JUDEA AND SAMARIA

THE LEGALITY OF ISRAEL’S “LIBERATED LAND GRAB”

A plan to build homes for Jews triggers international outrage. A scheme to build homes for east Jerusalem’s Arab populations is virtually ignored by the international media? Why the disparity?

When Israel recently declared its intention to develop 400 hectares of land in Gush Etzion (an area settled before 1947, destroyed by the Arab Legion in 1948 and recaptured in 1967), the world loudly condemned it as a “land grab.” But when Jerusalem’s building committee announced 2,200 new homes for Arabs in the east Jerusalem neighbourhood of Arav al-Swahara, there was almost total silence.

The message is loud and clear. Despite residing in the land of Judea and Samaria for millennia, today’s Jews are now forbidden to live there at all. Arabs, on the other hand, are endowed with a natural entitlement to “Palestine.” It is no surprise, then, that the Obama administration has officially demanded Israel reverses its land appropriation in Gush Etzion, saying it is counterproductive to the so-called peace process.

If Obama had any sense he would he see that Israel’s appropriation of land is both practically and legally comprehensible. Israel’s decision to bring the land under state control is simply an attempt to create contiguity between the Green Line and the settlements in Betar Ilit, Kfar Etzion and Gevaot. It is widely understood that this land will one day form part of an agreed land swap between Israel and the Palestinians.

Plus, if Obama knew his history (and he obviously doesn’t) he would know that the “West Bank” is unclaimed land. Contrary to popular opinion, Israeli settlements are entirely legal as long as they are within the parameters of the 1922 Mandate of Palestine. This is the same mandate that legalized and encouraged the immigration of Jews to all parts of historic Israel.

Israel’s critics may be surprised to know that the 1922 Mandate has never been superseded in international law, not even by the United Nation’s 1947 partition plan. Because the Arabs refused to recognize the partition of “Palestine,” the legal status of Judea and Samaria reverted back to the 1922 law . The capture of Judea and Samaria from Jordan in 1967 was the first step in the restoration of the territory’s true legal status. It also means that Israel’s recent “land grab” is actually the fulfilment of the original 1922 Mandate.

(Quoting the Fourth Geneva Convention to argue that the settlements are in fact illegal is nonsensical. The Fourth Geneva Convention pertains only to cases of occupation of a sovereign entity. Because of the Arab refusal to reach an agreement between 1947 and 1949, the area popularly referred to as the West Bank never became the legal territory of any sovereign entity – not even Jordan, despite its occupation of the territory until 1967. Only Israel has a legal entitlement to Judea and Samaria.)

If anyone is in any doubt, they would do well to consult a document boasting the signatures of over 1,000 respected diplomats and legal experts from around the world, ranging from South Africa and Canada to Norway and Brazil. The file was delivered to the EU’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in the form of a petition just over a year ago.

According to these legal experts, it is factually incorrect to refer to the settlements as illegal for the simple reason that the term “1967 lines” does not exist in international law. The pre-1967 lines are in fact 1949 armistice lines, and are not recognized lines or security lines. Moreover, the issue of borders is on the agenda of the peace talks and is subject to final status negotiations.

All of which means that the Palestinian claim that statehood is an unassailable right should not be taken at face value. Arab hatred of Israel has never been about the settlements or even about land. The primary obstacle is an ideological refusal to recognize the Jewish people’s deep-rooted historic, cultural and legal connections to the entire land of Israel. Until the Arabs and the rest of the world accept that the Jews have an inalienable and legal right to live in Judea and Samaria, there will never be peace.

First published on September 10 for the Jewish Media Agency

http://jewishmediaagency.com/legality-israels-land-grab/

JEWISH SETTLEMENTS ARE LEGAL, EU IS TOLD

A petition, containing the signatures of over 1,000 respected diplomats and legal experts from around the world, has been delivered to the EU’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

According to the text of the petition, the EU is wrong to believe that Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria are illegal, and that the term “1967 lines” does not exist in international law.

Legal scholars from South Africa, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Singapore, India, Greece, Malta, Holland, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden, Italy, Belgium, Bolivia, Chile, Brazil, Mexico and Peru, have signed the petition.

The man responsible for the petition is British-born Alan Baker, director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

It comes as the EU considers whether to introduce separate labeling for products made by Jews in Judea and Samaria, a policy that would apply to all 28 EU member states.

In an interview with Israeli news organization Arutz Sheva, Mr Baker explained why it is incorrect to distinguish between Israel and Judea and Samaria, saying there is “no such thing” as the 1967 lines.

“There never was such a thing. The matter of the borders is on the agenda of the negotiations. The EU cannot dictate a subject that is on the agenda of the negotiations. The pre-1967 lines are [1949] armistice lines. These are not recognized lines or security lines. In the Oslo process, it was agreed between us and the Palestinians that the matter of borders will be negotiated.”

He continued: “The term ‘1967 lines’ does not appear anywhere in our agreement with the Palestinians, therefore it is a legal and factual aberration to determine that these are our lines.”

Mr Baker also told Arutz Sheva that the settlements should be considered legal under international law because Jewish settlers have freely chosen to live in Judea and Samaria; they have not been forcibly transferred to the territory by the Israeli government.

Given the opportunity, I am sure Mr Baker would draw upon several other lines of argument to support the case for the Jewish settlements. In his stead, I shall attempt to outline the main legal underpinning of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

We have to go back nearly a hundred years to discover the origin of the settlements’ legality. Firstly, there was the 1920 San Remo conference, in which Britain (following the collapse of the Ottoman empire) was instructed to establish a Jewish national home on territory covering what would become Israel, Jordan and part of the Golan Heights.

Then came the British Mandate for Palestine, a legal commission established and confirmed by the League of Nations (an early version of the UN) in 1922, which formalized the creation of two states – a Jewish homeland in “Palestine” and an Arab homeland called Transjordan (now simply Jordan).

Significantly, the Mandate not only legalized the immigration of Jews to Palestine, it encouraged close settlement of all the land, including Judea and Samaria.

Two years after the Second World War, the British handed the Mandate to the UN, which recommended (rather than enforced) a partition of the nascent Jewish homeland. Despite already having Transjordan, the Arabs rejected the offer of partition and declared war on the Palestinian Jews. This resulted in the Jordanian annexation of Judea and Samaria (and renamed the West Bank). At the insistence of the Arabs, the 1949 armistice line was “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary.”

In 1967, Israel won control of the West Bank after a war of self-defense. UN Security Council Resolution 242 recommended Israeli withdrawal from territories in return for the right “to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” At a conference in Khartoum the Arabs refused to negotiate or make peace with Israel. In fact, they refused to recognize Israel at all.

Israel’s critics sometimes employ the Fourth Geneva Convention to argue that the settlements are illegal. But the Fourth Geneva Convention pertains only to cases of occupation of a sovereign entity. Because of the Arab refusal to reach an agreement in 1948, the West Bank never became the legal territory of any sovereign entity, not even Jordan.

A territory is only occupied if it is captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. Jordan was never an established or recognized sovereign of the West Bank. Therefore, Israel is not an occupier and the West Bank is not occupied land.

As such, Judea and Samaria is unclaimed Mandate land and should therefore be referred to as “disputed” territory. Israel’s capture of the West Bank in 1967 merely restored the territory to its legal status under the Mandate of 1922, which has never been superseded in law, not even by the 1947 partition plan.

In short, the settlers are simply enacting the Mandate and they should be allowed to continue with this enterprise without interference or condemnation. This legal truth should form a core part of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

ISRAELIS URGED TO BOYCOTT MCDONALD’S

It’s a strange world indeed when anti-globalization protestors and pro-Israel supporters refuse to dine in McDonald’s.

Anarchists view the fast food franchise as totemic of corporate capitalism and an example of American cultural hegemony. In recent days Belfast police had to form a human shield around a McDonald’s eatery as protestors gathered to demonstrate against the G8 summit.

And now pro-Israel supporters have called for a boycott of the fast food chain after it refused an offer to open a restaurant in Ariel, in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).

In response, a number of Israelis have called for a boycott of McDonald’s. Yigal Delmonti, from the Council of Jewish Communities, says that McDonald’s “has turned from a business into an organization with an anti-Israeli political agenda.”

And a sign posted on the My Israel Facebook page reads, “McDonald’s – I’m not loving it.”

A rival to McDonalds called Burger Ranch has agreed to fill the gap in the market and will open a restaurant in Ariel next year.

It’s not every day that Zionists and anarchists share the same political goal!

PALESTINIANISM: THE CONDITION OF THE “IDIOT-FANATIC”

“Elementary Israeli logic, which insisted that history, reality and facts will effortlessly trump even the most sophisticated adversarial PR campaigns, does not hold water in a post-modern age.” – Avi Zimmerman

What is Palestinianism?

Palestinianism is an international anti-Zionist campaign advanced by a strange coalition of radical Islamists and Arab nationalists; some Christian denominations; left-wing academics, journalists and politicians; anarchists; ultra-conservatives and Far Right groups; various NGOS and charities; the UN; and a selection of media outlets such as Al Jazeera and the Guardian.

Palestinianism has grown to be the biggest fraud in modern history and is an unfortunate blemish on post-Holocaust humanity. The notion of an indigenous Arab populace belonging to a place called Palestine is a politically-motivated fabrication designed to undermine the moral, economic, diplomatic, historical, legal and cultural foundations of the world’s only Jewish state. In other words, Palestinianism is anti-Semitic.

Anti-Semitism denies the Jewish people the right to political, religious and cultural self-determination. Likewise, Palestinianism falsifies, denies and delegitimizes the Jewish people’s historical, cultural, legal ties to the land of Israel.

The proponents of Palestinianism unashamedly use anti-Jewish rhetoric, images, tropes and propaganda to advance the fraudulent claim that Israel is a colonial state and that Palestinian Arabs are stateless and living under apartheid. Palestinianists apply double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. They use particular symbols, images and tropes (e.g. Jews as vampires, Christ-killers). Palestinianists draw comparisons of Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

The anti-Semitic roots of Palestinianism are manifold and include: the dhimmi (second-class) status of Jews in Arab lands before the creation of the State of Israel; the shared history and mutual influences of the Nazis and the Muslim world in the 1930s and 1940s; anti-Jewish themes in the Quran and Islamic literature; anti-Jewish themes in Christian texts; the rejection of Jewish nationalism within Marxist and other left-wing ideologies; and neo-Nazi conspiracy theories about “Jewish power.”

Another telling sign that Palestinianism is anti-Semitic is the level of animosity directed at Israel – animosity that is irrational, disproportionate, hysterical and graphically explicit. This is strange when one considers that Israel is a democracy, with equal rights for women, gays and ethnic minorities like Arabs and Druze, and is a world-leader in the innovation of medicine, irrigation and green technology.

In a sensible world, the clash between Israelis and Arabs would be seen for what it is: a relatively minor dispute over a small piece of land. But the fact that Israel is a Jewish state has provoked a level of racial hostility not seen since the days of the Third Reich. A number of academics, thinkers and journalists, alarmed at the rise in Judeophobia around the world, describe the intense and irrational hatred of the Jewish state as “the new anti-Semitism” or even “Israelophobia.”

Whatever one calls it, it is a sickness, the condition of the “idiot-fanatic” (to quote Nietzsche). Despite being advanced by so-called progressive thinkers, Palestinianism is alarmingly stupid and reactionary. It is an ideology that enthuses hypocrisy and intellectual bankruptcy. It is amazing how many on the Left in Europe campaign on behalf of minorities but want to see the only Jewish state in the world dismantled. It is amazing how many so-called progressives campaign for a Palestinian state, which if it ever happens, is likely to be another failed state which crushes opposition and oppresses women and gays. It is amazing how many writers call for a boycott of the only country in the Middle East with a free press. So it no surprise to find a group called Queers for Palestine campaigning on behalf of Muslim fundamentalists; we have Stephen Hawking – who relies heavily on Israeli technology to communicate – refusing to appear at a science conference in the Jewish state; we have political activists delivering weapons to Gaza under the banner of humanitarianism while Israel pours aid and food into the territory; we have radical Islamists condemning Israel as a “terrorist state” for assassinating a terrorist chief, while Islamist terrorists slaughter Muslim civilians on a daily basis.

Unfortunately, Palestinianism is less about the creation of a viable Palestinian state or peaceful co-existence with Jews and more about the dismantling or destruction of the world’s only Jewish state – for the sole that it is run by Jews for Jews. Throughout its short history, Palestinianism has shown itself to be a nihilist ideology that encapsulates and advances violence, rupture, ahistoricity, instability and relativism, all of which are in conflict with liberal and Hebraic notions of time, history, truth, democracy and development.

It is ironic, then, that Palestinianism is inspired by Zionism. Palestinianism is actually a crude pastiche of the 2,000-year-old Jewish desire to re-establish a homeland in the Middle East. The Palestinian Arabs did not seek to establish a homeland until after the formation of the State of Israel in 1948, and even then they were more concerned with destroying the Jewish state than actually focusing on how to build their own democratic institutions. Once it was clear that the Arab states could not defeat Israel in the wars of 1947-8 and 1967, the Arabs had no choice but to invent a Palestinian nationalism, which involved the appropriation of Israeli land, especially Jerusalem and the Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria. The invention of Palestinianism – which is symbolized by the invention of the Nakba and the ambition to divide Jerusalem – is a political tool designed to undermine Israel’s existence and security.

Before the creation of Israel, the word “Palestinian” usually denoted the Jewish occupants of the Land of Israel. (That is why The Jerusalem Post used to be called The Palestine Post.) In a 1939 essay, George Orwell referred to the “Arabs” on the one hand and “Palestine Jews” on the other. All of which helps explain why Arab leaders like Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi told the Peel Commission in 1937: “There is no such country as Palestine. Palestine is a term the Zionists invented.”

In a sense, he was right. Never in history has there been a country called Palestine. As Arab historian Philip Hitti told the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946, “there is no such thing as Palestine in history.” In the years and decades preceding the establishment of the State of Israel, Arab riots and pogroms against British rule were not directed towards the creation of a Palestinian state. And the Arab massacres of Jews in the 1920s and 1930s were inspired by anti-Semitism, not by a desire for an independent Palestinian state.

In 1947, Arab leaders protesting the UN partition plan argued that Palestine was part of Syria. Indeed, before the 1960s, many Arab yearned for a “Greater Syria.” There was no Palestinian nation at the time of Israel’s independence and there was no demand for Palestinian statehood when Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria (“the West Bank”) from 1948 to 1967.

The words “Palestinian” and “Palestine” were only appropriated by a number of Arabs when it became clear that the Jewish state was a fact. Since the 1960s, the word “Palestinian” has been invested with a political significance designed to undermine Israel’s legitimacy.

Yasser Arafat, the icon of the Palestinianist movement, admitted that “the Palestinian people have no national identity.” And he went on to boast that he, as a “man of destiny,” will provide that identity “through conflict with Israel.”

And in an interview with a Dutch newspaper in 1977, PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein stated: “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity.”

One of the enduring myths of the Arab-Israeli crisis is that the Palestinians are an indigenous people. Palestinians are not an ethnic sub-group. There is no such thing as an ethnic Palestinian. Arabs in Israel and the West Bank are ethnically identical to Arabs living in Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt. The population in Gaza is largely Bedouin Arab in origin.

Furthermore, many of the Palestinian Arabs living in Israel in 1948 were themselves immigrants who came to the land in the wake of successful Zionist enterprises. The Zionists offered a better standard of living and higher wages than neighboring Arab employers. Before the earliest Zionist settlers arrived at the end of the 19th century, the land was sparsely populated and desolate.

Palestinianism, then, is a recent invention. It was born out of the Arab defeat of the Six-Day War in 1967. The realization that the Jews would not be “driven into the sea” meant that the Arabs had to find another way of liquidating the Jewish inhabitants of the Holy Land. The sudden desire for a Palestinian state was – and still is – a tool to delegitimize and destabilize the State of Israel. But deploying the twin engines of terror and politics were not enough. For how can a state be built on a lie? There is neither an authentic Palestinian culture or history to build on. This may explain why Palestinians are unable to establish functioning institutions, despite the countless opportunities to establish their own state. Instead, the Palestinians had to invent an ideology – Palestinianism – which could be exported around the world, garnering the support of Far Left groups and radical Islamists.

Palestinianism and the “death of the real”

According to French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, contemporary society is alienated from “the real” due to an “ecstasy” of information. Media consumers, he points out, live in a “hyper-real” universe where reality is simulated. Indeed, many people (in the West and in the Muslim world) are alienated from the reality of the Arab-Israeli conflict due to an overload of disinformation, pseudo-historical posturing and faked news footage emanating from the Palestinianists. Truth and historical facts are relegated and replaced by a fabricated “reality” that is mediated by television, newspapers, films and the internet.

The derealization of the Arab-Israeli conflict is fought by Palestinianists with the weapons of delegitimization, defamation, disinformation, anti-Semitic propaganda, pseudo-history, faked news footage and boycotts. This Kulturkampf (“culture war”) is advanced in several arenas, notably the media, on campuses, among trade unions and especially the internet. Indeed, Israel’s critics and enemies are very adept at using the internet as a tool for spreading propaganda and conspiracy theories. The internet is a kind of electronic intifada in which falsehoods are routinely – and easily – produced.

The fact that Palestinianism has found such a willing audience around the world strongly suggests the idea of the “real” or objective reality has been well and truly shattered. As far as the global media is concerned, faked events and pseudo-facts are no less real than reality itself. Indeed, they may be more real because they serve a “higher cause”, which is the demonization of Israel. The best example of the “death of the real” is the phenomenon known as Pallywood.

Pallywood, a portmanteau of Palestinian and Hollywood, is a coinage used by some media watchdogs to describe doctored and fake media footage produced by the Palestinians to illustrate their false but lethal narratives about Israel. Calev Ben-David, writing in The Jerusalem Post, describes Pallywood as “media manipulation, distortion and outright fraud by the Palestinians and (and other Arabs, such as the Reuters photographer caught faking photos during the Second Lebanon War), designed to win the public relations war against Israel.”

Canadian columnist Paul Schneidereit writes: “We’ve seen cases where the bodies of Palestinian martyrs carried on stretchers are inadvertently dropped, then, of their own volition, climb back on again. We’ve seen reports of massacres, as in Jenin in 2002, that turned out, after independent investigation, to have been greatly exaggerated. Needless to say, such episodes don’t instill an abiding trust in subsequent Palestinian claims, at least until they’re verified.”

The methods used by the Palestinian disinformation industry include:

1. Using visual media to construct fake stories of Israeli atrocities. This involves editing media footage and staging events. For example, directing Palestinian civilians, ambulance drivers, doctors and police to “act out” roles such as the “injured man”, the “dead child”, the “concerned medic”, the “brave freedom fighter.” Palestinian journalists and cameraman are complicit in this theatre of propaganda.

2. Luring Israeli soldiers into schools, shelters and hospitals and using civilians as human shields in order to increase the casualty rate. For example, in 2009 Hamas militants fired mortar shells from a school in Gaza. The IDF returned fire, resulting in 40 civilian fatalities.

3. Ignoring or downplaying attacks on Israeli civilians, and omitting to mention the oppression and murder of fellow Palestinians by Hamas and Fatah.

4. Repeating the claim that Israel ethnically cleansed Palestine in 1947-48, despite the fact that Palestinian leaders deliberately spread false rumors of rape and massacres in order to provoke Arab armies to fight on their behalf.

5. Repeating the claim that Israel is a colonialist occupier of a country called Palestine, despite the fact that there has never been a Palestinian nation and that Jews have lived in the Holy Land for the past three thousand years.

6. Claiming that Jerusalem is the capital of a country called Palestine despite the fact that Jerusalem has never been the capital of an Arab or Muslim entity.

7. Depicting the Israelis as Nazis and claiming the Jews faked or exaggerated the Holocaust.

8. Masking the prosperity of the Gaza Strip by focusing on isolated examples of hardship.

9. Disseminating faked reports of massacres, deaths of children, atrocities and privations to the Western media. e.g. claiming the Israelis had carried out a massacre in Jenin in 2002.

10. Appealing to the United Nations, Amnesty International, the Western media and NGOs for help and/or aid, despite the fact that Israel provides aid and/or allows passage for humanitarian assistance.

Untruth, it seems, is the currency of Palestinianism, but sadly it is a currency that buys a lot of media coverage. Israel, perhaps because of its higher ethical standards and commitment to authentic narratives, has not resorted to the tactics of disinformation and faked news footage. But as a result, Israel is facing a severe crisis of representation because traditional modes of understanding – i.e. the relation between fact and reportage – are no longer be considered useful or even valid.

The apartheid fantasy

Another aspect of the Palestinianist delegitimization and disinformation campaign is the pernicious comparison between Israel and apartheid South Africa. It is a claim which has no basis in fact.

There are many instances where Israelis and Arabs work and play together in peace, and there are frequently stories in the newspapers about Israeli hospitals treating Palestinian children or Israeli medics rushing to help injured Palestinians. In fact, over 100,000 Palestinians received medical care in Israel during 2011. In the same year, more than 100 Palestinian doctors were interns at Israeli hospitals. Even in times of conflict, Israeli army policy is as follows: “The treatment of the Palestinian population is first and foremost a moral and professional obligation for every one of us.”

As Benjamin Pogrund, the South African-born author, observes: “Jewish and Arab babies are born in the same delivery room, with the same facilities, attended by the same doctors and nurses, with the mothers recovering in adjoining beds in a ward.” He also observed that Jews and Arabs share meals in restaurants and travel on the same trains, buses and taxis, and visit each other’s homes. “Could any of this possibly have happened under apartheid,” he asked. “Of course not.”

There are numerous other examples that explode the apartheid myth. For instance, following the 5.3 tremor in the Middle East in May 2012, it was reported that Israel had already set up a mechanism to channel aid to the Palestinians in the event of an earthquake. And if Israel was an apartheid state, why would Israelis and Palestinians work together in the Jordan Valley to produce agricultural goods that are sold abroad? If Israel was prejudiced against Palestinians, why would it bother to establish a Israeli-Palestinian Chamber of Commerce?

Apartheid in South Africa was based on color separation of “white” and “non-white”. The white population in South Africa was a minority. But the State of Israel (excluding the West Bank, which I address below) is a multi-ethnic, multi-racial democratic state. It is teeming with Jews from Europe, Ethiopia, Russia, America and the Middle East. A fifth of the Israeli population are Arabs, the majority of whom are Muslims. There is a host of tiny minorities, such as the Druze and the Bedouin. (It is also worth mentioning that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where there is religious freedom.)

All citizens of Israel have access to state services. Arabs sit in the parliament and on the Supreme Court. There are several Arab representatives in the parliament. Arabic is an official language in Israel. Even Miss Israel of 1999 was an Arab. Under apartheid black South Africans could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they are the overwhelming majority of the population.

Everybody in Israel is equal before the law. Racial discrimination/segregation is outlawed. Inevitably, there are cases of low level cases of discrimination as there are in the UK, Canada, France etc. In South Africa, inequality was enshrined in law.

Doctor Mohammed Wattad, an Arab citizen of Israel and a member of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, has this to say: “In an apartheid regime, there is no possibility of judicial review, because the judges are appointed by the regime and all serve one ideology. This is not the case in Israel … There is a very strong, independent Supreme Court in Israel. In an apartheid regime, there is no place to go to argue against the government.”

As things stand, the West Bank (historically known as Judea and Samaria) is not part of sovereign Israel. During the 1993 Oslo Peace process, it was mutually agreed to divide the West Bank into regions – A, B and C. 98% of Palestinian live in Palestinian-governed areas, A and B.

Arabs who live on the West Bank are allowed to work in Israel, and attend schools and universities. In contrast, Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, has said that not a single Jew will be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state on the West Bank.

The security barrier, erected to keep out terrorists, is 95 per cent fence and 5 per cent wall. The sections of concrete wall are only erected to prevent terrorist and sniper attacks on Israelis. The barrier corresponds roughly with 1949 Armistice line. Restrictions are only imposed because of the very real threat of terrorism. There is no racial motive in the application of checkpoints.

In East Jerusalem, Palestinian residents have permanent residency rights in the city. They carry Palestinian identity cards issued by the Palestinian Authority and elect members of the Palestinian Authority. They are entitled to social and health benefits, and are eligible for Israeli citizenship. Those that become Israeli citizens can vote in municipal elections.

In the Gaza Strip, Palestinians are under the full civil and security control of Hamas, which governs the area as an autonomous entity. Israel dismantled all the Gaza settlements in 2005 but maintained the blockade because of the election of Hamas and rocket attacks on southern Israel. Despite the blockade, Gazans are able to produce their own vegetables, olives, citrus, beef and dairy products. Primary exports from Gaza are cut flowers and fruit. Gaza’s real GDP grew by more than 25% during the first three quarters of 2011 and exports are expanding. Since withdrawing from the Gaza in 2005, Israel supplies Gaza with 50% of its electricity, and provides 49,610 tons of cooking gas and 136,097,330 liters of fuel a year. In addition, it provides one million tons of aid a year. This includes 160,000 tons of wheat , 14,000 tons of rice, 8,000 tons of clothes and footwear, and 2,000 tons of milk powder and baby food, and equipment for Gaza’s flower industry. There is not a single civilian good that cannot enter Gaza. Israel even supplies LCD televisions, Mercedes cars, Hyundai jeeps, Jacuzzi tubs and frost-free refrigerators. Gaza has a five-star hotel, fancy restaurants, a luxury shopping mall, vibrant markets, and a thriving beach community.

Israel is not an apartheid state. The level of freedom exercised by Arabs in Israel is head and shoulders above the treatment of Arabs in neighboring countries. Indeed, most surveys show that Israeli Arabs are happy to live in the Jewish and would not want to move to an independent Palestine.

Palestinian rejectionism

On the subject of an independent Palestine, it is worth pointing out that Palestinian Arabs have had numerous opportunities to establish an independent state. But the Palestinian Arabs have an unfortunate history of rejectionism. It is often said that the Palestinians “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” Under the UN partition plan of 1947, the Palestinians Arabs were given the opportunity to create a state on what is now the West Bank and parts of current-day Israel. Between 1948 and 1967 when Jordan ruled Judea and Samaria and Egypt ruled Gaza, there were no attempts to establish a Palestinian homeland.

Even in the past 13 years or so, the Palestinian leadership has been given at least three major opportunities to establish an independent state. Yasser Arafat walked away from the Camp David talks in 2000 despite being promised 92% of the West Bank, 100% of Gaza and east Jerusalem. Talks held in Taba in 2001 also broke down due to Arafat’s insistence that the Palestinians control the Western Wall. A resolution was also put forward by Ehud Olmert in 2008, in which the Palestinians would receive Gaza, the majority of the West Bank, parts of east Jerusalem, safe passage between the West Bank and Gaza, and the dismantling of settlements in the Jordan Valley and eastern Samaria. Unfortunately, Mahmoud Abbas did not give a final response on the matter and negotiations ended.

And in September 2012 when defense minister Ehud Barak floated the idea of a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank, Palestinian leaders begged the Israeli government not to leave the territory. Nabil Abu Rudineh, chief aide to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, said the Palestinians “object” to any unilateral action that will lead to “the formation of a Palestinian state in temporary borders.”

Instead of agreeing to any of these proposals, the Palestinian leaders have carried out – or sponsored – terror attacks against Israeli civilians. They have repeatedly called for the destruction of the Jewish state and have manipulated Western guilt over the Holocaust by casting themselves as the “new Jews” who deserve sympathy and foreign aid. Instead of planning for the future by educating their children properly, Palestinian schoolteachers teach kids to hate Jews, while Gaza militants fire rockets into southern Israel.

If this is how the Palestinian Arabs behave now, what would they be like if they had all the trappings of a state, including an army and a secret service? Many Israelis fear that a Palestinian state would simply be a launching pad for the destruction of Israel and would serve as a base for terror groups. Israel would no longer have control of the Jordan valley, which serves as a natural defensive border against hostile Arab regimes. Moreover, a Palestinian state would leave Israel with a ‘narrow waist’ of only nine or ten miles, which means the Jewish state could easily be cut in two by Arab armies.

The legality of the settlements

Palestinianists are very fond of repeating the claim that the Jewish settlements are an obstacle to peace. This claim is both misleading and ignores the fact that international law says Jews are entitled to build settlements in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank).

In 1920, the San Remo Conference instructed Britain to establish a Jewish national home on territory covering what would become Israel, Jordan and part of the Golan Heights. In early 1921, Britain made a distinction between “Palestine” as a national home for the Jewish people, and Transjordan as a home for the Arabs. Already, the Jews had to accept a territorial compromise in order to appease Arab interests.

The 1922 Mandate of Palestine formalized the creation of a Jewish homeland, as well as Transjordan for the Arabs. The entire League of Nations unanimously declared that “recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” The Mandate not only legalized the immigration of Jews to Palestine, it encouraged close settlement of the land. Moreover, the notion of internationalizing or dividing Jerusalem was never part of the Mandate.

Two years after the Second World War, the British handed the Mandate to the UN, which recommended (rather than enforced) the partition of Palestine between Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted the partition but the Arab states rejected it and declared war on the Jewish homeland, which resulted in the Jordanian annexation of the “West Bank.” At the insistence of the Arabs, the 1949 armistice line was “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary.”
In 1967, Israel won control of the West Bank after a war of self-defense. To speak of Israeli occupation implies that Israel fought an aggressive war in order capture the West Bank, which was not the case.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 recommended Israeli withdrawal from territories in return for the right “to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” At a conference in Khartoum the Arabs refused to negotiate or make peace with Israel. In fact, they refused to recognize Israel at all. (Resolution 242 did not mention the Palestinians, although it did refer to “a just settlement of the refugee problem” in acknowledgment that both sides had their share of refugees.)

It is also worth pointing out that the Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable to Judea and Samaria because it pertains only to cases of occupation of a sovereign entity. The “West Bank” has never been the legal territory of any sovereign entity. Or to put it in plain English, territories are only “occupied” if they are captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. Jordan was never an established or recognized sovereign of the West Bank. Therefore, Israel is not an occupier and the “West Bank” is not occupied land.

Technically, Judea and Samaria is unclaimed Mandate land and should therefore be referred to as “disputed” territory. Israel’s capture of the West Bank in 1967 merely restored the territory to its legal status under the Mandate of 1922, which has never been superseded in law, not even by the 1947 partition plan. The settlers are simply enacting the Mandate and they should be allowed to continue with this enterprise.

Moreover, the fact that the Palestinians and the Arab states collaborated with Hitler before and during Second World War, and then proceeded to invade Israel on three occasions between 1948 and 1973, seriously undermines any moral claim to establish a state on the “West Bank.” Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on such matters, has stated that because of the attacks against Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973, as well as other belligerent acts, Arab states have “flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members.”

There are also moral and cultural reasons why the Jewish settlements are legitimate. Judea and Samaria is historically and religiously Jewish. The territory formed a major part of ancient Israel and is home to several sacred sites, including Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. It is only recently that Arabs have expressed an interest in Jerusalem. At no time between 634 CE (when Muslims overran “Palestine”) and 1967 did any Muslim entity ever declare Jerusalem as their capital. During the Jordan occupation, not a single foreign Arab leader came to pray in the al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount.

Besides, non-Jewish powers cannot be trusted to protect either Jews or Jewish sites. During the 1920 Jerusalem riots, an Arab mob ransacked the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, attacking pedestrians and looting shops and homes. On 24th August 1929, 67 Palestinian Jews were massacred in Hebron. Dozens were wounded. Some of the victims were raped, tortured and mutilated. Jewish homes and synagogues, as well as a hospital, were ransacked. During the Jordanian occupation, the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated and many synagogues in the Old City were destroyed.

Between 1948 and 1967, there was not a single settlement in Gaza or the “West Bank.” But this did not stop Arab states terrorizing Israel. Nor did the Arab states attempt to establish a Palestinian state. Furthermore, the dismantling of the settlements in Gaza actually destabilized the region because the withdrawal allowed Hamas to take control of the Strip, with devastating consequences.

The Palestinian claim that statehood is an unassailable right should not be taken at face value. Arab hatred of Israel has never been about the settlements or even about land. The primary obstacle is an ideological refusal to recognize the Jewish people’s deep-rooted historic, cultural and legal connections to the land of Israel. Until the Arabs accept that the Jewish people have an inalienable right to Judea and Samaria, there will never be peace.

Nakba – Arab or Jewish?

One of the big successes of the Palestinianist propaganda machine is Nakba Day, which occurs every May. Nakba, which is an Arabic word for “catastrophe” is a deliberately provocative term and refers to the 600,000 refugees who were created as a consequence of the Arab rejection of the Jewish state and the ensuing assault on the newly-born State of Israel. Nakba Day is often marked by speeches and rallies by Arabs in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and in other places around the world, including London and New York.

The trouble with commemorating the Nakba is that it overlooks some inconvenient facts, which do not fit the overheated narrative of Palestinian-as-victim. During the Israeli War of Independence in 1947-48, Arab leaders deliberately spread false rumors that women were being raped in order to provoke Arab armies to fight on their behalf. The Arab armies encouraged the Palestinian to evacuate while they fought their war against the Israelis. The refugee crisis was not engineered by Israel, nor did Israel deliberately expel the Palestinians. According to the Institute for Palestine Studies, 68% of refugees “left without seeing an Israeli soldier.”

UN Resolution 194, which was passed on December 11, 1948, recommended that refugees wishing to return home and live in peace with their neighbors should be allowed to do so. This resolution was never applied. Not because of Israeli opposition but due to the unanimous rejection of the Arab governments. If the Arabs had accepted the resolution it would have meant the implicit recognition of Israel and the laying down of arms and compensation for Jewish refugees.

Israel’s neighbors refused to incorporate the displaced Palestinian Arabs, preferring to keep them in camps in the hope that the Zionist entity would soon be destroyed. In fact, Mahmoud Abbas has accused the Arab armies of forcing the Palestinians to emigrate and then putting them into ghettos. The United Nations aggravated the problem by creating a unique category for the Palestinian Arab refugees.

The UN recognized that many of the refugees who fled their villages had not lived in Israel/Palestine for very long. But nonetheless it decided to establish a unique criterion for the Arab refugees. This meant that any Arab who had lived in Israel for only two years before fleeing was classed as a refugee. Moreover, their descendants are also classed as refugees. As such, there was a sevenfold increase in the Palestinian population between 1967 and 2002. (Arafat said that the wombs of Palestinian women were the “secret weapon” of his cause.)

The UN has perpetuated the crisis by maintaining Palestinian refugee camps and handing out aid money. Strangely, since 1971 and for nearly ten years, the UN General Assembly annually condemned Israel for trying to rehabilitate the refugees. This condemnation always had one requirement: “Send the refuges to the camps.”

The true Nakba, which few people talk about, is the Jewish refugee problem. Not the refugee crisis caused by the war in Europe but the one which was caused by a wave of Arab-led pogroms and expulsions in the late 1940s and 1950s. Around 900,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab lands in the wake of Israel’s independence. Many of the expelled Jewish communities in North Africa and the Middle East dated back 2,500 years. That’s around two millennia before the rise of Islam. Today, there are fewer than 9,000 Jews in the Arab and Muslim world. In Libya, for example, the Jewish community no longer exists.

The newly-born State of Israel, which was already coping with Jewish migrants fleeing war-torn Europe, assimilated the new Jewish refugees. Today, about 50% of Jews in Israel have Arabic ancestry because of the exodus. (Not surprisingly, Jews who have experienced Arab violence and Muslim anti-Semitism are hostile to the idea of a Palestinian state. As such, they tend to vote for Likud, the major right-wing party in Israel.)

At least 120 UN resolutions deal with the 600,000 Palestinian refugees. But not one resolution refers to the Jewish Nakba.

The violence against Arab Jews was deliberate and vicious. Massacres, mutilations, rape, property confiscation and deportations were commonplace. Millions of Jews had no choice but to seek shelter in Israel or elsewhere. There is evidence that shows the Jewish Nakba was a deliberate and planned act of ethnic cleansing. According to the World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries, the Jewish exodus was a policy decision taken by the Arab League. This view has been endorsed by the Jewish advocacy group Justice for Jews from Arab Countries.

Even before the UN vote in 1947, the Arab League had endorsed the persecution of Jews. The fact that riots and massacres broke out across the Arab world on the same day (30th November 1947) also suggests a degree of planning.

Indeed, the Arab League met in Syria in 1946 and Lebanon in 1947, and agreed a draft plan to rob their Jews of their property, threaten them with imprisonment and expel the impoverished Jews.
In May 1948, the Arab League drafted a series of recommendations for all Arab and Muslim countries on how to take action against their Jewish populations. The New York Times of 16th May 1948 contained details of an Arab plan based on Nuremberg laws to ‘ethnically cleanse’ their Jews.

Conclusion: the way forward

To sum up, Palestinianists are anti-realists for the sole reason that the edifice of Palestinianism has been constructed out of a contradiction to “the actual.” Palestinianists are unable or unwilling to differentiate between a conviction and a lie. Palestinianism, to quote Nietzsche for a second time, is a “moral-optical illusion.” Palestinianism is a radical falsification of history and international law, and an inversion of Zionism, morality and truth. Palestinianism has had such an effect that even non-political institutions like the BBC repeat Palestinian propaganda, while otherwise sensible individuals such as British foreign secretary William Hague condemn the Jewish settlements.

Luckily, because Palestinianism contains so many conflicting elements – the secular Left, radical Islam, the Methodist Church to name but a few – it is inherently unstable and liable to fracture over time. Some of the factions within the movement cannot even agree on how to undermine Israel’s existence, hence the mutual loathing between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. The way things are going, there will never be a viable Palestinian state – not because of Israeli obstinacy but because the advocates of Palestinianists squander their time and resources on denigrating the only democracy in the Middle East rather than facing up to their own shortcomings and failures – both past and present.

So what is the way forward?

The truth is, the creation of a Palestinian state next to Israel is not realistic or feasible. The only credible option is for Israel to officially annex Judea and Samaria and for the international community to recognize Jordan as the de facto Palestinian state.

The main obstacle to solving the Israeli-Arab conflict is the fraudulent claim that the Palestinians are a nation without a land. But the Palestinian Arabs were actually given their own state, i.e. Jordan, nearly a century ago. Jordan’s population is already 70 per cent Palestinian. The Palestinian Arabs living in Judea and Samaria are not ethnically or culturally different from the Palestinian Arabs living in Jordan.

According to Jordanian writer Mudar Zahran, “despite decades of official imposition of a Bedouin image on the country, and even Bedouin accents on state television, the Palestinian identity is still the most dominant—to the point where the Jordanian capital, Amman, is the largest and most populated, Palestinian city anywhere. Palestinians view it as a symbol of their economic success and ability to excel.”

As things stand, the Palestinian majority in Jordan is discriminated against by the ruling Hashemite dynasty, which favors the Bedouin minority. The US and Europe have been silent about this because it does not want the Western-friendly Hashemites removed from power. But removing the ruling Hashemite dynasty in Jordan and developing democratic institutions for the Palestinian majority is surely a better option than the status quo.

Once this has been achieved, Israel can formally annex Judea and Samaria and give the Palestinian Arabs living there the option of either swearing an oath of allegiance to the Jewish state or giving them Jordanian citizenship. Those Palestinians who wish to leave Judea and Samaria would be free to move to Jordan. Those who wish to hold Jordanian citizenship but want to stay in their homes should be allowed to do so. In short, there should be no expulsions. However, Arabs who claim refugee status from 1947-48 and 1967 should be naturalized in their host countries or rehoused in Jordan.

Developing democratic institutions in Jordan and uniting the land of Israel under Jerusalem would not only ensure Israel’s security, it would enable the Palestinian Arabs to establish sovereignty in the heart of the Middle East and put an end to this decades-old conflict over the status of the so-called occupied territories.

This is not so far-fetched. In 1965, the king of Jordan said, “Palestine has become Jordan, and Jordan Palestine.” And in 1971, the Palestine Liberation Organization asserted: “What links Jordan to Palestine is a national bond and a national unity formed, since time immemorial, by history and culture. The establishment of one political entity in Transjordan and another in Palestine is illegal.”

What about Gaza?

The disengagement from Gaza in 2005 has not brought peace. After Israel withdrew its troops and uprooted Jewish residents in 2005, the Arab population immediately destroyed Israeli infrastructure, thereby ruining their own economy. Within a year, terrorist group Hamas had taken over the territory, murdered its rivals and started a campaign of rocket attacks on Israel.

The best Gaza can hope for is a takeover by an international body, such as the UN or an EU-led group, with the view that one day it will be a self-reliant mini-state. Given that the UK, the EU, the US, Japan and Canada all classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, it is incumbent on these nations to neutralize Hamas by isolating it diplomatically, cutting off its funding and ultimately removing its personnel and confiscating its weapons through military means.

Gaza, if managed properly, has a lot going for it. It has a very young population who desperately need employment and a sense of purpose. In time, Gaza may become an attractive Mediterranean tourist resort. After all, it has a fine beach, a five-star hotel, good restaurants, shopping malls, several universities, a zoo, a number of important religious landmarks, a cultural center and an archaeology museum, all of which would attract holidaymakers and foreign investors.

When Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005, there were hopes that Gaza would be transformed into the Hong Kong or the Singapore of the Middle East. Unfortunately, this didn’t happen. Instead of state building, Hamas roused the population into believing that the 2005 withdrawal was the first step towards the ultimate defeat of the “Zionist entity.” But with proper handling by the international community and the ousting of Hamas, dreams of a Middle East Singapore may come true.

WILLIAM HAGUE’S MISTAKE OVER JEWISH SETTLEMENTS

British Foreign Secretary William Hague has said Israel is losing support internationally because of the building of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria.

“Israel has lost some of its support in Britain and in other European countries over time,” Hague told Sky News. “This is something I’ve often pointed out to Israeli leaders – because of settlement activity, which we condemn.”

He continued: “We strongly disagree with settlements on occupied land [sic]. Israel is a country we work with in many ways but we do disapprove of settlements.”

I’ve written extensively on why the settlements are legal and why Israel has a moral case for holding on to Judea and Samaria, which is also known as the West Bank. So, in response to Hague’s comments, I’ve reposted a piece called “The Rights of Settlers.”

In 1967, Israel won control of the West Bank after a war of self-defence. To speak of Israeli occupation implies that Israel fought an aggressive war in order capture the West Bank, which was not the case.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 recommended Israeli withdrawal from territories in return for the right “to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” At a conference in Khartoum the Arabs refused to negotiate or make peace with Israel. In fact, they refused to recognise Israel at all. (Resolution 242 did not mention the Palestinians, although it did refer to “a just settlement of the refugee problem” in acknowledgment that both sides had their share of refugees.)

The fact that the Palestinians and the Arab states collaborated with Hitler before and during Second World War, and then proceeded to invade Israel on three occasions between 1948 and 1973, seriously undermines any moral claim to establish a state on the “West Bank.” Even today, most Arabs still refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on such matters, has stated that because of the attacks against Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973, as well as other belligerent acts, Arab states have “flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members.”

Moreover, non-Jewish powers cannot be trusted to protect either Jews or Jewish sites. During the 1920 Jerusalem riots, an Arab mob ransacked the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, attacking pedestrians and looting shops and homes. On 24th August 1929, 67 Palestinian Jews were massacred in Hebron. Dozens were wounded. Some of the victims were raped, tortured and mutilated. Jewish homes and synagogues, as well as a hospital, were ransacked. During the Jordanian occupation, the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated and many synagogues in the Old City were destroyed.

REPORT: PROTESTING THE CO-OPERATIVE BOYCOTT

Last week, around 10,000 people from around the world arrived in Manchester, England, to participate in a five-day festival to mark the culmination of an United Nations initiative called International Year of Co-operatives.

The event, titled Co-operatives United, was organized by a coalition comprising the Co-operative Group, International Co-operative Alliance and Co-operatives UK. It was marketed as “an inspiring and fun filled global festival of events and exhibitions” designed to “inform and inspire everyone building an ethical economy and a better world.”

Also in attendance – but in much smaller numbers and confined to the rain and wind – were a handful of pro-Israel campaigners, including myself. We were there to protest the Co-operative Group’s boycott of the Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria. Over the course of three days, campaigners handed out nearly 1,000 leaflets, calling on delegates to reconsider the Co-operative’s stance on Israel.

The campaign was a quiet affair. There was no sloganeering or shouting. Nor was there any flag-waving or inflammatory language. Instead, we simply stood at the top of the steps outside the main entrance of the Manchester Central Convention Complex and gave out fliers. The only time we engaged in conversation was to answer questions from curious delegates and visitors.

The protest was a manifestation of the anxiety generated by the Co-operative’s recent decision to widen its boycott of Judea and Samaria. In April, the Co-operative voted to ban imports from four Israeli companies on the grounds that these companies traded with the settlements. The decision specifically affects four Israeli companies – Agrexco, Mehadrin, Arava Export Growers and Adafresh.

Since April, pro-Israel campaigners have put pressure on the Co-operative to reconsider its decision. A spokesperson for the Co-operative recently said the number of emails protesting the boycott has been surprisingly high.

Israel’s supporters say that the Co-operative’s boycott of settlement goods, plus the disengagement from four specific Israeli companies, is discriminatory because such actions single out Israel while ignoring other high-profile cases such as China’s rule in Tibet. Indeed, many pro-Israel campaigners have pointed out the hypocrisy of a policy that disallows some Israeli companies but permits products to be sourced from countries such as China and Saudi Arabia, which have genuinely repressive governments.

In a conversation with one of the Co-operative delegates, Manchester campaigner Bernard Rose stated: “To argue about the legality of the settlements is one thing. But to only single out Israel among all the countries in the world is unjust and discriminatory.”

The Co-operative, meanwhile, stresses that it still has supply agreements with some twenty Israeli suppliers that do not source from the settlements. But the company also states that it will continue to increase trade links with Palestinian-owned businesses in Judea and Samaria.

The response to our presence outside the convention complex was varied. Some delegates and visitors were supportive, while others proclaimed their support of the boycott and returned the leaflets. Many took a flier without comment. A very small minority of delegates and/or visitors were confrontational, with one elderly gentleman calling Israel an “abortion of a country.” At one point, we were asked by security to stop what we were doing because some delegates had complained. However, the event organizers (to their credit) said we were entitled to make our views known.

Following a morning’s leafleting, I took a walk around the inside of the conference hall, which was spacious, brightly bit and busy. The main hall featured exhibits by co-operatives from more than 40 countries, including Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and the “West Bank.” Sadly, there was no Israeli exhibit. So far, I have not been able to ascertain the reason for the absence of an Israeli stall. Behind the scenes, however, was an Israeli delegation, presumably taking part in the various workshops and meetings.

Despite the delegation, it is a pity that Israel was not included in the exhibition. After all, the Jewish state has a proud history of workers’ co-operatives, the kibbutzim being the most notable example. Even now, co-operatives account for more than 90% of Israel’s agricultural production. And it was Israel, of course, that developed the refined drip irrigation system which is now used by co-operative farmers around the world.

III

I left the conference with mixed feelings. One the one hand, there was some support for our cause. The event organizers were friendly and allowed us to carry on with our work regardless of the complaints. On the other hand, the fact that the Co-operative movement contains a number of people who are steadfast in their antipathy towards Israel, and the marked absence of an Israeli exhibition, were troubling.

Furthermore, given that Manchester boasts the second-largest Jewish community in Britain, it is a pity that so few people came to help the campaign. Perhaps the Jewish community is weary of having to defend itself in the face of so much anti-Israel rhetoric. Perhaps there is a feeling of resignation, that no amount of protesting will roll back the successes of the BDS movement.

Having said that, the fact that several people did volunteer to help (one of whom traveled up from London) was not overlooked by the Israeli delegation, which came out of the conference and thanked the campaigners for their support.

Volunteer numbers aside, I think most people in the Jewish community would agree that allowing the Palestinian lobby to go unchallenged is not really an option. An increasing number of supermarkets and other businesses are under extreme pressure from BDS crusaders, who are not afraid to lie about the settlements and slander the Jewish state. Comparisons with apartheid are grossly unfair and ignore the fact that the settlements are legal under the San Remo agreement of 1920, which instructed Britain to establish a Jewish national home on the entire land of Israel. Building Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria is also within the parameters of the 1922 Mandate of Palestine, which actually encouraged close settlement of the land.

Israel’s friends in the UK must do all they can to aggressively point out the errors of the boycott movement and deconstruct the lie about occupation, even if this means standing beneath a rainy Manchester sky to hand out leaflets. We cannot afford to remain silent or even on the sidelines. Not when Israel’s future is at stake.

THE RIGHTS OF SETTLERS _UPDATE

PA chief negotiator Saeb Erekat has said that a Palestinian bid for non-member status at the United Nations is the only way to stop the expansion of Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria. But anyone with a basic grasp of international law can see that Israel is perfectly entitled to build settlements on the “West Bank.”

UN Security Council Resolution 242 recommended Israeli withdrawal from territories in return for the right “to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” At a conference in Khartoum the Arabs refused to negotiate or make peace with Israel. In fact, they refused to recognise Israel at all. (Resolution 242 did not mention the Palestinians, although it did refer to “a just settlement of the refugee problem” in acknowledgment that both sides had their share of refugees.)

THE PALESTINIANIZATION OF YEHUDA AND SHOMRON

The recent news that UNESCO, the UN’s cultural agency, has approved a Palestinian bid to list the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as a World Heritage Site is a significant development in the ongoing project to Palestinianize Yehuda and Shomron. UNESCO’s approval effectively endorses the absurd notion that there is a Palestinian heritage distinct from the history of Israel.

This has echoes of the October 2010 UNESCO declaration that the Tomb of the Hebrew Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem are “an integral part of the occupied Palestinian territories.” Astonishingly, the UN body admonished Israel for registering the shrines as national heritage sites, citing that “any unilateral action by the Israeli authorities is to be considered a violation of international law.”

UNESCO’s decisions are either rooted in ignorance or malice. Either way, the cultural agency is doing a good job of disconnecting the people of Israel from its inheritance. As Benjamin Netanyahu said in 2010, “If the places where the fathers and mothers of the Jewish nation are buried […] some 4,000 years ago are not part of the Jewish heritage, then what is?”

The Palestinian Authority also wants UNESCO to list other religious sites, including Mount Gerizim near Shechem (Nablus), which is sacred to the Samaritans. So not only is Jewish culture being Palestinianized, but Israelite heritage in general is being (mis)appropriated for the political purpose of delegitimizing Israel’s claim to the land.

UNESCO’s decision regarding Bethlehem is hardly a surprise. It is yet another step in the Palestinian appropriation of the Judean town, which is famous for being the birthplace of King David and Jesus. When Arafat made his first Christmas appearance in Bethlehem in 1995, he invoked the Christian nativity by crying, “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, goodwill towards men.” To which the crowd responded, “In spirit and blood we will redeem thee, O Palestine!”

Bethlehem obviously held a special place in Arafat’s heart. Not because he had any special love for Christianity but because it was a political rallying point. Bethlehem, according to Arafat, was the “birthplace of the first Palestinian Christian, Jesus Christ.” Arafat also proclaimed Jesus as “our Lord the Messiah.” While this is an astonishing statement for a Muslim to make, it is evidence of an overwhelming desire to Arabize the history and legacy of Israel and Judea. This, of course, has precedent in the Quran, which not only appropriates Isaac, Moses, David and Elijah, among others, but rewrites them from an Arab point of view.

Perhaps taking their cue from the replacement theology of the Quran, the Palestinian Arabs are experts in the rewriting of Eretz Yisrael. Hence, Israel is Palestine; Jerusalem is al-Quds; Yehuda and Shomron are the West Bank; Bethlehem and Hebron are Palestinian heritage sites; and Jesus the Jew is resurrected as Jesus the Palestinian. Some Palestinian Arabs deny the presence of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem. Then there are absurd claims made by some Palestinian Arabs that they are the descendants of the biblical Jebusites or Canaanites, or even the true offspring of the ancient Israelites.

That Eretz Yisrael is Jewish should be beyond dispute. All archaeological and historical evidence points towards a sustained Jewish presence. In contrast, there is no evidence of a long-term Palestinian culture, which is hardly surprising since the Palestinian Arabs are late-comers to the land.

In short, the Palestinian Arabs are effectively de-Judaizing the heritage of Eretz Yisrael and substituting their own pseudo-history. UNESCO’s participation in such blatant cultural and historical vandalism is shameful and is a violation of its promise to “create the conditions for dialogue among civilizations, cultures and peoples, based upon respect for commonly shared values.”

THE RIGHTS OF SETTLERS

The Palestinian Liberation Organization has called for an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. The PLO wants to UN member states to table a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity. In a statement, the PLO said the rise in settlement activities is “proof of a dangerous Israeli government plan to undermine the two-states solution.”

The majority of UN member states will no doubt relish the opportunity to help the PLO condemn the Jewish state. But it is a common misperception that the building of settlements is an impediment to peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

In truth, the primary obstacle to peace is the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and the unwillingness to allow a Jewish minority in a Palestinian state.

The legality of the West Bank

In 1920, the San Remo Conference assigned to Britain a mandate to establish a Jewish national home on territory covering what would become Israel, Jordan and part of the Golan Heights. In early 1921, Britain made a distinction between Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people, and Transjordan as a home for the Arabs.

The Mandate of Palestine, which was confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922, formalized the creation of a Jewish national homeland, as well as Transjordan. The Mandate incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which endorsed the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” The Mandate legalized the immigration of Jews to Palestine and encouraged close settlement of the land.

Two years after the Second World War, the British handed the Mandate to the UN, which recommended (rather than enforced) the partition of Palestine between Jews and Arabs. The Jews accepted the partition but the Arab states rejected it and declared war on the Jewish homeland, which resulted in the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan. At the insistence of the Arabs, the 1949 armistice line was “not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary.”

In 1967, Israel won control of the West Bank after a war of self-defence. UN Security Council Resolution 242 recommended Israeli withdrawal from territories in return for the right “to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” Unfortunately, the Arab states once again rejected the UN’s proposal. Moreover, the second article of the Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable to the West Bank because it pertains only to cases of occupation of a sovereign entity. Jordan was never a recognized sovereign of the West Bank, which means Israel is not an occupier.

The legality of the settlements

Legally, the West Bank is unclaimed Mandate land and should be referred to as “disputed” territory. As such, the settlements are entirely legal as long as they are in the parameters of the 1922 Mandate, which has never been superseded in law, not even by the 1947 partition plan. Israel’s capture of the West Bank in 1967 merely restored the territory to its legal status under the Mandate of 1922. The settlers are simply enacting this mandate.

Even if it could be proved that Israel is an occupant, many of the Jewish settlements are still permitted under international law. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Protocol does not prohibit Israeli civilians from acting on their own initiative by settling among the Palestinian Arabs. Other settlements are there for security reasons. Building up the areas around east Jerusalem reduces the risk of the capital falling to an Arab army invading from the east. Again, this is permissible under the Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Protocol.

The fact that the Palestinians and the Arab states collaborated with Hitler, and then proceeded to invade Israel on three occasions between 1948 and 1973, seriously undermines any moral claim to establish a state on the West Bank. Besides, the West Bank, traditionally known as Judea and Samaria, is historically and religiously Jewish. It is home to several sacred sites and two of Judaism’s holiest cities (east Jerusalem and Hebron). Jerusalem was under Islamic control for centuries, but on no occasion did any Muslim entity declare it as their capital.

Moreover, non-Jewish powers cannot be trusted to protect Jews or Jewish sites. Until 1948, Jews had lived in Judea and Samaria for hundreds of years. During the Jordanian occupation, the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives was desecrated and synagogues destroyed. In addition, Jews were forbidden from praying at their holiest place – the Western Wall. And let’s not forget that Hebron was ethnically cleansed of Jews by the Palestinian Arabs in 1929. Following the 1967 war, many Jews were eager to commemorate the massacre by settling in Hebron.

An impediment to peace?

Between 1948 and 1967, there was not a single settlement in Gaza or the West Bank. But the Arab states refused to make peace with Israel. Nor did the Arab states attempt to establish a Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza between 1948 and 1967. Furthermore, the dismantling of Jewish homes and the withdrawal of Israelis from Gaza in 2005 should have led to a cold peace. Instead, the Palestinians elected Hamas, which resulted in an upswing in terrorism. In short, a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has never been about the settlements.

Of course, it is a reasonable assumption that the settlements will play a part in final negotiations. And if a two-state solution is reached, it must be possible to allow a Jewish minority to remain in a Palestinian state, in the same way that one in five Israelis are Arabs. After all, many of the Jews in the West Bank were born there. As such, Palestinian demands for UN condemnation of the settlements is both racist and illegal.

STATE OF JUDEA

Israel’s defence minister has just revealed that he favours a unilateral withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank. It is unlikely to happen in the near future, but if and when it does happen, what will happen to the Jewish settlements?

A withdrawal of troops would probably result in the forced evacuation of some settlements, especially if they are nowhere near the Green Line.

The Israeli government will be reluctant to leave any settlers in the West Bank if they are not protected by troops. But following the unpleasant Gaza disengagement in 2005, any attempt to dismantle or abandon the settlements is likely to stimulate a wave of violence.

But if the settlers were to remain in the West Bank, how would they fare under a Palestinian government? PA president Mahmoud Abbas has already said that not a single Israeli (i.e. Jew) would be allowed to live in an independent Palestine.

The creation of a Judean state

Another alternative to either Israeli or Palestinian rule in the West Bank is the creation of an independent State of Judea.

In January 1989, several hundred activists announced their intention to create an halachic State of Judea if Israel withdrew. The most prominent activist was Michael Ben-Horin, a member of the New York-based Kach movement, headed by Rabbi Mei Kahane.

Ben-Horin, declared: “We will not allow the heart to be torn from the body of the Land of Israel.” Judea and Samaria, he said, “will always remain Jewish,” before adding: “No Israeli state will ever be permitted to expel Jews from their homes or their land.”

Above: two competing designs for a State of Judea flag

The idea of a Judean state was revived following the unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005, which resulted in the forcible withdrawal of Jewish settlers.

And in 2007, Rabbi Shalom Dov Wolpo called on his supporters to make preparations to secede from the State of Israel in the event of Israeli withdrawal. Speaking to the Jerusalem Post, Rabbi Wolpo said: “Why should we wait until soldiers come to people’s homes.”

Of course, the threat to create a State of Judea may just be a way of frightening the Israeli government into annexing the West Bank and creating a unified country. But there is evidence that some settlers believe the State of Judea is already a political reality.

In 2011, Israel Today reported that some of the younger settlers do not see themselves as Israeli. An unnamed source told the magazine: “More and more [settlers] understand that they are here despite the Israeli establishment, and they see more and more differences between themselves and the Israelis.”

The Palestinians, too, see the creation of a Judean state as a burgeoning reality. Earlier this year, PLO Secretary-General Yasser Abed Rabbo opined that Israel is seeking to create a “settler state” in Judea and Samaria.

He claimed that Israel was continuing to build in settlements “so that it could establish a state for settlers, and not for Palestinians, in the West Bank and Jerusalem.”

Is an independent State of Judea viable?

For a start, separating Israel and Judea would enable secular Jews to enjoy life in Israel, while those who want to live according to halachic law would have the option of moving to Judea.

Indeed, the two states would provide very different types of experience. According to a 2008 survey by Ariel University Center, 92.3 per cent of Jewish settlers are satisfied with their lives, compared with 83 per cent in the State of Israel. The standard of living and quality of life was also reported to be better in the settlements.

The survey also revealed that the income of a family living in the settlements is about 10 per cent higher than the national average. At the time of the study, unemployment was less of an issue in Judea than it was in Israel.

On the downside, the crime rate in Judea was 22 per cent higher than in Israel proper. This may be explained by hostilities between Jews and Arabs.

Establishing a viable Jewish state in Judea and Samaria has precedent. Ancient Israel comprised two kingdoms, also called Israel and Judea.

Most religious Jews will agree that Judea is the biblical and spiritual heartland of Eretz Israel. Hebron, home to the Cave of the Patriarchs, is the second holiest Jewish city. It would be a travesty if there was a repeat of the ethnic cleansing that took place in 1929. Rachel’s Tomb on the outskirts of Bethlehem is the third most important Jewish holy site. Jericho, the place of the Israelites’ return from slavery in Egypt, is also a crucial location and is home to some historic synagogues.

To give up Hebron, Bethlehem, Jericho and the Jordan Valley would be an absurd act of cultural suicide. If the State of Israel is not prepared to annex the West Bank, then perhaps the settlers should declare independence.

Under Jordanian rule, the Arabs went to great efforts to erase Jewish history. Despite the fact that Jews had lived in Judea and Samaria for centuries, Jordan pursued a Judenrein policy by changing the name of the territory from Judea and Samaria to the “West Bank.” After 1948, Jews were not allowed to pray at the Western Wall. The Jewish graveyard on the Mount of Olives was desecrated and all but one of the thirty five synagogues in the Old City were destroyed.

It is clear that abandoning Judea and Samaria to the Arabs is not an option.

But would a Judean state be able to live alongside an Israeli state? After all, the Hebrew scriptures are full of stories about the love-hate relationship between the two kingdoms. To prevent a repeat of biblical hostilities, some kind of Davidic federation would have to be established to loosely unite the two nations. After all, both Israel and Judea would have the same enemies and would need to cooperate in terms of security. Trade and labour agreements would have to be worked out, too.

The downside

There is one major flaw in the concept of a Judean state and that is the Jewish settlers form a minority. There are two million Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank (about 80 per cent of the population). Only half a million Jewish live in the West Bank, nearly half of whom live in East Jerusalem. Although East Jerusalem forms an important of the Judean geography, it is unlikely that the State of Israel would relinquish the East Jerusalem settlements, as this would divide the city.

As things stand, much of the area of the West Bank closest to Jerusalem has already been incorporated into the Jerusalem District and is under Israeli civilian rule. It is excluded from the administrative structure that is the Judea and Samaria Area.

By subtracting East Jerusalem from the equation, there would be a mere 300,000 Jews left to face the wrath of two million Palestinian Arabs. But the numbers could be even worse if Israel withdraws from the West Bank but annexes small amounts of territory around the Green Line. This would dramatically reduce the number of disenfranchised settlers to around 80,000.

Would the State of Israel leave the Judeans and the Palestinians to fight a civil war, or would it provide arms and/or troops to the settlers? Would neighbouring Arab states come to the assistance of the Palestinians? One thing’s for sure, even if the settlers did win a civil war, they would receive no international recognition, possibly not even from Israel itself. And how would 80,00 (or 300,000) Jews rule over two million Palestinians? You would end up with a South African scenario and accusations of apartheid would be substantial.

So, are there other options?

It is possible that PA president Abbas changes his mind and agrees to a single binational state in which Palestinians and Israelis share full political rights. At the very least, settlers might be able stay on the West Bank at the discretion of the Palestinian government but without any citizenship rights.

One possibility that might work is the establishment of “parallel states,” within the West Bank in which Arabs and Jews share the territory but owe their allegiance to separate parliaments. But it is unlikely the Palestinians would agree to a further division of territory.

The truth is, the creation of a Judean or Palestinian state next to Israel is not realistic or feasible. The only credible option is for Israel to annex the West Bank and recognise Jordan as the de facto Palestinian state.

Jordan is Palestine

The main obstacle to solving the Israeli-Arab conflict is the persistent claim that the Palestinians are a nation without a land. The Palestinian Arabs were actually given their own state decades ago. In 1922, Transjordan (Jordan) was carved out of land earmarked for the Jewish state.

Above: division of Eretz Israel in 1922

Israel, the US and the EU must press for the recognition of Jordan as the Palestinian state. After all, Jordan’s population is already 70 per cent Palestinian. Removing the ruling Hashemite dynasty and developing democratic institutions in Jordan would greatly benefit the majority. Once the groundwork for democracy is laid down, the Palestinians would, by right, have the greatest say in how the country is governed. No longer would be they be discriminated against by the Bedouin minority.

Once this has been achieved, Israel can formally annex the West Bank and give the Palestinian Arabs living there the option of either swearing an oath of allegiance to the Jewish state or giving them Jordanian citizenship. Those Palestinians that wish to leave the West Bank would be free to move to Jordan. Those who want to stay in their homes on the West Bank but nevertheless wish to hold Jordanian citizenship should be allowed to do so. Once Israel is in full control of the West Bank, non-Jewish immigration must be halted in order to prevent the return of Arabs who claim refugee status.

Developing democratic institutions in Jordan and uniting the land of Israel under Jerusalem would not only ensure Israel’s security and demographic advantage, it would enable the Palestinians to establish sovereignty in the heart of the Middle East and put an end to this decades-old conflict over the status of the so-called occupied territories.

THE RIGHTS OF SETTLERS

In truth, the primary obstacle to peace is the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and the unwillingness to allow a Jewish minority in a Palestinian state.

The legality of the West Bank

The legality of the settlements

An impediment to peace?

Middle East Facts

Sunday, May 3, 2015