Israel’s settlements are legal
By Professor Geoffrey Alderman
UK government
What role, if any, does the present UK government see for itself as a peacemaker in the Middle East? Does it see itself as an honest broker, or has it already taken sides? Some developments over the past fortnight — which build on the lesson we must learn from the UK government’s refusal to condemn or even criticise the Goldstone report — do I think enable us to answer these important questions.
At the beginning of the month, feverish diplomatic to-ing and fro-ing in Brussels centred on a Swedish attempt to have EU member states endorse a resolution demanding the creation of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. This proposal was defeated –- thanks to some impressive maneuvering by Israel’s Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman. Instead, on December 8, EU Foreign Ministers announced their agreement that Jerusalem must become a “shared” capital.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was clearly annoyed that the Swedish draft had been killed off. But the British government was among the backers of the Swedish proposal and, within 48 hours of its defeat, presented Mr Abbas with a consolation prize. On December 10, the department for the environment, food and rural affairs (DEFRA) published new guidance to shops and supermarkets on the labelling of produce sold in the UK that originated from Judea and Samaria. Hitherto, such goods have been labelled as “Produce of the West Bank.” Henceforth, warned DEFRA, they should be branded either as “Palestinian Produce” or “Israeli Settlement Produce.”
A spokesman for UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband wasted no time in explaining that “this is emphatically not about calling for a boycott of Israel. We believe that would do nothing to advance the peace process. We oppose any such boycott of Israel. We believe consumers should be able to choose for themselves what produce they buy.” But, he added ominously: “we have been very clear, both in public and in private, that settlements are illegal and an obstacle to peace.” And in an announcement (hilariously labelled “technical advice”) quite separate from its new guidance on labelling, DEFRA’s head, Hilary Benn, warned that UK food outlets would be committing a criminal offence if they labelled produce that originated in Judea and Samaria as “produce of Israel”.
Although it is being sold as nothing more than an aid to consumer choice, this spiteful policy looks very much like a boycott invitation to me. My recommendation to the government of Israel is to take appropriate steps to frustrate the intentions of Messrs Miliband and Benn, and to refuse absolutely to label produce from Judea and Samaria other than as originating from Israel. This could perhaps be done by re-routing produce through distribution points within Israel’s pre-1967 borders.
But the success or failure of this latest boycott initiative is not my present concern. My present concern is with the assumption — virtually unchallenged in the media — that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal.
In — of all places — the excellent online journal of the Law Society of Scotland (September 14 2009), the distinguished Anglo-Canadian jurist, Professor Gerald Adler, considers this very assumption. In a painstaking analysis of Jewish claims stretching back to the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the Treaty of Sèvres of 1920 and the Palestine Mandate of 1922, Professor Adler demonstrates that Jews have a right to “close settlement” on the West Bank, and that this right was in fact specifically preserved, and carried forward on the demise of the League of Nations, through the deliberate wording of article 80 of the founding charter of its successor body, the United Nations organization.
In his “technical advice”, Mr Benn is silent on these matters, preferring to dwell instead on the fourth Geneva Convention (1949), which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its own civilian population into occupied territory. But, quite apart from the fact that Israel has done no such thing (no Israeli is compelled to live in Judea or Samaria), Mr Benn needs to understand that the right to which Professor Adler draws attention pertains to Jews, not Israelis.
This is a right – granted by the League of Nations and guaranteed by the UN at its foundation – with which neither Mr Benn nor Mr Miliband (nor, incidentally, Mr Netanyahu) has the moral or legal authority to interfere.
One Response to “Israel’s settlements are legaL”
Most Palestinians Penetrated into the Land of Israel Between 1870s’-1948
By historian Dr. Rivka Shpak Lissak
History
The Arabs conquered the Land of Israel between 632 – 640 A.D from the Byzantine Empire. They occupied the country from 640 until 1099, when the Crusaders conquered the country. During those years the country became a battle field between Arab families, and suffered from invasions of Bedouin tribes who robbed and murdered the population, and the Byzantines and others who wished to occupy the country.
The wars destroyed the economy and the country was deserted by some of its old population: Christians, Jews and Samaritans. But, although Arabs immigrated to the country, they did not become a majority as was proved by the Archeological Survey made by M. Aviam. The economical and security situation did not encourage immigration.
The Arabs immigrated into the land of Israel in 4 waves.
The first wave was after the occupation of the country by the Arabs in the 7th century. Most scholars agree that the composition of the population did not change from the days of the Byzantine occupation, and the majority of the population was composed of Greek Orthodox Christians and 2 minorities: Jews and Samaritans. Some Bedouin nomad tribes lived in the south. Arabs settled in cities along the coast and in some other cities such as Jerusalem, Tiberias and more. The soldiers who conquered the country belonged to Bedouin tribes who settled on the borders.
The second wave came between the middle of the 9th century and 1099. During those years Bedouin tribes from the deserts of Arabia, Trans Jordan, Syrian desert, Sinai and Egypt invaded the country and robbed its people. Some of them settled in north Samaria, and some other places after they have driven out the local peasants. Lack of records makes it difficult to evaluate the number of Arabs who settled during this period.
Still, according to Latin and archeological data , brought in Prof. Roni Allenblum’s study on the Kingdom of the Crusaders, we know that the country was settled along religious-ethnic lines with small enclaves: The north of Samaria became Arabic, the south and the Jerusalem area was mostly Christian, and so was the western Galilee. The eastern Galilee was Jewish with some enclaves of Christians and Arabs, and the cities along the coast were of mixed population.
During the conquest, in 1099, the Crusaders massacred many Arabs and many others ran away.
The 3rd wave began after the occupation of the country by the Turks (1516) during the 16th and 17th centuries. Arabs and Muslims from many countries came to settle in the country. According to the Turkish census of the 16th century, there were about 300,000 people in the country, mostly Muslims.
But, the economic situation and the lack of personal safety, caused people to leave, Muslims included. During the 18th and the first half of the 19th centuries, the population became smaller and smaller. Tourists from Europe and the United States described the country as deserted by its population and the land uncultivated.
The last and largest wave came between the middle of the 10th century and 1948, when Israel was established. Arabs and Muslims from the Islamic countries entered the country illegally during the Turkish and latter the British rule. They entered through the northern, eastern and southern borders, looking for jobs created by the Zionist Movement, Jewish investors and by the British Mandate (1918 – 1948).
The Arab and Muslim population grew especially in those areas were Jews settled because these were the places were jobs were available. Thus, the Arab population between Tel Aviv and Haifa grew between 1922-1944 from about 10,000 to more than 30,000, and the Arab and Muslim population along the sea coast from Jaffa to the Egyptian border grew between 1922- 1944 by more than 200%.
From 1870s’ to 1948, the Arab and Muslim population grew by 270%. Even in Egypt, the Arab country with the highest birth rate, the population grew by only 105%.
The 1931 British census in Palestine (the name the British Mandate gave the country) showed that more than 50 languages were spoken by the Arab and Muslim population. The rate of children’s deaths, the low life expectancy, and the lack of health services in the country, made it impossible to reach 270% of birth rate.
From 1870s’ to 1948, the Arab and Muslim population grew by 270%. Even in Egypt, the Arab country with the highest birth rate, the population grew by only 105%.
The 1931 British census in Palestine (the name the British Mandate gave the country) showed that more than 50 languages were spoken by the Arab and Muslim population. The rate of children’s deaths, the low life expectancy, and the lack of health services in the country, made it impossible to reach 270% of birth rate.
In short, from about 250,000 around the 1880s’ the Arabic and Muslim population grew to almost 1,200,000 in 1948. A large percentage of these people were immigrant workers. Since, the Palestinian refugees (the Arabs defined themselves as Palestinians since the 1960s only) came from the area of the Jewish state, it is reasonable to say that many of the so called Palestinians are Arabs and Muslims from the Arab and Muslim countries.
The Palestinian claim that they are the indigenous people of the Land of Israel has no ground.
April 20th, 2010 at 8:50 am