The encounter of truth with prejudice

Original Tony

Carter is a nasty bit or work. Thanks to him my homeland was given to Mugabe and yet he makes no apology to this day. It was ironic when Mugabe recently banned Carter from entering Zimbabwe as one of the council of elders who were supposed to resolve the crisis there.

This man is so blind that he should apply to be in a Specsavers advert.

Nobody, with any intelligence at all, should ever listen to a word that comes out of his mouth although the comments about the Israeli settlement is welcome.

Ronnie

Yes, a great many people tend to talk rubbish about things they know very little about.

Hugh

Sure, that's what it must be down to: Carter's prejudice. The truth is that these Jewish communities in "Judea and Samaria" are illegal settlements, something that neither the JP nor Melanie seem able to acknowledge.

Lee Jakeman

"Sometimes the still small voice of conscience wakes."

Yeah. Sometimes ...

Jonathan Gold

Actually, as a resident of the area, meeting Carter in Neveh Daniel was a smart move. It's the highest point in the area, and on a clear day you can see to Tel Aviv in the west and the dead sea in the east. So, it clearly illustrates the point. Then again, we're talking Jimmy Carter...

Richard Pearce

Gush Etzion sounds like one of the nicer settlements in Palestine.

It is a shame that it has been constructed on land that is under military occupation by the Israeli army and as such is illegal under International law.

wonderer

Settlements were established on purchased land in the Gush Etzion area prior to 1948. Under the UN Partition Plan they would have been Jewish areas in the proposed Arab state, as was also planned in Gaza. They were captured by the Jordanian Army in the 1948 war and the inhabitants killed or expelled. Israel retook the area in 1967 and re-established and expanded settlements.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Yes, Ronnie, particularly those who disguise themselves as "anti-Zionists" !

Yitz

A very astute woman from the Town of Efrat wrote a brilliant analogy in the Jerusalem Post comparing Jimmy the Dhimmi with Bilaam(Numbers 23)who was hired to curse the Jews but ended up doing God's Will and blessing them!

Miranda Rose Smith

Just for the record, I believe that there are some roads that Arabs are not allowed to drive on, but there's a reason for that that even Jimmy Carter must realize, and the fact that he finds it objectionable that Arabs are not allowed to use these roads shows that he is completely indifferent to Jews being shot at.

just Louise

Call me suspicious, but it does make me wonder whether the current occupant of the White House asked Ol' Jimmy to pop over to Gaza right now in order to lend authority to the Obama-Clinton assault on Bibi.

Ronnie

The bell goes and Mike Tyson sprints out of his corner...

Jerry

According to Hugh and Richard Pearson Jews are not allowed to own land in Judea and Samaria. Their position is incongruent to the point of constituting prejudice. Because Gush Etzion was Jewish land, purchased and developed before the State of Israel was established, they should support its continuation in Jewish hands, if they also support the right of return for Palestinians to Israel.

Let us be clear here. It was the presence of Gush Etzion that saved Jerusalem for the Jews in 1948. The original founders of the kibbutzim (agricultural collectives) gave their lives to save the access to Jerusalem and allowed for its defense. Mr. Carter saw Tel Aviv AND Jerusalem from Gush Etzion. Perhaps it gave him some idea of just how small Israel is and how it requires the defensive positions it has established in Judea and Samaria. Perhaps Richard and Hugh ought to visit the Gush area as Mr. Carter has done before they continue their "contributions" to this blog.

Penny

With regard to the settlements, I have copied over a couple of extracts taken from a paper written by Eugene W. Rostow who helped draft Resolution 242:

"For twenty-four years Arab states have pretended that the two resolutions are "ambiguous" and can be interpreted to suit their desires. And some European, Soviet and even American officials have cynically allowed Arab spokesman to delude themselves and their people--to say nothing of Western public opinion--about what the resolutions mean"

and

"...Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces "from territories" it occupied during the Six-Day War--not from "the" territories nor from "all" the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip."

The full paper can be read at:

http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal1.shtml

Augustus

Tony Blair, when he recently got involved in daily life in the West Bank, said that a bottom-up strategy, such as that followed by Israel, was the logical one. "You don't build a state just by drawing boundary lines, but by building
an economy and institutions."

Whatever people like Obama, Clinton, or Carter, may say, freezing the building of settlement outposts would have dire consequences for the Palestinian building sector and related activities, in which
tens of thousands of workers are involved. You could say that Obama wants to ruin the Palestinian economy.

Derek BLADES

Anyone interested in a balanced view of Israeli settlements and their impact on the daily lives of West Bank Palestinians should read the latest UN report “The Humanitarian Impact on Palestinians of Israeli Settlements and Other Infrastructure in The West Bank”, July 2007, United Nations - Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
The findings of this study are much closer to Jimmy Carter's assessment than to the rosy view in the Jerusalem Post article cited by Ms Phillips. Carter’s detailed knowledge of Middle Eastern politics stems from his success in browbeating Begin into signing a peace treaty with Egypt. The task of forcing Israel to do what is in its own real interests now falls to Obama and Mitchell. Let’s hope they have the same wisdom and perseverance that Carter showed in the 1970s.

Raymond in DC

Miranda Rose Smith writes, "Just for the record, I believe that there are some roads that Arabs are not allowed to drive on." NOT TRUE. There are however roads that, for security reasons, only ISRAELIS are allowed to use. Arab and Druse Israelis use those roads all the time.

And Richard Pierce writes, "It is a shame that [Gush Etzion] has been constructed on land that is under military occupation by the Israeli army and as such is illegal under International law."

Again, NOT TRUE. The Gush bloc predates the establishment of the State of Israel. It was built on land purchased by Jews, but lost when the land was seized by Jordan in 1948. The Jews simply reclaimed in 1967 what was theirs. The Gush expanded since onto ownerless land.

As to the "illegal" part, what part of the League of Nations Mandate of 1922 that *granted* that land to the Jews do you not understand? What the UN has done since then is play a progressive game of "take back".

Alex Bensky

I wonder why anyone is surprised anymore when Carter displays his dislike of Israel. When he was still governor of Georgia he went to Israel and pointed out to Golda Meir that Israel had suffered through the ages when its leaders had turned away from God. I have no doubt that Carter is sincerely hurt when someone calls him an anti-Semite. Because of his great love for the Jewish people he holds them to standards to which he expects no one else to rise. Eric Hoffer once remarked that Jews are the only people who are expected to act like Christians.

Carter does do one thing construcitve for me. I not only voted for him twice but the second time, mostly because his opponent was Teddy the Pretender, I did a little caucus work for him. So every Yom Kippur I know I have at least one thing for which to atone.

By the way, what's illegal about the settlements? They are on land apportioned to the Arab state by the UN's 1947 partition plan, but the Arabs didn't accept it and went to war. Jordan then annexed the area and while that was recognized only by the UK and Pakistan, nobody lost any sleep over it or demanded that Egypt and Jordan set up a Palestinian state. Israel took the area in a defensive war.

Only the Arabs are allowed to instigate war after war, lose them, and then go back to square one.

Michael B

"In the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life." P.A. Pres. Mahmoud Abbas, June 11, 2009

That was said in a context wherein Abbas had communicated an intransigent unwillingness to recognize Israel's most fundamental existential right, had refused to discuss prospects for minor but symbolic concessions from Arab Muslim leaders in the region, had refused any concessions whatsoever to Obama - reflecting an intransigent unwillingness, an obdurate quality, brought to you by the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars and euros that are forever flowing into Abbas and the P.A., into Hamas in Gaza, and so often redirected into "other" activities ranging from text books from pre-school ages and forward that foment anti-Semitic hatreds to terrorist and militant activities.

Yet according to reports, Obama placed no considerable pressure upon Abbas whatsoever in their recent meeting, while placing considerable pressure upon Netanyahu, e.g., to freeze settlements (***).

*** And West Bank settlements are among the most profoundly mis-reported (naively and more mendaciously) and misconceived issues within the overall Israel/Arab Muslim set of issues in the Middle East and on the planet in general, in terms of strategic and other practicalities (e.g., defensible borders), in terms of international law, and in terms of history in general, both prior to and since 1948.

John

I wish "Jimmah" would just go home and sit on the porch.

O/T Iowahawk weighs in on Iran:

Greetings. As president of United States -- or, if you prefer, the Great Satan -- I have have been following with keen interest the vigorous post-election debate and vibrant political dialogue which has been taking place in your great and noble Islamic Republic of Iran over recent days. It has been both educational and fascinating, and as a sports fan I have thrilled to the pageantry, the suspense, and the fast-paced, hard-hitting action.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/06/hail-to-the-victors.html

Richard Pearce

I note that Gush Etzion is located in the territory allocated to Jordan under the Armistice Agreement that Israel signed on 3rd April 1949.

According to International law, the military occupation of that territory by the Israeli army in 1967 does not give Israel the right to construct settlements within the occupied territory.

In the words of William W. Scranton the US Ambassador to the United Nations, in a statement to the Security Council on 23rd March 1976;

"The United States position on the status of Jerusalem has been stated here on numerous occasions since the Arab portion of that city was occupied by Israel in 1967.... [T]he future of Jerusalem will be determined only through the instruments and processes of negotiation, agreement and accommodation. Unilateral attempts to predetermine the future have no standing."

"Next, I turn to the question of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Again, my government believes that international law sets the appropriate standards. An occupier must maintain the occupied areas as intact and unaltered as possible, without interfering with the customary life of the area, and any changes must be necessitated by the immediate needs of the occupation and be consistent with international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention speaks directly to the issue of population transfer in Article 49: 'The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.' Clearly, then, substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties or the location of the borders of states of the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors."

Trish Williams

Mr. Pearce is repeatedly failing (willfully) to hear the facts: many towns of Gush Etzion were Jewish BEFORE the partition and were intended to remain Jewish under the Partition Plan. They are NOT illegal settlements and the only time Jews weren't living there after the towns' establishments was when they were ethnically cleansed by the invading, and illegally occupying, Jordanian Army. Absent a final status, permanent peace agreement, Israel is under no obligation to withdraw from the West Bank (nor should it withdraw absent a peace agreement, given what Gaza has turned into) nor under Resolution 242 is Israel obliged to surrender Jewish townships that existed before 1948. In light of Abbas's racist declarations that no Jews will be allowed to live in Palestine, it would be foolhardy to turn long-established Jewish towns over to a regime that intends ethnic cleansing again.

Jerry

Re Richard Pearce on legality of settlements:

Your willingness to disenfranchise Israel with regard to Judea and Samaria is mendacious. Quotation of law out of context sounds authoritative, but ignores the politics of the matter.

Jordan took the "West Bank" in a war of aggression in 1948 and relinquished it without qualification after 1967. The original "West Bank" was part of the partition of Palestine given to the Jews. So, Israel merely took back in a defensive war what was theirs. That the World does not agree, is a sign of politics at work, not law.

The complete destruction of the Jewish presence by Jordan following their occupation of 1948 might certainly fall within "...an occupier must maintain the occupied areas intact and unaltered as possible..." don't you think!

Mr. Pearce, I highly recommend the work of John Loftus - "The Secret War Against the Jews" - as a lesson in how the world operates. The Jews would have nothing - not even life - had they not engaged the world on the its subpar level. That giving the "West Bank" to the Palestinians would be suicidal for Israel seems to be ignored or perhaps relished by you. May you find your personal peace outside the roiling conflict in the Middle East.

Michael B

"I was misinformed." Rick, in reply to Capt. Renault's remark about the lack of curative waters in the desert surrounding Casablanca (Warner Bros., 1942)

Richard Pearce,

As with Rick, you are misinformed, in your case concerning the application of international law (caps neither needed nor warranted) to Gush Etzion and West Bank settlements in general.

Too many, very often among leftist and tranzi factions though others as well, invoke and arrogate the imprimatur of international law on selective and highly suspect grounds. What international law says is controversial and even at variance with itself, dependent upon what aspects of that subspecies of law are invoked, what aspects are elided, who and what body is interpreting it, with what policy views in mind, with what legal principles in mind and how all those factors, among others, are weighed in the balance with one another. There's the additional, all important fact that when international law presumes to speak to basic existential and security matters, there typically are no (or inadequate) enforcement mechanisms and security guarantees. There are exceptions of note (e.g., Korea), but too often there are either no enforcement mechanisms or they are inadequate to the needs at hand. This is arguably the most notable difference between internal, domestic law within a nation/state and "international law" between nations. They are two very different animals.

Even the pivotal subtext you invoke, the 1967 Six Day War, is invoked in a manner that does a disservice to the history and the strategic facts on the ground as they remain to this day. The Six Day War was the culmination of Egypt's Nasser's '66/67 pan-Arab initiative against Israel, with the design of wiping Israel off the face of the planet.

Again: off the face of the planet.

That's what is known as an Existential Concern (far more deserving of caps than intl. law). It's an existential concern for Israelis then and now, for others as well, excluding, one might note, most among Israel's Arab and Persian Muslim neighbors, not well known for their neighborliness, excluding yourself perhaps, and excluding a certain James von Brunn, recently in the news.

As to the Fourth Geneva Convention itself, I'll quote Dore Gold at length, drawing special attentioni to Morris Abram's comment:

"The question about the legality of settlements came from how various legal authorities interpret the applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to civilian persons in times of war. Article 49 of the convention clearly prohibits "mass forcible transfers" of protected persons from occupied territories. Later in the article, it states that "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." American interpretations of this article maintained that it referred to forcible deportations that were practiced by the Nazis and not to Israeli settlement activity. During the Bush (41) administration, the U.S. ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Morris Abram, explained that he had been on the U.S. staff during the Nuremberg trials and was hence familiar with the "legislative intent" behind the Fourth Geneva Convention. He stated on February 1, 1990, that it applied to forcible transfers and not to the case of Israeli settlements."

All that's a bare bones beginning only (the subject of defensible borders in the light of the '67 war of aggression by Syria, Egypt, Jordan and other Arab states would need to be elaborated), but, in lieu of twenty-thousand words and more, that at least serves added and critical perspective.

G.P.

Derek Blades-"success?!" Egypt and Israel made peace DESPITE Carter's constant egocentric meddling.He wanted to "fix" the whole region, using Israel as his pawn to achieve some misguided Middle Eastern fantasy.
"Anyone interested in a balanced view of Israeli settlements and their impact on the daily lives of West Bank Palestinians should read the latest UN report 'The Humanitarian Impact on Palestinians of Israeli Settlements and Other Infrastructure in The West Bank'-"balanced" and "UN" in the same sentence? Surely an oxymoron. There's more! "The task of forcing Israel to do what is in its own real interests now falls to Obama and Mitchell. Let’s hope they have the same wisdom and perseverance that Carter showed in the 1970s."Great! "the same wisdom and perseverance" that gave us a bellicose,fascist Islamic theocracy that trains and supports such terrorists as Hezbolla and Hamas!Do you truly want Obama to emulate the eminently inept Carter?

Wm. Hazlitt

I would appreciate clarification. I am sure there is someone out there with the information I need. Is there someone who has looked at a map of Israeli settlements in the West Bank? who has looked at a map of areas out of bounds to Palestinians? who can tell me how much of the Jordan Valley is out of bounds? who has looked at a map of where the security barriers and checkpoints are actually situated? who has looked at a map of Israeli-only highways? of the route taken by the wall, barrier of fence? who has looked at a map of the area of the West Bank currently incorporated into greater Jerusalem? and the area proposed to be incorporated in future? who can say what proportion of the West Bank allocated by Israel currently to the Palestinians is contiguous? who can say what proportion of water supplies is under Israeli control? who can say what per capita income is among Palestinians? who can say what the per capita subsidy is for settlers? who has made any effort to discover what life is like for Palestinians in the West Bank (e.g. by reading accounts by residents or by outside observers)? Could such a paragon of encyclopedic knowledge tell me whether the bucolic scenes described above, however accurate in themselves, are a truthful representation of life overall for occupiers and occupied in the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria - the occupied territories)? My classics tutor always said that pastoral idylls were not intended as accurate representations of the life of the poor, but as pleasing fantasies for the propertied classes.

John Edwards

There is absolutely no doubt that all the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law. This was confirmed unanimously by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the separation wall Israel is building in the occupied West Bank. Just go to their website and read the judgement.

As far as UN Resolution 242 and the omission of the definite article "the" in the English (though not the French) text is concerned. This old chestnut does not mean that Israel has any right to keep any part of these territories.

Lord Caradon the co-drafter of the resolution explicitly denied there was any ambiguity about the requirement for an Israeli withdrawal. As he said at the Security Council:

"In our resolution we stated the principle of the "withdrawal of Israel's armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and in the preamble emphasised "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" In our view the wording of the provisions is clear"

Lord Caradon later recalled that the definite article was omitted from the operative paragraph ("territories occupied" as opposed to "the territories occupied") due to the irregularities of the 1948 borders which were based on the accident of where exactly the Israeli and Arab armies happened to be at the time of the original armistice agreement. The omission did not at all mitigate the force of the preambular reference to "the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war"

As Caradon explained "Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line, I wasn't prepared to use wording in the Resolution that would have made that line permanent. Nonetheless it is necessary to say again that the overriding principle was the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and that meant that there could be no justification for annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent "secure and recognised" boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind of course, the "inadmissibility" principle"

Caradon also stated later that the "annexation of East Jerusalem and the creeping colonisation of the West Bank...
was in clear defiance of Resolution 242"

The other co-drafter of UN Resolution 242 Arthur Goldberg from the United States confirmed to the Jordanians that "some territorial adjustments would be required but that there must be a mutuality in adjustments" The State Department explicitly committed itself to "relatively small and "mutual" territorial adjustments.

Dean Rusk recalled in his memoirs that the United States favoured the omission of the definite article in the "withdrawal clause" only because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be "rationalised" certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties" "But" he stressed "we never contemplated any significant granting of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war".

"Raymond from DC" suggests that "the League of Nations Mandate of 1922 granted the land to the Jews. He has obviously never read it.

As Lloyd George explained to the House of Commons "The obligations of the Mandate were specific and definite. They were that we were to encourage the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine without detriment to any of the rights of the Arab population. That was a dual undertaking and we must see that both parts of the Mandate are enforced".

It is not the admirable Jimmy Carter who is promulgating falsehoods and showing staggering ignorance.

Yehuda

In 1922 The League of Nations Council ratified the Balfour Declaration, and mandated the facilitation of further Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria.
Thus international law acknowledged the Jewish Nation's rights (on several grounds) to this land.
Nothing has altered that commitment and acknowledgement.
What has changed, however, is that anti-Zionists and unprincipled or ignorant politicians baselessly blather on about "illegality."
In their dictionary "illegal" means "anything we don't like."

Mark Adrian Solomon

Just confirms what those of us with memories longer than a fruit fly already knew - that the worse US President in our lifetime - unquestionably and by a long long way - was Jimmy Carter. I have always found it unbelievable that he has pranced around the world stage as an elder statesman and held in some sort of respect when his Presidency was a disaster from start to finish, with not one single solitary positive achievement. He learned next to nothing from his time in office.

George Bush is a positive genius set alongside him.

hadrian

Surrounded as they are by mortal and implacable enemies, motivated, sadly, as much by religious prejudice as by any pretext of suffering 'injustice', the Israeli Jews know only too well how vital to their continued existence utter vigilence against aggressors are. Whatever their mistakes, if we left them the way the shallow Leftists of this country wanted, they'd be facing certain genocide. I for one do not want that on my conscience.
How peculiarly eager the Left are to interfere where any putative 'injustice' is directed towards Moslems, how slow to sprak up when, on the other hand, it's Africans suffering at the hands of other Africans.

Jerry

John Edwards wrote, "There is absolutely no doubt that all the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law. This was confirmed unanimously by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion..."

That is correct, Mr. Edwards. The unanimous opinion was advisory and not binding. I am sure that you would like it to have been binding, but it was not. Moreover, only one party brought the issue to the ICJ and that was not a country - the Palestinians. The IJC's mandate is to offer opinions where both parties are seeking their judgment.

Israel has not bound itself to IJC jurisdiction because it cannot receive a fair hearing there. That is recognized by fair-minded people everywhere. The Antidefamation League wrote the following: "In the weeks leading up to the Court's oral hearings, forty-nine nations and international organizations, submitted briefs to the ICJ. The majority, including the European Union (all 15 current members, plus the ten countries joining), the United States, Canada, Russia, Australia, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands submitted written briefs questioning the International Court of Justice's jurisdiction to advise on the issue of Israel's security fence."

The UN and its affiliate groups are stacked against Israel. If it were up to them, Israel would disappear. Nothing against the Jews, just that they are a pain in the eye. Israel versus oil, you know.

Mr. Edwards, your statement of the issue represents quintessential propaganda, since your arguments referred only to material supporting your already held view. Thus, you mustn't represent yourself as justified in some heavenly legalistic way. You are doing nothing but working for the dissolution of Israel, don't you agree.

Derek BLADES

Wm. Hazlitt, June 18th, asks some pertinent questions. I can partly answer just one of them. In its latest publication, World Development Indicators, The World Bank estimates that in 2005 per capita Gross National Income in the West Bank and Gaza was US$ 1,230 compared with US$ 18,580 in Israel. Israeli per capita GNI was therefore just over 15 times larger and the difference will certainly be greater now following the massive destruction in Gaza. Both estimates are based on exchange rate conversion and exclude the settlements.

These figures are in line with the impressions of all impartial observers as they cross from Israel into the occupied territories. The shocking deprivation and poverty of Arabs in the occupied territories is due at least to some extent to the disruption of their economic life caused by the settlements, connecting roads and the separation barrier.

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Original Tony: You should have written "the comments about the Israeli settlement ARE welcome."

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Raymond in DC: Thank you.

Adam B.

Derek Blades claims that the settlemets cause poverty amongst the Palestinians. This is demonstrably untrue. You may wish to ponder the following facts, as detailed in an article by Douglas Davis in The Spectator (14 January 2006):

“When Arafat returned to Gaza in 1993, per capita income for Palestinians was running at about $3000, dwarfing that of their neighbours in Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The figure now stands at $934, with foreign aid making up well over half of that amount.
The collapse of the economy coincided with Israel’s decision to shut the door to Palestinians entering Israel in an attempt to stop the suicide-bombers killing its citizens. The immediate cost for the Palestinians was 100,000 jobs….”

Is it not more accurate to say that the Palestinian leadership's commitment to violence and attacking Israel (rather than building institutions and the stability necessary for a state) causes the poverty?

Pete Hoskin

A comment by 'simon' has now been taken down from this thread. Thank you to those who flagged it up. It shouldn't have been approved in the first place. Apologies that it was.

Original Tony

Miranda...not sure if I am right but if several comments are made about a singular object, say a jar of cookies, then the comments made about that singular object (cookies or Jewish settlement)IS welcome to the observer, not ARE welcome to the observer. It depends how you put the emphasis in the sentence. But I am willing to be corrected.

stanley Jerusalem

Derek BLADES
June 19th, 2009 8:47am
"These figures are in line with the impressions of all impartial observers as they cross from Israel into the occupied territories. The shocking deprivation and poverty of Arabs in the occupied territories is due at least to some extent to the disruption of their economic life caused by the settlements, connecting roads and the separation barrier."
What a lot of bollocks!
They are due to 60 years worth of Arab intransigence and obstinacy in refusing to accept a war that they initiated and continue to perpetuate. The levels of excellence that Palestinian Arabs who manage to escape the stranglehold of both Fatah and Hamas is evident to any who have had the pleasure of meeting them either in israel or in the West where they continue to hold positions of excellence and influence in the sciences among others and regret the influence of those left in charge of their unfortunate relatives in the West bank and the Gaza Strip. The existence of Israel, so-called occupied Territories and Settlements has absolutely no bearing whatever on them. Only their own obdurate obstinacy and innate hatred of their falsely perceived enemy.

Alex Bensky

I love that bit about it's impermissible to acquire territories by war. This is applied only to Israel. I don't notice any pressure to get Russia to disgorge the part of Karelia it took after the Russo-Finnish War, or Sakhalin Island, which it took from Japan, or what was eastern Poland, for that matter. The US isn't about to give back Arizona. No one is agitating for Turkey to retreat from part of Cyprus except Greece.

Settlements may well be illegal when one power occupies the territory of another, but the West Bank and Gaza do not fall within that status. Theyw ere supposed to be part of the post-partition Arab state that the Arabs rejected. Jordan ananexed the West Bank and later gave up its claim to that area and the territory therefore doesn't belong to an occupying power.

As to the economic statistics, it would be instructive to compare economic and social indicators in the administered territories before and after 1967. After not at all benign neglect for neary twenty years, under Israeli control pretty much every indicator rose sharply, including education, life expectancy, and income.

The Palestinians chose to throw it away. But as we see so often, the Palestinians can start and lose wars as many times as they want and they, alone among all the people of the world, never have to face any consequences of their actions.

Richard Pearce

As mendacious as it may seem to some, the conventions and resolutions that enshrine International law are not dictated by one country; they are agreed upon, signed and ratified by many different countries.

I understand very well how International law may be interpreted as invalid when it is incompatible with a particular political aspiration. I am also acutely aware of how ones position on a particular convention or resolution can change when it no longer suits or when further conventions and resolutions are introduced to further clarify what International law means in practice.

I would be very interested to learn Morris Abram's opinion on the "legislative intent" of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9th December 1948 and the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 30th November 1973 and how that relates to the political aspirations of the Israeli government within the State of Israel and within the Palestinian territories that are occupied by the Israeli army.

Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Richard Pearce

In regards to Israel's right to exist as an independent state within Palestine, I am aware of the Balfour Declaration which states;

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I am also aware of the resolution regarding Zionist aims made by the Zionist Congress held at Carlsbad in September 1921 which states;

"the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

I understand that the Churchill White Paper of 3rd June 1922 clarified the British position regarding the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, which states;

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded "in Palestine". In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims" [as detailed above]

"it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sèvres, is not susceptible of change."

You have mentioned the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine as your proof that the Jewish people were *granted* the land of Palestine, however, you forgot to mention the Zionist aims or the clarification made by the British government as detailed above.

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II). (Future government of Palestine) also did not *grant* the entire territory of Palestine to the Jewish people, in fact it set the boundaries for independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. I am aware that Jewish areas (including Gush Etzion) were included in the land designated for the independent Arab state and that Arab areas were included in the land designated for the independent Jewish state. I am also aware that the Jewish Agency accepted the partition plan with the exception of Recommendation VI (Jewish Displaced Persons). This resolution was passed by the General Assembly despite the rejection of the report of the AD Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question by the Arab High Commission.

The Arab High Commission rejection of the report does not invalidate the resolution or the boundaries it enforces, just as the military occupation of Palestinian territory by the Israeli army does not extend the right to Israel to expand beyond her agreed boundaries.

ahad ha'amoratsim

Richard Pearson, an armistice is a temporary cessation of fighting. By definition, it does not allocate territory or establish borders. Nor does anything in Resolution 242 prevent the lawful owners of real property who were driven out by the aggressor in an unlawful war from resuming possession of the land that they own. Gush Emuminim was lawfully purchased well before 1947.

Your questions about genocide are just plain silly. The average Palestinian is at greater risk of being killed by another Palestinian that of being killed by an Israeli. If Israel's goal is genocide (which by the way is the acknowledged goal of Hamas), they must be the world's most incompetent practitioners.

Ann

Hadrian,
"How peculiarly eager the Left are to interfere where any putative 'injustice' is directed towards Moslems"

This is manifestly untrue. They are only interested if they can blame the Jews. Injustice by Moslems against Moslems is of no interest to them.

ahad ha'amoratsim

Mark Adrian Solomon, I too regret my two votes for Jimmy Carter, but I think you are being less than fair. President Obama has held that office less than 6 months. Give him a year in office and I have every confidence that he will make Jimmy Carter look like Harry Truman.

John Edwards

For the record I am in favour of the two state settlement as anyone who reads my comments on this blog would agree.

"Jerry" says "fair minded" people reject the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Separation Wall and then quotes the Anti-Defamation League! Thank you for giving me such a good laugh.

hadrian

Ann-
You could well be right, I'll grant you! But the fact remains that sympathy is on the side of the Moslem, barely at all on the side of the Jew and Israel.

Derek BLADES

Adam B. June 19th writes "Derek Blades claims that the settlemets cause poverty amongst the Palestinians. This is demonstrably untrue. You may wish to ponder the following facts, as detailed in an article by Douglas Davis in The Spectator (14 January 2006)" All I had said was that the shocking deprivation and poverty of Arabs in the occupied territories is due "at least to some extent" to the disruption of their economic life caused by the settlements, connecting roads and the separation barrier. Adam B finds even this modest suggestion “demonstrably untrue”.

Rather than pondering a short Speccie article I think it is probably more profitable to look at an in-depth and carefully-researched study on the settlement issue written by an international team of economists, statisticians and aid workers such as “The Humanitarian Impact on Palestinians of Israeli Settlements and Other Infrastructure in The West Bank”, (July 2007, United Nations - Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs). Please take a look at it Adam B – it does have pictures in it. Get back to me when you have done your homework.

Edward in the USA

More Germans died in WW2 than Americans or Brits, does that make the Americans and Brits the aggressors of WW2?

Ann

Interesting. Posts that pull the rug comprehensively from under Edwards' historically ignorant statements are censored.
He doesn't even know that it was Lord Carrington, not Lord Carradon, who was one of the primary drafters of 242. Carrington has stated repeatedly that the definite article 'the' was DELIBERATELY not included.
I said lots of other things, all factual and accurate and all blowing Edwards' propaganda out of the water; but it appears that ignorant Israel bashers can post as much as they like, whilst those who tell the truth cannot.

Adam B.

Derek Blades, you may have considered the substance of Mr Davis' article, but instead you chose to be condescending by telling me to "do my homework." Well, that wins the argument, doesn't it?

As with all Israel bashers, you refer to UN reports as if these are impartial and sacrosanct. The UN has a record of the most hateful and obnoxious "reports" about Israel. They mean nothing at all to me. I couldn't care less what a corrupt organization which puts Zimbabwe in charge of economic development and Libya in charge of human rights has to say. Over half the members of the UN consist of despotic regimes. The Un is in fact a grotesque inversion of what it was designed to be.

Couldn't care less. Neither should any right minded person.

Jerry

Re John Edwards on ADL statement.

Mr. Edwards, I am almost speechless. I never mentioned "fair-minded people" anywhere in my statement. Rather, I quoted ADL who noted a matter of fact, not opinion. Many countries did not believe that the ICJ had jurisdiction in the matter before them - the barrier that protected Israelis from suicide bombers. However, the Court offered their opinion anyway. Opinion informed by prejudice, supported by political expediency, I say. No different than hanging homosexuals or stoning errant women.

Frank P

Edward in USA

"More Germans died in WW2 than Americans or Brits, does that make the Americans and Brits the aggressors of WW2?"

Eventually, yes (some sooner than others), then boy! Did they aggress! God Bless 'em!

Wonder what the current pussy in the White House now renamed the 'Why tussle?' I hear) will do when the wheel comes off in Iran?

Seraph

I would like to recommend to those of you with American citizenship that you write your Senators and Congressmen to demand that Jimmy Carter be prosecuted for meeting with members of Hamas.

Hamas is officially designated by the US State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Prosecuting Carter for providing Hamas with "expert advice or assistance" would send a clear message that no one is above the law.

Ann

Jerry,
and furthermore, it exhibited ignorance of the facts and ignorance of law. For example, it didn't even understand that the Green Line has NO legal standing as an 'international border'.

Michael B

International law is not at all settled as applied to the West Bank. Non-binding advisory opinions are precisely and only that, though that is among the least of the facts that mitigate against notions of illegality as applied to West Bank settlements.

From the 1922 Palestine Mandate to 1949 legal guarantees were accorded Jewish communities in the West Bank.

From 1949 to 1967 Jordan controlled the territory, though two states only, Britain and Pakistan, acceded to Jordan's formal control, the remainder of the international community did not.

The 1967 Six Day War was a war of aggression conducted by Syria, Egypt and Jordan with the support of still other Arab states. It was an effort designed to eliminate Israel, a war of aggression that, essentially, was the capstone of Nasser's pan-Arab campaign of that era.

Israel won the Six Day War and with it took Gaza, the Sinai, the Golan, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel still controls the Golan Heights as well they should - basic strategic necessity demands it: defensible borders. Wars of aggression are, for obvious reasons, to be distinguished from defensive wars. International law and international affairs in general have long recognized that basic reality. This is not a brute force dictum of excess; this is an aggressor/defender based reality with responsibly conceived, defensible borders in mind. And again, for the broadest of contexts, Israel represents approximately 0.166% of the land mass in the Middle East.

In terms of withdrawals, every time Israel has withdrawn, without a solitary exception - from the Sinai, from Lebanon, from Gaza, from notable quarters in the West Bank - jihadist and militant entities have re-infiltrated, have re-established and newly established redoubts, and have deployed still additional terrorist and militant attacks into Israeli civilian centers from those positions, have used them to build up armaments, etc. There is not one, lone, single, solitary, isolated exception to that rule. It is sometimes said that "exceptions make the rule." Not this time, this time the rule has no exceptions:

Israel withdraws ≡ terrorist and militant redoubts are newly established

International institutions and international law are not all-important, they achieve their warrant only to the degree they are willing to heed basic realities, only to the extent they are willing to eschew an a priori logic that denies those most elemental of realities.

Kiwi

"but it appears that ignorant Israel bashers can post as much as they like, whilst those who tell the truth cannot."
Well said Anne.

Derek BLADES

Kiwi and Anne grumble that "it appears that ignorant Israel bashers can post as much as they like, whilst those who tell the truth cannot."

Out of the 56 comments currently posted, I count 42 supporting the pro-Israeli views expressed in Ms Phillip's blog and 11 that dispute some of the points she has made. The other three include Pete Hoskin's apology for having let simon slip by and two that are so obscure I could not put them into either camp. In other words, excluding these three, just over 80% of all comments are pro-Israel on this issue.

Kiwi and Anne surely overstate the latitude afforded to "ignorant Israel bashers".

Ann

Derek, paying attention to what another poster has written can be of enormous help in not making a fool of yourself when replying to them.
I stated clearly that I had posted in concrete reply to anti-Israel propaganda and lies, lies that can be refuted easily with the facts. My post was longish, but not nearly as long as some of said propaganda. But it was not permitted to get through the moderators.

Derek BLADES

Ann, June 20th. Thank you for your courteous reply and let me apologise for mis-spelling your name. No e in future.

You refer to this blog’s “moderators”. I think there is in fact only one such person - the overworked Pete Hoskins. Like you perhaps, I sense that there has been a policy change in recent weeks. Comments that are intended to wound and make no points of substance are no longer allowed. Longer pieces that are obviously balderdash are also being filtered out. I personally applaud these changes as they add to the quality of the debate. And perhaps some of what we say may find its way back to Ms Phillips and help improve the balance of her blogs.

Pete Hoskin

Ann: sometimes comments go astray for technical reasons, not just moderation. If one of your comments fails to show, then you can always email me on phoskin @ spectator.co.uk and I'll happily look into it.

Merinas van der Lubbe

During the Carter administration, Jimmy's brother Billy was hobnobbing with some Arab oil barons, and made the notorious comment "The Jews can kiss my ass".

At the time, a friend of mine who was formerly an intelligence analyst said that he suspected that both brothers were virulent antisemites, and that it "ran in the family" - that the brothers had acquired the prejudice from their parents.

Saul Rubenstein

Richard Pearce wrote (referring to UN Resolution 181) "The Arab High Commission rejection of the report does not invalidate the resolution or the boundaries it enforces,".

According to Prof Julius Stone in his book "Israel and Palestine: Assault on the Law of Nations"
"As a mere resolution of the General Assembly, Resolution 181(11) lacked binding force ab initio. It would have acquired the force under the principle pacta sunt servanda if the parties at variance had accepted it. While the state of Israel did for her part express willingness to accept it, the other states concerned both rejected it and took up arms unlawfully against it. The Partition Resolution thus never became operative either in law or in fact, either as to the proposed Jerusalem corpus separatum or other territorial dispositions in Palestine."

Jerry

A big thank you to Saul Rubinstein for his legal reference. Perhaps Richard Pearce will now put aside reference to UN Resolution 181.

However, I must say that legal discussion seems quite sterile in the face of the history of Israel's fight for existence. I will begin quoting small sections of "The Secret War Against the Jews" by John Loftus at each turn with the hope that the moderator will pass them along for the posters here:

"To the amazement of the Arab world, on November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the partition of Palestine by thirty-three to thirteen against, with ten abstensions, a majority of 72 percent. Clearly there was a significant turnaround in the voting blocks....Every single member of Rockefeller's Latin American bloc voted for Israel or abstained. London was bitter at its ally's actions....Our sources agree that it could not have happened without Nelson Rockefeller's help." pp 171-172

Loftus states the reasons for Rockefeller's support:

"The choice was simple, Rockefeller explained. 'You can have vengeance, or you can have a country, but you cannot have both.'" p 169

While British and American soldiers died fighting the Nazis, many of the elite in Britain extending to important members of the Royal House and many "oil men" in America profited from the war by selling oil and laudering money for the Nazis before, during and after the conflict. Rockefeller was among those who profited grandly. Treason, don't you agree. This understanding explains only in small part why so many Nazis escaped punishment following WWII. There were many other reasons - all dirty and all part of the secret war against the Jews.

Augustus

@ Jerry -
See also: Islamic Imperialism:
A History (Yale) by Efraim Karsh

The true story.

Derek BLADES

Jerry
June 21st, 2009 2:45pm

Jerry, June 21st, writes "A big thank you to Saul Rubinstein for his legal reference. Perhaps Richard Pearce will now put aside reference to UN Resolution 181."

Not much chance of that. The world is working with UN Resolution 181. Julius Stone's opinion is just that. It carries no more weight than the silly assertion that the Balfour Declaration can be used to justify the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Let's stick with United Nations resolutions and International Court of Justice rulings and stop looking for wacky ways to justify the unjustifiable.

ahad ha'amoratsim

Merinus V. L> : "During the Carter administration, Jimmy's brother Billy was hobnobbing with some Arab oil barons, and made the notorious comment "The Jews can kiss my ass".

He also said that the US should adopt a blanket policy of rejecting any suggestion or request from Israel because, in Billy's words, (There's a hell of a lot more Arabs than there are Jews."

Jerry

Regarding Derek BLADES June 21, 10:23: You wrote, " Let's stick with United Nations resolutions and International Court of Justice rulings and stop looking for wacky ways to justify the unjustifiable."

That is as silly an assertion as I have seen from some Arab sources! The UN is not a "fair" organization, nor is the Internation Court of Justice. Why precisely should Israel comply with any of their demands and positions. It offers nothing toward Israel's survival. Should things not "work out" after Israel relents, withdraws, compromises, sees the light, then Israel is left without recourse, without the topographical high ground, without the settlements, without defensible borders, without UN support, without recourse to the ICJ, without American support which has always been contingent on the need for Israel to kow-tow in some manner. Following your advice leaves Israel with nothing at all. How do you feel about that?

Linda Smith

I am aghast at Derek Blades confidence in the UN, of which the ICJ is a part.

The UN has a Human Rights Council which includes members of the Organisation of Islamic Conference who reject the UN Universal Declaration of Human and Rights, and instead adhere to the discriminatory Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam.

The UN is not fit for purpose.

daustins

When Mr. Carter was president he assigned White House tennis court time. This is only one indicator of what everyone who lived through the Carter terror in American knows: Mr. Carter is a meddling, self-righteous fool.

Drakken

Derek Blades
If you are so enomoured with your barbaric savage friends, I have a small suggestion for you, please by all means go to Isreal and tell them how wrong they are. Maybe a little dose of reality is what you need instead of the UN this and Intl Court that.
I for one being from the US reject the so-called Intl. Court and their rulings, because I believe in sovereign nations not some hacks who make up the rules as they go along!

Adam B.

daustins, exactly so! I have read that Carter also concerned himself with the parking allotment of White House Staff and ordering the right number of disposable coffee cups. Meanwhile, the Soviets gained another country every year of his presidency, whilst Iran fell to the Ayatollahs. Meddling - yes, an apt word - and a strange sense of priorities.

Derek BLADES

Drakken,June 23rd, writes "Derek Blades. If you are so enomoured with your barbaric savage friends,..."

I am not sure what friends of mine you have in mind but please be assured that none of them are barbaric or savage. Some of them do however work for the United Nations which is why I regard the UN bashers on this website as ill-informed ignoramuses. UN resolutions provide the legal basis for Israel's very existence and having created it the UN will ultimately assure its survival. As for the ICJ it is the best hope we have of bringing some order and justice to international disputes including that between Arabs and Israelis. Kicking down the very institutions that Israel depends on for its very existence is a sign of sickness.

Linda Smith

Derek Blades, in what way does Israel depend on the UN for its very existence?
The UN has no teeth - and in view of its irrationality in appointing members of the Organisation of Islamic Conference who reject the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to sit on its Human Rights Council, the UN's toothlessness is Israel's saviour.

Adam B.

Derek Blades, the UN of 1948 is not the UN of 2009.

How does Israel "depend" on the UN?

I also find it interesting that your "friends" work at the UN - no doubt they have the same world view as you (i.e. Israel can do no right, and the Palestinians can do no wrong).

Michael B

The U.N. of 1948 contrasted with the U.N. of this present era is a bit like comparing the Roman Empire under Marcus Aurelius to the Roman Empire under Caligula. The titular aspect is the same, beyond that, wholesale transmogrifications have taken place. The U.N. has perforce become one of the foremost battlegrounds in terms of ideology, propaganda/media manipulations, raw power usurpations in arms of the U.N. such as the UNHRC and UNRWA, etc.

To refer to the U.N. in such a titular and superficial sense, as Derek has in this thread, serves to advance a facade of legitimacy absent the substance. It is boorishly incurious to do so, it is morally obtuse in the extreme.