It always irks me anytime I hear this silly chant that Israel violates international law by building in Judea Samaria. Its an allegation and perhaps the one chanted most in the UN and the media houses all over the globe and on which basis sanctions, divestment and boycott are being urged against Israel. The press will point at the settlements and scream, violation of international law! Ethnic cleansing! Changing realities on the ground so as to steal more lands! Etc. When they are pressed on the issue, the classical answer is that most nations and UN saw the settlements as illegal. As they are pressed more, they refer to UNSC resolution 242, ICJ 2004 Advisory opinion and Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Legality or illegality of claims should be based on relevant provisions in laws; international or national. It will be really interesting to look at how Israel is violating that international law by building settlements in Judea-Samaria and Gaza. In the April of 1920, the then powers comprising of Britain, France, Belgium, etc who took over the Ottoman Empire from the Turks held a conference in San Remo Italy and created the Middle East states. In pursuant to agreements reached earlier by concerned parties like the 1899 Sheikh Mubarrak Al-Sabah of Kuwait treaty with UK, Sheikh Abdullah bin Jassim Al Thani of Qatar’s 1916 treaty with Britain, the treaty of Sevres concerning Iraq, British Lord Balfour Declaration, Chaim Weizmann-Emir Faisal 1919 agreements, etc, they resolved to create all those states. Lebanon, Syria, North African Arab states, Kuwait, Qatar and all the other 21 Arab states were created for the Arab people and their self determination. The then Palestine areas comprising of the present Israel including some parts of Jordan was earmarked for the Jewish people’s state and self determination just as it was done for the Arabs. Most of these states after that was left as a mandate and trusteeship for the colonial power to run till those people achieve independence. The areas of then Palestine was mandated to the British to ensure that the Jews achieve their own self determination as was specified in the preamble and article 2, then article 5 of that mandate document specified that no other country should be given any part of that land except the Jews and article 6 stated that they are to settle in all the lands including state lands, etc. This document then had a clause in article 25 which stipulated that local conditions might require the mandatatory ie Britain, to postpone or withhold Jewish settlement and the rights they have to not be applicable to the eastern parts of the Jordan River of then Palestine. This the British did in 1922 when they took about 75% of the whole Jewish mandated areas and created another country called Trans-Jordan for the Arabs leaving the remaining ones for the Jews. All these were recognized as newly created states and made part of international law. In 1923, they were all ratified and legalized by the League of Nations in a unanimous decision getting it enshrined into international law. The memorandum of Trans-Jordan creation excluded the areas east of the Jordan River from being owned by the Jews. In 1925, the Permanent Court of International Justice and International Court of Arbitration established by the League of Nations handed down rulings during the dispute of whether Britain will pay Ottoman debts which determined that both a Jewish state and an Arab state in the then mandatory regions of Palestine and Trans-Jordan were newly created successor states of the Ottoman Empire as defined by international law. Just as the British and League of Nations did this did they also ratify through international treaties and agreements the creation of countries like Nigeria in 1914, India, Pakistan, Kenya, Ghana and all other countries created through colonial authorities as part of international law. All these countries including then Palestine were then ran by the colonial powers before they all started getting independent one after the other. After the dissolution of the League of Nations and the formation of UN, they passed the article 80 of its charter which preserved intact and completely the rights of the Jewish people as per obtained under the Palestine mandate which under its article 6 stated that “the administration of Palestine while ensuring that the rights of minorities (civil and religious as specified in the preamble and article 2 of the mandate document) are not prejudiced shall facilitate Jewish immigration and also close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands not required for public use”. Within this land just as was determined for the Arabs in other places, the Jews are to effect their own self determination. The article 80 of UN is part of international law and this means that even UN has no right under international law to create any other country there for any other group of people or entity except Jews. This gives the Jewish people a double legality and right to those areas under international law. At the end of the mandate years for these countries, they all started getting independent. Syria got its own in 1946 from the French. In 1947, Italy relinquished its claims to Libya and it got independence in 1951. Qatar got its own in 1971 from Britain. Trans-Jordan got its own in 1946 from Britain. Iraq got independent in 1932. Lebanon got its own in 1943 while Kuwait became independent in 1961. In 1948, Palestine got its own independent from Britain. Though throughout these mandate years, internal strife had been rife both within the population of those countries themselves or against the colonizers but these countries later get independent. Just as Libya changed its name from Italian North Africa to kingdom of Libya, just as Trans-Jordan changed its name to Jordan on independence, just as Iraq change it s name from British Mandate of Mesopotamia to kingdom of Iraq on independence, just as Ethiopia changed its name from Abyssinia to Ethiopia, just as Poland changed Silesia/Breslau to Poland Wroclau, Burma to Myammar, Rhodesia to Zimbabwe also did the Jews change the name of their own country from Palestine to Israel; hacking back to their once missed nation they established which flourished there thousands of years ago. After their independence, the eastern parts of their country comprising Judea-Samaria was attacked and occupied by Jordan expelling the Jewish population there. Gaza which is in the western coastal areas was attacked and occupied by Egypt. In 1967, Israel liberated Judea-Samaria and Gaza and then occupied Egyptian Sinai, some parts of Syria and Some parts of Lebanon during their 6 days war with the neighbouring Arab countries. Israelis then started resettling in Gaza and Judea-Samaria which is theirs under international law. Egypt later renounced all claims to Gaza after its liberation in its 1979 peace treaty with Israel. Jordan in the same vein renounced all claims to Judea-Samaria in 1994 agreements with Israel. These are all parts of international law. Now, in 1967 UNSC passed resolution 242 in the aftermaths of the Israeli-Arab war in which Israel liberated its territories and occupied some of the Arabs. In that resolution passed under chapter 6 which in itself is non-binding unless accepted by all the parties concerned, it stated that “Israel’s armed forces should withdraw from territories occupied in the recent conflict and also for the termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”. The states then concerned accepted it ie Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan. Syria accepted it conditionally and later in 1973 accepted that of 338 formally which embraced that of 242 and which called for a negotiable settlement of the conflict and the terms of Israel withdrawal from those areas it occupied though Egypt broke that of its earlier accepted 242 in 1973 by attacking Israel. Israel also did accept that of 242 in 1968 based on “its willing to seek agreements with each Arab STATE on all matters included in that resolution”. Based on those resolutions and in accord with international law, it negotiated with Egypt and withdrew from the Sinai it occupied. It negotiated with Jordan and signed peace agreement with it. It also withdrew from southern Lebanon areas it occupied after their negotiation. Syria is still technically at war with Israel and has yet to reach an agreement or treaty with it. So long as withdrawing from occupied and not liberated territories is concerned in that resolution, Israel has kept its part under international law. Judea-Samaria and Gaza are bona-fide Israeli territories and not in any way occupied except the ones done by Jordan and Egypt. Now, those that peddle this occupation allegation quote the Hague Regulation of 1907 which says that a territory is considered to be occupied when placed under the authority of the hostile army and they say that as long as the state whose army controlled the territory wasn’t the rightful sovereign prior to the conflict breakout, then its an occupation. They also point at article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva convention which prohibits states from transferring its own civilian population to the territory it occupies and say that the Israeli settlements in Judea-Samaria contravenes that and that the international humanitarian law prohibits the occupying power from altering the intrinsic characteristics of the occupied territory Now, Israeli military administration in Judea-Samaria is not a hostile force or army. Its rather Israel’s own internal decision on how to govern a part of their country. If that is not the case, then all the military administrated areas and states in the world should be called occupation. Nigeria should’ve been called an occupation from 1966 to 1998 since we had military administration after the civil war and the military administrations that governed some parts of the country during periods of state of emergency should be called occupation. Ghana should’ve been called occupation after Jerry Rawlings coup and military government. Myammar, Sri Lanka, Cuba, Egypt, Libya, Iraq and any other country who had at one time or the other practiced military administration in one part or all its territory should’ve been termed occupation. Second, if countries can be denied their legally owned lands because that part was occupied at a time by another hostile country, then the claim of issue of Israel exercising sovereign authority before outbreak of hostilities in 1967 will then make sense. Since the above is not obtained because recourse is always given to legal rights to the land of those occupied, it cannot apply here. Israel from 1920 to 1967 before it extends complete sovereignty over all its lands had legal right of ownership to its lands in Judea-Samaria and Gaza under international law. Just as Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Kenya, Syria, Iraq, Zimbabwe, etc still were the country they were with all the sovereign rights as a country during the colonial rule before independence was Israel with its own sovereignty over its lands both in Judea-Samaria and Gaza during the years of British colonial rule before 1948. Just as Poland, France, Libya, China, Philippines, etc were occupied by Germany and Japan and later liberated at the end of the wars was also Israel’s Judea-Samaria and Gaza occupied by Jordan and Egypt were liberated in 1967. just as those countries lost sovereignty over their lands and later got it back because it is theirs and they have the legal right under international law did Israel also lost sovereignty over its own Judea-Samaria and Gaza but later got it back in 1967 because it also has its own legal rights as its property under international law. Article 49(6) of the Geneva convention cannot apply to Israel’s settlements presence in Judea-Samaria because the areas are not occupied and just as it will be ridiculous to tell USA, Britain, Egypt, Ireland, Turkey, etc what part of their country to develop, build on or encourage people to live in will it also be ridiculous to dictate to Israel how it should develop its own legally owned lands in Judea-Samaria under international law. The ICJ 2004 statement was not a legally binding ruling unlike the one its predecessor passed in 1925. It was more of a political statement they rendered because of the question posed to it by UNGA which already stated that Israel is an occupying power. Under international law, Palestine as a country does not exist in the present Israeli lands. It might be existing somewhere but not in Judea-Samaria. Israel is not occupying any people or entity called Palestine’s lands under international law. Rather, what is obtained there is an internal Israeli problem with Arabs living in its lands of Judea-Samaria. The issue with “Palestine” or “Palestinians” are entirely within the jurisdiction of Israel as a country to handle by itself. It can come out with its own ideas on how to solve the problem and can decide to get those resident Arabs to go back to their originally created country in Jordan or elsewhere just as Jews were sent back to Israel from the Arab lands prior to and after 1948. Its their own decision to make on how to solve the issue. Just as Spain had the Catalans and Basque agitation, just as Nigeria has the Biafra issue (which is even stronger because they established a country with its sovereignty for 3 years), the UK have IRA, Egypt have the Coptic and Nubian agitation, Mali has Azawad separatists, Portugal has the Madeira, the Turks have the Kurdish problem, Ukraine and its Crimeans and even England has the Cornwall separatist group did Israel have a group of people calling themselves “Palestinians” and trying to take away parts of Israel’s territories. Just as international law is not against those countries mentioned above from developing their lands in those areas of trouble is it also not against Israel building in its own Judea-Samaria. Just as nobody screams at those countries and chant occupation! Occupation! at them should they also not scream at Israel. It’s unfortunate that as the issue here has to do with Israel and Jews, all things are accepted and they can be demonized and delegitimized. This chant of occupation! Occupation! have not being ferociously showered on countries that practice real occupation but Israel will be targeted. Nobody screams at Turkey for their occupation of Northern Cyprus. This kind of scream hasn’t been directed at India or Pakistan in Kashmir nor the Russian occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Chinese occupation of Tibet isn’t meriting Al-Jazeera peep but Israel which in all ramifications isn’t and hasn’t been occupying any one’s land in all legal and historical ramifications gets to be labelled occupiers and violating international law by developing its own lands. The EU, UN, the press and their ilk should do well to leave Israel alone and stop their anti-Semitic renamed anti-Zionism practices. What Jews have done to you people still baffles me.
Posted on: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 17:09:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015