for the Palestinians is also motivated by a desire to resurrect European influence in the Middle East. By coalescing into a single powerful unit, the once-great imperial powers of Britain, France and Germany are now in a position to flex their diplomatic muscles under the guise of pan-European unity.

The first project of this new Euro-imperialism is to build yet another Arab state and shrink the borders of the world’s only Jewish state. This seems like an unfortunate rerun of events that took place nearly a century ago. In 1921, Britain divided the Jewish national home into Palestine and Transjordan. And in 1937 the Peel Commission Partition Plan (another British initiative) recommended the division of the Jewish homeland in order to make way for another Arab state. This was rejected by the Arab Higher Committee on the grounds that Palestine belongs to the “whole Arab and Muslim worlds,” a belief that is shared by Hamas and some elements of the Palestinian Authority.

Whenever Europe is involved in the affairs of the Middle East, the Arabs get more territory and the Jews get less.  On the surface, this seems like a crude equation but it is nonetheless true. And if EU policymakers and their friends in the White House have their way, Israel will be driven from east Jerusalem, Hebron and the Jordan Valley, thereby robbing the Jewish people of their heritage and depriving them of their security. But then again, Europe has always rather enjoyed robbing the Jews of their rights.

Israel should not let itself be bullied by the bullies in Brussels and Washington. And on no account should Israel’s Foreign Ministry agree to Europe’s demand to surrender Israeli rights over east Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the so-called West Bank. If this means relinquishing a research partnership worth hundreds of millions of dollars, then so be it. Israel needs to show Europe that it is no longer prepared to be pushed around by Catherine Ashton and her EU cronies.

ED MILIBAND LEARNS TO (ALMOST) LOVE ISRAEL

Ed Miliband, the leader of the Labour Party in Britain has affirmed that he supports Israel and is opposed to boycotts. But he still seems reluctant to call himself a Zionist, which disappoints some in the Anglo-Jewish community.

Speaking to around 300 people at a conference organized by the British Board of Deputies, Miliband said he owed a “debt” to Israel “for the sanctuary it gave my grandmother” who settled in Tel Aviv after World War Two.

The Labour leader said that although he does not always agree with Israel’s policies, he nonetheless considers himself “a supporter of Israel” and expressed intolerance of those people “who question Israel’s right to exist.”

Significantly, Mr Miliband equated the delegitimization of the Jewish state with anti-Semitism. “I think the boycotts of Israel are totally wrong,” he said on Thursday night. “We should have no tolerance for boycotts. I would say that to any trade union leaders.”

Mr Miliband’s support is a welcome boost for those who support Israel and are dismayed by the Left’s hostility towards the Jewish state. Indeed, Mr Miliband himself had, until now, been overly critical of Israel, with much of his ire directed at the settlers in Judea and Samaria.

And while he is still not a fan of the settlements, he has at least called on “moderate” Palestinians to do more to further the cause of peace. And he has refused to rule out military intervention with regard to Iran.

II

But wouldn’t it be refreshing if a leading British politician actually said he or she supported the settlements? After all, Israel’s enemies are hardline about the settlements, so why don’t Israel’s friends take a decisive stand and say: “Yes, the settlers have a right to build on their own land; and no, the settlements are not the obstacle to peace.”

In Britain, it is politically correct to condemn the settlements. But actually, it is factually incorrect to say the settlers aren’t entitled to be there. I urge Mr Miliband to do some research and admit in public that both the 1920 San Remo Conference and the 1922 Mandate of Palestine endorse the creation of a Jewish homeland in Judea and Samaria.

And why do British politicians parrot the same tired argument that the settlements are an obstacle to peace? Who will be brave enough to point out that between 1948 and 1967 there was not a single settlement in Gaza or the so-called West Bank. And yet the Arab states refused to make peace with Israel and made no attempt to establish a Palestinian state when they had the chance.

Why doesn’t Mr Miliband – or for that matter, Prime Minister David Cameron – ask Israel’s critics why the Palestinians chose to elect a genocidal terrorist organization after the dismantling of Jewish settlements in Gaza in 2005?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m pleased Mr Miliband has declared his support for Israel. I just wish he would stop blaming the settlers for the absence of a Palestinian state and strongly criticize the Arabs for never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

III

But credit where credit’s due. The Labour leader accepts that British trade unions are contributing to a climate of anti-Semitism.

For years the UK’s Trade Union Congress has been strengthening ties with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, even if it means a complete severing of relations with the Israeli trade union movement, the Histadrut. Then there’s the University and College Union, which voted in May 2011 to disassociate itself from the EU working definition of anti-Semitism.

Meanwhile, the Co-operative Group, which has close links with the British Labour Party, has singled out Israel. Last year, the Co-op widened its boycott of Judea and Samaria by banning imports from four Israeli companies on the grounds that these companies traded with the settlements. Pro-Israel campaigners have pointed out the hypocrisy of a policy that prohibits some Israeli companies but permits products to be sourced from China and Saudi Arabia, which have genuinely repressive governments.

Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The Anglo-Jewish community is alarmed at the widespread anti-Israel hostility emanating from the Left. Indeed, there is evidence that British Jews – who by and large identity with the State of Israel – feel more threatened by the Left than by the Right.

In 2006, a parliamentary inquiry reported that “contemporary anti-Semitism in Britain is now more commonly found on the Left of the political spectrum than on the Right.” Historian David Cesaeri told the inquiry that anti-Semitism is “masked by or blended inadvertently into anti-Zionism […] because it is often articulated in the language of human rights.” Denis MacShane, who chaired the inquiry, said that singling out Israel for boycotts, while ignoring non-democratic regimes, is “hypocritical and contributes to an atmosphere in which Jews in Britain feel like “second-class citizens.”

The truth is the Left is in a moral mess. Most people on the British Left – including Mr Miliband – want a Palestinian state. And yet they ignore the fact that the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected the opportunity to build an independent country. And isn’t it strange how those on the Left make a song and dance about equal rights but lend their support to the PLO and Hamas, which want to turn Gaza and the so-called West Bank into one-party states? Indeed, it is a curious turn of history that the socialists, who pride themselves on their progressivism, have aligned themselves with illiberal Islamists and war-mongering Arab dictators.

One day the Left may realize it has been on the wrong side of history. Since the collapse of Soviet communism, most socialists have come to realize it was immoral to support Stalin and Mao. But many still cling to their support of Hamas, the IRA and Hugo Chavez. Maybe in fifty years’ time, after the Jewish state has imploded from the pressure of a hostile world or is blown to bits by the Iranians, Israel’s critics will understand why it was indefensible to single out a tiny country for unwarranted condemnation.

Hyperbole aside, I hope Mr Miliband is brave enough to resist pressure from those in his party who want to delegitimize and boycott Israel. And I hope he continues to show support for the beleaguered Jewish state and rethink his attitude towards the settlements. And who knows, he may even learn to love the word “Zionism.”

ISRAEL, ANTI-SEMITISM AND THE BRITISH ELITE

Following the UN General Assembly’s overwhelming vote to accord “Palestine” non-member observer status, negative references to “Jewish lobbies” and “Jewish power” (as well as unbalanced criticism of Israel’s building program) have been bandied about in the House of Lords, the UK parliament’s upper chamber.

On December 3, 2012, Baroness Royall of Blaisdon tabled a debate with the express intention of ascertaining the nature of the relationship between the UK government and the Palestinian leadership following the UN vote. Instead, the peers inside the debating chamber used the time to castigate Israel and make dubious remarks about American Jews.

Conservative peer Lord King, for example, blamed America’s Jewish community for the US “no” vote. He opined: “The truth is that the Jewish lobby has done no service to Israel and it has done no service to the standing of the United States in the region.”

The Labour Party’s Lord Judd accused Israel of “screwing” Gaza. He also claimed that “no people paid a higher price for the creation of the State of Israel than the Palestinian people.”

Lord Phillips of Sudbury also blamed American Jews for the US decision to vote against the Palestinian bid. He said that “if necessary” the UK should be independent of the US, “which is in a particular relationship with the huge and powerful Jewish community there.”

Lord Phillips also found time to characterize Israeli plans to build new homes in E1 as a colonial initiative (“3,000 new colonists in east Jerusalem”) and made a favorable reference to Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh: “I was immensely impressed by the man,” he said.

He continued: “Unless I have lost all my touch for understanding the reactions of people, I was impressed. I spent an hour with him, man to man. He is dying for an opening and for some encouragement because he never gets a dividend for anything Hamas does, except more colonization and more repression.”

This is the same Lord Phillips who, in 2010, told a Palestine Solidarity Campaign meeting in London that “America is in the grip of a well-organized Jewish lobby” and suggested that “many” Jews were “deeply prejudiced,” although “not lacking in intelligence.” No surprise, then, that Jonathan Hoffman, co-vice chair of the Zionist Federation, has called Lord Phillips “an obnoxious man,” who holds “revolting” views.

Lord Phillips is a member of the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems (as they are usually known) is the junior partner in the current UK government. Although there are some notable exceptions, party members tend to be anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. The Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine website, for example, is a sickening morass of Israelophobia and half-baked political commentary.

Israelis who are not familiar with the machinations of the Lib Dems may be familiar with the obnoxious views of Baroness Jenny Tonge, who was made a House of Lords peer in 2005. Until very recently, Baroness Tonge was a prominent member of the party but left once it became clear she would not apologize for her appearance at a pro-Palestinian hate-fest in which she said, “Beware Israel. Israel is not going to be there forever in its present form.”

(This is the woman who, in 2004, said she would consider becoming a suicide bomber if she were Palestinian. In 2006 she suggested that the pro-Israel lobby had “financial grips” on British politics. In 2010 she published an article accusing the Israel Defense Forces emergency aid hospital in Haiti of harvesting organs.)

Fortunately, there has been some brave souls who have spoken out against the anti-Israel hostility in the House of Lords, but such voices are few and far between. One of these voices is Lord Palmer, the former Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel chairman. Lord Palmer is relatively new to the House of Lords but says he already feels “uncomfortable” about the “skewed” rhetoric against Israel. He is also concerned about the disproportionate amount of time spent debating Israel and the Palestinians (in contrast to the rare debates about Libya, for example). He has also noted “a lack of criticism” of Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah.

Speaking to the Jewish Chronicle, Lord Palmer said: “I am always quite amazed as to how many people getting up to speak are anti-Israel and how few who are pro-Israel. I think very often that the people who are pro-Israel don’t feel able to come and speak. I am surprised that there are so many well-known and erudite Jews [in the Lords] who never speak on the subject.”

Lord Palmer has called on Jewish and Israeli advocacy groups – specifically the Board of Deputies and the Britain Israel Communications & Research Centre – to provide more support for Israel’s allies in the House of Lords, many of whom (it seems) are afraid to speak out.

Yes, the Palestinian issue has a devastating tendency to throttle free speech and kill off balanced debate. But Israel’s political allies have a moral duty to speak up and make the case for the Jewish state, even if doing so makes them unpopular. People in positions of power can make a real difference by defending the integrity of the Jewish state, as well as challenging anti-Semitism in all its forms and exposing the fanatical ideology of Palestinianism. Let’s hope our friends in the House of Lords rise to the challenge.