I AM A JEW (PART XVI - A Return to a Defense of Israel’s Policies & a Rebuttal Continued)

As the title shows this is the 16th part (actually the 17^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on the parts.

Part I, Part II, Part III, Special Bulletin, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, Part X, Part XI, Part XII, Part XIII, Part XIV and Part XV.

This part of my dissertation picks up where I left off in discussing the article “Israel’s Borders."

I left off by thoroughly rebutting the assertion that "Israel having been an expansionist state since its establishment, is a myth," and showed that this is clearly not a myth, but rather, an established fact."

Now the next assertion in the article at hand, or as the author of that article likes to put it:

Myth: Judea and Samaria (also called "the West Bank") are part of Jordan.

This is hardly a myth. It is another straw man. Of course the West Bank is not part of Jordan!!!

On August 1, 1988, as reported in the New York Times: 

King Hussein of Jordan tonight abandoned to the Palestine Liberation Organization any claim to the Israeli-occupied West Bank

Now I begin to feel that the article is hardly worth further rebuttal. It is so full of deception and misinformation that it discredits itself, so I will address only one more assertion.

Myth: Israeli settlements in Judea/Samaria (the "West Bank") are illegal, an obstacle in peace. 

Fact: Contrary to what Arab propaganda suggests, Jordan was never sovereign in Judea/Samaria (the "West Bank"). Thus, the constantly repeated accusation of "Israeli occupation" is pointless. Numerous international legal authorities, among them Eugene Rostow, have shown conclusively that Israel's rights in Judea/Samaria (the "West Bank") are based on international law and are further affirmed by U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338. President Reagan concluded that Jewish settlements are not illegal and that "...all people — Moslems, Jews, and Christians — are entitled to live in the West Bank."

Here the so-called “facts” are so numerous and so intertwined that it is difficult to deal with them within a reasonable space. But to illustrate how wrong these assertions are, I need do no more than to quote from UN Resolution 242 which says the opposite of what the author claims.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 calls for, and I quote:

Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; 

and territories is defined by the following map:

The author here relies heavily on Eugene Rostow, not exactly an uninterested observer, but rather another polemicist on behalf of Israel’s expansionism. I will respond to his polemic in due course.

But in so far it is possible, the claims here made are dealt with in an article by David Ignatius writing in the Washington Post of June 4, 2009.

Part of his article are worth quoting because they set the record straight, instead of cherry picking it.

He writes:

President Ronald Reagan stopped the characterization of Israeli settlements as "illegal" when he took office in 1981, but he opposed the expansion of them.

Looking at what Reagan and other Presidents and Secretaries of State said we must look to the Foundation for Middle East Peace, that sets forth what the various Presidents, including Reagan, said, and it shows that Reagan was an outlier. But even the Reagan Administration speaking through its Secretary of State George Schultz in September of 1982 said:

". . . the question isn't whether they [settlements] are legal or illegal; the question is are they constructive in the effort to arrange a situation that may, in the end, be a peaceful one and be one in which the people of the region can live in a manner that they prefer.  [President Reagan's] answer to that is no, expansion of those settlements is not a constructive move." (Emphasis added)

Returning to the Ignatius article, we quote further:

Every administration since the 1967 war -- a total of nine -- has made essentially the same demand. Netanyahu, like previous Israeli leaders, has rejected it.

Ignatius goes on to write:

Year after year, decade after decade, American officials keep repeating U.S. opposition to the settlements -- and Israeli governments keep on building them. More than 120 settlements have been constructed over the past 42 years, and the Israeli population in the West Bank now totals 190,000 in the Jerusalem area and 289,000 elsewhere.

 For years, the official U.S. position was that the settlements were illegal under international law because they violated the Fourth Geneva Convention, on protection of civilians in time of war. That document, adopted in 1949, specifies: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." The application of this article to Israel was endorsed by the administrations of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

 An emphatic statement of the U.S. view that settlements were illegal came from George H.W. Bush in 1971, when he was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations: "We regret Israel's failure to acknowledge its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention as well as its actions which are contrary to the letter and spirit of this convention."

 Israel's position was that the West Bank was not "occupied" but rather "administered" territory whose pre-1967 status had been unclear under international law. Jordan had ruled the West Bank from 1949 until 1967, but most nations hadn't recognized its sovereignty. To complicate matters further, the Israeli Supreme Court has described the West Bank as "under belligerent occupation."

President Ronald Reagan stopped the characterization of Israeli settlements as "illegal" when he took office in 1981, but he opposed the expansion of them. That position has been maintained by subsequent administrations, which have termed the building of new settlements "an obstacle to peace" and said that the status of existing settlements should be resolved in peace negotiations. Israel has steadfastly refused interim attempts to curtail its settlements, including announcing a specific reservation to the 2003 "road map" for peace.

Before I close this part of my series allow me to expand upon what UN resolutions 242 and 338 actually say. For that I turn to the Reit Institute, a non-partisan non-profit strategy group based in Tel Aviv. 

I quote: 

The main articles of UN Security Council Resolution 242 (11/67) call for:

• Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 war.
• Termination of the state of belligerency.
• Mutual "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."
• Achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.

Resolution 338 (10/73) reiterates the importance of Resolution 242, and calls upon the sides to begin negotiations with the aim of achieving a just and durable peace.

I hardly think that these resolutions form the basis for Israeli settlement policy or give it any legitimacy. To make such a claim strains credulity.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete.