The Redhunter

I found this online somewhere:

"East Jerusalem is illegally occupied by Israel. This is the opinion of international law and there are several UN resolutions confirming that. Not a single country in the world recognizes East Jerusalem as part of Israel, US included. The Israeli settlements in the East Jeruslem and the West Bank are all considered illegal under international law, and also there are several UN resolutions confirming that.

Below is the legal opinion with regard to the Israeli settlements:

All Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Golan Heights are illegal under international law and there are several UN resolutions telling Israel to stop building such settlements and remove the existing ones.

Major Legal Principle Violated -
•It is Illegal for Occupant to move Significant Numbers of its own Population Onto Occupied Enemy Lands.

Geneva Conventions IV (1949), article 49(6):
Article 49(6). The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. .

Geneva Conventions (Protocol I) (1977), article 85(4a):
Article 85. Repression of breaches of this Protocol
4. In addition to the grave breaches defined in the preceding paragraphs and in the Conventions, the following shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed willfully and in violation of the Conventions or the Protocol:
o(a) the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory, in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Convention

The Hague Regulations
Prohibit an occupying power from undertaking permanent changes in the occupied area unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population".

I just wanted to know what the objection is to Israel occupying land that it was agreed on in 1947 should be for the three major religions--part to Israelis, part to Muslims, part to Christians, no?

The Israelis themselves were removing illegal settlements from where they shouldn't have been built. What caused the change in their attitude now? They are going to go ahead and occupy East Jerusalem and ignore International law as it suits them, just as some African dictatorships do?

I hear that Netanahu was elected by those Israelis who have as a goal to occupy all the land from the Jordan to the sea because God told them to do it. Sounds almost like the Muslims who say Allah told them to destroy all infidels.

I hate to see this stiff-necked attitude ceate more of a rift in that area that will get us involved in another war. With China and Russia allying against the US in favor of Iran, the US is walking a tightrope.

Emilie
Port Orchard, WA

you forget emili in 1996 Yitzhak Rabin agreed to give up 95% of the "Occupied Territories" and Arafat couldn't say anything and went back to the PLO and tehy rejeceted it because they want Isreael pushed in to the sea!!!!!!!

Anonymous -- I wish you would use at least your first name and the place where you live. I always wonder why some fear to reveal that information on a harmless blog where issues of interest are discussed. It is like not introducing yourself.

As for your comment: It seems that there are stiff-necked hard-liners on both sides and the extremists have the upper hand. That doesn't promote peace and security for either side. Two wrongs never made things right.

Palestine needs to stop and build a peace and their infrastructure, and Israel needs to stop the provocation of building settlements many in the world regard as illegal as I said before. Obama has said that Israel has a right to exist, but Israel should not provoke things. They are thumbing their noses at the UN much like some African dictators do when they invade and occupy their neighbors.

I guess some countries like Iran feel that their safety is not guaranteed unless they have something to "protect" themselves as do the US and Israel who together could cause quite a conflagration there.

I don't want the US involved in a war there, nor do I want any more 9/11s. Our safety and security is threatened too much already, and I don't think the US can do now what was done in Japan, which was to fight the enemy to annhilation with the worst weapons mankind has ever known. That tactic worked before, but I don't think it would work again. China and Russia are more powerful and influential than they were then and would interfere.

Emilie
Port Orchard, Washington State - USA

Heavens. I've covered the issue of the "settlements" ad nauseum on this blog, so I'm hesitant to go through it all again. But I'll run through a few points

Emilie

Thank you for stopping by. It's been awhile.

You are on solid ground when you say that the Palestinians need to stop building rockets and start building infrastructure.

1) The settlements are not the obstacle to peace. The obstacle is the Arab refusal to accept the state of Israel as a legitimate entity. I will show why in the following points.

3) If the "settlements" are the problem for the Arabs today, what was their problem before 1967?

4) If the Palestinians really wanted a homeland on the so-called "West Bank" (Judea and Samaria), and Arab nations wanted them to have a homeland there, why didn't they establish a state for them there when they controlled it (i.e. before 1967)?

3) I deny that the settlements are illegal. From my reading of history, the Israelis have just as much right to the land as anyone else. Jews lived the area from the beginning of recorded time, and were only forced out in 1947 by the Arabs (no vice versa, the Israelis did not force out Arabs as witnessed by the fact that 1 million Arabs live in Israel today and are full citizens). Jordan unilaterally annexed the area in 1950 after the war, and by what right did they do that? More, if it was so important for the Arabs there (whom we now call "Palestinians") to have a homeland there why didn't Jordan give it to them right then? Continuing with the history, before Jordan annexed it the Brits had it, and before that the Ottomans. Before that a series of Arab Caliphates, interrupted for 200 years by the Crusaders. Either way the local Arabs never had a country there, and so it's not "their land by historical right."

4) The Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to the Settlements. Follow the link for details.

5) The Israelis do not establish their settlements on land owned by Arabs; ie they do not go in and kick people off. The set them up in areas previously owned by Jews, land that isn't owned by anyone, or land that they buy from local Arabs (who yes to this day sell it to the Israelis for settlements, I'll bet you haven't heard about that). As for the new neighborhood in East Jerusalem, the area is totally Israeli anyway and there are no Arabs anywhere near the new building, so the only reason they're making a fuss is the usual one of scoring political points.

6) If the Arabs want to play the history game, the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judea have got to count for something.

7) As for the UN, it is a racist, sexist organization that serves to protect tyrants and terrorists. It is run by kleptocrats who could not care less about our concepts of democracy and fair play. The UN is sympathetic to the terrorists so sees things their way.

8) I went to Israel two years ago and actually saw some of the so-called settlements. Amazing how the Israelis have turned barren desert into economically productive farmland. The Palestinians never do this sort of thing. They spend all of their time complaining and building rockets to fire at Israel. Bottom line is that the Palestinians weren't doing anything with the land when they had it but now they complain when the Israelis make something out of it. Hmmm, maybe that's it.

9) Israel is one of our best allies, indeed an ideological soul-mate, and is so for a number of reasons. A) They're a democracy in a sea of tyranny, and for this alone they deserve support. B) Israel supplies us with invaluable intelligence and advice which has saved the lives of countless Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq. C) We have philosophical, cultural and religious ties with Israel that we do not have with anyone else in the region. If we abandon Israel we'll abandon anyone, and we can kiss our allies in the rest of the world goodbye, as they'll conclude that we are absolutely not to be trusted.

10) The Arab/Muslim/Jihadists do not hate us because of Israel, they hate both of us for the same reason; we are 1) infidels and they don't buy into our concepts of tolerance and diversity so cannot accept anything other than Muslim states (ok some are officially secular like Egypt, but in practice Islam is the dominant religion), and 2) are economically successful while they are not.

11) Whether anyone likes it or not the settlements are there to stay. They aren't going away, and won't be dismantled like the ones in Gaza or Sinai were because there are too many and they mean too much to the religious/observant Jews. By this fact alone whether they are "illegal" or not in some existential sense is purely academic.

12) The 1949 border is indefensible. Recall that Israel was nearly overrun in the 1973 Yom Kippur war, and only survived because the "occupied territories" of the Sinai and Golan Heights provided a buffer. The Israelis know that if they could barely defend their country in 1973 with larger territory, they'd never do it in a smaller space.

13) What, then, to do? Certainly the status quo is not acceptable. I've spelled it out in detail before, but essentially I'd set up a carrot and stick system to encourage the Palestinians to end terror and adopt a republic that respected individual liberty. Until that happens they'll never be "partners for peace." Fatah is bad enough, Hamas is completely unacceptable.

14) The Palestinians (a relatively new, and political term, fyi) have had multiple chances for peace and have turned down every one. Here is a list

One: The Arabs could have accepted the 1948 UN plan which would have divided the area and created two countries; Palestine and Israel. But instead they invaded with 8 armies.

Two: If it was so important for the Palestinians to have a homeland on what is termed the "West Bank", then Jordan could have given them this land at any time between 1948 and 1967, because they controlled it. But they didn't, and King Hussein's bad decisions during the Six Day War cost him this land.

Three: After the 1967 Six Day War Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan famously said that he was "expecting a phone call"; from the Arab governments. He expected them to agree to peace treaties in return for getting their land back. He never got any calls.

Four: The Arabs could have taken Anwar Sadat's lead and approached Israel to make similar deals. Instead, they threw Egypt out of the Arab League and made Sadat a pariah. When he was murdered they celebrated throughout the Arab world.

Five: Yassir Arafat could have agreed to the deal offered him at Camp David in 2000 by President Clinton and Israeli PM Ehud Barak. But instead of taking an offer that would have created a Palestinian state, he started an intifada that took hundreds if not thousands of lives.

Yes, yes, I know the objections; the 1948 plan was unfair to the Arabs and the Zionists would have chased them off the land anyway, that it was unrealistic to expect Jordan to give up part of their territory for the Palestinians, that the Arabs would have lost face had they called Moshe Dayan in 1967, that the situation with regard to Egypt and the Sinai was different, and that the 2000 deal would have left too many Israeli settlements. No deal was ever good enough for them, and so as a result they have no recognized country.

By rejecting every opportunity for peace, the Arabs miss something else too. If they had accepted the UN plan in 1948 and the Zionists had then chased them off the UN designated land, they'd have a case. If Jordan had given them land on the "West Bank" after 1948 and Israel had invaded without provocation, they'd have a case. If the Israeli's hadn't returned the land they won in the 1967 Six Day War after reasonable negotiations they'd have a case. If they'd tried to follow up on the Carter-Sadat-Begin settlement and been rebuffed they'd have a case. And if they'd accepted Clinton and Baruk's proposal at Camp David in 2000 and the Israelis reneged they'd have a case.

But in each case they didn't. They missed their opportunity each time, and continue to blow it time and again. Time and again the Palestinians are offered something, and time and again the reject it. My patience with them is at an end.

Snake Hunter Sez,

* Palestine is not a Government, and never was!

* Shiite-Hamas and Sunni-Fatah kill each other!

* Jerusalem is the Israeli Capital!

* The U.N. & The Hague Have No Legitimate Claim Over Any Sovereign Government!

reb
____________________________________________

I am going to pick up on the last point: Obama is caving to the Iran. I looked at the FOX News piece in the link, and it acctually explains that the reason for weaking the sanctions is to get Russia and China to by in to the sanction scheme. In order to get the UN Security council members who have veto power (China and Russia) to agree to international sanctions, Obama is making concessions, which seems pretty logical to me. It is not because he secretly wants them to destroy us or anything. Yes, the far right thinks the UN is the Beast ready to mark us all and send in the black helicopters for the NWO/TEOWAWKI, but this is one body in which we can use to get the most far reaching (and effective sanction against Iran). I just finished Robert Baer's book, "The Devil We Know", it was great and really highlighted the subtle, yet immense, threat of Iran. Sanctions won't solve the problem, but anything that targets the financing of the Revolutionary Guard/Quds Force/Basiji militias is good in my book. Contrary to the way you have framed Obama's "softening" of the sanctions, I think it is a realistic way of goading the rest of the international community into at least officially enacting sanctions. Yes, it is not perfect, but is is better than anything Bush and the Republicans ever did, other than talk tough.

On a side note, the recent election in Iraq was very interesting: Allawi, a Shi'ite former CIA funded player, who caught the vote of the disaffected Sunni. But now I read that Sadr will join with Maliki's Shi'ite bloc, with a possible parliamentary majority as the result.

I am not going to really get into the settlement issue, since it is a never ending argument that has lasted forever. But I will quote the Economist on the 'illegal settlements' to provide some factual background of the settlements in question:

"It was announced that 1,600 Jewish homes would be built in East Jerusalem. Mr Netanyahu apologised fulsomely for the bad timing but refused to rescind the decision. The suburb in question, Ramat Shlomo, is one of several all-Jewish ones built since 1967 in East Jerusalem, where 250,000 Israeli Jews now live. The latest scheme is much smaller—just 20 units—but a lot more incendiary. Whereas Ramat Shlomo is built on a rocky outcrop on the northern rim of the Israeli-delineated municipality, the new scheme involves installing a score of Jewish settler families in a converted hotel in the densely populated all-Arab suburb of Sheikh Jarrah, close to the Old City {Jerusalem)."

(Economist, A wall of suspicion. March 25th 2010)

As you well know, the sharing of Jerusalem has been a cause of many conflicts between the three Abrahamic religions (Christian, Judaic, and Muslim) since Abraham raised his knife to kill his son for God.

"better than anything Bush and the Republicans ever did"

That's really pretty weak, jason. I thought Obama was going to change everything.

More, no commenter has discussed the central theme of the post; the contemptuous treatment of Netanyahu by Obama. This is no way to treat the leader of a U.S. ally. Obama listened to a 50-minute diatribe by Danny Ortega, takes insults from Chavez, and does nothing. Then he insults British PM Brown with that amateurish gift of a box set of DVDs that won't even play on European DVD players, and now he treats the Israeli PM worse than any foreign dictator.

And no commenter seems to care. We're OK with that, then?

As for sanctions, I'm sure that any new ones will amount to little and not change Iranian behavior one whit.

Tom, I didn't touch on the central theme of the post because I didn't think Obama insulted Netanyahu. Netanahu never said he did. I thought what happened was that the Israelis couldn't or wouldn't give him an answer and told him they had to talk it over amongst themselves, so Obama excused himself, saying he would be back to see what they decided, I think knowing they wouldn't decide anything. It was a waste of his time and Netanahu's.

It was Netanahu who was the rude one to make an announcement of approving more settlements while a leader of their strongest ally opposing such was in their country. It was like a slap in the face. He sort of apologized for the timing of the announcement, but not for the announcement itself.

As for Ortega and Chavez, they have to be treated like children. Let them throw their childish snits; they will never see the inside of the White House like Netanahu does. No President should lower himself to their level by responding in any way to their diatribes. They are nuts. It is best to say nothing and just ignore them; they show their immaturity and unprofessionalism, and engaging them will only make them worse.

Emilie