Two recent documents – the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in The Hague and a report of the International Development Committee of the British Parliament – both purporting to base their conclusions on legal grounds, actually show how abysmally ignorant of the most rudimentary facts of law and history these bodies are.
For decades now, the Palestinian Arabs have been repeating, mantra-like, the claim that their terrorist war against Israel is a legitimate war of liberation, a struggle most freedom-loving people would approve. Israel has done little to challenge this falsity, even after Oslo, when over 95% of Palestinians became subjects of the Palestinian Authority.
True, Israel occasionally invaded parts of the PA, but only temporarily in response to terrorist atrocities that the PA either did not bother to stop or actually encouraged. No one could, legally or otherwise, brand such temporary incursions, designed to capture terrorists, not to acquire territory, an “occupation.”
The Big Lie is that Israel is guilty of stealing or occupying Palestinian territories. Before Oslo, Israel occupied indeed disputed territories that are in small part (about 7% of the area) inhabited by Palestinians. After Oslo it occasionally invaded them. But this is, legally, a very far cry from the claim that there were actually at any time Palestinian territories that Israel illegally occupied, violated, or “stole.”
And yet, two bodies that claim that they respect the law falsely accuse Israel of violating international law because it does this or that to so-called occupied “Palestinian Territories.”
A little history: Until the end of World War I, the territories that were to become the Palestine British Mandate were a deserted province of the Turkish Empire. As Bernard Lewis noted, “From the end of the Jewish state in antiquity to the beginning of British rule, the area now designated by the name of Palestine was not a country ”
In the post-WW I agreements that settled the disposition of former Turkish lands, 99% of the Middle East’s Turkish territories were assigned to the Arabs, on condition that 1% will be designated a Jewish national home.
This was the one and only internationally approved legal dispensation by consent of these territories. Britain received a League of Nations mandate over Palestine (that included then Jordan) only because it undertook to establish a Jewish national home there.
In 1947 the UN recommended the partition of Palestine contingent on the parties’ agreement. But the Arabs rejected the recommendation, rendering it null and void. Jordan then occupied and arbitrarily annexed the West Bank. So when in 1967 Israel ejected Jordan, the West Bank territories reverted, legally, to the status of disputed land, with the Jewish people having the prime legal claim to it.
The disputed territories were never Palestinian Arab – neither as national patrimony nor as private property. To this day, 93% of the land in Israel, in Jordan, and in the West Bank (the original area of the internationally legally sanctioned Jewish National Home) is not privately owned.
For centuries it belonged to the Turkish sultan, then the British Mandate, and subsequently to the State of Israel, in parts. The West Bank remains in legal dispute pending a settlement. Israeli settlements – occupying a mere 3% to 4% of government-owned land in the West Bank – cannot therefore be considered illegal.
THESE SIMPLE facts were ignored by the Hague judges, who condemned Israel for building its anti-terrorist protective fence on what they imagined were “Palestinian lands,” and they were ignored by the learned members of the Commons Committee debating a report on “Occupied Palestinian Territories.”
Much has already been written about The Hague’s anti-Israel bias, so let us briefly examine the conduct of last April’s Commons debate.
It opened with the usual disclaimer prefacing now all attacks on Israel by declaring Israel’s right to exist etc., even its right to defend itself.
Few apparently notice (not even a warm and true friend like Prime Minister Tony Blair, who recently also reiterated this right of Israel to exist) what it denotes – that a mere six decades after the Holocaust, Israel, alone among the world’s states, has to have its legitimacy confirmed and given assurances that it deserves to exist.
The MPs’ protest that their report does not “give an iota of succor to suicide bombers” but object to suicide bombing not because it is wrong but because it is “a catastrophic tactic that has done great harm to the Palestinian cause.” They spin a long litany of charges against Israeli offences without barely mentioning cause and effect.
Anyone reading the report would be convinced that the wicked Israelis “willfully destroy” and occupy Palestinian lands, starving, torturing, and killing its population, especially children, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
Only one participant in the debate, Conservative Party MP Quentin Davies, had the decency to remind the mostly Labor MPs (some Jewish, alas) who were condemning Israel alone that Israel was forced to react against a brutal terrorist war.
The MPs failed to mention that it was Arafat’s war that brought ruin on what remained of the Palestinian economy and society after he and his gang of criminals despoiled it with corruption and plunder. It is a sad sight to see representatives of the great British democracy lobby so vehemently for Arafat’s murderous dictatorship.
Blanket condemnation of Israel only is bound to justify what Israel’s enemies do, including terrorism. It also perpetuates the Arabs’ feelings of victimhood that prevents them from taking charge of their destiny.
British colonialism did some good. But it also had some disastrous consequences. It is therefore understandable why some British may feel guilty toward their former subjects, especially the Arabs who have to live with the horrible dictatorships that the British left behind and kept supporting. But is this reason to scapegoat the Jews once more?
Log in or Register
False justice
The Jerusalem Post
28 Jul ’04
Two recent documents – the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in The Hague and a report of the International Development Committee of the British Parliament – both purporting to base their conclusions on legal grounds, actually show how abysmally ignorant of the most rudimentary facts of law and history these bodies are.
Filed under:
peace process • world affairs
Related links
International Court of Justice (ICJ) of the United Nations
‘Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: Advisory Opinion’ by the UN’s IJC
International Development Committee (IDC) of the British Parliament
‘Development Assistance and the Occupied Palestinian Territories’ by the UK’s IDC
International Court of Justice
For decades now, the Palestinian Arabs have been repeating, mantra-like, the claim that their terrorist war against Israel is a legitimate war of liberation, a struggle most freedom-loving people would approve. Israel has done little to challenge this falsity, even after Oslo, when over 95% of Palestinians became subjects of the Palestinian Authority.
True, Israel occasionally invaded parts of the PA, but only temporarily in response to terrorist atrocities that the PA either did not bother to stop or actually encouraged. No one could, legally or otherwise, brand such temporary incursions, designed to capture terrorists, not to acquire territory, an “occupation.”
The Big Lie is that Israel is guilty of stealing or occupying Palestinian territories. Before Oslo, Israel occupied indeed disputed territories that are in small part (about 7% of the area) inhabited by Palestinians. After Oslo it occasionally invaded them. But this is, legally, a very far cry from the claim that there were actually at any time Palestinian territories that Israel illegally occupied, violated, or “stole.”
And yet, two bodies that claim that they respect the law falsely accuse Israel of violating international law because it does this or that to so-called occupied “Palestinian Territories.”
A little history: Until the end of World War I, the territories that were to become the Palestine British Mandate were a deserted province of the Turkish Empire. As Bernard Lewis noted, “From the end of the Jewish state in antiquity to the beginning of British rule, the area now designated by the name of Palestine was not a country ”
In the post-WW I agreements that settled the disposition of former Turkish lands, 99% of the Middle East’s Turkish territories were assigned to the Arabs, on condition that 1% will be designated a Jewish national home.
This was the one and only internationally approved legal dispensation by consent of these territories. Britain received a League of Nations mandate over Palestine (that included then Jordan) only because it undertook to establish a Jewish national home there.
In 1947 the UN recommended the partition of Palestine contingent on the parties’ agreement. But the Arabs rejected the recommendation, rendering it null and void. Jordan then occupied and arbitrarily annexed the West Bank. So when in 1967 Israel ejected Jordan, the West Bank territories reverted, legally, to the status of disputed land, with the Jewish people having the prime legal claim to it.
The disputed territories were never Palestinian Arab – neither as national patrimony nor as private property. To this day, 93% of the land in Israel, in Jordan, and in the West Bank (the original area of the internationally legally sanctioned Jewish National Home) is not privately owned.
For centuries it belonged to the Turkish sultan, then the British Mandate, and subsequently to the State of Israel, in parts. The West Bank remains in legal dispute pending a settlement. Israeli settlements – occupying a mere 3% to 4% of government-owned land in the West Bank – cannot therefore be considered illegal.
THESE SIMPLE facts were ignored by the Hague judges, who condemned Israel for building its anti-terrorist protective fence on what they imagined were “Palestinian lands,” and they were ignored by the learned members of the Commons Committee debating a report on “Occupied Palestinian Territories.”
Much has already been written about The Hague’s anti-Israel bias, so let us briefly examine the conduct of last April’s Commons debate.
It opened with the usual disclaimer prefacing now all attacks on Israel by declaring Israel’s right to exist etc., even its right to defend itself.
Few apparently notice (not even a warm and true friend like Prime Minister Tony Blair, who recently also reiterated this right of Israel to exist) what it denotes – that a mere six decades after the Holocaust, Israel, alone among the world’s states, has to have its legitimacy confirmed and given assurances that it deserves to exist.
The MPs’ protest that their report does not “give an iota of succor to suicide bombers” but object to suicide bombing not because it is wrong but because it is “a catastrophic tactic that has done great harm to the Palestinian cause.” They spin a long litany of charges against Israeli offences without barely mentioning cause and effect.
Anyone reading the report would be convinced that the wicked Israelis “willfully destroy” and occupy Palestinian lands, starving, torturing, and killing its population, especially children, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
Only one participant in the debate, Conservative Party MP Quentin Davies, had the decency to remind the mostly Labor MPs (some Jewish, alas) who were condemning Israel alone that Israel was forced to react against a brutal terrorist war.
The MPs failed to mention that it was Arafat’s war that brought ruin on what remained of the Palestinian economy and society after he and his gang of criminals despoiled it with corruption and plunder. It is a sad sight to see representatives of the great British democracy lobby so vehemently for Arafat’s murderous dictatorship.
Blanket condemnation of Israel only is bound to justify what Israel’s enemies do, including terrorism. It also perpetuates the Arabs’ feelings of victimhood that prevents them from taking charge of their destiny.
British colonialism did some good. But it also had some disastrous consequences. It is therefore understandable why some British may feel guilty toward their former subjects, especially the Arabs who have to live with the horrible dictatorships that the British left behind and kept supporting. But is this reason to scapegoat the Jews once more?
More recent commentary
The New Republic
19 May ’11
Economic Miracle
A Middle East peace strategy that could actually work.
The Jerusalem Post
15 Mar ’11
The government-tycoons-media triangle
Israel needs to slash its state budget by as much as possible if it wants a chance at fighting waste and corruption.
The Jerusalem Post
9 Mar ’11
Welfare and rebellion: The economic factor in the Arab uprisings
Too little attention has been paid to how Egypt’s socialist past and welfare-state present shaped the current rebellion.
The Jerusalem Post
7 Feb ’11
Is all quiet on the economic front?
The Herzliya Conference has become an important international event, but one central issue is absent: Israel’s debilitating economic concentration.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Jan ’11
Teaching an elephant to dance
It’s highly unlikely that government can ever learn to make long-term plans and execute them efficiently.
The Jerusalem Post
23 Dec ’10
Hellenization and Enlightenment: Post-Hanukka ruminations
How can one dare compare narrow-minded religion with the all-embracing faith of universality and equality that is socialism?
The Jerusalem Post
1 Dec ’10
Would Milton Friedman have approved?
Many of the social and economic troubles we are experiencing are due to the public’s lack of understanding of the need for economic literacy.
The Jerusalem Post
17 Oct ’10
Perverting public discourse
The PM’s courageous decision to tackle economic concentration was misrepresented by several of our media publications—owned of course by tycoons.
The Wall Street Journal
8 Oct ’10
Breaking Israel’s monopolies
Economic concentration hurts the country’s viability and the chances for peace.
The Jerusalem Post
4 Oct ’10
Israel’s progress undermined
A damaging ethos of ‘welfarism’ and distributive politics has come to dominate not only academia but our cultural, military and even our business elites.
The Jerusalem Post
19 Aug ’10
Unable to decide
The reformers must know the importance of the reform’s success both for Israel and for their careers, and what damage they will incur if it fails.
The Jerusalem Post
13 Jul ’10
Elana Kagan, terrorism and the law
Kagan’s admiration for Justice Aharon Barak’s philosophy may have revealed her own predilection for radical judicial activism.
The Jerusalem Post
30 May ’10
Yes, break them up
We must dismantle the oligarch-owned monopolies that impoverish the Israeli consumer and choke our economy.
The Wall Street Journal
18 May ’10
Land of silicon and money
The OECD’s invitation to Israel is a “seal of approval” but the country still needs more reforms.
The Jerusalem Post
10 Feb ’10
The surprise of it all
The world’s astonishment at Israel’s response to the Haiti disaster is insulting. What we saw there was Israel’s true face.
The Jerusalem Post
10 Jan ’10
Hi-tech prospects and pitfalls
Individual initiative and freedom are essential for creativity—in hi-tech as in all other spheres.
The Jerusalem Post
14 Oct ’09
A woman who knew her worth
As far as Rose Friedman was concerned, public kudos did not matter that much. She persisted in being a rose, no matter what.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Sep ’09
Movies in Nablus, dramas in Bethlehem
Lasting peace must grow from the bottom up, from an “economic peace process” that proves what advantages peace has to offer on a daily basis. It cannot come from signing peace agreements with radical and corrupt entities propped up by corrupting Western handouts.
The Jerusalem Post
15 Aug ’09
Israel’s ‘scrambled’ economic system
A courageous recent film has exposes the strong connection between Israeli oligarchs and bureaucrats. Unfortunately however the film’s simplistic pseudo-Marxist treatment is more misleading than revealing.
The Jerusalem Post
24 May ’09
The economy: look to the future
Netanyahu paid heavily to pass a budget in time; his “partners”’ bargaining tactics, bordering on blackmail, reflect poorly on our politics.
The Jerusalem Post
4 May ’09
Reform: prospects and pitfalls
Binyamin Netanyahu’s recent economic plan has great promise but faces obstacles—such as the media and the Histadrut—that may undermine its success.
The Jerusalem Post
11 Apr ’09
Big government? Yes, but there’s a reason
Is Binyamin Netanyahu’s government too big? Yes. So why would Netanyahu create such an unwieldy beast?
The Jerusalem Post
30 Mar ’09
To bail or not to bail
Should the government bail out those of our tycoons who cannot redeem NIS 100 billion worth of bonds?
The Wall Street Journal
12 Mar ’09
Mideast peace can start with economic growth
Billions of dollars in foreign aid to the Palestinians has resulted in war not peace. There’s a better way.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Feb ’09
Warning cries from Herzliya
The government is dysfunctional. The question is why—and how to mend it.
The Jerusalem Post
2 Feb ’09
A lesser economic evil
All government deficit spending is bad. But sometimes deficits are unavoidable. And some deficits are better then others.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Dec ’08
Spinners and cheaters
Why not exploit the crisis to destroy what little freedom Netanyahu’s reforms brought to the economy? Why care if the country will lose its only hope of deliverance from the economic retardation caused by our statist heritage?
The Jerusalem Post
3 Dec ’08
Precipitating the next collapse
Focusing on a putative pension crisis distracts our attention from the real serious crisis that a worldwide recession is bound to create here.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Oct ’08
The panic-mongers’ one-note chorus
The country, the pundits conclude, must return to the good old days of “social democracy.”
The Jerusalem Post
15 Jul ’08
The banks are bamboozling us again
In the name of stability the comptroller has ignored many of the banks’ offenses.
The Jerusalem Post
29 Apr ’08
An Irish-style banana republic
It must be either naiveté or cynicism that allows “Israel 2028” to recommend a reform that will make government a larger and a more efficient instrument for economic growth.
The New York Sun
29 Apr ’08
Israel still doesn’t get economy
Israel’s elites—especially the chattering classes in the press and the academy—are hostile to capitalism because our universities’ social sciences and liberal arts departments are dominated by post-modernist and neo-Marxist professors.
Ideas matter. Hostility to capitalism exacts a great price from the Israeli economy and from its hapless workers.
inFocus
2 Apr ’08
US charity to Israel reconsidered
Jewish institutional efforts must now undergo a period of reform and greater accountability. Some charitable efforts should be privatized. Individuals or groups of donors must take personal responsibility for specific projects, to ensure that funds are dispensed in a responsible and cost effective manner.
The Wall Street Journal
8 Mar ’08
Israel’s no-win strategy
Israeli politicians are preoccupied with political machinations designed to buy support from powerful interest groups by distributing government largesse. This causes not only the factionalization of politics and growing corruption, but consumes time and energy that leadership should use to address life and death issues.
The Jerusalem Post
20 Feb ’08
Dangerous infatuation
Government can no more control powerful economic forces than it can the rise and fall of tides. To effectively fulfill its nightwatchman role—to protect us from internal and external violence and to enforce contracts—government must be kept limited.
The Jerusalem Post
22 Jan ’08
What’s ‘public’ about their broadcasting?
Our “public channel,” funded by a compulsive tax, does not need to be pluralistic or even-handed.
Like other public institutions that lack well-defined ownership, Channel 1 has consequently been taken over by bureaucrats and by undemocratic workers’ unions.
The Jerusalem Post
21 Nov ’07
A year without Milton Friedman
This man did more good for humanity than any other.
The Jerusalem Post
17 Oct ’07
Getting beyond the teachers’ strike
As long as education remains a government monopoly, it is bound to function like all other government monopolies, where union bosses fill the vacuum that lack of defined ownership creates, and monopoly power allows them to blackmail the public.
The Jerusalem Post
19 Sep ’07
A healthy dose of skepticism
In the wake of the Second Lebanon War, there is hope that the phenomenal performance of the economy will finally make Israelis realize the crucial role it plays in their lives.
The Jerusalem Post
14 Aug ’07
How to grow Israeli hi-tech
At the recent Merage Foundation conference to help Israel’s hi-tech sector grow, calls were heard for more government “direction”. This despite sixty years of massive government intervention and “development efforts” that have led mostly to massive failures and waste.