The decision by a commission of legal scholars, led by retired Israeli Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy, that Israeli settlement in Judea and Samaria is legal, created a storm of protest from the usual quarters.
Today I’m going to dissect one paragraph that epitomizes the misconceptions surrounding Israel’s legal rights in Judea and Samaria. It happens to appear in a New York Times editorial, but that’s really not important (unless you are still awed by the ignorance or malice of the editors of that newspaper).
Here is the paragraph:
“Most of the world views the West Bank, which was taken by Israel from Jordan in the 1967 war, as occupied territory and all Israeli construction there as a violation of international law. The world court ruled this way in 2004. The Fourth Geneva Convention bars occupying powers from settling their own populations in occupied lands. And United Nations Security Council resolution 242, a core of Middle East policy, calls for the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
Most of the world
This can’t mean most of the world’s 6.9 billion people, most of whom don’t give a rat’s posterior about Israel. It probably refers to most of the members of the UN General Assembly, where there has been an automatic majority against Israel on every imaginable subject since the 1970s. Is this supposed to add authority to their argument?
view the West Bank
“West Bank” is a term applied to what had previously been called by its biblical names, Judea and Samaria, by Jordan in 1950. Using this expression obscures the historical Jewish connection and suggests that Jordanian control of the area, which lasted only 19 years, was somehow ‘normal.’
which was taken by Israel from Jordan in the 1967 war
This continues the theme that the normal situation was usurped by Israel in 1967. But when Jordanian troops marched into the area in 1948, killing and driving out the Jewish population, they violated the provision of the Mandate that set aside the area of ‘Palestine’ for “close Jewish settlement,” and the one that called for the civil rights of all existing residents — Jewish or Arab — to be respected. It also violated the UN charter which forbids the acquisition of territory by force. Only Pakistan and the UK recognized the annexation of the area (even the Arab League opposed it).
The Jordanian invasion and annexation of Judea and Samaria was, in fact, illegal under international law. Israel’s conquest in 1967, on the other hand, can be seen as a realization of the terms of the Mandate.
as occupied territory
As I wrote yesterday, the concept of a ‘belligerent occupation’ does not apply here. What country owned the territory that Israel ‘occupied’? Not Jordan, which was there illegally, nor Britain, whose Mandate had ended, nor the Ottoman Empire, which no longer existed. The nation with the best claim was Israel, the nation-state of the Jewish people, who were the intended beneficiaries of the Mandate. Judea and Samaria are disputed, not occupied, and the Jewish people have a prima facie claim based on the Mandate.
and all Israeli construction there as a violation of international law. The world court ruled this way in 2004.
This refers to the advisory opinion against the security fence issued by the International Court of Justice. The opinion refers to Israel as an “occupying power” and says that the fence is built on “occupied Palestinian land,” despite the fact that there is no legally delimited border between Israeli and ‘Palestinian’ land.
The Fourth Geneva Convention bars occupying powers from settling their own populations in occupied lands. And United Nations Security Council resolution 242, a core of Middle East policy, calls for the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
Since the land is not ‘occupied’, the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply. And even if it were occupied, legal scholars (including the Levy commission) have made excellent arguments that the Convention was not intended to apply to voluntary ‘transfers’ of population like settlements, but to forced deportations like the Nazi transfer of German Jews into occupied Poland.
About the Author: Vic Rosenthal created FresnoZionism.org to provide a forum for publishing and discussing issues about Israel and the Mideast conflict, especially where there is a local connection. Rosenthal believes that America’s interests are best served by supporting the democratic state of Israel, the front line in the struggle between Western civilization and radical Islam. The viewpoint is not intended to be liberal or conservative — just pro-Israel.
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
- Storm over ‘Haredim Are Cancer’ Comment
on December 11, 2013 10:50 AM
- Court Allows Jewish Family to Pursue Nazi-Looted Painting
on December 11, 2013 8:25 AM
- Dutch Water Company Cuts Israel Ties over Territories
on December 11, 2013 8:16 AM
- Iran Dismisses Israeli President’s Offer to Meet Rouhani
on December 11, 2013 8:09 AM
- Hillel CEO: You Can’t Use Our Name if You Reject Zionism
on December 11, 2013 7:59 AM
- Canada Sends Ex-Jobbik Leader Packing before Montreal Speech
on December 10, 2013 11:14 PM
- Kerry Plays ‘Blame Game’ to Urge Congress to Go Soft on Sanctions
on December 10, 2013 11:04 PM
- The Day Mandela Went to Shul and Preached against Aliyah
on December 10, 2013 9:02 PM
- Two Israel-Americans Receive Nobel Prize Awards in Stockholm
on December 10, 2013 7:18 PM
- Tennessee Security Guard Pleads Guilty to Defacing Torah Scroll
on December 10, 2013 5:18 PM
- New Hope for ‘Agunot’ Women Trapped by Separated Husbands
on December 10, 2013 4:53 PM
- Hillel Outmaneuvered as Swarthmore Students Reject Its Israel Guidelines
on December 10, 2013 1:39 PM
- UK Warns Against Doing Business in ‘West Bank’ Jewish Settlements
on December 10, 2013 10:41 AM
- AG: Police Found Well Organized, Criminal Vote Scam in Beit Shemesh
on December 10, 2013 10:02 AM
- Editor Deleted Post of J Street U Students’ Misconduct
on December 10, 2013 6:50 AM