|
... more
The Myth of 'Occupied' Territories
Summary ... To truely determine the legal status of the area known as Yesha (Judea, Samaria and Gaza), it is important to understand the different types of UN resolutions. Once this is understood, it becomes clear there is no such thing as the Israeli-occupied territories. (If anything, they are actually Arab-occupied territories.)
One of the most misused, misapplied and misunderstood definitions in the dictionary of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the term "occupied territories". The vast majority of people simply do not know the facts or misinterpret them, thus completely distorting the real picture of the land distribution between the Arabs and the Jews. The truth of the matter is that, according to international law, the Jews have the complete and unquestionable right to settle the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (collectively known as Yesha). Not a single enforceable international document exists that forbids them from settling the lands of Yesha.
On the contrary, the only existing enforceable document actually encourages Jewish settlement. This document was created on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference when the Principal Allied Powers agreed to assign the Mandate for the territory of Palestine to Great Britain. By doing so the League of Nations "recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and established "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." Article 6 of the Mandate "encouraged ... close settlement by Jews on the land," including the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha).
There is nothing whatsoever in the Mandate that separates Yesha from the rest of the mandated territory. That means that the right of the Jews to settle the land spreads to the whole of Palestine. As a side note it is worth mentioning that the 76% of the territory of Mandated Palestine known today as Jordan, were [sic] not permanently exempt from settlement by the Jews either. Article 25 only allowed to "postpone or withhold application of [this] provision."
With the disbanding of the League of Nations, the rights of the Jews to settle the territories of Palestine, including Yesha, were not hurt. When in 1946 the United Nations was created in place of the League of Nations, its Charter included Article 80 specifically to allow the continuation of existing Mandates (including the British Mandate). Article 80 stated that "nothing ... shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever ... of any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."
Then in November 1947 came time for Resolution 181, which recommended the Partition of Palestine. Like all UN Resolutions pertaining to the Jewish-Arab conflict it was not enforceable. It was simply a recommendation, and the Arab countries rejected it. As the Syrian representative in the General Assembly stated:
"In the first place the recommendations of the General Asembly are not imperative on those to whom they are addressed.... The General Assembly only gives advice and the parties to whom advice is addressed accept it when it is rightful and just and when it does not impair their fundamental rights"(1).
If the resolution had been implemented maybe it would be possible to argue that it replaced the San Remo Conference resolution, which had legitimized the rights of the Jews to settle in any place in Palestine. However, it was not only rejected by the Arabs, but in violation of the UN Charter they launched a military aggression against the newly reborn Jewish state thus invalidating the resolution. By the time of the ceasefire at the end of the War of Independence there was still no other enforceable document pertaining to the rights of the Jews to settle Eretz Yisrael - they remained intact.
Now we approach the most misunderstood aspect of the scope and application of international documents. In order to resolve the puzzle of the "occupied" territories, one must clearly distinguish between the different types of resolutions passed by the United Nations. Misconceptions about the issue led to the question of a double standard that was constantly raised by the Arabs after the Persian Gulf War. The Arabs were unable to understand why from Iraq the UN demanded compliance with the decisions of the international body while Israel was not forced to comply with UN resolutions.
On April 3, 1998 Swedish Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen, well known for championing the Arabs' position, in an interview with the London al-Quds al-'Arabi, gave an explanation of this "paradox." She was asked, "What about the double standards that the United States and Europe adopt when it comes to Arab issues?" She answered,
"I understand this view, which is common in many Arab countries. Nevertheless, the UN resolutions passed on Iraq are different, because they are binding for all nations according to Article 7 of the UN Charter. Meanwhile, the resolutions passed against Israel are not subject to Article 7 of the Charter."
To better understand the way UN resolutions work, it is worth reading an open letter by Uri Lubrani, coordinator of Israeli activities in Lebanon, addressed to Lebanon's Foreign Minister Faris Buwayz and published on February 27, 1998 in the Paris newspaper al Watan al-'Arabi. Although the letter was written regarding Resolution 425, it talks about all resolutions pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Uri Lubrani wrote the following,
"... There are two types of resolutions in the Security Council. The first type are resolutions passed on the basis of Chapter Six of the UN charter that relates to the settlement of disputes through peaceful means. Such resolutions are considered recommendations. They are not binding, and they do not require immediate implementation.... The second type of resolutions are based on Chapter Seven of the UN charter.... This chapter grants the UN Security Council resolutions an implementative authority and commits the international community to use force if necessary to implement these resolutions.... None of the UN Security Council resolutions pertaining to the Arab Israeli conflict, including Resolution 425, were passed on the basis of Chapter Seven. They were passed on the basis of Chapter Six of the UN charter, which is the basis also of UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338."
Since no mandatory UN Resolution exists pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are left with the San Remo Conference decision that governs land ownership in Palestine. That means that not a single enforceable internationally valid document exists that prevents or prohibits the Jews from settling anywhere in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and all the rest of Eretz Yisrael. Or, to put it differently, from the standpoint of international law for the Jews it is not an occupied land.
This conclusion was confirmed not long ago by an unexpected (for Israel) source. It is hard to argue with the fact that James Baker, former US Secretary of State, was not the best friend of the Jewish state. However, he categorically rejected the mislabeling of the lands of Yesha. This happened at the Middle East Insight Symposium in Washington on May 4, 1998. Hoda Tawfik, from the newspaper Al Ahram asked him, "What do you think is right? That these are occupied Arab territories and not disputed territories?" Baker replied, "They're clearly disputed territories. That's what Resolutions 242 and 338 are all about. They are clearly disputed territories."
All of this means that when the Jews build settlements in Yesha, they are not building them on "occupied" territories. If one wants, one may call them "disputed" territories, as Baker did. However, this will still not change the fact that from the standpoint of international law it is the very land where the Jews were encouraged to settle.
And as a final note, it should not be surprising that the San Remo Conference plays such an important role in this particular case. The majority of the other players in the conflict: Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. gained sovereignty over their territories based on the decisions of exactly the same conference. The Jews finally deserve to settle freely on their territories as well. It is time to stop labeling them "occupied".
1. Abba Eban. Voice of Israel. Horizon Press, New York, 1957.
[ Published: May 28, 2009 | Original: May 16, 2001 ]
In Depth Analysis
Where is Palestine?
Where, exactly, might another Palestinian state arise? "Another," because Jordan, constituting two-thirds of Mandatory Palestine, with a "Palestinian" majority population, already is a de facto Palestinian state. And although several international documents clearly state the boundaries of Israel, Netanyahu seems more than happy to change them and give land to Israel's sworn enemies.
Israeli Attack on Iran Won't Follow the American Script
Since Israel's exact capabilities are known only to a handful of senior government officials, it's impossible to predict exactly what an Israeli strike against Iran would look like. But based on past experience, one can confidently predict that it won't resemble the US blueprint. Israel is quite capable of dealing with situations with its limited resources and without provoking massive retaliation.
Is the Peace Treaty Between Israel and Egypt Finished?
The deterioration in relations between Israel and Egypt should serve as a reminder to all that the new generation in the Arab world is not marching toward moderation, particularly when it comes to making peace with Israel or even recognizing its right to exist.
Emet Blog
Benzion Netanyahu and the All Important UN Clause to Save the Jewish State
Benzion Netanyahu, (father of the current Israeli prime minister) who recently died in Jerusalem at the age of 102, along with Irgun activist Peter Bergson (nephew of Mandatory Palestine Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook), and liberal US Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, drafted an article for inclusion in the United Nations Charter that could yet save the Jewish state. Benzion helped to write the fundamental principle of Zionism — the right of Jewish settlement throughout the Land of Israel — into the United Nations Charter.
Bin Laden Lessons for Israel
The US assassinated bin Laden, tried to kill Hitler, and also hunted and eliminated Saddam Hussein, yet nobody said a word. For every targeted elimination carried out by Israel, it was hit with numerous condemnations and protests, yet the daily US surgical strikes in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and Iraq are met with silence. Every time Israel unintentionally harm civilians, the world raises a hue and cry, yet if it happens in Libya, Iraq, Serbia, or Kosovo nobody protests.
Murder at Tomb Illustrates the Future of Jewish Holy Sites in a Palestinian State
On April 24, 2011 Jewish worshipers at Joseph's Tomb were attacked by members of the US-trained PA/PLO police. One person was murdered and several others wounded. Rather than keep the peace and root out the terrorists who are a threat to the safety of both Jews and Arabs, the PA/PLO police have yet again proven themselves to be a group that is willing to commit acts of terrorism themselves. And this is not the first time they have done this at Joseph's Tomb.
Views/Commentary
Those Contradictory Militants
The mainstream media, politicians, and others, prefer to use the term "militant" instead of "terrorist," especially in the case of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Doing so fulfills many different agendas, in addition to furthering the user's cause. Whatever the case may be, the usage generally distorts the story and causes confusion for the reader, which many times is its exact intention. As with much post-1970s journalism, the longer news media use such language, the less they sound like journalists and the more they are heard as political partisans.
Who Will Teach Tolerance to the Muslims?
There was a time when police officers told battered wives that they had to be more understanding of their husbands. Today they tell Americans to be more understanding of Muslims. They do work hard you know. And if they try to car bomb you sometimes, maybe it's because you don't please them anymore.
But There is a G‑d in Israel
The Jewish exiles shall be ingathered only through faith. If they have it, if they truly believe in the existence of the Creator and Guider of history, the G‑d of Israel, they can bring the final redemption today. Far from fearing what the Gentile will do if they do such a thing, let the Jew tremble as he considers the anger of the Almighty if he does not.
Selected Reading
Reconciliation (Unity) Agreement Between Fatah and Hamas
Under the auspices of Egypt, delegations from the Fatah and Hamas terrorist groups met in Cairo on April 27, 2011 to discuss the issues concerning ending the political division and the achievement of national unity. Both political parties mutually agreed that the basis of understanding made during the meeting are committing to both parties in the implementation of the Palestinian National Reconciliation Agreement. This is the basis of understanding agreed upon by Fatah and Hamas.
The Arab Pulse: What Policymakers Can Learn From "Palestinian" Social Media 
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) has released the first-ever study mining the Arabic-language "Palestinian" social media environment to determine Arab public sentiment and its potential impact on US foreign policy. At FDD's direction, the Washington, D.C.-based Web analysis company Constrat viewed approximately 10,000 Arab social media entries between May 3 and August 3, 2010, of which it analyzed approximately 20 percent for relevancy. In the end, the company analyzed 1,788 statements contained within 1,114 unique posts across 996 threads written by 699 authors.
Why Is Israel's Presence in the Territories Still Called "Occupation"?
When an armed force holds territory beyond its own national borders, the term "occupation" is usually used to describe its holding on the land. However, not all the factual situations that we commonly think of as "occupation" fall within the limited scope of the term "occupation" as defined in international law.
Commentaries, Documents, Booklets, and Miscellaneous Materials Relating to the Gaza Strip
These commentaries, documentation, and booklets provide much otherwise unknown information regarding the truth ("emet") about what is really happening in the Arab-occupied/Hamas-controlled Gaza area. Included are weekly and monthly summaries of humanitarian assistance, as well as the infamous Goldstone Report, Israel-related United Nations Resolutions, and miscellaneous materials providing information and analysis of the situation in Gaza.
The History and Meaning of "Palestine" and "Palestinians"
Palestine has never existed . . . as an autonomous entity. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs. PDF Format