A long list of supporters Moshe Negbi's attempts to undermine the rights
of his own people to their homeland notwithstanding, Douglas Feith, who served
as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and Middle East specialist on the
White House National Security Council staff during the Reagan administration,
holds a different view. He writes "[Although] the Mandate distinguished between
Eastern and Western Palestine . . . it did not distinguish between the region
of Judea and Samaria and the rest of Western Palestine. No event and no armistice
or other international agreement has terminated the Mandate-recognized rights
of the Jewish people, including settlement rights, in those portions of the
Mandate territory that have yet to come under the sovereignty of any state.
Those rights did not expire upon the demise of the League of Nations, the
creation of the United Nations, or the UN General Assembly's adoption of
the 1947 UN Special Committee on Palestine plan for Western Palestine."
Feith explains that if the Jews do not have recognized legal rights to their
claim to Judea and Samaria as part of their state, then they lack such rights
in any part of Eretz Israel because all the rights derive from "the historical
connection of the Jewish people with Palestine recognized in the Mandate."
[This is why so many peace supporters in Israel draw the line at giving away
the Temple Mount. The Mount is our strongest historical connection to the
land of Israel and if we give that away, we give away the BASIS by which
ANY LAND in the region is allocated as a Jewish State. To give away the Mount
gives away the right to a Jewish State at all and paves the way for a legal
overturning of Israel's right to existence."] ** See WHY
He adds that the claim that the Jews do not have a legal claim to Judea and
Samaria could be catastrophic concerning other claims the Jews have to
sovereignty over Israel within its pre-1967 borders.
I have cited here only two experts in international law who hold this view,
but the list of jurists and members of the administration who support the
legality of Jewish settlement in Eretz Israel is very long and includes such
names as Julius Stone, Professor Yehuda Bloom and others. It could at least
be expected that Moshe Negbi, who undoubtedly is aware of these views,
demonstrate some measure of integrity and acknowledge the existence of the
legal positions with which he is not comfortable and which run counter his
own political views.
In any case, before accusing Israeli governments of being instrumental in
the commission of international crimes, he might do well to consider this
question: Would not the deportation of Jews from their place of settlement
- as the Arabs demand as part of their call for the dismantling of the "illegal"
settlements - in fact be itself an international crime - as deportation is
termed in international law? Would Mr. Negbi feel comfortable with the fact
that the only place in the world (perhaps outside of Saudi Arabia) where
the policy of "Judenrein" is implemented de jure and de facto is in the only
homeland Jewish people have?
Not only is the right of settlement in the land
of Israel an integral part of the Zionist vision - it is strongly anchored
in the precepts of international law.
HEBRON (Insert by Zionsake Editor)
Why the focus on Hebron? Because an integral part of the destruction of Israel
in stages is the denial of Jewish historical rights and ties to the Land
of Israel. Hebron, with the only intact Second Temple Period structure in
the region - where the Patriarchs are buried - is second only to Jerusalem
in its Jewish identity.. In fact, its ties to the Jewish People PREDATE Jerusalem
But that's not all. The Hebron model of the
sharing of holy places stands in sharp contrast to the Jerusalem model. In
Jerusalem, the Moslems have successfully barred Jewish worship anywhere in
the area of the Temple Mount.
In sharp contrast Jews and Moslems SHARE the
use of Ma'arat Hamachpela - with prayer services usually at adjacent rooms
within the structure and with a special arrangement for the entire structure
to be used for Moslem or Jewish prayer on their respective special
The success of this model of sharing is enathema
to Arafat because it proves that there is an alternative to the "all-or-nothing"
Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA'S Weekly Commentary on Israel National Radio 11 October 2001
Broadcast in English on Thursday nights at 10:00
PM on 98.7 FM and on 1539 AM throughout
Israel - recording available on
to Tax Israeli Settlement Goods
(since the Settlement are
in so-called "Occupied" territory)
February 26, 2002
[IMRA: For the territories
to have the status of "occupied" there had to be
a recognized sovereignty
in the territories in 1967 before Israel sent in
forces. There was, however,
a "sovereignty gap" from 1948 to 1967 in the
territories with the status
of the territories in limbo since the end of the
British Mandate. As a result
the legal rather than political arguments
concerning settlements are
not relevant to this situation.]
Feb. 27 2002 Volume 01 : Number 555
From: "Israel Resource News Agency" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Saturday
19 October 2002
The West Bank/Gaza Settlements : The Fake Issue of the
current Middle East Crisis
By Sara Bedein Staff writer Israel Resource News Agency Jerusalem
More often than not, when you hear news reports that the PLO demands that
Israel must remove itself from "all occupied territories". Yet reporters
do not bother to ask the PLO what it means by "all occupied territories".
Until very recently, it was an accepted norm that the PLO simply wanted Israel
to leave the territories that it took during the 1967 war in Judea, Samaria,
and Gaza, also known as the west bank and Gaza.
Yet two years have past since the PLO walked out of the Camp David talks,
after the previous Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians
over 95% of the areas taken by Israel during the 1967 war. That offer even
included parts of Jerusalem. The PLO walked out of the Camp David talks because
their demand for Israel to abandon "illegal settlements" that were built
after 1948 in place of the Arab villages that fleeing Arabs had abandoned
during the 1948 war.
One of Israel's key negotiators at the Camp
David talks, Israel Knesset Foreign Relations and Security Committee Chairman
Dan Meridor, remarked in an interview with our agency after the Camp David
talks that the Israeli negotiators were startled to discover that the PLO
claim for the "right of return" to 1947 was not simply a "negotiating
After all, three million Arabs who have dwelt
in squalid refugee camps for more than a half century under the premise and
promise of the "right of return" can hardly be considered to be a "negotiating
Evidence of such can be found in the new school
books, official maps and even the new website of the PLO's Palestine National
Authority, located at www.palestineremembered.com, where you can discern
how Arab villages in a future Palestinian State would replace the Israeli
"illegal settlements" such as: Umm Khalid and Bayyarat Hannun - Netanya,
Tabsur - Ra'anana, Kafr Sabs - Kfar Sava, Qumya - Kibbutz Ein Charod, Wa'arat
al Sarris - Kiryat Ata, Qatra - Gedera, Sarafand al-Kharab and Wadi Hunayn
- Nes Tziona, Yibna - Yavne, Abu Kishk - Herzliya, Saqiya - Or Yehuda, Jarisha
- Ramat Gan, al-Jammasin al-Gharbi, al-Mas'udiyya, Salama, and al-Shaykh
Muwannis - Tel Aviv, al-'Abbasiyya - Savyon, 'Ayn Karim - Ein Karem, Dayr
Yassin - Givat Shaul.
From the PLO point of view, the 531 "Illegal
Israeli settlements" established after Israel's War of Independece have
"ethnically cleansed/destroyed Palestinian villages" within "Occupied Palestine
In contrast, communities Jews live in Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem and
the Gaza Strip have been acquired by legal means.
Not one Israeli settlement built on land taken
in 1967 has replaced an Arab notion that the Israelis in the west bank or
Gaza are sitting on land stolen from the Palestinian Arabs.
Meanwhile, lands belonging to Palestinian Arab
villagers in the areas taken over by Israel in 1967 generally remain in
Palestinian Arab hands. Indeed, many of the Israelis who demand that Israel
abandon its settlements in Judea, Samaria, and Katif in Gaza actually dwell
in communities that the PLO defines as "illegal settlements".
Meeting with a group of Israelis from 6 west bank Judea settlements in November
1996, Yassir Arafat himself acknowledged the legality of their settlements,
since, in Arafat's words, "none of them displaced an Arab village". From
Arafat's point of view, the Jews could stay in their settlements, within
the framework of Palestinian Arab hegemony.
How did Israel acquire the lands for settlement in the "occupied territories"
Professor Yosef Katz, senior faculty member in the Geography Department at
Bar Ilan University and author of 13 books on the history of Jewish settlement
policies in the land of Israel during the twentieth century, delineates the
process of how land was acquired for settlement purposes. "The process of
taking possession of the land in the West Bank after 1967 was done in a
completely legal fashion. There are three categories for possession of land
in the West Bank and Gaza. The first category is purchase of land from Arab
land owners. This is a completely legal action." "The second category for
taking possession of the land is through what is called 'administrative
territories' - which means state owned lands. These state owned lands originally
belonged to the Turkish government when Palestine was ruled by the Ottoman
Empire (over a 400 year period). Meaning that from the start these were state
owned lands - not owned by private individuals - which passed through various
hands depending on who was ruling Palestine at the time. Afterwards these
lands were transferred to the British when they ruled, then to Jordan when
they conquered the territory in 1948 and finally the state lands became Israel's
when the area was conquered by Israel in 1967." "Arabs living in the West
Bank and Gaza on privately owned land, were encouraged by Israel to continue
to hold on to their land and expand, without Israeli intervention".
"There is another category of lands known as "Mawaat" - dead lands: barren
rocky lands, public lands. The state is allowed to declare them as its own
based on the fact that no one is in possession of them and that they are
not cultivated. To determine that these lands do not belong to anyone, the
state checks the land registries, ariel photographs showing the lands to
be uncultivated and then when convinced that these lands have no ownership,
advertises in Arabic in the Arab newspapers that the state has declared these
lands as its own and anyone having any kind of legal deed to contest this
is invited to do so. If any Arab is able to produce a land deed proving the
land is theirs, then the state leaves the land to the Arab. If there are
still any doubts, then the issue is taken to court". "The third and smallest
category of possession of the land, was the expropriation of the land. The
expropriation of land was done legally. This is important to state because
all the lands which the Arabs left in 1948 - four million dunams out of which
20 million dunams was land belonging to the State of Israel in pre-1967 were
expropriated in the same fashion. Aside from the 12 million dunams of land
in the Negev, there were eight million dunams of land left. Four million
dunam of that land, i.e. 50% of settled land inside the pre-1967 borders
of Israel was land left behind by the fleeing Arabs in 1948."
"These lands were absorbed by Israel under the state's Guardian of Absentee
Assets after which the lands were transferred through a law called the
"Development Authority law" - The Law for Transferring Assets, 1951. In this
way, the lands expropriated were transferred to the hands of the state of
Israel. Since this same method was used for the expropriation of lands in
the West Bank and Gaza, then if there is any question about it, it needs
to be directed also to the lands within the Green Line which were transferred
to Israel through the same method. All expropriation of land is part of Israel's
legal system. It is done legally."
It is time to speak honestly about the PLO's consistent policy and intent:
to overtake the entire land of Israel. The PLO views the entire State of
Israel as "conquered Palestine" comprised of two parts: Palestine that was
conquered from 1948 and conquered Palestine from 1967. To be fair, the PLO
has never concealed its policies. They have stated it in their claims over
and over. From the time of the Oslo Accords signed in 1993 the PLO has stated
very clearly that it was their full intent to repossess the lands that they
claim from 1948.
Successive Israeli governments are no less guilty than the rest of the world
in promoting their own rhetoric and an illusion which posits that once the
Palestinians have their own state on the "conquered territories from 1967",
they will be lay down their weapons of war and live peacefully side by side
with the State of Israel in a "New Middle East".
The Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza should not be used as a
pawn in settling this issue.
No Israeli offer to cede these Jewish communities will satisfy the
minimal PLO demands for the return to Arab villages that were wiped
off the map more than fifty years ago.
||Listen to live broadcasts
Link to download
Windows Media Player
Talia Einhorn, of the T.M.C. Asser Institute, an institute for international
law in The Hague, writes that the Israeli presence in Yesha does not
constitute "occupation," and moreover, that the U.N. Partition Resolution
of 1947 that mentions a "new Arab state" is of the "recommendation" type
and not the "mandatory" type.
In light of Prime Minister
Sharon's recent use of the word "occupation" in reference to Israel's presence
in Yesha, and despite his subsequent retraction, Arutz-7's Ruti Avraham quotes
Prof. Einhorn's explanation as to why Israel is not an "occupying force"
"Up until 1948, Judea, Samaria and Gaza were a part of the British Mandate.
In the 1948 War of Independence, Egypt illegally grabbed the Gaza Strip,
and Jordan took Judea and Samaria, the 'West Bank.' Egypt did not claim
sovereignty in Gaza, but Jordan deigned, in 1950, to annex Judea and Samaria.
This annexation was not recognized by international law. The Arab nations
objected to it, and only Britain and Pakistan recognized it and Britain did
not recognize the annexation of eastern Jerusalem. In 1967, after the Six
Day War, these territories - which were originally meant for the Jewish Nation's
National Home according to the Mandate Charter - returned to Israeli control."
Einhorn adds that in 1988, King Hussein of Jordan rescinded its legal and
administrative ties to Judea and Samaria.
"According to international
law," Einhorn writes, "Israel has full right to try to populate the entire
Land of Israel with dense Jewish settlement, and thus actualize the principles
set by the League of Nations in the original Mandate Charter of San Remo
in 1920. At that time, the mandate to the Land of Israel was granted to the
British, and the introduction to the mandate charter states clearly that
it is based on the international recognition of the historic ties between
the Jewish People and the Land of Israel. Clause II of that mandate charges
Britain with 'ensuring the existence of political, administrative, and economic
conditions that will guarantee the establishment of the Jewish national home
in the Land of Israel.'"
"Even the White Paper
of 1922," she continues, "which restricted Jewish immigration to the land,
emphasized the Jewish Nation's rights to the national home in the Land of
Israel - while at the same time tearing away almost 80% of the mandate's
area on the eastern side of the Jordan and giving it to Emir Abdullah."
Prof. Einhorn says that
there is nothing in international law that requires a Palestinian state between
the Jordan River and the Mediterranean - not even the UN Partition Resolution
of Nov. 29, 1947. That resolution states that "independent Arab and Jewish
States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem" shall
come into existence in Palestine. However, Prof. Einhorn notes the
widely-overlooked fact that the introduction to the resolution states
specifically that it is merely a "recommendation" and nothing more: "[The
General Assembly] recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power
for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption
and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of
the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below."
The fact that the Arab
states did not accept the Partition Plan, explains Prof. Einhorn, voids the
recommendation of any legal basis.
further writes that Resolutions 242 and 338, which call for negotiations
and a "withdrawal from territories" (not "withdrawal from the captured in
1967, are similarly "recommendations." These resolutions were drawn up under
the UN Charter's Clause VI, which deals with non-mandatory recommendations
- as opposed to Clause VII resolutions, "which are mandatory, and which deal
with a threat to world peace, such as those taken earlier this year against
Arutz Sheva News Service. May 29, 2003