The fuller version of the article in the September 2009 Journal in response to Fraser Ritchie’s article of June 2009
by Gerald M Adler
1. Introduction
Fraser Ritchie’s article “Unequal before the law” (Journal, June 2009, 22; for fuller version click here) purports to describe an adverse humanitarian situation prevailing in and around the Arab village of Jayyous, located in “Israeli occupied Palestinian Territory” on the West Bank (OPT) and situated close to the Jewish settlement of Zufin. He raises three separate legal issues from which he draws certain conclusions. However, when subjected to rigorous examination, these conclusions prove to be unsubstantiated or misinterpreted, resulting from errors and omissions of fact and law. In setting the background to his investigations, Mr Ritchie states of his visit to Jayyous: “I was surprised by the degree of disregard for international law, humanitarian law, human rights and legal rights. Having experienced practice in Scotland in conveyancing and court, it seemed of interest (i) how land could be 'confiscated' by a state, and (ii) how a state could so ignore due process”.
Without giving his readers a clear description of the legal and factual context, Mr Ritchie concludes that:
(a) Israel manipulates and exploits the land legislation applicable in the OPT so as to bring under Israeli state control large tracts of undeveloped or uncultivated land. This operates to the detriment of the Palestinians, who, in his opinion, are entitled to have free and untrammelled access to such lands and to develop them;
(b) Once such land is repossessed by the state, it is used to (i) establish Israeli settlements; and (ii) accommodate the terrorist security barrier (the "Fence").
The reality is that while the injury and inconvenience caused to the Palestinians by Israel is to be regretted, their situation is much less severe than that which Mr Ritchie portrays.
Mr Ritchie's article omits to make even a single reference to the role and earlier judgments of the Israeli Supreme Court. Since 1967, it has opened its doors to receive petitions for redress submitted by Palestinians alleging personal injury and harm or damage to their property within the OPT, caused by arbitrary or illegal acts purportedly committed by the Israel Defence Forces ("IDF") or by other Israeli nationals acting in their official capacity. Many of these claims have been resolved in the Palestinians’ favour.
Further, in discussing the Fence, its construction, location and gates, and the damage and inconvenience caused to Palestinians by its presence, Mr Ritchie ignores
* the context in which Israel gained occupation of the West Bank;
* the reasons for the occupation continuing for so long; and
* the extent of the provocation which gave rise to the construction of the Fence in the first place.
2. The land at Jayyous and its surroundings
Mr Ritchie implies that land “taken from Jayyous” for the establishment of the nearby Jewish settlement of Zufin was improperly leased from the Israeli Custodian of Enemy Property. In fact, a very substantial parcel was acquired directly from its Arab owner in an arm’s length transaction for good consideration in accordance with the very registration process, discussed below, which Mr Ritchie denounces.
Amongst other facts of which Mr Ritchie is apparently unaware is the climate of intra-Palestinian duress and intimidation which befogs West Bank politics. Sadly, the vendor paid for the “crime” of selling land to a Jew. He was assassinated by fellow Palestinians.
He also omits to mention that in 2005, Jayyous petitioned Israel’s Supreme Court (HCJ 10905/05) for judicial review of the route of the Fence, 96% of which, overall is comprised of electronically wired fence construction and not a wall as is commonly described. Although the final decision is still pending, the Israel Defence Forces (“IDF”) have already conceded that the “warning distance” between the Fence and the nearest Jewish settlements could be reduced, thus returning some 500 acres of privately owned and 90 acres of “state” land to the Palestinian side.
The article states: “The Israeli separation barrier has isolated 78% on the west side within a distance of up to 6.5km from the 1949 internationally recognised armistice line known as the Green Line”.
The reality is different:
* In its present location, the percentage of land isolated from the village is approximately 60%. If the court accepts the IDF concession, this will fall to about 40%;
* The extent of the Fence’s penetration from the Green Line in the Jayyous area ranges from hundreds of metres’ distance to 3 km at most and not 6.5 km.
Mr Ritchie further states: “[i] In Jayyous there is land that still belongs to Jayyous farmers but which they can only access through a gate in the barrier, opened and shut by soldiers at specified times. [ii] The farmer must show a permit. [iii] Only 18% of people with land have permits. [iv] If the land is not farmed, due to absence of permit for whatever reason, it will be taken as state land under [Israel’s] interpretation of the Ottoman law.”
Three of these statements – i, iii and iv – are inaccurate both in fact and law.
(i) There are three gates and not just one. Two are open for three periods each day; the third remains open throughout daylight hours.
(ii) The Israeli Civil Administration issues an entry permit to all inhabitants possessing a sufficient interest in land within the restricted area. The probability is that only 18% of the population of Jayyous has land such as to justify a genuine need to gain entry.
(iii) As will be demonstrated immediately below, under Israel’s application of the Ottoman law, rather than in its interpretation, land classed as Miri (see below ) is not automatically "taken as state land" if it remains uncultivated.
Further, international law recognises the right of an occupying power to restrict freedom of movement and declare certain areas restricted, where necessary for orderly government and for the security of the occupying power.
3. Legal issues
Israel’s presence on the West Bank dates from the 1967 Six Day War. Taking the strategic pre-emptive defensive action consistent with UN Charter article 51, Israel repelled a planned armed attack by the united forces of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Neither conventional nor customary international law requires Israel to withdraw from territory captured in a self-defence war until she and her opponents conclude a peace treaty. Although Israel’s relations with the Palestinians are temporarily governed to a considerable extent by the Agreement on Interim Self Government, 1995 ("Oslo II"), no final peace treaty has been concluded in respect of the OPT.
a. Applying international law in the OPT
In governing the OPT since 1967, Israel complies with international law. This demands that the occupying power:
* continue to apply “the laws in force within the territory immediately prior to the occupation” (article 43, Hague Regulations (“Hague”), and article 6(2) of the Fourth Geneva Convention (“Geneva IV”)); and
* “safeguard the capital of [state] properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct” (Hague, article 55).
The British Mandatory Government introduced the statutory process of taking possession of immovable Ottoman state property by military order and transferring its management to the Custodian of Absentee and Enemy Property (the “Custodian”) in 1919. Jordan did likewise in 1948. The Israeli military commander, following the same procedure in 1967, imposed a duty on the Custodian to manage OPT state lands in accordance with the pre-existing land law.
In respect of private property, Israel adheres to Hague, article 52 and Geneva IV, article 53, which prohibit an occupying power from destroying or confiscating private property, except where such destruction is rendered necessary by military operations. Where there is a military need for the use of private property, the land is not confiscated – title thereto is not forfeited – but it may be requisitioned from the owner, who is entitled to receive compensation for its occupation and use. Such is the situation where Israel has erected parts of the Fence on private land.
b. Substantive land law in the OPT
Mr Ritchie alleges that “Israel says non-registered land in the OPT is public land”. Israel makes no such claim! The reverse is the case.
Mr Ritchie fails to differentiate non-registration of title to land from an individual’s ability to (a) acquire the right to cultivate Miri-type land (see below) by adverse possession; and also (b) bear the risk of loss of such right by failing to cultivate it according to law.
The substantive land laws applying in the West Bank are based principally on the 1858 Ottoman Land Code, amended by the British Mandate and Jordanian Governments under their respective jurisdictions. They have remained essentially unaltered under Israeli rule. Taken together, these laws regulate the acquisition, utilisation, disposition and registration of all types of landholding, including state owned land.
Ottoman land law recognises six classes of landholding, expressed in terms of its location, quality and potential use. In and around Jayyous, the land falls unevenly into four of these classes, the second of which is the most prevalent, and the most relevant for Mr Ritchie in his criticism of Israeli conduct:
(i) land used for public or general use of the inhabitants of a village, denominated as Metrukeh;
(ii) land located outside an urban area capable of cultivation - classified as Miri;
(iii) stony and broken land - being neither under cultivation nor capable of it - termed Mewat; and
(iv) land which has been abandoned and uncultivated for more than three years - termed Mahul or Waste land.
The state maintains a continuing legal interest in the last three types.
In respect of Miri, the law provides that the bare title (“rakva”) to such lands vests in the state (now represented by the IDF commander), from whom an individual can acquire rights of use (“te’tsaruf”) either by express grant from the state or by 10 years’ uninterrupted adverse possession.
Land registration during the Ottoman period provided only for registration of transactions in land, which were personal in nature and no guarantee of good title. The records were used to identify potential conscripts for compulsory military service and liability to contribute to and strengthen the government tax base. For the Ottoman administration, both the identity of the occupant and the intention that vacant or uncultivated land be brought into productive use had greater importance than an exact delineation of the land being transferred and the validity of its title.
The Ottoman law, which the British mandatory authority adopted, therefore encouraged the state to recover Miri land uncultivated without reasonable justification for three consecutive years and to resell it by public auction, again subject to the obligation to occupy and cultivate it.
For the British administration, close settlement on vacant or waste land and increasing the level of efficiency in utilisation of land then under cultivation took precedence. Only in urbanising areas did land title registration begin to be introduced. Comprehensive title registration based on land “settlement” did not exist outside the built-up areas. The settlement process was both extensive and expensive. It included cadastral surveying, measurement, initial boundary setting, public notification, quasi-judicial hearing, determination of objections and finally registration.
For the legal development of land to attract investment capital, title thereto has to be secure. To stimulate such investment, Jordan introduced the First Registration of Land Law, 1965. Despite this innovation, when Israel took control in 1967 only one third of the non-urban land in the West Bank had been “settled”, a situation which retarded its development.
It is at this juncture that Mr Ritchie misinterprets the purpose and application of the law as favouring the Israeli occupying administration.
An applicant for “first registration” must first provide proof of title! In the case of Miri land, a claimant by adverse possession must demonstrate that he or his immediate ancestors both occupied and cultivated the land continuously for a 10 year period without objection. If, however, Miri land ceases to be cultivated for three years, by law such land technically becomes vacant (mahlul) or waste land and reverts to the state.
After 1967, in order to determine which lands were Government owned in a practical and evidentiary manner, the IDF military commander exercised his authority to declare apparently abandoned or uncultivated land as reverting to the state. Subsequent to making such declaration, notice thereof is served on the leaders of the relevant village and is published in the civilian co-ordination and communication centres, giving a 45 day period within which opposition and objection may be submitted. After the expiration of this period, appeals may still be submitted if a delay can be justified.
Miri land is only declared to be state land after a very thorough examination of its uncultivated condition and confirmation that it has not been worked for a period even as long as 10 years, as against the strict legal requirement of three years.
Even if the land has not undergone first registration, a claimant may still possess a right of occupation, but, after having successfully completed the process, the weight of proof in support of his right is much greater. It was by undergoing this process that the Palestinian landowner was enabled to sell his land to the Jewish development company which built the settlement of Zufin.
Despite the hearsay anecdotal evidence in the book Palestinian Walks, on which Mr Ritchie relies, vacant and uncultivated Miri land in the OPT is neither declared as “state” land nor is it allocated to private developers or individuals, before a full investigation has been conducted.
Mr Ritchie fails to disclose that Israeli policy is flexible in the exercise of state rights to reclaim Miri land.
Neither the IDF nor Custodian implement the state’s right to recover uncultivated land strictly in accordance with the law; nor is it employed automatically against the Arab cultivators. IDF policy is flexible. Until either the state or the occupier/cultivator initiates some concrete intention to develop, Palestinian occupiers are permitted to resume cultivation – even after ceasing to do so for a number of years well in excess of the three year limitation period.
Although Israel has placed the burden of proof on the cultivator to show continuous use of state land that has been or is, in good faith, about to be certified by the Custodian as unoccupied or unworked, the cultivator can still pre-empt such a state declaration by initiating a “first registration” procedure. Alternatively, he can discharge the burden of proof imposed on him relatively easily by witness testimony and the very aerial surveys, described immediately following, which Mr Ritchie condemns.
Mr Ritchie alleges that “proof of non-cultivation was by aerial photographs when there were no crops in the ground”. Factually, he is wrong!
The photographs are based on the results of a longitudinal aerial survey initiated and undertaken in 1945 by the Palestine Mandatory Administration as the foundation for a study directed towards increasing the efficient utilisation of land under its jurisdiction. During the 19 years of Jordanian occupation, its Land Administration failed to update the survey and its utilisation was allowed to lapse. Only after the Six Day War did Israel resume the survey on a regular basis for its initial purpose – and it is updated regularly. The use of photos extracted from the survey to prove or dispute occupation and cultivation was neither initiated by Israel nor undertaken for the objective that Mr Ritchie claims.
Unworked Miri land does not automatically revert to the Jewish people.
In the event any particular parcel or tract of Miri is declared as being unoccupied or unworked, Mr Ritchie states, incorrectly, that it “‘reverts’ to those whom the Israeli state regards as rightful owners, the Jewish people, wherever they may be. Legally this is not sustainable”.
This conclusion is also wrong in law. The right of utilisation of any particular parcel of Miri land that remains undeveloped will not necessarily revert to the “Jewish people”, but to the state, be it Palestinian or Israeli, which ultimately gains jurisdiction in Final Status negotiations.
c. The Fence and the Green Line
i. Legal significance of the Green Line
Mr Ritchie rejects out of hand Israel’s claim that the Fence is required to provide security for its citizens. He states: “[Israel] could have legally constructed the barrier along the Green Line, but that would have defined the Israeli boundary and excluded the citizens of Zufin from ‘protection’. There are many Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Israel has built, or made plans to build, the barrier round as many as it can.”
The Green Line however does not constitute a generally recognised international boundary or border. The line is a ceasefire line agreed between Jordan and Israel in their 1949 Armistice Agreement:
“Its basic purpose is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move” (article IV(2)).
The Agreement specifically states in article II(2) that “no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations” (emphasis added).
Only Britain and Pakistan recognised the line as an international boundary when Jordan purported to annex the West Bank in 1950. The Six Day War rendered the question largely moot.
ii. Legal, political and security consequences
From Israel’s perspective, construction of the Fence on the Green Line would have brought about unacceptable legal, political and security consequences:
(1) Legally, construction of the Fence on the Green Line would have been interpreted internationally as a waiver by Israel of the minimal security protection accorded to it under UNSC Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War.
(2) Politically, location of the Fence on the Green Line would have pre-empted and foreclosed any negotiations with the Palestinians on at least three of the six topics specifically reserved for the Final Status Negotiations contemplated in the 1993 Oslo Accords: settlements, security arrangements and borders.
(3) As for security, the Green Line runs very unevenly through low lying ground. Mountains and hills dominate the valleys. Therefore, to provide the secure boundaries recognised by resolution 242, Israel must control the high ground in order to dominate the area, rather than have others dominate her.
The purpose of the Fence is to deter and delay easy Palestinian terrorist infiltration into Israeli territory and its civilian population centres. The route of the Fence and the nature of its construction are dictated by topography, the absence of natural or manmade obstacles between Israel and the OPT, the warning distance between Israeli and Palestinian population centres and other security considerations.
The location of the Fence on the “Green” ceasefire line would, therefore, have defeated the very security objectives which it is designed to achieve.
The construction of the Fence is not a political statement but a temporary security measure, it being composed mainly of wire, which can be removed with relative ease should circumstances permit. In determining the route of the Fence, a balance has to be struck between Israel’s security and Palestinian humanitarian considerations, taking into account the needs of those most affected by the Fence.
As will be demonstrated below, the decisions of Israel’s Supreme Court ensure that the IDF seeks to find an appropriate balance. The route of the Fence has already been changed in a number of instances in response to Palestinian complaints.
d. The legality of the Fence and restrictions on entry into the Seam Zone
(i) Mr Ritchie’s reliance on the opinion of the International Court of Justice (on the “illegality” of the “Wall”), as having binding effect, is questionable:
* The opinion rendered was “advisory” and not dispositive;
* Without giving reasons, the opinion peremptorily declared that Israel could not avail itself of the right of self-defence under UN Charter, article 51 against a non-state actor. However, the language of the article imposes no such limitation. Indeed the inherent customary law of self defence has been legitimately relied upon, even before the creation of the nation state, against marauders, bandits, and other warlike attackers emanating from beyond the territorial boundaries claimed by a nation or people. Since 9/11, the ICJ position has become untenable.
* The opinion failed to take into account Israel’s security considerations, based on hard evidence and subject to cross-examination. The ICJ virtually concluded that Israel’s action was politically motivated. A detailed examination of the facts would have shown the contrary.
* The opinion makes no reference to the security provisions of the Israel-PLO Interim Agreement of 1995 (Oslo II).
The legality of the Fence cannot be divorced from the peril and scale of the armed attacks directed indiscriminately at Israel’s civilian population before and after its construction. After the collapse of Final Status negotiations with the PLO in 2000, the Palestinians escalated their campaign of terror both in the OPT and within Israel. By April 2004, more than 780 terrorist attacks had been perpetrated within Israel and more than 8,200 in the OPT, costing 900 Israeli citizens their lives and causing over 6,000 to be severely injured.
Such was the scale of aggression that the situation could legitimately be classified as “armed attack” short of war. In these circumstances, the laws of war and of belligerent occupation expressed in Hague and Geneva IV have again become applicable as they were in 1967:
* Hague, article 43 requires the occupying power to take all the measures in its power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
* In so doing it may requisition private property for military needs (Hague, articles 46 and 52). Such needs would include the land upon which the Fence is constructed, in return for which the owners are entitled to compensation.
* If in the process of constructing the Fence it is absolutely necessary to destroy private property, such as by the removal of olive trees, Hague, article 52 and Geneva IV, article 53 permit such action. To minimise damage to local farmers, Israel has replanted over 90,000 trees in the area of the Fence and has tried, wherever possible, to utilise public land, in accordance with Hague, article 55.
(ii) The Fence also constitutes a legitimate measure under the security provisions contained in Oslo II.
(iii) As mentioned earlier, any Israeli or Palestinian is free to petition the Israeli Supreme Court for judicial review of IDF decisions on the line of the Fence, if he alleges this to be unreasonable or unconnected with any security objective. In responding to any order nisi issued against the IDF or the Israel Government, the former will be compelled to lead evidence proving:
* a rational connection between the route of the Fence and the goal of its construction as being necessarily military in its objectives and not political;
* the route chosen being the least injurious to the petitioner without sacrificing that defence objective; and
* the damage caused to the petitioner being proportionate to the anticipated security gain.
All three subtests must be satisfied simultaneously.
Since the commencement of construction of the Fence, over 150 applications have been submitted. Approximately 50% have been withdrawn and 38 remain to be decided. On the other side of the scale, since commencement of its construction in 2003, the Fence has directly reduced the number of successful attacks and consequent fatalities on Israel’s civilian population.
e. Israeli civilian right of presence and settlement in the West Bank
The declared objective of Mr Ritchie’s Quaker sponsor and that of EAPPI, the programme organiser, is to bring about the cessation of Israeli “occupation” in the West Bank. The real issue, which both they and Mr Ritchie avoid, is not opposition to the “occupation”, but Arab-Islamic opposition to any Jewish right of presence in the West Bank.
Israeli settlements in the OPT barely account for more than 2% of the land area captured in 1967. As a result of the IDF troop withdrawal in accordance with Oslo II, Fatah and Hamas – and not Israel – currently exercise personal jurisdiction over approximately 97% of the Arab population, as they do in respect of over 65% of the West Bank territory. In the failed Final Status negotiations of 2000, Israel offered to withdraw from approximately 97% of the OPT, making up the 3% balance in a land exchange.
Apart from Jewish neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem, the relatively small proportion of land in the West Bank utilised by settlers is located mainly on stony hilltops – state owned Mewat land incapable of being cultivated or developed without a large input of investment capital.
Mr Ritchie accepts uncritically the Palestinians’ claim that Israeli settlement activity following the 1967 occupation is contrary to international law and is therefore illegal. The claim is rooted in article 49(6) of Geneva IV: ”The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
The objective of paragraph (6) was to prevent a practice adopted by Germany during the Second World War of the involuntary transfer of portions of its own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons. Legal scholars disagree with the allegation that this provision was ever intended to mean a voluntary, non-coercive movement of a civilian population. The provision therefore does not provide the solid foundation which the Palestinian position claims.
Notwithstanding article 49(6), Israel has an independent legal claim to occupy, and settle in, the West Bank Territory, which can be traced through a number of international legal instruments, the most significant of which are:
(i) League of Nations Covenant 1920 formed part of the peace treaty negotiations following the conclusion of World War I. Article 22 deployed the Roman-Dutch legal concept of “mandate”, similar to the equity concept of a trust. It was anticipated that the mandate for a territory would reflect the stage of the development of the people, its geographical situation, economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
(ii) San Remo Resolutions 1920 continued the peace negotiations in respect of the disposition of the territories formerly held under Ottoman control. Purporting to act in accordance with article 22 of the Covenant, the Principal Allied Powers concluded, inter alia:
* Syria and Mesopotamia (Iraq) should be provisionally recognised as independent states, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory Power until such time as they might be able to stand alone; and
* separately, Palestine was to be entrusted to a Mandatory Power, yet to be selected, that would be “responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration originally made on November [2] 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”.
Both Britain and the Allied Powers were cognisant of the fact that the Zionist Jews hoped that the homeland in Palestine would ultimately develop politically as an independent Jewish state. The Arab leadership on the other hand was divided on the matter at best, and opposed to it at worst. Consequently, the language expressed in the Declaration, and included in the Resolution quoted above, continued:
“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” (emphasis added).
Significant by its absence is the word “political” from the rights of the communities which were not to be prejudiced by the establishment of the Jewish homeland. Furthermore, these communities were not referred to as Arab but as “non-Jewish” religious (rather than ethnic) communities. This differentiation became even more apparent in the terms of the actual Mandate.
(iii) Treaty of Sèvres, 1920 gave expression to the San Remo Resolutions in the peace agreement concluded between the Allied Powers and the Government of Turkey then in power. Inter alia, it provided for the dissolution of the former Ottoman Empire, with Turkey ceding all rights of sovereignty over North Africa and Arab Asia. (This waiver was subsequently confirmed in the Treaty of Lausanne 1923, which replaced the unratified Treaty of Sèvres.) The Allied Powers’ dissolution and the politically artificial delineation of Middle Eastern territory laid the foundations of the present conflict between Jews and Arabs and between Israel and the Palestinians.
Thus there is a clear link between the act of renunciation of Turkish sovereignty over Palestine and its transfer to Britain – under the Mandate designed for putting into effect the establishment of a Jewish homeland, as expressed in the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Resolutions.
(iv) Palestine Mandate, 1922 reiterates in its preamble the policy declared in the Balfour Declaration and acknowledges the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home there.
Article 6 of the Mandate imposes a positive obligation on the British Mandatory “to facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage… close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes”.
The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration is supported by the provisions of article 7, which impose on the Mandatory a duty to enact a nationality law, “and to include therein provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine”.
The terms “Palestinian” and “Palestine” at this period (1922) were applied solely to Jews and their ancient homeland. Yasser Arafat’s "creation" of a separate "Palestinian" people out of the South Syrians (as they were known under Ottoman rule) did not occur until 1964.
While article 6 implies that Jews were to be allowed to settle anywhere in the mandated territory, article 25 empowered the Mandatory “to withhold the application of… such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions”.
This provision enabled the Mandatory Administration to confine the establishment of the Jewish homeland to territory lying cis-Jordan, while giving Arab-Palestinians and others the right of settlement and land acquisition in trans-Jordan and excluding the Jews therefrom.
That the drafters of the Mandate contemplated the realisation of a Jewish majority in cis-Jordan is supported by the recognition of the Jewish Agency in articles 4 and 11 as an active partner with the Mandatory Government in the stimulating of Jewish immigration and development of Palestine. By contrast, the presence in the mandate instrument of language protective of Arab and other non-Jewish interests appearing in the preamble, article 6, and particularly in article 9, would have been superfluous if the drafters had envisaged an eventual Arab sovereignty over a Jewish minority.
(v) UN Charter Article 80
This article provides in part: “Nothing in this Chapter [dealing with the establishment of Trusteeships and Trustee Agreements] 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.”
Mandates approved by the League did not, upon the League’s dissolution, fall automatically within the new Trustee system established under the UN Charter. Until a Trustee agreement concluded in accordance with article 77 replaces it, a Mandate and the rights of the beneficiaries under it remain intact. To the best of the author’s knowledge no such agreement in relation to Palestine was ever prepared in accordance with this Chapter, nor was one even considered. While Britain may have surrendered her obligations as Mandatory-Trustee in 1948, the Mandate itself did not lapse.
The Mandate has never been formally amended or repealed – nor can it be “wound up” so long as the beneficiary and an undistributed part of the corpus of the trust continue to exist. The Jewish people, as beneficiary, now represented by the state of Israel, appropriated part of the trust corpus lying to the west of the River Jordan, following the surrender by Britain of its obligations as Mandatory trustee in 1948 after the withdrawal of British troops. The legal right of sovereignty over that unappropriated portion of the West Bank formerly held under Jordanian control remains in abeyance and the right thereto is in dispute. Until this issue is resolved, the Jewish people still have a legal right of settlement in that territory.
(vi) UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which recommended a two-state partition of the West Bank, did not change the legal situation, having no dispositive effect and having been rejected by the Arab states. (It also contemplated that each nationality would have "expatriate" communities living within the other nationality's state, with rights of residence but not of citizenship.)
(vii) Israeli-Jordanian Armistice Agreement, April 1949
The inability of the UN to enforce UNGA Resolution 181 induced five Arab armies to launch a full scale war against the nascent state of Israel on the day immediately following the British withdrawal from Palestine. In the process, Egypt occupied the Gaza strip and Jordan occupied part of the land on the West Bank designated in UNGA 181 for the Palestinian-Arab state. Although under the proposed plan of partition Jerusalem was to be internationally governed under the auspices of the United Nations, Jordan also took control of Eastern Jerusalem, from which a large Jewish population was ejected, creating a Jewish refugee crisis to which little reference is ever made. Israel nevertheless succeeded in retaining the western part of the city.
A ceasefire between the belligerents was achieved by the United Nations and given legal effect in the respective Armistice Agreements.
As mentioned in Part 3(c) above ("The Fence and the Green Line"), articles II(2) and IV(2) of the Israeli-Jordanian Armistice Agreement make it quite clear that none of the Agreement’s terms has any impact on the ultimate question of sovereignty over the disputed area, and that the Green Line was specifically excluded from having any political significance. Israel’s legal claim to settle in the West Bank remains unchanged from that which prevailed before 1948 or afterwards.
Thus, Israel is perfectly entitled, as a matter of law, to permit the voluntary settlement of her population beyond the Green Line and to take such steps as the construction of the Fence, in order to protect her population on both sides of that line. Whether it is politically wise for Israel to allow her citizens to settle in that portion of the undistributed West Bank territory whose sovereignty is still in dispute is a different question.
A command of the above facts together with the legal analysis will hopefully allow Fraser Ritchie to reassess his stringent condemnation of Israel.
Professor Gerald M Adler, LLM, JSD (Yale) qualified as a barrister in Canada (Ontario), an advocate in Israel, and a solicitor in England & Wales. He taught law at the University of Western Ontario and the Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa. Inter alia, he also served as senior assistant to the Israeli Attorney General and as the Chief Legal Advisor to the Israel Electric Corp Ltd. Now retired from active practice, Dr Adler has spent the last five years researching “Legal Aspects of the Arab-Israel Conflict Within a Historical and Political Context”, part of which can be accessed on the internet.
Bookmark with:
* Delicious
* Digg
* reddit
* Facebook
* StumbleUpon
Have your say
Your name:
Email:
Comment:
Your comments:
Fred
Tuesday September 15, 2009, 23:28
Most useful reassessment of the whole situation – why are so many others so muddled in their thinking and writing on these topics? Does truth and legality not matter any more?
All the points were well expressed and explained.
Yisrael Medad
Wednesday September 16, 2009, 07:35
Instead of "West Bank", a geopolitical term first utilized in April 1951 when Jordan illegally occupied and annexed areas that the UN set aside, in 1947, to be the Arab Palestine state, more properly "Judea" and "Samaria" should be employed, not only because they are the correct historical names of those territories but also because the UN used those terms in its 1947 Partition Plan.
Elliott A Green
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 15:42
I find Mr Adler's discussion useful. Here at this link is my own effort on this subject. My piece was first published in Midstream magazine in New York. My fields of specialization are political science and Middle Eastern history.
http://www.dafka.org/news/index.php?pid=4&id=649
Talknic
Tuesday October 13, 2009, 05:26
Unfortunately this article is based on the premise of completely ignoring International Law. An Occupying Power cannot institute its own civil law in an Occupied Territory.
Laws of War Art. 55. “The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.”
The only manner in which Israel can institute its own civil law in an Occupied Territory is to legally annex it. Legal annexation is by agreement or treaty ONLY! Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem was condemned by the UNSC as ILLEGAL. The annexation of East Jerusalem was declared illegal by UNSC Resolution 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/b86613e7d92097880525672e007227a7/46f2803d78a0488e852560c3006023a8?OpenDocument . UNSC Resolution 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, UNSC Resolution 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, UNSC Resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, UNSC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, UNSC Resolution 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980.
--------
Yisrael Medad "Jordan illegally occupied and annexed areas that the UN set aside, in 1947"
The West Bank as it is now known, was legally annexed at the request of the Palestinians http://www.jcpa.org/art/knesset6.htm
Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/legsess.html
Unlike Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem, there is no UNSC resolution against Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank or against Egypt’s occupation of Gaza.
Gerald Adler
Wednesday October 14, 2009, 11:05
Unfortunately Talknik's comment (published 13 October) is itself based on a faulty premise in international law.
The Hague Convention, Article 55 presupposes that the public land under the control of an occupying army was previously under the legitimate sovereignty of another state to whom it would be ultimately accountable in any peace agreement for its usufruct during the occupation.
In the case of both the West Bank and Gaza, no state has excercised full and legitimate sovereignty for its own benefit since the Ottomans in 1919, from whom it was conquered by the Allies. On their behalf Britain administered Palestine not as a sovereign but as a mandatary, bound by the objectives set in the Palestine Mandate approved by the League of Nations Council.
Following the non-binding recommendations made in UNGA Resolution 181, Britain withdrew from its obligations under the Mandate in 1948 and left the establishment of the Arab and Jewish states to be implemented by their respective peoples as best they could. The territory designated for both states was invaded by five Arab armies. In self defence Israel succeeded in retaining control over the territory intended for her in the Resolution 181 and some of that designated for the Palestinian state. Egypt occupied Gaza, and Jordan captured the area of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and maintained military occupation of it until 1950 in accordance with the 1949 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement. In breach of that Agreement, Jordan purportedly annexed the territory in 1951. That annexation was not recognised internationally - even by Jordan's Arab neighbours.
Significantly during its nineteen years of occupation, Jordan made no attempt to establish an independent Palestinian State! Thus to this present day, there is no internationally recognised sovereign authority over the West Bank to whom Israel is accountable.
To the extent that jurisdiction and power is excercised by the Palestinian Authority, such authority is derived from the 1995 Israel-PLO Interim Agreement on Self Government, which does not prohibit either Israeli or Palestinian residental or any other civilian construction in the West Bank.
Both the 1993 Oslo Accords, which formed the bedrock of the Interim Agreement, and the Interim Agreement itself, specifically reserve the topic of Israeli settlements to be determined in Final Status negotiations. These have yet to be completed.
Talknik should also note that UNSC Resolution 252, which he cites as declaring Israel's action in Jerusalem as being "illegal", does not so declare. The Resolution states that the Security Council CONSIDERS such legislative and administrative actions by Israel which tend to change the status of Jerusalem ARE INVALID and cannot change that status. An act may be INVALID but it does NOT mean that it is ILLEGAL. 'Invalid' means not being legally acceptable or legally binding or enforceable - which is a far cry from being positively ILLEGAL.
Talknic
Friday November 6, 2009, 07:31
Gerald Adler "Unfortunately Talknik's comment (published 13 October) is itself based on a faulty premise in international law".
We'll see....
"The Hague Convention, Article 55 presupposes that the public land under the control of an occupying army was previously under the legitimate sovereignty of another state to whom it would be ultimately accountable in any peace agreement for its usufruct during the occupation."
A) The Hague Convention is very specific, each word laboured over. It doesn't mention anything about presupposing. Do you think they just forgot to mention it?
B) The 1948 war was between the Israel and the Arab states, not Palestine.
C) The British mandate over Palestine was over the defined territory of a non-state entity. I.e., it had borders.
D) At the termination of the British Mandate over Palestine and the subsequent carving off of Israel, what remained of the non-state entity of Palestine, was a smaller non-state entity of Palestine, represented by the Arab states and defined by default, by Israel's sovereign territory and that of the other Arab states. The Arab states are the other collective Contracting Power. Peace agreements have been made individually between Israel and Arab states, NOT Palestine.
"In the case of both the West Bank and Gaza, no state has exercised full and legitimate sovereignty for its own benefit since the Ottomans in 1919, from whom it was conquered by the Allies. On their behalf Britain administered Palestine not as a sovereign but as a mandatary, bound by the objectives set in the Palestine Mandate approved by the League of Nations Council."
Indeed. The British Mandate was over a bordered, non-state, entity. At the termination of the British Mandate over Palestine and establishment of Israel by its (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad169.asp) Declaration of Sovereignty over the territories recommended by UNGA Resolution 181, what was left of British Mandate Palestine became a smaller non-state entity, called Palestine, represented by the Arab states, with territories defined by default, by Israel's Sovereign borders and the borders of the Arab states.
"Following the non-binding recommendations made in UNGA Resolution 181, Britain withdrew from its obligations under the Mandate in 1948 and left the establishment of the Arab and Jewish states to be implemented by their respective peoples as best they could."
The two parties were the Jewish Agency and collectively, the Arab states, if they wished to form a state. It was not obligatory, being a non-binding resolution. However, a Declaration of Sovereignty IS binding and it defines what is and what is NOT Israeli. Israel declared sovereignty by the borders recommended in Resolution 181. It was recognized by the majority of the international community of states, over riding the Arab states' objections. UNGA Resolution 181 is enshrined in the Declaration of a Jewish State.
"The territory designated for both states was invaded by five Arab armies."
A) Israel was no longer a part of Palestine from the moment it declared sovereignty. The Arab Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine was made AFTER Israel declared. It refers to Palestine, i.e., what was left of Palestine after Israel declared. The Arab states had a right to protect what remained of the non-state entity of Palestine. There is no UNSC resolution condemning the Arab states' invasion of Palestine. Can you explain why? (Something to do with Israeli forces being in the territory of the Arab states ward.)
B) What parts of the newly declared sovereign territories of Israel were invaded by the Arab states?
C) The Arab states had every right to attack Israeli forces in what was now Palestine.
"In self defence Israel succeeded in retaining control over the territory intended for her in the Resolution 181 and some of that designated for the Palestinian state."
A) It is illegal to acquire territory by war/force. It is illegally to unilaterally annex. It is illegal to institute one's own civil law in occupied territories.
B) Prior to declaration, the Jewish Agency had already taken territory outside the proposed borders. On the 15th of May 1948 Israel was already outside the borders it had just declared sovereignty over. Which is why there was no UNSC resolution condemning the Arab states' invasion of Palestine (aka what was left after Israel declared sovereignty). They had every right to protect the territories they represented: Palestine (what was left of it).
C) Territories acquired for strategic advantage during war do not automatically become the territory of the party controlling it at the end of war. E.g., Israel was required to withdraw from Egypt's territory, Lebanon's territory, etc.
"Egypt occupied Gaza, and Jordan captured the area of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and maintained military occupation of it until 1950 in accordance with the 1949 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement. In breach of that Agreement, Jordan purportedly annexed the territory in 1951."
Where is the UNSC resolution condemning Jordan's annexation of the West Bank? Did the UNSC forget? There isn't one, because the Palestinians asked Jordan to annex as a trustee. Legal annexation is by agreement or treaty.
"That annexation was not recognised internationally - even by Jordan's Arab neighbours."
A) Recognition is not the same as legality. For example, NO states at all recognize the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem. There is a UNSC resolution calling Israel's annexation ILLEGAL.
B) Jordan's Arab neighbours DEMANDED Jordan only be a trustee.
"Significantly during its nineteen years of occupation, Jordan made no attempt to establish an independent Palestinian State!"
It was not up to Jordan. Jordan was only a trustee and as Israel was in control of Palestinian territories acquired by war by 1949, the Palestinians could not declare sovereignty because they did not control all of their territory. (A pre-requisite for declaring sovereignty; precisely why the Jewish Agency had to wait for the British to end the mandate over Palestine; precisely why Indonesia had to withdraw from East Timor).
"Thus to this present day, there is no internationally recognised sovereign authority over the West Bank to whom Israel is accountable."
A) So what? That does not mean it's up for grabs.
B) Whom Israel is obliged to PROTECT, as the occupying power.
"To the extent that jurisdiction and power is excercised by the Palestinian Authority, such authority is derived from the 1995 Israel-PLO Interim Agreement on Self Government, which does not prohibit either Israeli or Palestinian residental or any other civilian construction in the West Bank."
The Laws of War: //Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded ONLY as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.//
The Geneva Convention does not allow the settling of an occupying power's civilian population in occupied territory.
Both the 1993 Oslo Accords, which formed the bedrock of the Interim Agreement, and the Interim Agreement itself, specifically reserve the topic of Israeli settlements to be determined in Final Status negotiations. These have yet to be completed.
The settlements are illegal.
"Talknik should also note that UNSC Resolution 252, which he cites as declaring Israel's action in Jerusalem as being 'illegal', does not so declare.
"The Resolution states that the Security Council CONSIDERS such legislative and administrative actions by Israel which tend to change the status of Jerusalem ARE INVALID and cannot change that status. An act may be INVALID but it does NOT mean that it is ILLEGAL. 'Invalid' means not being legally acceptable or legally binding or enforceable - which is a far cry from being positively ILLEGAL."
It's invalid because it IS illegal to acquire territory by force. Unilaterally annexation is not by agreement. If the non-state entity to whom the territory belongs has not agreed to annexation, it has, by default been taken by force.
Amos Yaron
Sunday November 15, 2009, 09:06
Such factually dubious articles like that by Mr Adler are very worrying. This is spurious academia under the cover of propaganda. Time limits a full response so I shall deal with just a few issues that he raises:
1. International law does not recognize "pre-emptive self-defence". This would render the whole concept meaningless if states could simply conquer and annex territory on the supposition that they thought they might be attacked. According to Art 51 UN Charter a state must be subjected to an attack before it can take defensive measures. For authority see Nicaragua, Oil Platforms, Nuclear and Wall ICJ cases.
2. Palestine mandate – the word "title" was deliberately dropped from the mandate. Civil and religious rights included political rights for Palestine’s Arabs. See the statement by Lord Curzon at San Remo Conference in 1920. The British Government wanted to send Jews to Palestine, but subject to safeguard clauses protecting Arab and Jewish rights. They never envisaged a state, but only a home for the Jews to remove them from Europe. Sad but true. As Curzon said when he was Foreign Minister: “I want the Arabs to have a chance and I don’t want a Hebrew State”. This is quoted in Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1817-1922: Seeds of Conflict, (London: John Murray, 1972) p 96.
3. The right of Jews to settle in Palestine was terminated with end of mandate on 15 May 1948. Israel’s title to Palestine is based on conquest and not the mandate. The Haganah violated the mandate when it embarked on violence and terrorism against British soldiers (remember the King David bombing Mr Adler?) and expelled 85% of Palestine pre-1948 Arab population. For further details on 1948 see the scholarship of Israeli historians Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe and Avi Shlaim. See also the scholarship of Palestinian scholars like Nur Masalha, Walid Khalidi, Rashid Khalidi and Victor Kattan.
4. Article 80 of UN Charter preserved the rights of those peoples who had been formally placed under the mandatory system of administration subject to Art 22 of the League of Nations Covenant as a "sacred trust". This was only ever envisaged to apply to indigenous peoples, not immigrants. See ICJ Namibia cases, particular 1971 opinion.
5. Israel formally accepted UN Resolution 181 (the UN Partition Plan). It is mentioned in Israel’s Declaration of Independence, by its own courts, and in its communication to the governments of the US and USSR. Israel now ignores the Partition Plan because it seeks to conquer and annex more territories for itself and is embarrassed by it. One could of course invoke the estoppel argument and challenge Israel’s claim.
6. Five Arab armies never launched an invasion of Palestine in 1948. As Adler himself notes only Egypt and Transjordan (the British led Arab Legion) entered Palestine on 15 May 1948. That counts for two armies, not five. Moreover, the Haganah had implemented Plan Dalet in April 1948, expelling 350,000 Arabs in the process two months before the Arabs intervened at the request of Palestine’s indigenous inhabitants. See the last report by the UN Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte before he was assassinated by the Stern Gang, those lovely people who also assassinated Lord Moyne and several other British figures, including an attempt on Ernest Bevin, the British Foreign Minister.
7. Israel has no legal right to settle its population in the West Bank. This is crystal clear under international law. See Art 49(6) Geneva Convention IV. See also ICJ Wall Advisory Opinion. See also the legal advice by Theodor Meron, Israel’s Legal adviser in June 1967. You can read the full Meron opinion online at the following link:
http://www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/resources/file48485.pdf
Mr Adler seeks to mislead the Scottish public by dubiously claiming that Israel has a legal right to all of Palestine. This has never been the case. Israel took Palestine by force and maintains its occupation by force. This is might over right - the power of the strong over the weak. There will never be peace in the Middle East so long as people like Mr Adler seek to mislead those who only want a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Middle East.
Fraser Ritchie
Tuesday December 8, 2009, 09:44
Notwithstanding Mr Adler it is my understanding that international lawyers agree about the illegality of (1) the settlements in the West Bank, (2) the expropriation of Palestinian land in the West Bank, and (3) the existence of the Wall/Barrier so far as in the West Bank, as declared by, and as evidenced by, the opinion of the International Court of Justice of 2004.
The Israeli Government was advised by its own counsel in 1967 that settlements were illegal as they contravened the Geneva Convention, and ignored the advice. (See http:www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/resources/ and http:www.southjerusalem.com/settlement-and-occupation-historical-documents/ )
Regarding his claim of a legal inheritance of a Jewish right of settlement in the West Bank, if the Israeli state persists in this, there is no hope for peace in the Middle East.
Hugh Humphries
Wednesday December 9, 2009, 12:50
On 16 September 1948 the United Nations appointed mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, completed the report which outlined his plans for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians – who had either been ethnically cleansed from their land or had fled to safety – to exercise their right of return to their land and homes.
Twenty four hours later, the UN mediator was assassinated at the hands of the terrorist group, the Stern Gang. With this assassination the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to return was dropped, as was the question of land ownership and looted Palestinian property.
In 1950 the “Absentee Property Laws” consolidated the theft of land and property of hundreds and thousands of Palestinians refugees whether outwith or within Israel.
Palestinians who tried to return were either deported or shot as the enemy.
Thus is hatred, and long lasting enmity, engendered. And this is the foundation of Prof Adler’s pseudo legal justification for continuing to deny, in the 21st century, the Palestinian people their rights.…
I can recall, during the 80s and 90s, when every visit by a US Secretary of State on a peace mission was accompanied by the provocative announcement of another settlement project. And, of course, the settlement project is far from completion….
Provocation after provocation keeps the pot boiling. Simply ignore any peace intiative – and there have been many – and continue with the Zionist agenda (which Prof Adler fails to mention) to add to the fruits of the well planned military campaigns of ethnic cleansing of 1948. This allows Prof Adler to claim that Israel is not obliged to withdraw from the West Bank until she and her opponent conclude a peace treaty. Until that point in time is reached Israel can continue to do what she wants, using and abusing a legal framework stretching back to the 19th century – with her own military orders (a draconian instrument of control over the Palestinian under occupation of which Prof Adler makes absolutely no mention) making up any deficiences in Israel’s game plan.
It is all very convenient, as is the omission from Prof Adler’s submission that, throughout this period, Israel has ignored international law as its pertains to Palestinian rights. All Security Council Resolutions relating to the rights of the Palestinian people are ignored – and Security Council Resolutions are embedded in international law. However, such resolutions are never passed under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, which obliges them to be enforced by the international community. And yet Prof Adler would maintain that the state of Israel is is bound by the rule of law. Reality is that she is allowed to pick and choose the laws at will – free, in the short term, from any consequences…
In more recent times the facade of the supremacy of the rule of law in the state of Israel – when it comes to the rights of the Palestinian people – has been further exposed. And where better to look than the very village, Jayyous, whose land has been purloined by the Israeli state.
Prof Adler asserts, effectively, that when the villagers want access to their land, access is allowed – such is the benign nature of the military occupation. I first came across the problems Jayyous faces during Christmas 2003. I received a copy of a press release from the village council seeking help in getting access for their sheep and lambs to the grazing pastures on the “wrong” side of the fence. At that point, yes, the farmers had permits to access their land (assuming the gates were open and the military were in a mood to let them through). However, the sheep had no permits and they were not being allowed through.
Prof Adler suggests that the land now being swallowed up by the settlement of Zufim (or Tzufim) has been bought. That may be so. If your land is is on the wrong side of the wall and you are not allowed to cultivate it, then under Ottoman law it will be confiscated – unless a miltary order leading to confiscation kicks in first. So there must be a temptation, no matter how close you are to your land, for some to bow to the inevitable. I note the online version of Prof Adler’s article makes reference to the land being sold to a Jew, as if this was the reason for the alleged fate of the vendor. I suggest that the alleged fate of the vendor was sealed because he allegedly sold the land to the occupier. It is an irrelevance as to whether the buyer was Jewish, Armenian, American or whatever. Unless Prof Adler has proof otherwise. However, Prof Adler makes no mention of the settler movement which has turned the production of false documents almost into an art form….
The Association of Civil Rights In Israel recently documented no fewer than eight cases where the state was, or still is, in contempt of rulings handed down by the High Court of Justice since 2006. An affidavit submitted to the High Court of Justice a few weeks ago (in response to a petition) by the Defense Minister's adviser on settlement affairs, Eitan Broshi, indicates that from Ehud Barak's point of view, anything relating to Palestinian rights, and not only the High Court's rulings, are nothing more than a recommendation….
With Prof Adler intertwining legal argument with the Zionist narrative within his article, it is important to differentiate between the two. His attempt to remove Palestinian rights by resort to the various laws introduced by the successive occupiers of Palestine is bad enough. To then, as he does, state opinion and views as truisms with no alternative viewpoint cannot go unchallenged.
With regard to Jayyous’ land, we are told that Fraser Ritchie’s land statistics are wrong. In effect we are asked to agree with Prof Adler’s implicit contention that a state intent on acquiring the land of others should be honest with its statistics.
Why, since 9/11, is the position of the International Court of Justice now untenable? If so, why did Israel not cooperate with the court and give evidence to this effect? There are many who would argue that if Israel, over the decades, had adhered to international law as it applies to the Palestinian people, if the US had not been so supportive of a state which acts above the law then 9/11 might never have happened.
The Wall, it would seem, and its associated fence work, has reduced the number of attacks. Unstated is the reason why this wall was not built along the Green Line (armistice line) instead of its current route which conveniently absorbs fertile land, important water aquifers, splitting Palestinian communities asunder. Also unstated is the fact that if Israel abandoned its Zionist agenda, gave up the occupation, recognised Palestinian rights then there would be no need for a Wall.
The attempt to sideline a very brutal, decades long occupation resulting from an appetite for Palestinian land, then try to lay the blame to “Arab-Islamic opposition” very much reveals Prof Adler’s agenda. It denies history, it denies reality. He may as well blame former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin who encouraged the growth of the precursors of Hamas as a counter to PLO nationalism….
Throughout his article Prof Adler refers only once to “rights” in the context of protecting the rights of people. The Mandate given to Britain never protected the rights of the Palestinian people. Over half of those expelled or fleeing their homes to safety in the face of the Zionist onslaught of 1948, did so while under British “protection”, while the Mandate was still in force. The British Defence Emergency Regulations of 1945 were never repealed. So within Israel and occupied Palestine there are no rights, only privileges. Reality is that most Jewish citizens and all Jewish nationals get the privileges, while the Palestinian people are, inexorably, stripped of their rights and their land.
Hugh Humphries, Secretary, Scottish Friends of Palestine
[comment edited from a longer submission]
Michael Horesh
Monday December 21, 2009, 12:42
There are many partisan comments here. What Prof Adler has done with utmost professional care is question whether Israeli so-called settlements are illegal under international law.
The bottom line is that for all the repeated rhetoric of Palestinians and thier supporters, this has never been proven. At best, to date, it has become a "politically acceptable mantra".
And therein lies the irony of Fraser Ritchie's response. "it is my understanding that international lawyers agree... etc". Many politicians and some lawyers may agree, but not all lawyers, because the case has not been proven. Without realising it, Ritchie has recognised the true force of Adler's basic opinion; the settlements are probably not illegal.
David Sherman
Wednesday December 23, 2009, 20:36
Backing away from the technicalities of international law being discussed, don't forget the reality here. If the Palestinians were to lay down their arms, there would be peace. If the Israelis were to lay down their arms, there would be another 6 million dead Jews. Israel is consistently working, albeit imperfectly, for a solution that enables Israel to exist as a Jewish state. The Arabs are consistently working, albeit patiently, towards the destruction of that state.
Note that 1 million Arabs live within Israel with full democratic rights and peace. When Jews can live in "Palestine" under Palestinian Arab control, with the same democratic rights and peace and without needing military protection against being murdered, then the Palestinians will have justified their entitlement to a state. Until then they have failed to demonstrate their entitlement to rule over others, and thus Israel needs to protect the Jews who live in Hebron (where Jewish communities lived for centuries until they were massacred in 1929 and 1936) and other towns throughout the West Bank.
All examination of the legalities of the so-called "occupied territory" should be made in light of the above. Israel would not need to "occupy" the West Bank if Jewish communities could leave as peacefully there as they can in, say, Canada. The Jews would simply live there, as they live throughout the world as minorities. Only Arab countries, it seems, must be Judenrein.
David Sherman
Wednesday December 23, 2009, 22:24
Hugh Humphries writes, "Also unstated is the fact that if Israel abandoned its Zionist agenda..."
The Zionist agenda is for Jews to be able to live as a free people in the land of Israel. That is the essence of the existence of Israel. Only the Jews are denied this right by those who object to Israel's existence.
Israel would allow the "Palestinians" (a "people" that didn't exist before 1964 - they were indistinguishable from Muslim Arabs across the region generally) independence if doing so did not pose a deathly threat to Israel's existence.
Remember: Arabs can live in Israel, and under Israeli military control, and can blossom and survive. Jews cannot live under Arab control without being murdered. Which is fairer?
Bernard Katz
Wednesday December 23, 2009, 23:22
Amos Yaron is mistaken in his claim that “[f]ive Arab armies never launched an invasion of Palestine in 1948”. On the night of 14–15 May 1948, the following countries invaded the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine: Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. There were also Saudi Arabian and Yemenite contingents. (See, e.g., Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948 [2006], ch.8.).
Moreover, contrary to what Mr Yaron insinuates, Plan Dalet was not a plan for evicting the Arab population of Palestine. Plan Dalet, which is publicly available, was the master plan of the Haganah and was designed to meet the threat of an Arab invasion, which occurred in due course.
Though it is true that there were several dozen places where Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops, the great majority of the Palestinian refugees fled simply to get out of harm's way — not unlike the several million Iraqis who fled Iraq following the 2003 invasion.
Sebastian
Thursday December 31, 2009, 03:43
I have to say, I think many of you are behaving in a completely irresponsible manner.
I am not an international law academic. I am a practising solicitor and I am very familiar with how the law is supposed to be read with political neutrality.
Many of you guys are trying to point score and put forward political viewpoints and this is totally unacceptable. It's like you guys have lost all sight of the most basic tenets of law, international or otherwise.
The sole purpose of a lawyer is to predict what an impartial court would rule, nothing more. As such, a lawyer must distance their legal opinion from their political one, even being prepared to come to a legal view that differs considerably from their political viewpoint. Even a hint of politicisation of your opinion will destroy all legal merit of any argument.
The points made in this article seem reasonable to me, but the greatest charge is that Fraser Ritchie’s previous piece made clear omissions.
If true, it is totally unacceptable that anybody should ignore key arguments of the other side. To do so will destroy the merit of that person's argument since an impartial court will consider all sides not just one.
What is it about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that prevents a proper and sincere assessment of the legalities of the issues from taking place in an adult manner? It’s really not that hard.
And until you guys have figured out a consensus about how international law affects the land east of the 1967 green line, none of you should be making claims declaring an action x to be legal/illegal. Instead, you must accurately sum up the debate by saying something like “I don’t know for sure. My view is x is legal/illegal but there are many that think otherwise”.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Snub to the US and Non-Existence to Israel!
Steven Shamrak
Why must Israel negotiate with terrorists who want to destroy the Jewish state? The US didn't and any other self-respecting country wouldn t!
During a visit to Bethlehem this week, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas held up a stone model of the map of "Palestine" (including a part of Gaza in Sinai - see the link) that erases Israel. US President Obama has condemned the existence of maps like the one Abbas displayed as a "security" threat to Israel:
"I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security... Not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel's destruction. Not when there are maps across the Middle East that don't even acknowledge Israel's existence." Last year Abbas held up a similar political map that presented a world without Israel. It included the PA flag above the entire land of Israel, and was titled "Palestine." It named all the neighbouring states in English - "Lebanon, Syria, Jordan Egypt" - but failed to mention Israel. Abbas openly ignores US President Obama's criticism of the use of such maps... (Arabs and so-called Palestinians regularly snub the US. They are not rebuked, criticised or pressured by the US administration, only Israel!)
Why Arab "Activists", but "Right-wing" Israelis?
Scores of Jordanian "activists" demonstrated near the Israeli embassy in the capital Amman to mark the 16th anniversary of the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel. Participants - mainly trade unionists and Islamists - chanted slogans and raised placards urging the government to cancel the October 26, 1994, peace pact with Israel.
Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak
I have been sending my letters for over 9 years all over the world to people, Jews and non-Jews - supporters and adversaries, in order to create the understanding of the underlying issues of the Arab-Israel conflict and to promote the original Zionist idea of reunification of Eretz-Israel. In my opinion, the Sinai Option: Road to Permanent Peace is most viable way to achieve it; it will stop the suffering of Jews in Israel from Arab terror, and put an end to the long-enduring conflict.
Huge Pay-off for Retaining the ME Conflict
The U.S. State Department announced the largest weapons sale in the history of the United States: $60 billion worth of combat planes and helicopters to Saudi Arabia. The Obama Administration has notified Congress of the plans for the 20-year deal. It is to include 84 F-15 fighter aircraft and over 170 helicopters, the upgrading of 70 older-model F-15 planes, and the sale of smaller air force items. The helicopter deal includes 70 Apaches, 72 Blackhawks, and 32 MH-6 Little Birds. (Obviously keeping the Arab-Israel conflict artificially inflamed and not allowing Israel to end it, and instigating a fake "war on terror" in Iraq encompasses some hidden agendas. One of them is this financial bonanza for the US and other peace loving weapon pushers!)
Broken Accords Must be Buried
A senior PA official warned that it may break previous accords for the 'peace process' if Israel does not agree to its demands. However, the PA already has broken the agreements, that - among others - declare Israel will be a Jewish state, and the PA will halt all incitement and dismantle its terrorist infrastructure. The PLO also has not changed its charter denying the existence of Israel. (Israel must put a stop to endless and useless strings of agreements with terrorists and start building the Jewish state, without residential enemies!)
Unreported by Media 'Work Accident'
More than a dozen people, including five children and three women, were wounded a week ago by a Hamas "work accident" at one of the terrorist organisation's military bases, located in a crowded neighbourhood in the southern Gaza border city of Rafiah. Explosives often are detonated prematurely or accidentally while terrorists are setting up roadside bombs, suicide bomber belts and similar weapons. (In violation of the Geneva Convention, Arab terrorists are using women and children as "human shields". Nobody demands that they be trailed by an international court! 'Humanists' and 'objective' media are silent!)
Another Example of International anti-Israel Bastardry . The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO - the Arab League affiliate) voted recently to officially declare Rachel's Tomb to be a mosque. The vote called for Rachel's Tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarchs - the burial site of the other Biblical Patriarchs and Matriarchs - to be removed from Israel's National Heritage list.
Why Must Israel Cooperate with International Hypocrites?
Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah called on Lebanese citizens not to cooperate with the UN's inquiry committee into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. His statement comes just two days after two members of the committee were forcefully removed from a clinic in a neighbourhood in southern Beirut. (Once again there is no international condemnation and the world the press is silent!)
Quote of the Week:
"For the first decades after Israel s founding, this war was conventional in nature. The goal was straightforward: to use military force to overrun Israel. Then came phase two: terrorism. Terrorists targeted Israelis both home and abroad - from the massacre of Israeli athletes at Munich to the Second Intifada. Now the war has entered a new phase. This is the soft war that seeks to isolate Israel by delegitimising it. The battleground is everywhere: the media & multinational organizations & NGOs. In this war, the aim is to make Israel a pariah." - Rupert Murdoch - Where are the brave Jewish leaders and rabbis who would, like Rupert, clearly define the goals of Israel as the Jewish state, creation of Eretz-Israel, and dispel the hypocrisy and danger of negotiation with the enemies? Most of the anti-Semitic international bigots are willing and enthusiastic participants in this "media war" against the Jewish state!
"Delusion" is a Medical Condition!
Israel wants a real peace agreement with the Palestinians which will ensure Israeli security, and will not be satisfied with "papers and promises", Premier Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday night, ahead of the start of (recent) direct negotiations between the sides. (Which has never really eventuated)
"We will not allow the firing of thousands of rockets and missiles from Palestinian territories into Israel as was the case when we pulled out of Lebanon and Gaza," he told members of his Likud Party at a traditional toast to mark the Jewish New year.
"That is not peace. We want real agreements on the ground that ensure the security of Israel and its citizens," Netanyahu said. (Thirteen years after the Oslo Accords, both sides of Israeli politics are still playing dangerous delusional games that peace with Islamic terror is possible).
The Prime Minister left for Washington, to attend a summit kicking off the long-delayed direct talks, the first face-to-face negotiations between the sides in more than a year. (What a misuse of time and money it was!)
According to the Ha'aretz daily, he told the Likud members that "real peace lasts for generations," citing as an example the peace agreement Israel and Egypt signed in 1979. (And we all know what kind of a back-stabbing neighbour Egypt is!)
He said peace was an attainable goal, but noted that it was not entirely up to Israel alone. (It is entirely up to Israel! It is time to face the truth - the enemies of Israel will never give up on the idea of destroying the Jewish state. Negotiations have time and again proven to be a waste of time. Only a strong Israel, pursuing and achieving Zionist goals without regard to fake political correctness, will be able to make our enemies to accept a newly created reality!)
Why must Israel negotiate with terrorists who want to destroy the Jewish state? The US didn't and any other self-respecting country wouldn t!
During a visit to Bethlehem this week, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas held up a stone model of the map of "Palestine" (including a part of Gaza in Sinai - see the link) that erases Israel. US President Obama has condemned the existence of maps like the one Abbas displayed as a "security" threat to Israel:
"I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security... Not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel's destruction. Not when there are maps across the Middle East that don't even acknowledge Israel's existence." Last year Abbas held up a similar political map that presented a world without Israel. It included the PA flag above the entire land of Israel, and was titled "Palestine." It named all the neighbouring states in English - "Lebanon, Syria, Jordan Egypt" - but failed to mention Israel. Abbas openly ignores US President Obama's criticism of the use of such maps... (Arabs and so-called Palestinians regularly snub the US. They are not rebuked, criticised or pressured by the US administration, only Israel!)
Why Arab "Activists", but "Right-wing" Israelis?
Scores of Jordanian "activists" demonstrated near the Israeli embassy in the capital Amman to mark the 16th anniversary of the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel. Participants - mainly trade unionists and Islamists - chanted slogans and raised placards urging the government to cancel the October 26, 1994, peace pact with Israel.
Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak
I have been sending my letters for over 9 years all over the world to people, Jews and non-Jews - supporters and adversaries, in order to create the understanding of the underlying issues of the Arab-Israel conflict and to promote the original Zionist idea of reunification of Eretz-Israel. In my opinion, the Sinai Option: Road to Permanent Peace is most viable way to achieve it; it will stop the suffering of Jews in Israel from Arab terror, and put an end to the long-enduring conflict.
Huge Pay-off for Retaining the ME Conflict
The U.S. State Department announced the largest weapons sale in the history of the United States: $60 billion worth of combat planes and helicopters to Saudi Arabia. The Obama Administration has notified Congress of the plans for the 20-year deal. It is to include 84 F-15 fighter aircraft and over 170 helicopters, the upgrading of 70 older-model F-15 planes, and the sale of smaller air force items. The helicopter deal includes 70 Apaches, 72 Blackhawks, and 32 MH-6 Little Birds. (Obviously keeping the Arab-Israel conflict artificially inflamed and not allowing Israel to end it, and instigating a fake "war on terror" in Iraq encompasses some hidden agendas. One of them is this financial bonanza for the US and other peace loving weapon pushers!)
Broken Accords Must be Buried
A senior PA official warned that it may break previous accords for the 'peace process' if Israel does not agree to its demands. However, the PA already has broken the agreements, that - among others - declare Israel will be a Jewish state, and the PA will halt all incitement and dismantle its terrorist infrastructure. The PLO also has not changed its charter denying the existence of Israel. (Israel must put a stop to endless and useless strings of agreements with terrorists and start building the Jewish state, without residential enemies!)
Unreported by Media 'Work Accident'
More than a dozen people, including five children and three women, were wounded a week ago by a Hamas "work accident" at one of the terrorist organisation's military bases, located in a crowded neighbourhood in the southern Gaza border city of Rafiah. Explosives often are detonated prematurely or accidentally while terrorists are setting up roadside bombs, suicide bomber belts and similar weapons. (In violation of the Geneva Convention, Arab terrorists are using women and children as "human shields". Nobody demands that they be trailed by an international court! 'Humanists' and 'objective' media are silent!)
Another Example of International anti-Israel Bastardry . The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO - the Arab League affiliate) voted recently to officially declare Rachel's Tomb to be a mosque. The vote called for Rachel's Tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarchs - the burial site of the other Biblical Patriarchs and Matriarchs - to be removed from Israel's National Heritage list.
Why Must Israel Cooperate with International Hypocrites?
Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah called on Lebanese citizens not to cooperate with the UN's inquiry committee into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. His statement comes just two days after two members of the committee were forcefully removed from a clinic in a neighbourhood in southern Beirut. (Once again there is no international condemnation and the world the press is silent!)
Quote of the Week:
"For the first decades after Israel s founding, this war was conventional in nature. The goal was straightforward: to use military force to overrun Israel. Then came phase two: terrorism. Terrorists targeted Israelis both home and abroad - from the massacre of Israeli athletes at Munich to the Second Intifada. Now the war has entered a new phase. This is the soft war that seeks to isolate Israel by delegitimising it. The battleground is everywhere: the media & multinational organizations & NGOs. In this war, the aim is to make Israel a pariah." - Rupert Murdoch - Where are the brave Jewish leaders and rabbis who would, like Rupert, clearly define the goals of Israel as the Jewish state, creation of Eretz-Israel, and dispel the hypocrisy and danger of negotiation with the enemies? Most of the anti-Semitic international bigots are willing and enthusiastic participants in this "media war" against the Jewish state!
"Delusion" is a Medical Condition!
Israel wants a real peace agreement with the Palestinians which will ensure Israeli security, and will not be satisfied with "papers and promises", Premier Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday night, ahead of the start of (recent) direct negotiations between the sides. (Which has never really eventuated)
"We will not allow the firing of thousands of rockets and missiles from Palestinian territories into Israel as was the case when we pulled out of Lebanon and Gaza," he told members of his Likud Party at a traditional toast to mark the Jewish New year.
"That is not peace. We want real agreements on the ground that ensure the security of Israel and its citizens," Netanyahu said. (Thirteen years after the Oslo Accords, both sides of Israeli politics are still playing dangerous delusional games that peace with Islamic terror is possible).
The Prime Minister left for Washington, to attend a summit kicking off the long-delayed direct talks, the first face-to-face negotiations between the sides in more than a year. (What a misuse of time and money it was!)
According to the Ha'aretz daily, he told the Likud members that "real peace lasts for generations," citing as an example the peace agreement Israel and Egypt signed in 1979. (And we all know what kind of a back-stabbing neighbour Egypt is!)
He said peace was an attainable goal, but noted that it was not entirely up to Israel alone. (It is entirely up to Israel! It is time to face the truth - the enemies of Israel will never give up on the idea of destroying the Jewish state. Negotiations have time and again proven to be a waste of time. Only a strong Israel, pursuing and achieving Zionist goals without regard to fake political correctness, will be able to make our enemies to accept a newly created reality!)
EC: Key Tax Breaks at Risk as Panel Looks at Cuts
DAMIAN PALETTA
Bloomberg News
It remains unclear whether the panel will reach a consensus on taxes with negotiations taking place right after the midterm elections, when Washington tends to buzz with political jostling.
Sacrosanct tax breaks, including deductions on mortgage interest, remain on the table just weeks before the deficit commission issues recommendations on policies to pare back with the aim of balancing the budget by 2015. At stake, in addition to the mortgage-interest deductions, are child tax credits and the ability of employees to pay their portion of their health-insurance tab with pretax dollars. Commission officials are expected to look at preserving these breaks but at a lower level, according to people familiar with the matter. The tax benefits are hugely popular with the public but they have drawn the panel's focus, in part because the White House has said these and other breaks cost the government about $1 trillion a year.
The officials are also looking at potential cuts to defense spending and a freeze on domestic discretionary spending. It is unclear if the 18-member panel will be able to reach an agreement on any of the items by a Dec. 1 deadline. Even if they do reach an agreement, any curbs on current tax breaks would likely face tough sledding in Congress. The banking and real-estate lobbies have fiercely rebuffed efforts to rescind the mortgage-interest deduction in the past.
Still, officials have found there aren't any easy ways to balance the budget, and they are expected to steer clear of more polarizing issues like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and a broad rewrite of the tax code in their short-term recommendations. The panel could still make long-term recommendations to change these issues, but they would be less concrete.
"My concern is that the talk of tax expenditures is couched as 'tax reform,' but it's not tax reform," said Alison Fraser, director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "It's simply a revenue-raising exercise."
Committee officials plan to try to broker a deal in November, after the midterm elections. They have until Dec. 1 to win the support of 14 of the commission's 18 members to endorse a final report. It is possible that the panel's Democrats and Republicans would issue separate reports if they can't agree, people familiar with the process said.
President Barack Obama created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform in February, amid concern from lawmakers and economists that the growing budget deficit could damage the country's long-term fiscal condition. The bipartisan panel, made up mostly of lawmakers but also business and labor leaders, has met for months, at times more constructively than many expected.
"There's a lot of potential for agreement on the committee," said panel member Alice Rivlin, a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution.
If the commission reaches a consensus, House or Senate leaders could agree to bring some of the changes up for a vote, perhaps early next year, although there is no deadline.
To balance the budget by 2015, excluding interest payments on debt, means officials would need to find roughly $240 billion in annual savings, according to commission documents. Panel officials also hope to issue recommendations that would "meaningfully improve" the country's long-term fiscal situation.
Even though officials are focusing on issues where they believe they can get broad agreement, they will likely face stiff resistance from certain lawmakers and interest groups. Some Republicans are expected to label any caps on tax breaks as a backdoor way of raising taxes. Several lawmakers' offices declined to comment on specific proposals as negotiations aren't yet under way.
Committee officials have also focused on the $700 billion in annual defense spending, which accounts for more than half of domestic discretionary spending. Critics say the government could cut some of the $400 billion spent on outside contractors. But many conservative groups have said cutting military spending would be a mistake, citing national security risks.
Changes to Medicaid and Medicare are unlikely to be recommended despite their looming presence in the U.S. budget. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if laws don't change, federal spending on health care alone will grow from 5% of gross domestic product in 2010 to 10% in 2035.
Commission officials looked closely at making short-term changes to Social Security, but talks shifted in recent weeks toward incorporating those ideas into a longer-term plan. This is in part because any changes would probably have to be phased in over years, delaying the budgetary impact for at least a decade.
"My sense from talking to members of the commission is that's where they are focusing [on the long-term recommendation], Social Security reform," said Martin Feldstein, an economics professor at Harvard University who served as a senior official in the Reagan administration.
It remains unclear whether the panel will reach a consensus with negotiations taking place right after the midterm elections, when Washington tends to buzz with political jostling. The imminent debate over whether to extend all or part of the Bush-era tax cuts could also complicate its efforts. The panel isn't expected to weigh in on this issue.
The White House said this month that the budget deficit for the last fiscal year was $1.3 trillion, the second highest in 60 years. The government's revenue was roughly $2.16 trillion in the year ended Sept. 30, compared with $3.46 trillion in outlays.
The White House hasn't signed off on any of the potential proposals as it's waiting for the panel to complete its work.
Mr. Obama "expects that the fiscal commission will continue the process of discussing and analyzing a wide range of ideas and it is premature to describe any specific idea as a conclusion of a commission that has not even voted yet," White House spokesman Amy Brundage said.
The commission "is the last best hope right now for getting some substantive movement on the issue of the deficit, the debt, and the financial disaster we're facing," Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.), a member of the commission, said in a recent interview.
Write to Damian Paletta at damian.paletta@wsj.com
Bloomberg News
It remains unclear whether the panel will reach a consensus on taxes with negotiations taking place right after the midterm elections, when Washington tends to buzz with political jostling.
Sacrosanct tax breaks, including deductions on mortgage interest, remain on the table just weeks before the deficit commission issues recommendations on policies to pare back with the aim of balancing the budget by 2015. At stake, in addition to the mortgage-interest deductions, are child tax credits and the ability of employees to pay their portion of their health-insurance tab with pretax dollars. Commission officials are expected to look at preserving these breaks but at a lower level, according to people familiar with the matter. The tax benefits are hugely popular with the public but they have drawn the panel's focus, in part because the White House has said these and other breaks cost the government about $1 trillion a year.
The officials are also looking at potential cuts to defense spending and a freeze on domestic discretionary spending. It is unclear if the 18-member panel will be able to reach an agreement on any of the items by a Dec. 1 deadline. Even if they do reach an agreement, any curbs on current tax breaks would likely face tough sledding in Congress. The banking and real-estate lobbies have fiercely rebuffed efforts to rescind the mortgage-interest deduction in the past.
Still, officials have found there aren't any easy ways to balance the budget, and they are expected to steer clear of more polarizing issues like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and a broad rewrite of the tax code in their short-term recommendations. The panel could still make long-term recommendations to change these issues, but they would be less concrete.
"My concern is that the talk of tax expenditures is couched as 'tax reform,' but it's not tax reform," said Alison Fraser, director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "It's simply a revenue-raising exercise."
Committee officials plan to try to broker a deal in November, after the midterm elections. They have until Dec. 1 to win the support of 14 of the commission's 18 members to endorse a final report. It is possible that the panel's Democrats and Republicans would issue separate reports if they can't agree, people familiar with the process said.
President Barack Obama created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform in February, amid concern from lawmakers and economists that the growing budget deficit could damage the country's long-term fiscal condition. The bipartisan panel, made up mostly of lawmakers but also business and labor leaders, has met for months, at times more constructively than many expected.
"There's a lot of potential for agreement on the committee," said panel member Alice Rivlin, a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution.
If the commission reaches a consensus, House or Senate leaders could agree to bring some of the changes up for a vote, perhaps early next year, although there is no deadline.
To balance the budget by 2015, excluding interest payments on debt, means officials would need to find roughly $240 billion in annual savings, according to commission documents. Panel officials also hope to issue recommendations that would "meaningfully improve" the country's long-term fiscal situation.
Even though officials are focusing on issues where they believe they can get broad agreement, they will likely face stiff resistance from certain lawmakers and interest groups. Some Republicans are expected to label any caps on tax breaks as a backdoor way of raising taxes. Several lawmakers' offices declined to comment on specific proposals as negotiations aren't yet under way.
Committee officials have also focused on the $700 billion in annual defense spending, which accounts for more than half of domestic discretionary spending. Critics say the government could cut some of the $400 billion spent on outside contractors. But many conservative groups have said cutting military spending would be a mistake, citing national security risks.
Changes to Medicaid and Medicare are unlikely to be recommended despite their looming presence in the U.S. budget. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if laws don't change, federal spending on health care alone will grow from 5% of gross domestic product in 2010 to 10% in 2035.
Commission officials looked closely at making short-term changes to Social Security, but talks shifted in recent weeks toward incorporating those ideas into a longer-term plan. This is in part because any changes would probably have to be phased in over years, delaying the budgetary impact for at least a decade.
"My sense from talking to members of the commission is that's where they are focusing [on the long-term recommendation], Social Security reform," said Martin Feldstein, an economics professor at Harvard University who served as a senior official in the Reagan administration.
It remains unclear whether the panel will reach a consensus with negotiations taking place right after the midterm elections, when Washington tends to buzz with political jostling. The imminent debate over whether to extend all or part of the Bush-era tax cuts could also complicate its efforts. The panel isn't expected to weigh in on this issue.
The White House said this month that the budget deficit for the last fiscal year was $1.3 trillion, the second highest in 60 years. The government's revenue was roughly $2.16 trillion in the year ended Sept. 30, compared with $3.46 trillion in outlays.
The White House hasn't signed off on any of the potential proposals as it's waiting for the panel to complete its work.
Mr. Obama "expects that the fiscal commission will continue the process of discussing and analyzing a wide range of ideas and it is premature to describe any specific idea as a conclusion of a commission that has not even voted yet," White House spokesman Amy Brundage said.
The commission "is the last best hope right now for getting some substantive movement on the issue of the deficit, the debt, and the financial disaster we're facing," Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.), a member of the commission, said in a recent interview.
Write to Damian Paletta at damian.paletta@wsj.com
Obama's not-so-hidden agenda
Frank Gaffney, Jr.
Earlier this year, President Obama drove U.S.-Israeli relations - to use one of President Obama's oft-employed analogies - into a ditch. Arguably, ties between the two countries were never more strained than last Spring when Mr. Obama serially insulted the elected leader of Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, vilified his country and tried to euchre it into making territorial, political and other ill-advised concessions to Arabs determined as ever to destroy the Jewish State. Unfortunately, what the President has in mind for Israel after the election next week will make his previous treatment of the Jewish State look like the good old days.To be sure, ties between the United States and Israel - far and away America's most important and loyal friend in the Middle East - have improved lately from the nadir to which Mr. Obama plunged them since he took office. That has nothing to do, however, with a change of heart or agenda on the part of the President and his administration.
Rather, it is a reflection of a cynical calculation forced upon the Obama White House by its panicked congressional allies. Already laboring under the backbreaking burden of their association with a president and his agenda that have become huge liabilities, Democrats on Capitol Hill faced wholesale defections of their Jewish constituents and funders if their party's leader persisted in his assault on Israel. Public letters and private conversations had the desired effect: Barack Obama began treating his Israeli counterpart with a modicum of respect and the optics of a restarted peace process - however shortlived or doomed - helped conjur up an image of a renewed partnership between the two nations.
Make no mistake about it, though: Once the 2010 elections are behind him, it is a safe bet that President Obama will revert to form by once again exhibiting an unmistakable and ruthless determination to bend Israel to his will.
Worse yet, he will be able to take advantage of a vehicle for effecting the so-called "two state solution," no matter how strenuously Israel and its friends in Washington object: The Palestinians will simply unilaterally declare themselves a state and ask for international recognition - and Mr. Obama will accede to that request.
A number of the particulars involved in this gambit are unclear at the moment. For example, will the Palestinians announce the borders of their state to be the 1967 cease-fire lines, in which case large Israeli population centers (defiled as "settlements") will be inside a nation that is certain to be, to use Hitler's phrase, judenrein (free of Jews)? How will the Hamas-stan of Gaza be connected to the currently PLO-run West Bank - in a way that will make them "contiguous" without bisecting the Jewish state and ensuring that Hamas does not take over the rest of the so-called "Palestinian authority"?
Also unclear is precisely how Mr. Obama will handle the sticky issue of extending U.S. recognition of Palestine. Will he want to parallel Harry Truman's direct and immediate endorsement of the establishment of Israel in 1948? Or will he do it more disingenuously, as former UN Ambassador John Bolton speculated in the Wall Street Journal last week, by having the United States abstain from an approving vote by the United Nations Security Council. The hope behind the latter would be that Team Obama and its partisans will somehow avoid retribution from Israel's friends, both Democrats and others, both here and abroad.
The truth is that, either way, Mr. Obama will have dealt Israel a potentially mortal blow. Without control of the high ground and water aquifers of the West Bank, the Jewish state is simply indefensible and unsustainable.
Some may suggest that international forces (perhaps led by the United States) should be deployed in the areas Jews have historically known as Judea and Samaria so as to ensure that they are not used to harm Israelis in the low-lying areas to the west.
We have seen how such arrangements work in practice in Lebanon, though-- which is to say not well.
In southern Lebanon, UN "peacekeepers" have merely wound up protecting Israel's enemies, notably Hezbollah, as such foes of both the Jewish State and our own have amassed immense amounts of missiles and other arms and prepared to resume hostilities against Israel at a moment of that Iranian-backed terrorist group's choosing (or, more precisely, that of their sponsors in Tehran.) The same is certain to eventuate in the West Bank as paramilitary forces the United States has foolishly trained and equipped become a standing army and fall under the sway of Hamas.
Such a "two-state solution" will make another regional war vastly more likely, not prevent it. Yet, the Obama administration is committed to pursuing that goal as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made excrutiatingly clear in a pandering speech to the Americah Task Force on Palestine last week.
Among other ominous comments, she declared that "the World Bank recently reported that if the Palestinian Authority maintains its momentum in building institutions and delivering public services, it is, and I quote, ‘well-positioned for the establishment of a state at any point in the near future.'" She seemed determined in particular to emphasize the last seven words.
Voters need to know now whether President Obama and those in Congress who support his agenda are determined to help Israel's enemies destroy her - not find out that is the case after the elections.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.
Earlier this year, President Obama drove U.S.-Israeli relations - to use one of President Obama's oft-employed analogies - into a ditch. Arguably, ties between the two countries were never more strained than last Spring when Mr. Obama serially insulted the elected leader of Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, vilified his country and tried to euchre it into making territorial, political and other ill-advised concessions to Arabs determined as ever to destroy the Jewish State. Unfortunately, what the President has in mind for Israel after the election next week will make his previous treatment of the Jewish State look like the good old days.To be sure, ties between the United States and Israel - far and away America's most important and loyal friend in the Middle East - have improved lately from the nadir to which Mr. Obama plunged them since he took office. That has nothing to do, however, with a change of heart or agenda on the part of the President and his administration.
Rather, it is a reflection of a cynical calculation forced upon the Obama White House by its panicked congressional allies. Already laboring under the backbreaking burden of their association with a president and his agenda that have become huge liabilities, Democrats on Capitol Hill faced wholesale defections of their Jewish constituents and funders if their party's leader persisted in his assault on Israel. Public letters and private conversations had the desired effect: Barack Obama began treating his Israeli counterpart with a modicum of respect and the optics of a restarted peace process - however shortlived or doomed - helped conjur up an image of a renewed partnership between the two nations.
Make no mistake about it, though: Once the 2010 elections are behind him, it is a safe bet that President Obama will revert to form by once again exhibiting an unmistakable and ruthless determination to bend Israel to his will.
Worse yet, he will be able to take advantage of a vehicle for effecting the so-called "two state solution," no matter how strenuously Israel and its friends in Washington object: The Palestinians will simply unilaterally declare themselves a state and ask for international recognition - and Mr. Obama will accede to that request.
A number of the particulars involved in this gambit are unclear at the moment. For example, will the Palestinians announce the borders of their state to be the 1967 cease-fire lines, in which case large Israeli population centers (defiled as "settlements") will be inside a nation that is certain to be, to use Hitler's phrase, judenrein (free of Jews)? How will the Hamas-stan of Gaza be connected to the currently PLO-run West Bank - in a way that will make them "contiguous" without bisecting the Jewish state and ensuring that Hamas does not take over the rest of the so-called "Palestinian authority"?
Also unclear is precisely how Mr. Obama will handle the sticky issue of extending U.S. recognition of Palestine. Will he want to parallel Harry Truman's direct and immediate endorsement of the establishment of Israel in 1948? Or will he do it more disingenuously, as former UN Ambassador John Bolton speculated in the Wall Street Journal last week, by having the United States abstain from an approving vote by the United Nations Security Council. The hope behind the latter would be that Team Obama and its partisans will somehow avoid retribution from Israel's friends, both Democrats and others, both here and abroad.
The truth is that, either way, Mr. Obama will have dealt Israel a potentially mortal blow. Without control of the high ground and water aquifers of the West Bank, the Jewish state is simply indefensible and unsustainable.
Some may suggest that international forces (perhaps led by the United States) should be deployed in the areas Jews have historically known as Judea and Samaria so as to ensure that they are not used to harm Israelis in the low-lying areas to the west.
We have seen how such arrangements work in practice in Lebanon, though-- which is to say not well.
In southern Lebanon, UN "peacekeepers" have merely wound up protecting Israel's enemies, notably Hezbollah, as such foes of both the Jewish State and our own have amassed immense amounts of missiles and other arms and prepared to resume hostilities against Israel at a moment of that Iranian-backed terrorist group's choosing (or, more precisely, that of their sponsors in Tehran.) The same is certain to eventuate in the West Bank as paramilitary forces the United States has foolishly trained and equipped become a standing army and fall under the sway of Hamas.
Such a "two-state solution" will make another regional war vastly more likely, not prevent it. Yet, the Obama administration is committed to pursuing that goal as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made excrutiatingly clear in a pandering speech to the Americah Task Force on Palestine last week.
Among other ominous comments, she declared that "the World Bank recently reported that if the Palestinian Authority maintains its momentum in building institutions and delivering public services, it is, and I quote, ‘well-positioned for the establishment of a state at any point in the near future.'" She seemed determined in particular to emphasize the last seven words.
Voters need to know now whether President Obama and those in Congress who support his agenda are determined to help Israel's enemies destroy her - not find out that is the case after the elections.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.
Monday, November 01, 2010
Another example of Obama's failed ME Policy
U.S. Government "Threatens" Syria: Promote Terrorism, Take Over Lebanon, Block Peace, and We Won't Let You Make Apple ipads!
RubinReports
Barry Rubin
If you think I'm exaggerating about the current administration's cluelessness toward the Middle East just read the State Department daily press conference transcripts. Even journalists covering these events are often shocked by what they hear.
Today's topic is Syria, but it's just an example and many others could be found. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley begins by referring to a speech by U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice in which she says:
"We continue to have deep concerns about Hezbollah’s destructive and destabilizing influence in the region, as well as attempts by other foreign players, including Syria and Iran, to undermine Lebanon’s independence and endanger its stability." In saying this, Rice is praising a UN report about what's going on in Lebanon which reveals, though nobody makes this point, the total failure of the organization and the United States to keep the promises made in 2006 in order to end the Israel-Hizballah war.
So given this situation one would think U.S. policy is now prepared to do something about Lebanon's becoming an Iran-Syria puppet, Syria's continued support for anti-American terrorists in Iraq and sabotage of any peace process, and the obviously failed U.S. effort at engaging Syria.
Nope. Not a chance.
A reporter asks: "With these strong statements...it looks like the meetings the Secretary [of State] had with the Syrian foreign minister and the visit by his deputy here to Washington didn’t lead to any improvements in relations with Syria. Do you agree on this?"
No, Crowley won't agree since if he does the United States will have to do something. He just wants to let everyone knows that the United States told Syria it is very very naughty:
"We were very clear about our expectation that Syria would play a more constructive role in the region. We expressed during that meeting our deep concern for Syrian interference with Lebanon’s sovereignty. We also expressed in that meeting hope that Syria would make progress in its thread of the Middle East peace process."
No, Syria won't "play a more constructive role," so why the expectation? Yes, Syria will continue to undermine Lebanon's sovereignty so what are you going to do with that "deep concern?" No, Syria won't "make progress" toward peace with Israel so why the "hope"?
Jumping Jupiter! You've been watching all of this continuously for nineteen months, isn't it time to get the point?
Understandably, a reporter asks: "Do you see any evidence that [the Syrians] have actually taken that message on board?....It doesn’t seem like they’re listening if they’re still doing things that you have to complain about as publicly as Ambassador Rice did."
Precisely. So what does Crowley say? I'm not kidding: that's why we have to talk to them even more and offer them goodies:
"Well, but it’s one of the reasons why we have offered to engage Syria....[The U.S. wants] to offer the hope that...we can improve our relationship bilaterally and Syria can play a more constructive role in the region."
So let me get this straight: Syria ignores you and your answer is to try harder to engage them, to offer them more. Crowley continues:
"There’s a choice here for Syria. If it wants to have a better relationship with the United States, then it has to be a more constructive player in the region. [Regarding] Lebanon, we remain very concerned about Syria’s ...ongoing support of Hezbollah, its attempted intimidation of a Lebanese Government, the ongoing provision of arms to Hezbollah in violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty....We would expect Syria to respect Lebanon’s sovereignty."
Why do you expect they would respect Lebanon's sovereignty? And hasn't Syria already made a choice: No! No! No! Or, more accurately, they have made a choice based on your behavior along the following lines:
We can support Hizballah, intimidate Lebanon's government, and do just about whatever we want, and the United States won't do anything to us? Mu-ha-ha-ha!
So of course, a reporter asks--and remember this is October 2010 so they haven't heard any answer in the last twenty months: "You’ve laid out the carrots that are offered to the Syrians, i.e., potential of better or improved U.S. relationships if they do these things you want them to do. What’s the consequences if they continue not to listen to you?"
Does Crowley hurl lightning bolts? Does he threaten and hint and warn? No, he does not: In fact, he seems rather surprised by the question. His answer is so amazing [in incoherence as well as content] I just have to quote it in full. [Note: If you wish I give you permission to skip the next paragraph]:
"Well, I mean, there are sanctions against Syria. It still is listed on the terrorism list by the United States, and those have an impact. But if Syria wants the potential–a change in the relation with the United States, a change in opportunities that come with normal relations, then it has to improve its performance. Give you an example: Earlier this summer, technology leaders under the auspices of the State Department had a delegation that visited Damascus, and our message to the leaders...is very clear. You want leading technology companies from the United States and other areas of the world to invest in Damascus, then you’ve got to create the appropriate climate to encourage them to do that. You’ve got to have a climate where–change the relationship between the government and the people. So if this is, in fact, the ambition by the Syrian leadership, then it has to change its policies and its practices."
So that's it! If you take over Lebanon, send terrorists into Iraq to kill Americans, back Hamas, arm Hizballah, and move so close to Iran that a hydrogen atom cannot pass between you, the United States will take a terrible vengeance: It won't let American technology companies invest in you!
So here's the real choice offered Syria: Either you have Iran providing hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and low-cost oil; paying for your weapons, subsidizing your joint clients like Hamas and Hizballah, and giving you a nuclear umbrella, while being part of an alliance that believes it is going to gain hegemony in the Middle East OR alternatively you could throw all this away in exchange for some U.S. investments.
The horror. The horror.
After reading this nonsense an expert on these issues remarked: ''Really pathetic. The administration is just begging Syria. Our dialogue has been reduced to Washington pleading and Syria saying "no." No wonder everyone is siding with Iran these days."
Amen.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
RubinReports
Barry Rubin
If you think I'm exaggerating about the current administration's cluelessness toward the Middle East just read the State Department daily press conference transcripts. Even journalists covering these events are often shocked by what they hear.
Today's topic is Syria, but it's just an example and many others could be found. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley begins by referring to a speech by U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice in which she says:
"We continue to have deep concerns about Hezbollah’s destructive and destabilizing influence in the region, as well as attempts by other foreign players, including Syria and Iran, to undermine Lebanon’s independence and endanger its stability." In saying this, Rice is praising a UN report about what's going on in Lebanon which reveals, though nobody makes this point, the total failure of the organization and the United States to keep the promises made in 2006 in order to end the Israel-Hizballah war.
So given this situation one would think U.S. policy is now prepared to do something about Lebanon's becoming an Iran-Syria puppet, Syria's continued support for anti-American terrorists in Iraq and sabotage of any peace process, and the obviously failed U.S. effort at engaging Syria.
Nope. Not a chance.
A reporter asks: "With these strong statements...it looks like the meetings the Secretary [of State] had with the Syrian foreign minister and the visit by his deputy here to Washington didn’t lead to any improvements in relations with Syria. Do you agree on this?"
No, Crowley won't agree since if he does the United States will have to do something. He just wants to let everyone knows that the United States told Syria it is very very naughty:
"We were very clear about our expectation that Syria would play a more constructive role in the region. We expressed during that meeting our deep concern for Syrian interference with Lebanon’s sovereignty. We also expressed in that meeting hope that Syria would make progress in its thread of the Middle East peace process."
No, Syria won't "play a more constructive role," so why the expectation? Yes, Syria will continue to undermine Lebanon's sovereignty so what are you going to do with that "deep concern?" No, Syria won't "make progress" toward peace with Israel so why the "hope"?
Jumping Jupiter! You've been watching all of this continuously for nineteen months, isn't it time to get the point?
Understandably, a reporter asks: "Do you see any evidence that [the Syrians] have actually taken that message on board?....It doesn’t seem like they’re listening if they’re still doing things that you have to complain about as publicly as Ambassador Rice did."
Precisely. So what does Crowley say? I'm not kidding: that's why we have to talk to them even more and offer them goodies:
"Well, but it’s one of the reasons why we have offered to engage Syria....[The U.S. wants] to offer the hope that...we can improve our relationship bilaterally and Syria can play a more constructive role in the region."
So let me get this straight: Syria ignores you and your answer is to try harder to engage them, to offer them more. Crowley continues:
"There’s a choice here for Syria. If it wants to have a better relationship with the United States, then it has to be a more constructive player in the region. [Regarding] Lebanon, we remain very concerned about Syria’s ...ongoing support of Hezbollah, its attempted intimidation of a Lebanese Government, the ongoing provision of arms to Hezbollah in violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty....We would expect Syria to respect Lebanon’s sovereignty."
Why do you expect they would respect Lebanon's sovereignty? And hasn't Syria already made a choice: No! No! No! Or, more accurately, they have made a choice based on your behavior along the following lines:
We can support Hizballah, intimidate Lebanon's government, and do just about whatever we want, and the United States won't do anything to us? Mu-ha-ha-ha!
So of course, a reporter asks--and remember this is October 2010 so they haven't heard any answer in the last twenty months: "You’ve laid out the carrots that are offered to the Syrians, i.e., potential of better or improved U.S. relationships if they do these things you want them to do. What’s the consequences if they continue not to listen to you?"
Does Crowley hurl lightning bolts? Does he threaten and hint and warn? No, he does not: In fact, he seems rather surprised by the question. His answer is so amazing [in incoherence as well as content] I just have to quote it in full. [Note: If you wish I give you permission to skip the next paragraph]:
"Well, I mean, there are sanctions against Syria. It still is listed on the terrorism list by the United States, and those have an impact. But if Syria wants the potential–a change in the relation with the United States, a change in opportunities that come with normal relations, then it has to improve its performance. Give you an example: Earlier this summer, technology leaders under the auspices of the State Department had a delegation that visited Damascus, and our message to the leaders...is very clear. You want leading technology companies from the United States and other areas of the world to invest in Damascus, then you’ve got to create the appropriate climate to encourage them to do that. You’ve got to have a climate where–change the relationship between the government and the people. So if this is, in fact, the ambition by the Syrian leadership, then it has to change its policies and its practices."
So that's it! If you take over Lebanon, send terrorists into Iraq to kill Americans, back Hamas, arm Hizballah, and move so close to Iran that a hydrogen atom cannot pass between you, the United States will take a terrible vengeance: It won't let American technology companies invest in you!
So here's the real choice offered Syria: Either you have Iran providing hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and low-cost oil; paying for your weapons, subsidizing your joint clients like Hamas and Hizballah, and giving you a nuclear umbrella, while being part of an alliance that believes it is going to gain hegemony in the Middle East OR alternatively you could throw all this away in exchange for some U.S. investments.
The horror. The horror.
After reading this nonsense an expert on these issues remarked: ''Really pathetic. The administration is just begging Syria. Our dialogue has been reduced to Washington pleading and Syria saying "no." No wonder everyone is siding with Iran these days."
Amen.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
Erekat: Arabs to bring Palestinian issue to UN
Maan News
BETHLEHEM (Ma’an) -- Egypt has proposed a joint Arab initiative to bring Palestinian demands for statehood to the United Nations, Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) chief negotiator Saeb Erekat has told Ma'an. He told Ma'an Radio that one aim of this plan, which he said is close to being finalized, would be to force Israel to stop expanding West Bank settlements before resuming negotiations.
Erekat said the idea of approaching the UN stemmed from the US government's failure to stop Israel from expanding settlements.
"When we talk about alternatives, this doesn’t mean failing [in the] talks; we want them to succeed," Erekat said. "The issue is not easy and negotiation is a tool that is used to solve problems, not a goal in itself. If Israel made the talks fail, then we will go to the other options."
Under US pressure, the PLO resumed direct negotiations with Israel in September, only to suspend the talks a month later over Israel's refusal to stop expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.
He said a joint Aarab approach to the UN would be predicated on the original aims of the peace process, including ending the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, based on past UN resolutions.
Erekat added that Netanyahu is wrong to try to alter these basic principles through proposed innovations such as a Palestinian state with provisional borders, a temporary settlement freeze, or other ideas for new transitional stages in the peace process.
He added that another option would be for the PLO to ask the Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state on the June 4, 1967 borders.
The Security Council would then be forced to accept or reject this request, he said. If it was rejected, the negotiator said, the Palestinians would ask the Security Council to activate Resolution 377, passed in 1950.
This measure, known as the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, states that, in cases where the Security Council fails to act in order to maintain international peace and security, due to deadlock among its five permanent members, the matter should be addressed by the General Assembly in an "emergency special session."
Resolution 377 was originally introduced by the US as a means of circumventing Soviet vetoes during the Korean War. The General Assembly has convened emergency special sessions 10 times in its history.
Erekat also said that Israel is trying to force the Palestinian Authority (PA) to collapse by undermining its legal and political mandate, making the PA "just a name."
"If Netanyahu chooses to keep the situation as it is, then what is the use of that?" Erekat said.
New PA libel: Israel tortures prisoners with hot irons and electric drills
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=3488
Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
Libelous drawings depicting fictitious "Israeli torture" are part of the new introduction to a PA TV program for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons and their families.
Purporting to show how Palestinian prisoners are tortured by Israel, the drawings portray Israeli prison guards: 1- Burning into a prisoner's chest with a hot iron;
2- Drilling a hole through a prisoner's hand;
3- Burning into a prisoner's shoulder with a soldering iron;
4- Whipping a prisoner while hanging him by his feet ;
5- Squeezing a prisoner's head in a medieval looking head press;
6- Chopping off a prisoner's arm below the elbow;
7- Hanging a prisoner by his arms while chains pull from his chest and neck.
Broadcast twice a week, the program For You is aimed at Palestinians imprisoned for terror offenses in Israeli prisons, where they watch the program. It includes footage from the prisoners' home villages and interviews with their family members, who send them televised messages.
PA TV is controlled by the office of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
It should be noted that no accusations about this kind of treatment have ever been made against Israel by the International Red Cross, by human rights groups or by Palestinian prisoners themselves.
In a striking irony, in the same week that the PA started to disseminate these libelous drawings on TV, an article in the official PA daily indicated that the prisons are very different than these libels portray. It stated that Palestinian prisoners are given educational opportunities. The PA daily celebrated how "prisoners in occupation [Israeli] prisons complete university studies and obtain MA and Ph.D. degrees," and proudly cited that "since 2000 more than 10,000 Palestinian prisoners have attained matriculation certificates while still in the occupation prisons." [Transcript below]
Another testimony corroborating the fact that prisoners are well treated in Israeli prisons came from a Palestinian prisoner interviewed on the For You program the day he was released from prison. The PA TV host was trying to have him express criticism of prison conditions, and repeatedly asked him about prison. The prisoner kept answering that prisoners "lack nothing" in the Israeli prisons:
PA TV Host: "You were in Megiddo [prison]. How are the guys?
You were released from prison just today."
Prisoner: "By Allah, the guys in the prison are fine. They lack nothing. They are doing fine."
Host: "Do they lack nothing?"
Prisoner: "They are doing really fine."
Host: "They lack nothing, not even freedom?"
Prisoner: "No. Freedom, Allah willing, there will be freedom."
Host: "How long were you in prison?"
Prisoner: "Two years."
Host: "And you say that they lack nothing?"
Prisoner: "I don't know."
Click to see the interview with the released prisoner
The following is the translation of the article celebrating the Palestinian prisoners' academic achievements:
Headline: "Prisoners in occupation prisons complete university studies and obtain MA and Ph.D. degrees"
"The occupation authorities don't leave a single option [open] without using it to make things difficult for the prisoners, regardless of their party or faction affiliation. Behind the prison bars, they are all Palestinians, and in the eyes of the warden they are all deserving of the harshest forms of punishment. Despite the oppression of the occupation and its incessant cruelty towards the prisoners, many of them are defying the Israeli oppression and are determined to succeed while behind prison bars. Many of them have succeeded in obtaining the highest degrees, while others are working on the preparation special research, getting them out to the world outside [the prison] and publishing them in the media, especially the electronic media. Owing to the rise in the number of prisoners receiving degrees - including Ph.D's - while still in prison, Israel recently began a new campaign meant to make things difficult for the prisoners and to try to withhold their elementary rights to education. It [Israel] has started to place obstacles in the way of the prisoners seeking to take the matriculation examinations. ... Prisoner Ayman Al-Hamoud takes great pride in his academic achievements in the Israeli prisons. He emphasized that all of his achievements were to spite the warden, and said that he had obtained an MA through the Al-Huraa University [based in Haag, the Netherlands]... Al-Hamoud said: 'The occupation is withholding everything from us, even our elementary rights, and therefore we conduct telephone calls with our families in secret, using devices which are smuggled in with difficulty. Today the occupation is trying in every possible way to withhold mobile phones from us; at every moment they storm the tents seeking phone devices. So how will they permit us to study at universities, and award us the rest of the prisoners' rights? They are trying to make things difficult for us in every way and manner, and we can only defy their racist steps.'
Al-Hamoud noted that many prisoners have registered at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, obtaining this right after a widespread strike held by the prisoners in the detention camps. Many regard released prisoner Fahd Abu Al-Hajj as an example motivating them to achieve the highest degrees: He entered prison illiterate, in 1978, and now he holds a Ph.D... Since [the year] 2000 more than 10,000 Palestinian prisoners have attained matriculation certificates while still in the occupation prisons. Today there are some 200 prisoners who are registered at various universities around the world."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 9, 2010]
Hello, America, are you there?
BARRY RUBIN
11/01/2010
The US government’s strange, belated reactions to recent negative developments in the Middle East seem to indicate that the administration is just not paying enough attention.
If you’ve lost faith in the abilities of the current US administration and mass media to respond to Middle East developments, here’s more evidence. Consider how hidden, obscure stories are being dug out by policymakers and top media. The New York Times recently reported that the US government is “increasingly alarmed by unrest in Lebanon, whose own fragile peace is being threatened by militant opponents of a politically charged investigation into the killing in 2005 of a former Lebanese leader.” a think? Lebanon has been taken over (or recaptured, if you wish) by the Iran-Syria anti-American, revolutionary Islamist, terrorist-sponsoring axis, operating largely – though by no means completely – through its client, Hizbullah. Might this be of some concern for US policy-makers?
Four years ago, Lebanon was run by an independent-minded, pro-Western government that would have preferred peace with Israel (though it knew domestic pressures made any such action impossible), opposed Iran and saw radical Islamism as an antagonist.
Today, Lebanon has been “lost” in large part due to Western weakness and inaction.
Even on this latest point the administration is wrong. There isn’t going to be any big conflict over any report that the Syrians murdered former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Everybody in Lebanon knows that Syria did it, possibly (though this is far less certain) with Hizbullah’s help.
But there won’t be any problem if the UN-backed investigation publicly states this because everyone in Lebanon has also been intimidated into silence. Even Hariri’s son, the most important Sunni leader and head of the Sunni-Christian-Druse (well, no longer Druse since they have joined the pro-Syrian side for all practical purposes) has surrendered to Damascus.
And of course there remains the question of what, if anything, this administration will do about Lebanon. Answer: nothing, except continue to aid the army which, at best, is neutral and, at worst, is a Hizbullah ally .
SPEAKING OF Syria and great discoveries, The Washington Post reported that Syria just doesn’t seem to be responding to administration efforts to engage, moderate and pull that country out of Iran’s orbit.
Over the past two years, there has been example after example of Syria opposing all aspects of US policy; sponsoring terrorism to kill Americans in Iraq and against Israel; sabotaging the Israel-Palestinian peace process; dominating Lebanon; helping Hamas and Hizbullah; and building an ever-tighter alliance with Iran.
And now people in Washington are starting to notice?
Should I mention the blindness toward the Turkish regime’s entrance into the Iran-Syria-Hamas- Hizbullah bloc, its recent listing of Israel as a “central threat” in its National Security Council threat assessment document and the need for US opposition to that government to help ensure its defeat in next year’s election? Hint: In an interview Republican People’s Party leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu states, “Washington is just beginning to wake up to the true nature” of the current regime. If that government ever does, it will understand that victory for Kilicdaroglu is a vital US interest.
Should I mention that nothing could be more obvious than that the Israel-Palestinian negotiating process is going nowhere because the Palestinian Authority doesn’t want to make a deal? And then add that this problem is being exacerbated by US policy making the PA believe this strategy can succeed by getting recognition for a unilateral declaration of independence? Should I mention the disastrous new US policy of engaging the Taliban which may result in the movement that partnered the September 11 attacks against America returning to power? The New York Times published an anthropologist's op-ed explaining how the US can co-opt the Taliban and turn it against al-Qaida.
But don’t take my word for it. Ask the would-be Times Square bomber who worked with that group, or a teenager who describes how the Taliban tried to recruit him as a suicide bomber (something it will be able to do to lots more youth if it can operate legally.)
And here’s what New York Times reporter David Rhode wrote after spending several months as a Taliban prisoner in 2009: “Before the kidnapping, I viewed the organization as a form of ‘al-Qaida lite’...
primarily focused on controlling Afghanistan. Living side by side with the[m], I learned that the goal [was]... to create a fundamentalist Islamic emirate with al-Qaida that spanned the Muslim world.”
WHAT ABOUT the total reversal of US policy on Hamas from trying to undermine its rule in the Gaza Strip to believing it will fall if Gaza becomes prosperous? From the time Hamas seized power until last summer, the US government supported a strategy of trying to bring it down by both political isolation and supporting embargoes to minimize Gaza’s imports and exports. The idea was that weakening Gaza’s economy would weaken Hamas’s rule.
At the same time, by lavishing aid on the PA-ruled West Bank, the US and its allies would show that West Bankers were much better off because they were ruled by peace-oriented moderates.
After the Gaza flotilla incident, however, President Barack Obama declared a new policy – though he never identified it explicitly. Now, the US would provide a lot of aid to Gaza in the belief that if it became more prosperous the citizens – apparently a strengthened middle class and businessmen –would bring down the regime.
The aid is to go to carefully designated and monitored projects. Whether or not that goal is achieved, however, the infusion of $400 million in US aid directly through the PA for supporting civil servants in Gaza will have the effect of strengthening the Hamas regime.
Aid will reduce popular discontent against Hamas while letting it divert some of this aid and a lot of funds that would otherwise have been needed to do some of these projects (and buy popular support) for terrorist/military purposes.
Thus, however well-intentioned the new policy may seem to Washington decision-makers, its practical effect is to strengthen Hamas, undermine any hope for peace and help establish a stable, long-term terrorist, Islamist, anti-Western and genocidally minded Iranian client state on the Mediterranean coast.
AND WHAT about the fact that most Arab governments are shocked at US expressions of weakness and want a strong American policy to protect them from Iran and revolutionary Islamists?
Should I mention that despite the praiseworthy (but overdue) increase in anti-Iran sanctions there’s no doubt that Teheran will get nuclear weapons, transforming the strategic balance in the region?
Should I mention that the administration doesn’t react to its own intelligence which shows Iran is helping kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan through training terrorists and supplying advisers and military equipment in both countries?
Anybody in the US government noticing these things and perhaps getting prepared to do something about them? Ya think?
The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal. www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
Hizballah's "zero hour" exercise for toppling Beirut government and war on Israel
DEBKAfile Special Report November 1, 2010
Hizballah last Thursday, Oct. 28, conducted a command exercise in all parts of Lebanon to test its armed militia's readiness for what its leaders called "zero hour" i.e. asserting its grip on Lebanon and "cornering" Prime Minister Saad Hariri. debkafile's military sources report the exercise took all day and led up to the sabre-rattling speech delivered by Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah that night, which was interpreted by all Lebanese factions interpreted as a declaration of war on their government and the prologue to heating up the border with Israel. (To read our Oct. 30 report on the speech and its impact, click here.)
The Shiite terrorist group made no bones about the reasons for its war stance - just the opposite:
1. Hizballah found it necessary to answer the Israel Defense Forces' recent "electronic exercise," in keeping with a top-level Iranian-Syrian-Hizballah decision never to leave any American or Israel military step without response.
2. It was a practice for the military action planned for the hours leading up to the Special Lebanese Tribunal's issuance of indictments against Hizballah leaders for complicity in the assassination of Lebanese ex-prime minister Rafiq Hariri five years ago.
The "zero hour" exercise demonstrated, according to Hizballah sources, "the quick implementation on the ground" of the necessary deployment. They claimed that in "less than two hours" they were able to "maintain a security and military grip of large areas of Lebanon."
Our sources note that this is the first time Hizballah has leveled publicly about its plan for seizing control of Lebanon by force of arms - even without waiting for the STL indictments to be issued. The disclosure was made five days after the critical command exercise in order to establish a fact. It took advantage of a moment when its key opponents were otherwise engaged.
President Barack Obama has his hands full with the Democrats' sliding rating in polls ahead of the Nov. 2 midterm elections to Congress.
Saudi King Abdullah had an eye on an ambitious initiative to convene a national conciliation conference of all Iraqi factions for breaking the long impasse over the formation of a new government in Baghdad. The Saudi king was seeking an al-Arab breakthrough that would push Iran off the board.
And in Jerusalem, political circles in Jerusalem are full engaged in the trivia of domestic scandal, such as the illegal employment of a foreign worker at Defense Minster Ehud Barak's home or endless bickering over the stipends for yeshiva students with families.
Hizballah also feels it can safely send its gunmen out on the streets of Beirut and vent its ire on Israel without being jumped on by Western media because they are all totally absorbed in al Qaeda's bomb package plot and its intercontinental ramifications.
Solutions for Sanity
Heritage Foundation
Our country may just need a Rally to Restore Comedy after this past Saturday's spectacularly unfunny Rally to Restore Sanity on the National Mall. But "The Daily Show" host and rally organizer Jon Stewart may have stumbled upon some truth in his closing remarks: "We hear every day about how fragile our country is -- on the brink of catastrophe -- torn by polarizing hate and how it's a shame that we can't work together to get things done, but the truth is we do. We work together to get things done every day. The only place we don't is here or on cable TV. Americans don't live here or on cable TV." The “here” Stewart is referring to is Washington, DC, the seat of federal power in this country. Since 1900, except for a brief dip in the 80s, Washington has taken more and more power away from the rest of the country. Then, almost 60% of government spending took place at the state and local levels. Today, the federal government spends more than twice as much as all other levels of government combined. This trend has only hastened under President Barack Obama, including: government-owned car companies, government-run health care, government-dominated mortgage markets and national school standards. With so many decisions being made for millions of Americans in just one city, is it any wonder that the country has become so politicized and polarized?
As President Ronald Reagan said in his First Inaugural Address: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?” By assuming more and more tasks in more and more areas outside of its core responsibilities, Washington has greatly damaged American self-rule. The federal government’s extended reach has weakened the states and pushed traditional social institutions into the shadows.
We can do something about this: devolve power away from Washington to the states and the people. The Heritage Foundation’s Solutions for America has a number of specific policy proposals to cut Washington down to size:
* Unwind Government Intervention: The government should end the interventions it has made since 2008, starting with abolition of the TARP program. It should then abolish Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and repeal all U.S. government regulatory measures that interfere with mortgage markets. Congress should also repeal the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, which discriminates against small firms and reduces competition. Companies should be allowed to fail, and laws and regulations should create no expectation of a future bailout.
* Spend Less: Congress should enact a firm cap on the annual increase in total government spending, limited to inflation plus population growth. Lawmakers should exert all effort to keep overall federal spending to less than 20% of U.S. GDP, the historical post–World War II average for federal spending. Congress should take entitlement spending off autopilot and subject it to the discipline of the budgetary process through long-term budgets that Congress regularly reviews. This would force entitlement spending to compete politically with other spending priorities.
* Devolve Responsibilities: Education, health care, transportation, criminal law enforcement and homeland security—all issues that in recent decades have become federal concerns but are better dealt with at the state and local levels of government—should be devolved to the states. State and local governments can tailor programs to make them more efficient and can experiment with new approaches to reduce the overall cost of government.
“It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government,” Reagan said in January 1981. “It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.” That’s a fact Stewart and the current administration should think about.
Quick Hits:
* Former Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush threw out the ceremonial first pitch in last night’s Game 4 of the World Series in Arlington, Texas.
* Despite the fact that the Cleveland Browns had a bye, President Barack Obama could only fill a little more than half of the 13,000 capacity Cleveland State University Wolstein Center on Sunday.
* Google, which hosted a $1.8 million fundraiser for President Barack Obama last month, cut its own taxes by $3.1 billion in the past three years by moving most of its foreign profit through low tax countries like Ireland, the Netherlands and Bermuda.
* During his weekly television show, President Hugo Chavez said some of Venezuela’s golf courses should be expropriated and used for other purposes.
* A record number of Americans oppose President Obama’s record rise in regulatory red tape.
Our country may just need a Rally to Restore Comedy after this past Saturday's spectacularly unfunny Rally to Restore Sanity on the National Mall. But "The Daily Show" host and rally organizer Jon Stewart may have stumbled upon some truth in his closing remarks: "We hear every day about how fragile our country is -- on the brink of catastrophe -- torn by polarizing hate and how it's a shame that we can't work together to get things done, but the truth is we do. We work together to get things done every day. The only place we don't is here or on cable TV. Americans don't live here or on cable TV." The “here” Stewart is referring to is Washington, DC, the seat of federal power in this country. Since 1900, except for a brief dip in the 80s, Washington has taken more and more power away from the rest of the country. Then, almost 60% of government spending took place at the state and local levels. Today, the federal government spends more than twice as much as all other levels of government combined. This trend has only hastened under President Barack Obama, including: government-owned car companies, government-run health care, government-dominated mortgage markets and national school standards. With so many decisions being made for millions of Americans in just one city, is it any wonder that the country has become so politicized and polarized?
As President Ronald Reagan said in his First Inaugural Address: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?” By assuming more and more tasks in more and more areas outside of its core responsibilities, Washington has greatly damaged American self-rule. The federal government’s extended reach has weakened the states and pushed traditional social institutions into the shadows.
We can do something about this: devolve power away from Washington to the states and the people. The Heritage Foundation’s Solutions for America has a number of specific policy proposals to cut Washington down to size:
* Unwind Government Intervention: The government should end the interventions it has made since 2008, starting with abolition of the TARP program. It should then abolish Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and repeal all U.S. government regulatory measures that interfere with mortgage markets. Congress should also repeal the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, which discriminates against small firms and reduces competition. Companies should be allowed to fail, and laws and regulations should create no expectation of a future bailout.
* Spend Less: Congress should enact a firm cap on the annual increase in total government spending, limited to inflation plus population growth. Lawmakers should exert all effort to keep overall federal spending to less than 20% of U.S. GDP, the historical post–World War II average for federal spending. Congress should take entitlement spending off autopilot and subject it to the discipline of the budgetary process through long-term budgets that Congress regularly reviews. This would force entitlement spending to compete politically with other spending priorities.
* Devolve Responsibilities: Education, health care, transportation, criminal law enforcement and homeland security—all issues that in recent decades have become federal concerns but are better dealt with at the state and local levels of government—should be devolved to the states. State and local governments can tailor programs to make them more efficient and can experiment with new approaches to reduce the overall cost of government.
“It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government,” Reagan said in January 1981. “It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.” That’s a fact Stewart and the current administration should think about.
Quick Hits:
* Former Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush threw out the ceremonial first pitch in last night’s Game 4 of the World Series in Arlington, Texas.
* Despite the fact that the Cleveland Browns had a bye, President Barack Obama could only fill a little more than half of the 13,000 capacity Cleveland State University Wolstein Center on Sunday.
* Google, which hosted a $1.8 million fundraiser for President Barack Obama last month, cut its own taxes by $3.1 billion in the past three years by moving most of its foreign profit through low tax countries like Ireland, the Netherlands and Bermuda.
* During his weekly television show, President Hugo Chavez said some of Venezuela’s golf courses should be expropriated and used for other purposes.
* A record number of Americans oppose President Obama’s record rise in regulatory red tape.
Why Israel is a rogue state [Gabriel Latner]
Elder of Ziyon
The Cambridge Union Society held a debate on the motion that "Israel is a rogue state" on October 21st.
The Balfour Street blog describes what happened:
In the end, the proposition was defeated, but the event didn't proceed without an unusual twist. It seems one of the members of the side in favor of the proposition, a student who was apparently selected at random (or not at random), decided to argue the point from a decidedly pro-Israel perspective.
The debater, Gabriel Latner, gave a copy of his speech to Mondoweiss with the request that it not be edited. I am reproducing it here, only by adding paragraph spacing and slight grammatical corrections where it seemed appropriate. The square bracket comments were his written afterwards. This is a war of ideals, and the other speakers here tonight are rightfully, idealists. I'm not. I'm a realist. I'm here to win. I have a single goal this evening – to have at least a plurality of you walk out of the 'Aye' door. I face a singular challenge – most, if not all, of you have already made up your minds.
This issue is too polarizing for the vast majority of you not to already have a set opinion. I'd be willing to bet that half of you strongly support the motion, and half of you strongly oppose it. I want to win, and we're destined for a tie. I'm tempted to do what my fellow speakers are going to do – simply rehash every bad thing the Israeli government has ever done in an attempt to satisfy those of you who agree with them. And perhaps they'll even guilt one of you rare undecided into voting for the proposition, or more accurately, against Israel. It would be so easy to twist the meaning and significance of international 'laws' to make Israel look like a criminal state. But that's been done to death. It would be easier still to play to your sympathy, with personalised stories of Palestinian suffering. And they can give very eloquent speeches on those issues. But the truth is, that treating people badly, whether they're your citizens or an occupied nation, does not make a state' rogue'. If it did, Canada, the US, and Australia would all be rogue states based on how they treat their indigenous populations. Britain's treatment of the Irish would easily qualify them to wear this sobriquet. These arguments, while emotionally satisfying, lack intellectual rigour.
More importantly, I just don't think we can win with those arguments. It won't change the numbers. Half of you will agree with them, half of you won't. So I'm going to try something different, something a little unorthodox. I'm going to try and convince the die-hard Zionists and Israel supporters here tonight, to vote for the proposition. By the end of my speech – I will have presented 5 pro-Israel arguments that show Israel is, if not a 'rogue state' than at least 'rogueish'.
Let me be clear. I will not be arguing that Israel is 'bad'. I will not be arguing that it doesn't deserve to exist. I won't be arguing that it behaves worse than every other country. I will only be arguing that Israel is 'rogue'.
The word 'rogue' has come to have exceptionally damning connotations. But the word itself is value-neutral. The OED defines rogue as 'Aberrant, anomalous; misplaced, occurring (esp. in isolation) at an unexpected place or time ', while a dictionary from a far greater institution gives this definition 'behaving in ways that are not expected or not normal, often in a destructive way '. These definitions, and others, centre on the idea of anomaly – the unexpected or uncommon. Using this definition, a rogue state is one that acts in an unexpected, uncommon or aberrant manner. A state that behaves exactly like Israel.
The first argument is statistical. The fact that Israel is a Jewish state alone makes it anomalous enough to be dubbed a rogue state: There are 195 countries in the world. Some are Christian, some Muslim, some are secular. Israel is the only country in the world that is Jewish. Or, to speak mathmo for a moment, the chance of any randomly chosen state being Jewish is 0.0051% . In comparison the chance of a UK lotto ticket winning at least £10 is 0.017% - more than twice as likely. Israel's Jewishness is a statistical abberation.
The second argument concerns Israel's humanitarianism, in particular,Israel's response to a refugee crisis. Not the Palestinian refugee crisis – for I am sure that the other speakers will cover that – but the issue of Darfurian refugees. Everyone knows that what happened, and is still happening in Darfur, is genocide, whether or not the UN and the Arab League will call it such. [I actually hoped that Mr Massih would be able speak about this - he's actually somewhat of an expert on the Crisis in Darfur, in fact it's his expertise that has called him away to represent the former Dictator of Sudan while he is being investigated by the ICC.] There has been a mass exodus from Darfur as the oppressed seek safety. They have not had much luck. Many have gone north to Egypt – where they are treated despicably. The brave make a run through the desert in a bid to make it to Israel. Not only do they face the natural threats of the Sinai, they are also used for target practice by the Egyptian soldiers patrolling the border. Why would they take the risk? Because in Israel they are treated with compassion – they are treated as the refugees that they are – and perhaps Israel's cultural memory of genocide is to blame. The Israeli government has even gone so far as to grant several hundred Darfurian refugees Citizenship. This alone sets Israel apart from the rest of the world.
But the real point of distinction is this: The IDF sends out soldiers and medics to patrol the Egyptian border. They are sent looking for refugees attempting to cross into Israel. Not to send them back into Egypt, but to save them from dehydration, heat exhaustion, and Egyptian bullets. Compare that to the US's reaction to illegal immigration across their border with Mexico. The American government has arrested private individuals for giving water to border crossers who were dying of thirst – and here the Israeli government is sending out its soldiers to save illegal immigrants. To call that sort of behavior anomalous is an understatement.
My Third argument is that the Israeli government engages in an activity which the rest of the world shuns -- it negotiates with terrorists. Forget the late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, a man who died with blood all over his hands – they're in the process of negotiating with terrorists as we speak. Yasser Abed Rabbo is one of the lead PLO negotiators that has been sent to the peace talks with Israel. Abed Rabbo also used to be a leader of the PFLP- an organisation of 'freedom fighters' that, under Abed Rabbo's leadership, engaged in such freedom promoting activities as killing 22 Israeli high school students. And the Israeli government is sending delegates to sit at a table with this man, and talk about peace. And the world applauds. You would never see the Spanish government in peace talks with the leaders of the ETA – the British government would never negotiate with Thomas Murphy. And if President Obama were to sit down and talk about peace with Osama Bin Laden, the world would view this as insanity. But Israel can do the exact same thing – and earn international praise in the process. That is the dictionary definition of rogue – behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal.
Another part of dictionary definition is behaviour or activity 'occuring at an unexpected place or time'. When you compare Israel to its regional neighbours, it becomes clear just how roguish Israel is. And here is the fourth argument: Israel has a better human rights record than any of its neighbours. At no point in history, has there ever been a liberal democratic state in the Middle East- except for Israel. Of all the countries in the Middle East, Israel is the only one where the LGBT community enjoys even a small measure of equality. In Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, and Syria, homosexual conduct is punishable by flogging, imprisonment, or both. But homosexuals there get off pretty lightly compared to their counterparts in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, who are put to death. Israeli homosexuals can adopt, openly serve in the army, enter civil unions, and are protected by exceptionally strongly worded ant-discrimination legislation. Beats a death sentence. In fact, it beats America.
Israel's protection of its citizens' civil liberties has earned international recognition. Freedom House is an NGO that releases an annual report on democracy and civil liberties in each of the 195 countries in the world. It ranks each country as 'Free' 'Partly Free' or 'Not Free'. In the Middle East, Israel is the only country that has earned designation as a 'free' country. Not surprising given the level of freedom afforded to citizens in say, Lebanon- a country designated 'partly free', where there are laws against reporters criticizing not only the Lebanese government, but the Syrian regime as well. [I'm hoping Ms Booth will speak about this, given her experience working as a 'journalist' for Iran,] Iran is a country given the rating of 'not free', putting it alongside China, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Myanmar. In Iran, [as Ms Booth I hoped would have said in her speech], there is a special 'Press Court' which prosecutes journalists for such heinous offences as criticizing the ayatollah, reporting on stories damaging the 'foundations of the Islamic republic' , using 'suspicious (i.e. western) sources', or insulting islam. Iran is the world leader in terms of jailed journalists, with 39 reporters (that we know of) in prison as of 2009. They also kicked out almost every Western journalist during the 2009 election. [I don't know if Ms Booth was affected by that] I guess we can't really expect more from a theocracy. Which is what most countries in the Middle East are. Theocracies and Autocracies. But Israel is the sole, the only, the rogue, democracy. Out of every country in the Middle East, only in Israel do anti-government protests and reporting go unquashed and uncensored.
I have one final argument – the last nail in the opposition's coffin- and its sitting right across the aisle. Mr Ran Gidor's presence here is the all evidence any of us should need to confidently call Israel a rogue state. For those of you who have never heard of him, Mr Gidor is a political counsellor attached to Israel's embassy in London. He's the guy the Israeli government sent to represent them to the UN. He knows what he's doing. And he's here tonight. And it's incredible. Consider, for a moment, what his presence here means. The Israeli government has signed off,to allow one of their senior diplomatic representatives to participate in a debate on their very legitimacy. That's remarkable. Do you think for a minute, that any other country would do the same? If the Yale University Debating Society were to have a debate where the motion was 'This house believes Britain is a racist, totalitarian state that has done irrevocable harm to the peoples of the world', that Britain would allow any of its officials to participate? No. Would China participate in a debate about the status of Taiwan? Never. And there is no chance in hell that an American government official would ever be permitted to argue in a debate concerning its treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. But Israel has sent Mr Ran Gidor to argue tonight against [a 'journalist' come reality TV star, and myself,] a 19 year old law student who is entirely unqualified to speak on the issue at hand.
Every government in the world should be laughing at Israel right now- because it forgot rule number one. You never add credence to crackpots by engaging with them. It's the same reason you won't see Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins debate David Icke. But Israel is doing precisely that. Once again, behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal. Behaving like a rogue state.
That's five arguments that have been directed at the supporters of Israel. But I have a minute or two left. And here's an argument for all of you – Israel willfully and forcefully disregards international law. In 1981 Israel destroyed OSIRAK – Sadam Hussein's nuclear bomb lab. Every government in the world knew that Hussein was building a bomb. And they did nothing. Except for Israel. Yes, in doing so they broke international law and custom. But they also saved us all from a nuclear Iraq. That rogue action should earn Israel a place of respect in the eyes of all freedom loving peoples. But it hasn't. But tonight, while you listen to us prattle on, I want you to remember something; while you're here, Khomeini's Iran is working towards the Bomb. And if you're honest with yourself, you know that Israel is the only country that can, and will, do something about it. Israel will, out of necessity act in a way that is the not the norm, and you'd better hope that they do it in a destructive manner. Any sane person would rather a rogue Israel than a Nuclear Iran. [Except Ms Booth]
The Cambridge Union Society held a debate on the motion that "Israel is a rogue state" on October 21st.
The Balfour Street blog describes what happened:
In the end, the proposition was defeated, but the event didn't proceed without an unusual twist. It seems one of the members of the side in favor of the proposition, a student who was apparently selected at random (or not at random), decided to argue the point from a decidedly pro-Israel perspective.
The debater, Gabriel Latner, gave a copy of his speech to Mondoweiss with the request that it not be edited. I am reproducing it here, only by adding paragraph spacing and slight grammatical corrections where it seemed appropriate. The square bracket comments were his written afterwards. This is a war of ideals, and the other speakers here tonight are rightfully, idealists. I'm not. I'm a realist. I'm here to win. I have a single goal this evening – to have at least a plurality of you walk out of the 'Aye' door. I face a singular challenge – most, if not all, of you have already made up your minds.
This issue is too polarizing for the vast majority of you not to already have a set opinion. I'd be willing to bet that half of you strongly support the motion, and half of you strongly oppose it. I want to win, and we're destined for a tie. I'm tempted to do what my fellow speakers are going to do – simply rehash every bad thing the Israeli government has ever done in an attempt to satisfy those of you who agree with them. And perhaps they'll even guilt one of you rare undecided into voting for the proposition, or more accurately, against Israel. It would be so easy to twist the meaning and significance of international 'laws' to make Israel look like a criminal state. But that's been done to death. It would be easier still to play to your sympathy, with personalised stories of Palestinian suffering. And they can give very eloquent speeches on those issues. But the truth is, that treating people badly, whether they're your citizens or an occupied nation, does not make a state' rogue'. If it did, Canada, the US, and Australia would all be rogue states based on how they treat their indigenous populations. Britain's treatment of the Irish would easily qualify them to wear this sobriquet. These arguments, while emotionally satisfying, lack intellectual rigour.
More importantly, I just don't think we can win with those arguments. It won't change the numbers. Half of you will agree with them, half of you won't. So I'm going to try something different, something a little unorthodox. I'm going to try and convince the die-hard Zionists and Israel supporters here tonight, to vote for the proposition. By the end of my speech – I will have presented 5 pro-Israel arguments that show Israel is, if not a 'rogue state' than at least 'rogueish'.
Let me be clear. I will not be arguing that Israel is 'bad'. I will not be arguing that it doesn't deserve to exist. I won't be arguing that it behaves worse than every other country. I will only be arguing that Israel is 'rogue'.
The word 'rogue' has come to have exceptionally damning connotations. But the word itself is value-neutral. The OED defines rogue as 'Aberrant, anomalous; misplaced, occurring (esp. in isolation) at an unexpected place or time ', while a dictionary from a far greater institution gives this definition 'behaving in ways that are not expected or not normal, often in a destructive way '. These definitions, and others, centre on the idea of anomaly – the unexpected or uncommon. Using this definition, a rogue state is one that acts in an unexpected, uncommon or aberrant manner. A state that behaves exactly like Israel.
The first argument is statistical. The fact that Israel is a Jewish state alone makes it anomalous enough to be dubbed a rogue state: There are 195 countries in the world. Some are Christian, some Muslim, some are secular. Israel is the only country in the world that is Jewish. Or, to speak mathmo for a moment, the chance of any randomly chosen state being Jewish is 0.0051% . In comparison the chance of a UK lotto ticket winning at least £10 is 0.017% - more than twice as likely. Israel's Jewishness is a statistical abberation.
The second argument concerns Israel's humanitarianism, in particular,Israel's response to a refugee crisis. Not the Palestinian refugee crisis – for I am sure that the other speakers will cover that – but the issue of Darfurian refugees. Everyone knows that what happened, and is still happening in Darfur, is genocide, whether or not the UN and the Arab League will call it such. [I actually hoped that Mr Massih would be able speak about this - he's actually somewhat of an expert on the Crisis in Darfur, in fact it's his expertise that has called him away to represent the former Dictator of Sudan while he is being investigated by the ICC.] There has been a mass exodus from Darfur as the oppressed seek safety. They have not had much luck. Many have gone north to Egypt – where they are treated despicably. The brave make a run through the desert in a bid to make it to Israel. Not only do they face the natural threats of the Sinai, they are also used for target practice by the Egyptian soldiers patrolling the border. Why would they take the risk? Because in Israel they are treated with compassion – they are treated as the refugees that they are – and perhaps Israel's cultural memory of genocide is to blame. The Israeli government has even gone so far as to grant several hundred Darfurian refugees Citizenship. This alone sets Israel apart from the rest of the world.
But the real point of distinction is this: The IDF sends out soldiers and medics to patrol the Egyptian border. They are sent looking for refugees attempting to cross into Israel. Not to send them back into Egypt, but to save them from dehydration, heat exhaustion, and Egyptian bullets. Compare that to the US's reaction to illegal immigration across their border with Mexico. The American government has arrested private individuals for giving water to border crossers who were dying of thirst – and here the Israeli government is sending out its soldiers to save illegal immigrants. To call that sort of behavior anomalous is an understatement.
My Third argument is that the Israeli government engages in an activity which the rest of the world shuns -- it negotiates with terrorists. Forget the late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, a man who died with blood all over his hands – they're in the process of negotiating with terrorists as we speak. Yasser Abed Rabbo is one of the lead PLO negotiators that has been sent to the peace talks with Israel. Abed Rabbo also used to be a leader of the PFLP- an organisation of 'freedom fighters' that, under Abed Rabbo's leadership, engaged in such freedom promoting activities as killing 22 Israeli high school students. And the Israeli government is sending delegates to sit at a table with this man, and talk about peace. And the world applauds. You would never see the Spanish government in peace talks with the leaders of the ETA – the British government would never negotiate with Thomas Murphy. And if President Obama were to sit down and talk about peace with Osama Bin Laden, the world would view this as insanity. But Israel can do the exact same thing – and earn international praise in the process. That is the dictionary definition of rogue – behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal.
Another part of dictionary definition is behaviour or activity 'occuring at an unexpected place or time'. When you compare Israel to its regional neighbours, it becomes clear just how roguish Israel is. And here is the fourth argument: Israel has a better human rights record than any of its neighbours. At no point in history, has there ever been a liberal democratic state in the Middle East- except for Israel. Of all the countries in the Middle East, Israel is the only one where the LGBT community enjoys even a small measure of equality. In Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, and Syria, homosexual conduct is punishable by flogging, imprisonment, or both. But homosexuals there get off pretty lightly compared to their counterparts in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, who are put to death. Israeli homosexuals can adopt, openly serve in the army, enter civil unions, and are protected by exceptionally strongly worded ant-discrimination legislation. Beats a death sentence. In fact, it beats America.
Israel's protection of its citizens' civil liberties has earned international recognition. Freedom House is an NGO that releases an annual report on democracy and civil liberties in each of the 195 countries in the world. It ranks each country as 'Free' 'Partly Free' or 'Not Free'. In the Middle East, Israel is the only country that has earned designation as a 'free' country. Not surprising given the level of freedom afforded to citizens in say, Lebanon- a country designated 'partly free', where there are laws against reporters criticizing not only the Lebanese government, but the Syrian regime as well. [I'm hoping Ms Booth will speak about this, given her experience working as a 'journalist' for Iran,] Iran is a country given the rating of 'not free', putting it alongside China, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Myanmar. In Iran, [as Ms Booth I hoped would have said in her speech], there is a special 'Press Court' which prosecutes journalists for such heinous offences as criticizing the ayatollah, reporting on stories damaging the 'foundations of the Islamic republic' , using 'suspicious (i.e. western) sources', or insulting islam. Iran is the world leader in terms of jailed journalists, with 39 reporters (that we know of) in prison as of 2009. They also kicked out almost every Western journalist during the 2009 election. [I don't know if Ms Booth was affected by that] I guess we can't really expect more from a theocracy. Which is what most countries in the Middle East are. Theocracies and Autocracies. But Israel is the sole, the only, the rogue, democracy. Out of every country in the Middle East, only in Israel do anti-government protests and reporting go unquashed and uncensored.
I have one final argument – the last nail in the opposition's coffin- and its sitting right across the aisle. Mr Ran Gidor's presence here is the all evidence any of us should need to confidently call Israel a rogue state. For those of you who have never heard of him, Mr Gidor is a political counsellor attached to Israel's embassy in London. He's the guy the Israeli government sent to represent them to the UN. He knows what he's doing. And he's here tonight. And it's incredible. Consider, for a moment, what his presence here means. The Israeli government has signed off,to allow one of their senior diplomatic representatives to participate in a debate on their very legitimacy. That's remarkable. Do you think for a minute, that any other country would do the same? If the Yale University Debating Society were to have a debate where the motion was 'This house believes Britain is a racist, totalitarian state that has done irrevocable harm to the peoples of the world', that Britain would allow any of its officials to participate? No. Would China participate in a debate about the status of Taiwan? Never. And there is no chance in hell that an American government official would ever be permitted to argue in a debate concerning its treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. But Israel has sent Mr Ran Gidor to argue tonight against [a 'journalist' come reality TV star, and myself,] a 19 year old law student who is entirely unqualified to speak on the issue at hand.
Every government in the world should be laughing at Israel right now- because it forgot rule number one. You never add credence to crackpots by engaging with them. It's the same reason you won't see Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins debate David Icke. But Israel is doing precisely that. Once again, behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal. Behaving like a rogue state.
That's five arguments that have been directed at the supporters of Israel. But I have a minute or two left. And here's an argument for all of you – Israel willfully and forcefully disregards international law. In 1981 Israel destroyed OSIRAK – Sadam Hussein's nuclear bomb lab. Every government in the world knew that Hussein was building a bomb. And they did nothing. Except for Israel. Yes, in doing so they broke international law and custom. But they also saved us all from a nuclear Iraq. That rogue action should earn Israel a place of respect in the eyes of all freedom loving peoples. But it hasn't. But tonight, while you listen to us prattle on, I want you to remember something; while you're here, Khomeini's Iran is working towards the Bomb. And if you're honest with yourself, you know that Israel is the only country that can, and will, do something about it. Israel will, out of necessity act in a way that is the not the norm, and you'd better hope that they do it in a destructive manner. Any sane person would rather a rogue Israel than a Nuclear Iran. [Except Ms Booth]
The Incontrovertible Dead-End of Islam
Edward Cline
Raymond Ibrahim, associate director of the Middle East Forum, recently published an article, “Offensive Jihad: The One Incontrovertible Problem with Islam,” in the Middle East Forum and on Pajamas Media(October 30th). This excellent article for the first time (known to me, at least) addresses one of the fundamental problems of and with Islam I have always stressed: jihad. Jihad is a core tenet in what is a codified system of irrationalism that cannot be “reformed” without obliterating Islam as a distinct religious creed. Remove the belligerent jihadist commands from the Koran to wage jihad, for example, and it would cease to be Islam, not only in Muslim minds but in non-Muslim, as well. There would, of course, remain a host of other irrational assertions and imperatives, such as the sanctioning of wife-beating and the murder of apostates and the like, which constitute, after some astounding mental gymnastics by Islamic clerics and scholars, chiefly the byzantine and illogical underpinnings of Sharia law. The jihadist elements of Islam, however, are easily transmutable into a political policy, which is conquest of all non-Muslim or infidel governments and their submission to Sharia. That makes it an ideological doctrine. Muslims are either obliged to wage jihad, or they are not. Mohammad and Muslim scholars say they are. End of argument, so far as Koranic interpretation goes, and that interpretation is biased to the literal.
Reading the debates about what Islam’s mission is and the role of jihad in it and what they truly “mean,” I am always reminded of H.L. Mencken's observation onreligious zealotry: "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it." Islam is a puritanical creed that makes no allowances for either infidels or apostates or its adherents. I cannot believe that beneath the pious exterior of any person who would be seduced by Islam is not a seething, percolating envy of men who are indeed free, an envy easily and maliciously transfigured into violent jihad.
This policy is operative and underway today in Western nations with varying degrees of success, and it is making progress only by default. Islam is strong only because the West’s defenders are emasculated by multiculturalist premises and a general disinclination to condemn any religion. Aggravating the problem is an unadmitted but general fear in the tolerance-obsessed and pragmatists of “offending” Muslims, who might start rioting and demonstrating again, claiming discrimination and disrespect, etc., none of it spontaneous but clearly organized and orchestrated by so-called “radicals.”
I was initially impressed by Ibrahim’s quotation from an entry on jihad in the Encyclopedia of Islam, which is an admission that “Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminated” – until I realized that it could just as well mean that, after a global caliphate has been established, there would be no more justification for violent jihad. Every nation would by then be conquered, recalcitrant infidels slain, enslaved, or reduced to dhimmitude, and Sharia made the law of every land.
But, if Islam is completely “made over” in the sense of reforming it, what would be left of Islam that virtually any other creed could not claim as its fundamental tenets, as well? And to “make over” Islam, its principal font of “kilman” or wisdom, the objectionable and barbaric Mohammad, would need to be dispensed with. He is a role model for killers and tyrants and other psychopathic individuals. Remove that one critical link of the irrational and arbitrary in Islam, and all the links fall to the floor.
What would be substituted for Mohammad? It would need to be something as enduringly fable-worthy as Mohammad, but measurably benign. But, Islam has no alternative icons. What then, would be Islam’s driving force, if not jihad as commanded by Allah as told to Mohammad?
Once Mohammad is removed from the text, the next step would be to question the existence and credence of Allah; if he commanded jihad, and if his word is sacred and unalterable, and known only through Mohammad, then he would need to be subjected to a “make over,” much as the focus of Christian doctrine was shifted from an Allah-like Jehovah of the Old Testament to the largely pacific New Testament with Jesus Christ (as God on earth) and his homilies. If a “reformation” of Islam is undertaken, who in Islamic lore is Christ’s counterpart? Would it be Abraham or Moses? But, neither of them was much better than Mohammad in terms of their behavior towards men of other faiths; they also advocated the righteous slaughtering of unbelievers and sinners and distributing slaves, women, and sheep among their more zealous followers.
But, then, all faiths are faced with that intellectual chore regarding their own individual conceptions of a “supreme being,” and not just Islam.
Ibrahim writes: “Worse, offensive jihad is part and parcel of Islam; it is no less codified than, say, Islam's Five Pillars, which no Muslim rejects.” In sum, it is either-or: repudiate Islam entirely, or submit to the whole palimony of irrationalism that is Islam, including the imperative of jihad. The one incontrovertible problem with Islam (aside from the untenable claim of Allah’s existence) is its dependence on violent conquest, or the initiation of force. This renders the creed absolutely inconvertible to a pacific doctrine. That is its unarguable dead-end.
Or, as Ayn Rand might have put it: “You can’t have your mystic of muscle and deny him, too.” He is either the source of Islam’s potency, or he isn’t. And if he isn’t, whither Islam?
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Edward Cline is the author of a number of novels, and his essays, books, reviews, and other nonfiction have appeared in a number of high-profile periodicals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)