The release of a report on the legality of Israel’s presence in the West Bank commissioned by Prime Minister Netanyahu is being widely dismissed by critics of his government as well as those of the Jewish state. Though its findings that Jews have the right to live in the territories and that Israel’s presence there does not fit the traditional definition of a military occupation are solidly based in international law, no one should expect the left to respect the report issued by a panel headed by former Supreme Court Vice President Edmond Levy. Nor should we be surprised if the international community ignores it. Opposition to the settlements is so deeply entrenched that there is no argument, no matter how grounded in logic or justice, that would persuade those committed to the myth settlements are the only obstacle to peace, that they are not illegal. As legal scholar David M. Phillips wrote in the September 2009 issue of COMMENTARY, international law supports this position.
But while we expect this effort to be trashed, those horrified by the fact that Israel is willing to assert that it has rights in the West Bank that are as worthy of respect as those of the Arabs are not just wrong about the legal arguments. Their assumption that a belief in the settlements’ legality makes a peace deal impossible is equally mistaken. Just because Israel has rights in the West Bank doesn’t mean it need necessarily exercise them on every inch of the territory. The assertion of Jewish rights merely means Israel has a leg to stand on when negotiating the permanent status of the West Bank and Jerusalem. Far from that rendering peace unlikely, it ought to give Palestinians an incentive to come to the table and work out a deal that will give them as much of the territory as they can get. The obstacle to peace is the Palestinian belief that the Jewish presence throughout the country — including pre-1967 Israel — is illegitimate.
As Phillips and the new report pointed out, the international conventions prohibiting the movement of people into occupied territory has no application in the West Bank, as it forms part of the League of Nations Palestinian Mandate that was established to facilitate the creation of a national home for the Jews. Far from the West Bank being “stolen” from the Palestinians, it was simply unallocated territory from the former Ottoman Empire where Jews had legal rights as powerful as those of the Arabs. Nor do the postwar resolutions formed in response to Nazi policies in Eastern Europe that are frequently cited by settlement foes apply to Israel’s very different policies.
The widespread interpretation of this report is that it will allow Netanyahu to avoid demolishing those settlement outposts that were not previously authorized by the government. But any outpost that was built on land owned by Arabs can still be uprooted by legal action, as was the case with the Ulpana neighborhood of Beit El.
The fallacy here is not just that the effort to delegitimize the Jewish presence in the West Bank and Jerusalem is not a correct interpretation of international law. It is just as important to note that once Israel’s rights are confirmed, it doesn’t obligate Netanyahu or any of his successors to hold onto all of the land. The report’s recommendations that limits on growth in existing settlements should be lifted likewise doesn’t mean that a peace deal can’t be reached. Most of the settlements would be retained even in proposals put forward by the Jewish left, and those left out could still be evacuated, as the withdrawal from Gaza proved.
What it does do is force the Palestinians to understand that if they want peace, they must compromise.
But that is something they won’t do on the West Bank for the same reason they are unwilling to recognize Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn. It is that reluctance to give up their opposition to Jewish sovereignty even inside the Green Line that prevents peace. Were the PA willing to make a peace deal that would end the conflict for all time, they could have the independent state they were offered and refused in 2000, 2001 and 2008. The settlement’s legality wouldn’t stop Israel from evacuating any place conceded in a peace deal. But so long as the Palestinians are encouraged to believe they can uproot all of the Jews, including those living in the Jewish settlement built on the outskirts of Jaffa a century ago that is now known as Tel Aviv, it won’t matter what the legal scholars say about any of this.
All true, Jonathan, but more important than asserting Israel's legitimacy to settle the West Bank–which is beyond serious question–is asserting the lack of legitimacy of the Palestinians. When your opponent seeks to de-legitimize you, there is no reason to bestow unearned legitimacy on him. As New Gingrich said, the Palestinians are an invented people. Every supporter of Israel, and indeed of the truth should proclaim the invalidity of the Palestinian people on historical, moral, political and strategic grounds. They are the frauds, and there is no reason for Israel to give an inch on their legitimacy, especially while they seek to destroy Israel's.
Yes, Jonathan should clearly tell his readers why he continues to give credibility to the charade that Fakistinians deserve their own state. I doubt he really wants a terrorist state next to Israel, so I'm curious why he continues to pay lip service to such a concept. Is it to garner "respect" from the rest of the media or are there some on the Commentary board who really favor such an ill-thought idea? One should expect more from a journal that supposedly rejects both leftist shibboleths and distortions.
I would give Jonathan his due, although I consider him a pro-Israel fanatic, that at least he is not openly advocating denying other people the ability to form a state.
Being born is absolutely not the criteria of being a legitimate "people." No one is saying that are not human beings (though in many cases they don't act that way). So, that is frankly a silly standard. They are clearly invented by many criteria, including the fact they were not even called Palestinians until relatively recently. And by the fact that their real purpose is not self determination but Israel's elimination. And the fact that their numbers are artificially inflated by the UN. And by the fact that they seem not to really care about sovereignty except to harm Israel. There are many other aspects of their invented, bogus nature. Being alive and existing as human beings does not in the least bit contradict this. n nAnd besides, in the context of an overall, complete, final and enforceable settlement, I'd be willing to grant them legitimacy. But it is frankly immoral and tactically stupid to grant them that legitimacy while they deny Israel's.
Because Israel, as the stronger party by far, could impose a just peace tomorrow if it wanted to, and it does not, it follows that Israel is the principal obstacle to a just peace.
Regarding the argument above about “invented people”:
Pro-Israel fanatics (of which Tobin is one) often use the claim of Palestinians’ “invented peoplehood” as a justification to deny them human rights. When challenged on this, as above, they often indignantly clarify that they were only denying the Palestinians’ NATIONhood, not their actual humanity.
But the very ambiguity of their wording (e.g. using “invented people” rather than the clearer “invented nation,”) and through the obvious purpose to which they put those words (usually advocating the denial of human rights), it is reasonable to conclude that pro-Israel fanatics use such language to plant the notion that Palestinians are less than fully human.
Of course, using the clearer wording would not serve the Israel fanatics’ argument well, because then listeners would wonder what this has to do with denying human rights. Use of the sloppy wording, on the other hand, might just rake in the assent of a few muddled brains.
Oh, you are so sensitive to the other! n nHe wants you dead and gone, but no matter. You see the light of humanity in his soul, and love him for it. n nEven as he wants your children's throats cut, their brains spilled on the floor, and your pregnant women shot in the belly. Their women will dance and hand out sweets as you bury your loved ones. n nWhat is it about war, zero sum situations, justice, Amalek and other implacable enemies that you do not understand?
Again, there is a moral and practical dimension. Morally, the Palestinians are fakes, because their sole reason to exist is to destroy Israel. If Israel is God forbid destroyed, the Palestinians will soon disappear as a political entity. Practically, it is idiotic to grant the legitimacy of someone who denies yours. Let them accept Israel's legitimacy first, then negotiations can take place. But not before.
BDZ, they are an enemy, a potentially mortal enemy. But their society, their political society, its institutions, as deformed and dangerous as they are are not illusions. The Palestinian project dates in modern times at least to 1920 or so. And don't forget, a critical population mass was displaced so they appear 'thinner" on the ground than they otherwise would be. The danger remains that if Israel is destroyed it is Palestine that would successfully inhabit the ashes with their pseudo history of ancient kingdoms of Jebusites and Canaan and the Palestinian Christ. And so yes, we cannot discount that for Palestinians the ashes of Zion remain a pre-requisite for their own revival. But don't underestimate them. It is not for nothing that Bibi gives them running room. De facto negotiations, direct and indirect are common already. That ship has sailed. That doesn't mean that Israel agrees to an international Munich conference.
The borders of Israel according to all historical maps include ALL of Jordan , it was created in about 1946 by Winston Churchell as a homeland for all the Arab Palestinians (he gave them 75%). If you look at the Bible Israel goes from the Nile to the euphrates ( including not only Jordan but chunks of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and even some from Saudi Arabia ).
Not splatter porn. Not special effects. Reality and recent headlines.
The report’s recommendations that limits on growth in existing settlements should be lifted likewise doesn’t mean that a peace deal can’t be reached.
Ellie, n nFirst, I'd like to thank you for avoiding the reflexive recourse to the "you-are-an-anti-Semite" argument so typical these days. It is refreshing, and it enables me to to read your comments with greater attention and respect than I would otherwise. I am hopeful that we can continue in a respectful vein. n nSecond: is there is pun embodied in the term cockofzay? Because I have tried to look for one but without success. n nThird: I would take a guess that the very heart of our disagreement is the single sentence "Israel could impose a just peace tomorrow," which you so strenuously disagree with. But you haven't even asked me what I would propose. And it is worth noting that Israel has ALREADY imposed a peace (though not a just one). This is something that 10 years ago, I was always told, by many of your fellow travelers, was also impossible. (To be specific, I advocated building a wall for years before it was built, and was derided, but now the wall is there and it works.) So: Many years ago, I proposed, to general mockery, that Israel could indeed protect itself by building a wall. Now the wall is there and my proposal has been successfully adopted (of course, not due to my making it.) Now, I propose that this peace can also be converted from unjust to just. Will there be more mockery? Or will someone pay attention? n nFourth of all: I stress that imposing a just peace upon your enemies does not depend upon the good will of one's enemies. You can impose a just peace upon violent bastards. Nothing of what I propose depends on me "loving" the Palestinians, as some posters here claim I apparently do. All that is required to impose a just peace is that you be powerful enough to impose. If you don't wish to impose a just peace because you don't wish to reward or make a gift to your enemies, then fine. Don't do it for that reason. Do it as a gift TO THE REST OF US. Please. We are begging you. n nFifth and last: I am sorry if Jews have been thrown out of Arab villages. Unfortunately, this is not something Israel can necessarily remedy as part of imposing a just peace. No country can always protect its citizens abroad or force other countries to behave within their own borders. When I say "a just peace," I mean a just peace BETWEEN Israel and its neighbors, not that I can somehow propose to ensure justice within any specific countries. However, it stands to reason that if Israel, having imposed a just peace, succeeds in eventuaally establishing normal relationships with its neighbors, then ultimately Israel would have more influence in its neighbors' internal policies than it does today.
An important point to be considered in any peace is mentioned in the following Senate document:
” Committee on Foreign Relations, Palestine Refugee Program, Hearings before the Subcommittee on the Near East and Africa of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Eighty-Third Congress, First Session on the Palestine Refugee Program, May 20, 21, and 25, 1953 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1953), p. 103.”
which noted:
” The political picture within the Arab refugee camps is important to an understanding of the problem, and I must say it is of special significance to this committee.
In April of 1952, Sir Alexander Galloway, then head of the UNRWA for Jordan, said to our study group, and this is really a direct quote from what he said:
It is perfectly clear than the Arab nations do not want to solve the Arab refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront against the United Nations, and as a weapon against Israel.
Then, by way of emphasis he said:
Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.
This simple fact has been more and more clearly demonstrated as I have on repeated occasions visited the refugee centers. Close supervision of the refugee centers is being maintained by the Arab League so that the presentations from camp to camp vary in no detail. It is only as one breaks away from these formal presentations that one begins to get individual reactions and varied opinions such as those expressed by the preceding speaker. And most visitors have neither the time nor the inclination to try to dig beneath the emotional presentations. “
Irrelevant.