Thursday, March 25, 2010
[The following, by Zach of The Brothers of Judea, is crossposted from CiF Watch.]
Richard Greener is a Huffington Post blogger who is relatively new to the Israeli/Palestinian situation. He has recently arrived in the "World" section with an essay entitled, "Israeli Settlements: What Are They Really?" As you might expect from the Huffington Post, he has a negative view of the settlements, and there is nothing redeemable about them. Some of Greener's facts, however, seem to be a bit off. I thought I'd take a minute to take a look at his work.
What immediately jumps to mind is Greene's now expected use of the legal argument to declare all the settlements illegitimate. Here is the critical quote:
"Article 49 is simple, clear and is not a subject of controversy. It forbids an occupying power from moving its own civilian population onto occupied lands as permanent residents. Despite this prohibition Israel has constructed settlements outside and beyond its borders for more than 40 years."
"Moving" the civilian population? No, Mr. Greener, the Geneva Convention doesn't say that. What it actually says is the following (and thanks to readers for pointing out that in the original publication I had originally misquoted):
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
The key difference here is between the words "transfer," used by the Geneva Conventions, and the word "move" used by Greener. The term "population transfer" has a very specific meaning. It refers to a government or authoritative body moving large amounts of people, against their will or otherwise. It has never meant anything else.
In this situation, Israel is not forcing the settlers to move to the West Bank by any stretch of the imagination. They are choosing to move of their own free will. Was the Third Aliyah a population transfer? Was the Irish emigration due to potato famine population transfer as well? This might be illegal or prohibited anyway, I do not know the Geneva Conventions well enough. But the fact that Greener intentionally misrepresented what the Geneva Conventions said is very telling. I find it difficult to believe that he simply got it wrong. Why did he not begin his article with the truth? Could it be because doing so would mean acknowledging that the settlements are not in fact illegal?
Mr. Greener continues with pointing out that the Israeli settlers are considered to be citizens of Israel and gain all the benefits thereof, even though they do not live in Israel. This is true, but more importantly is that he continues to write that the settlements "are not part of Israel." He implies in his first paragraph, if you care to read it, that the settlements are on land that belongs to the Palestinians, though he does not come right out and say it.
He seems to have forgetten United Nations Resolution 242, which at the time was written with the understanding that the nations involved would decide on the boundaries of their nations together, with mutual cooperation. Therefore, it is not so much that the settlements are on land that is not part of Israel (though that is the case right now), but more that the settlements are on land that could one day be part of Israel. That is what the settlers are hoping for, after all. But Mr. Greener does not consider this to even be a possibility. What a surprise.
Then Mr. Greener resorts to a favorite debating tactic, the misplaced metaphor:
"Imagine, if you can, that 8.84% of us, or 26,878,900 citizens of the United States, decided to move and go live in housing projects built in Canada, on Canadian land seized by US military forces, against the wishes of the Canadians. Then imagine the US government taking the position that all or nearly all of those 27 million settlers should remain in Canada - forever - not as new Canadians, never to become citizens of Canada - but as citizens of the United States. How would you feel about that? And how would you feel if you were a Canadian?"
It would probably require a whole new post to point out all the things wrong with this metaphor. But it might be simply stated that Mr. Greener is making a key fallacy in which he assumes that the situation as it currently stands is the way it always has been. When the settlements first started there really wasn't a Palestinian nation the way there is now. The PLO did not consider the territories to be "Palestinian land," in fact no one did. The Palestinians did not have the nationalism or the attachment to the territories in 1967 that they do today. There is no comparison with Canada.
Mr. Greener also seems to think that all those settlers just showed up one day and set up camp over the heads of the Palestinians. In fact for most of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations the PA did not mind the presence of settlements, they weren't even discussed during the Oslo Accords. Now the settlements are becoming more and more of an obstacle to peace, I won't deny that. But they weren't always an obstacle, and it would behoove Mr. Greener to have pointed that out.
There is more to be discussed in Mr. Greener's work but I'll finish up with his final paragraph:
"There can never be a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem so long as any Israeli civilian population continues to occupy the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The answer must be to let Israel be Israel; let Israel be safe and secure. But also let Palestine not be Israel too."
In other words, unless hundreds of thousands of people are forcibly evicted from their homes and ethnically cleansed from the West Bank, there will never be peace. That is quite the line in the sand, and I can only hope that Mr. Greener did not realize the implications of what he is saying. To call for entire cities worth of people to be forcibly thrown out of their homes (some of whom have been there for generations) does not strike me as a peaceful route to take.
Further, he doesn't seem to be aware that the vast majority of the settlements are within 3% of the Green Line, and that simply redrawing the border would accommodate most of them. This is why redrawing the borders from the Green Line was a key part of the Barak peace offer in 2000, and land swaps were a part of the Olmert offer in 2009. Not even Jimmy Carter thinks that all the settlements need to go. But Mr. Greener does.
Part of seeking peace is finding a compromise. No one is expecting Israeli settlers to "occupy" the territories after a peace agreement has been signed. But at the same time, only the hardliners among the Palestinians realistically expect all of the settlers to get up and move. There are too many of them. And if the Palestinians (and Mr. Greener) choose this particular issue as their hill to die on, then the peace process will truly die there. Hopefully the Palestinian leadership will come to be more flexible than the Mr. Greener, for the sake of everyone involved.
[Update: Edited 3-27-10 9:39am]
I was really hoping for an informed opinion. But after the first 4 paragraphs I realized I was in the wrong place.
"I do not know the Geneva Conventions well enough". That is the closest you get to the truth. Not only you don't know enough international humanitarian law, but you are extremely lazy.
The paragraph you quote refers to the Occupying Power (in this case Israel) deporting people from the Occupied Territories (in this case Palestinians). (Funny thing, Israel does that too in breach of international law)
But if you have read a little bit further, Article 49 stipulates that:
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
Read it carefully: Israel (in this case) cannot transfer Israelis to any occupied territory (West Bank, Gaza, Golan, etc).
Either you are lazy and cannot read International Law or, worst, you were trying to misrepresent International Law.
Following your own argument:
But the fact that Solomonia intentionally misrepresented what the Geneva Conventions said is very telling. I find it difficult to believe that he simply got it wrong.
I hope you apologize to Mr. Greener.
Santo Casto
Judea and Samaria are not occupied territories - they are disputed territories because Israel recognises Resolution 242.
They were under Jordanian control until 1967 when Israel was attacked by Jordan. Israel has every right to annexe Judea and Samaria as a prize of war; as it did when it annexed East Jerusalem.
Disputing the territories with the adjacent arabs is quite generous of Israel.Recognising exclusive rights to Judea and Samaria for the adjacent arabs would be madness - and it won't happen ever.
SC,
You are a liar. Israel has never deported any population from the disputed (not "occupied" territories. And Article 49 refers the FORCIBLE transfer, as stated in the original post.
Both Solomon and I await your apology.
Thanks for your reply youcancallmemeyer.
However "prize of war" is not a recognized figure in international law.
Maybe you meant "war compensations" which are agreed between the parties through negotiations. That is why nobody recognizes West Bank, Gaza, Golan, East Jerusalem etc as Israel.
The unilateral declaration of ownership by one of the parties doesn't legalizes the appropriation. The international community and the international law is clear: that is stealing it doesn't matter what State does it.
Also, Resolution 242 states that Israel has to withdraw its armed forces from territories occupied after the Six Day War.
Obviously, Israel has not comply with that resolution so I don't understand "they are disputed territories because Israel recognises Resolution 242."
SC,
I am the actual author of the piece, not Solomon. And your issue has been brought up before, I didn't have time to change it before it went to print. However, if you look it up, the whole meaning behind the word “transfer” is that it means a higher power or governmental authority is doing it, not the people themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer
It has always meant transfer by the government, which has never been happening here. And I have trouble believing that the word "transfer" was not used intentionally.
Thanks for your reply Happy and Proud
Sorry to upset you but Israel has a is deporting Palestinians from the Occupied Territories.
Don't take my word but the UN. Just a few resolutions dealing with the illegal deportation of Palestinians:
Resolutions 681, 694, 726 and 799.
And again, keep reading Article 49.
Or better, just read this so you don't get tired:
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
Just in this point Israel has violated more than 500.000 times the Geneva Convention.
Mr. Greener was right quoting the Art. 49. Solomon and you are wrong (or lying).
San Casto, first, Res. 242 does not require withdrawal from ALL territories or even THE territories; the ommission of those words was a deliberate point of negotiation as testified by the non-Israeli diplomats who drafted Res. 242. In other words, Res. 242 contemplates some adjustment to th 1947 armistice lines as part of the overall settlement of the dispute.
Second, Res. 242 does not require ANY withdrawal except in the context of a comprehensive final settlement with secure and internationally recognized borders. Israel has offered this consistently since 1967 and the Arabs have consistently refused. Given that Israel has already withdrawn from all of Gaza and all of the Sinai and has placed the PA in charge of more than 90% of the "west Bank", Israel has already done far more than Res. 242 requires. The Arabs have not.
Finally, Israel has permitted its citizens to live in the disputed territory but has not "transferred" them, unless you completely change the meaning of the word transfer.
Santo Castro, aside from not paying attention to who he's arguing with, is presenting a Chomskyesque view of things -- as though these matters are settled and he is simply presenting the truth, when in actuality, his is a revisionist version of the truth. In fact, as pointed out by others, he is wrong. Rather than re-hash this and repeat what others have said, here are a few links (there are MANY others) with good discussion of some of the relevant points:
Why Is Israel's Presence in the Territories Still Called "Occupation"?
The Illegal-Settlements Myth
Are Israeli settlements legal?
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/11/opinion/la-oe-rozenman11-2009dec11
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704103104574623662661962226.html
Thanks for your reply Zach
Since you like to quote Wikipedia as a source let me quote the following also from Wikipedia:
"International intergovernmental organizations such as the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention,[8] every major organ of the United Nations,[9] the European Union, and Canada,[10] have declared that the settlements are a violation of international law. "
Going to the core of the issue, you stated that Mr. Greener was wrong when he said:
"Article 49 is simple, clear and is not a subject of controversy. It forbids an occupying power from moving its own civilian population onto occupied lands as permanent residents. Despite this prohibition Israel has constructed settlements outside and beyond its borders for more than 40 years."
And as a proof you quoted the wrong part of Article 49. Your quote was about the deportation of Palestinians out of the West Bank, Gaza, etc.
So, you were wrong and Mr. Greener was right.
You should clearly state your mistake and correct it so your readers can have real information that will base an informed opinion.
SC,
The resolutions you cited are concerned with individual criminals (terrorist),not 'population' as referred to in Article 49.
Why are you going to so much time and trouble to defend terrorism?
And if you haven't realized, the U.N. record on human rights is pretty laughable, which isn't surprising considering that it;s under the purview of nations such as Libya, Saudi Arabia, and China.
Richard Greener is a Huffington Post blogger who is relatively new to the Israeli/Palestinian situation.
I believe that the Yiddish word "griner/greeneh aptly describes Greener.
SC,
I understand that certain NGO bodies have declared the settlements to be illegal. However, this response was to Mr. Greener's article. Greener did not reference the organizations you mentioned, he based his argument upon the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, I have done the same.
Looking at the quote again, it would appear to relate to deportation. You are correct in that sense, however Mr. Greener is still incorrect. The use of "population transfer" has a specific meaning, and does not apply to this situation. Regardless, I will make this clear in the original publication.
Thanks for your reply Zach
And I applaud your decision to clarify those statements.
However, you say in your last reply: "certain NGO bodies have declared the settlements to be illegal".
I have to say that "High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention,[8] every major organ of the United Nations,[9] the European Union, and Canada,[10]" etc are not NGOs.
In fact, there is only one country that considers the settlements "legal", Israel.
For the rest of the international community, following international laws, they are absolutely illegal.
You can agree or not with the international community but that doesn't change the fact that according to the law and the rest of the world, those settlement are illegal.
Setting aside the fact that settlements are official policy in Israel, the same principles apply to the term "transfer".
The spirit and letter of the Convention is clear.
And occupying force should not move its population to the occupied territory. Israel has ignored the spirit and letter of the Convention.
And the international community, following the international law, recognizes that fact.
Where was the "international law" when Israel was attacked several times and also when the Arab Jews were threatened and had to flee?
What was legal about the seizure of their homes, properties and businesses? Did the UN complain, ever, even once?
Where was "international law" when Jordan occupied and annexed the Old City of Jerusalem which had been majority Jewish, plus the West Bank, ethnically cleansed them of Jews and annexed the territories?
What is legal about war? Did anybody complain?
Was the formation of PLO and its attacks on Israel, Jordan and the use of Lebanon as bases for attacks "legal"?
What about the Cairo Accords which robbed Lebanon of sovereignty over its own territories, ie, the Palestinian "refugee camps" were effectively seized and removed from Lebanese control?
Was this legal?
Who complained about it?
santo casto
By prize of war I meant territory captured from an enemy who attacked you; which is a legal means to acquire territory under international law. Jordan had illegally annexed the territory in 1948 after its offensive war against Israel (Palestinians hadn't been invented at that time)and Israel had every right to annexe the territory after Jordan attacked Israel, and lost, in 1967.
ahad ha'amoratsim sets you straight on Resolution 242 and I await your refutation of what he wrote.
santo casto,
I would like to see a prove of your statements that, apart from Israel, the whole international community is following international law and that the rest of the world believes that Israeli settlements are illegal.
I agree with you that reasoning in Zach's article is flawed and should be corrected (and it already is! It would be nice if Solomon would update to the latest version too or mention that this is an old flawed version). It is all good that you complained about this, Santo, but you should try to hold the same standard that you demand of others.
Thanks for your reply Obsy
And my apologies if I didn't explain myself correctly.
At no point I have stated that "apart from Israel, the whole international community is following international law".
If from my words you have concluded that, obviously I have done a poor job explaining myself.
What I have said is that Israel actions regarding settlements are illegal under international law and the international community so recognizes. Multiple UN resolutions are one proof of that.
Even the strongest Israel backers, as USA or Canada, recognize that.
For example, President George W. Bush (not exactly a lefty) said in 2002:
“Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338.”
SC,
Yes, I understand that bodies that aren't the Geneva Conventions have declared the settlements illegal. But let me repeat what I said before: This is a response to GREENER's argument. He relied on the Geneva Conventions to make his argument, and thus so am I.
At the risk of repeating myself, no the principle of "transfer" doesn't apply. Was the Third Aliyah population transfer? Was the immigration of the Irish to America following the potato famine transfer? They were large groups of people moving somewhere to start a new life. Israel may have *allowed* them to move, but they didn't *move them.* Which is what population transfer means.
Again, we can argue about whether or not Israel is respecting the spirit of the GCs, but the fact is that Greener intentionally misrepresented what the GCs said (most notably in the use of the word "transfer"), and his argument was faulty because of it.
SC,
Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop,....
Building apartments in a Jewish area of what is actually North East Jerusalem is not building settlements.
Secondly when will your international community hold the Arabs to equal standards.
Israel pulled out completely from Gaza. It is not occupied by Israel; and what is the result?
Now comes all the wishy washy excuses that deny the Jews equal rights in the International community. Not even the soldier Shalit gets Red Cross visits according to Geneva Conventions, etc.
The majority of Israelis would be only too happy to see the backs of the Arabs. They don't want to rule over them and would be only too happy to get their troops out of having to patrol there.
They would rather be studying and starting a career 3 years earlier in life than having to serve in the army.
Thanks for your reply Zach
The Geneva Convention declares:
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
That is international law.
Then international bodies, applying the principles contained in those conventions, rule if an act or activity is legal or illegal.
And the countries decide to follow or not those rulings.
The highest international institutions have concluded the settlements are illegal according to the Geneva Conventions.
Every single major country have concluded the same.
You based your first argument in the word "forcible".
"The key word there is "forcible." Israel is not forcing the settlers to move to the West Bank".
You were applying the wrong paragraph and your logic was wrong.
Now you base your position in the word "transfer" but again trying to equate it with "forcible".
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, transfer is: to convey from one person, place, or situation to another.
Israel is transferring part of its population to occupied territories. That is a fact recognized by the international community.
And according to international law, that is illegal.
Mr. Greener was not twisting the interpretation of Article 49. In fact, he was just repeating what the law says.
However, saying that the word "transfer" in that article implies "forcing" is twisting the letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions.
I believe this post, as of the time noted in the post, represents the latest version as shown on The Brothers of Judea blog. It contains some revisions from the original.
As to the substance. General Assembly votes do not set international law, in fact all of Santo Casto's evidence is political, not legal. Repeating it over and over again doesn't change the facts.
Santo Castro, too bad Fidel had to vacate the presidential palace in Havana.
Was Fidel voted out of office?
No. Fidel was forced out of office by ill health, and contrary to the claims that the Castro dictatorship has the best health care in the World, your Fidel LEFT Cuba for medical care in France.
Seems that even Fidel knows that Cuban health care is good enough for the proletariat, but NOT for socialist dictator elites such as himself.
Santo Castro, when your fellow leftist, socialist, progressively blind appeasers of islamofascism hold arabs, muslims to the same standards of behavior you hold non-arabs/muslims, let us know.
SC,
To say that population transfer implies "forcing" is twisting it's meaning. Transfer has always meant transfer by the government. You quoted the word "transfer?" Now let me quote the phrase in question, "population transfer,"
"Population transfer is the movement of a large group of people from one region to another by state policy or international authority."
I think we're done here.
SC should look at the settlement movement. The strong nationalists to move into the disputed territories to reestablish the Gush Etzion communities destroyed during the Independence War did so in defiance of Israeli government and government policy. The spirit of Kiryat Arba and the hilltop youth has been a consistent theme in the settlement movement, which is what makes it possible for Israel to talk about illegal settlements, which are points of very painful confrontation between settlers and the Israeli government.
But they are in an entirely different category than what European dhimmis or the UN are wont to wrongly call illegal. Calling any of the Jewish communities built in the territories illegal is meaningless in terms of law, no matter how often that Big Lie is repeated.
Well, I've always had a question about this.
I'm not a settlement fan as most regulars here know although I think Gush Etzion and Jerusalem and its environs are in a different class from the hillside settlers.
Also, the issue of who can live where isn't clear to me. Are people actually claiming that Jews can't live in Judea? Since when? Since Jordan annexed the land? Or what? Because up until that time Jews have lived in the Old City and the West Bank for thousands of years.
Regardless, since the term "population transfer" has arisen, how come nobody talks about the "population transfer" of Jews out of the West Bank and "east Jerusalem" in the context of the settlements?
And also how come nobody talks about the Arab Jews? Who numbered in the hundreds of thousands, close to a million actually?
We are looking at the Arab/Israeli conflict which in fact pits a tiny country, pop. 7 million or thereabouts, against hundreds of millions of people with a gigantic amount of land, as if it were the "Israeii/Palestinian" conflict. In the latter context Israel looks like Goliath.
But step back a bit and look at the reality.