Sunday, October 22nd | 2 Heshvan 5778

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
August 14, 2013 8:43 am

The Guardian’s Vilification of Settlers is Illogical and Immoral

avatar by Gidon Ben-zvi

Email a copy of "The Guardian’s Vilification of Settlers is Illogical and Immoral" to a friend

The Guardian newspaper's London offices. Photo: Derek Harper.

In an August 12 article the Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent Harriet Sherwood reported that, “In highly contentious moves heralding the renewal of Middle East peace talks this week, Israel…authorized 1,200 new homes to be built in settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.”

In response, Palestinian leaders warned that continued settlement expansion could scuttle peace talks.

Evidently, if not for Israeli communities on the ‘wrong’ side of the 1949 armistice lines, peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors would have broken out decades ago. And if large swaths of the “international community” evidently deem the territories seized by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War as illegally occupied, then it must be true.

It is easy to see why such a consensus has coalesced around the perceived relationship between the Jewish State and the West Bank. When you google the term ‘settlement’, pages upon pages of news items, essays, studies and screeds  – nearly all of them equating the Jewish civilian communities built on lands captured by Israel during the Six-Day War with illegal occupation – proliferate.

Related coverage

October 22, 2017 1:22 pm
0

Israeli Government Cultivates Allies at First Christian Media Summit

JNS.org - Recognizing that it's easier to communicate with journalists who are prone to be supporters of Israel than those with a perceived anti-Israel bias, the Israeli...

In her report, Sherwood asserts that, “all settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal under international law.” However, the term “occupied” In relation to Israel’s control of these areas has little basis in international law or history.

petition by 1,000 international jurists arguing that Israel’s West Bank settlements are in fact legal, recently sent to EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton, made the following points:

  • The long-held view of the EU as to the illegality of Israel’s settlements is a misreading of the relevant provisions of international law, and specifically Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is neither relevant to the unique circumstances of Israel’s status in the area, nor was it ever applicable, or intended to apply to Israel’s circumstances in Judea and Samaria.
  • The EU together with other international bodies has consistently ignored authoritative sources, including the 1958 official commentary by International Committee of the Red Cross, as well as the published opinions of prominent international jurists, all of which explain the provenance of Article 49 in the need to address deportations, forced migration, evacuation, displacement, and expulsion of over 40 million people by the Nazis during the Second World War. This has no relevance to Israel’s settlements in Judea and Samaria.
  • The EU totally ignores the very agreement to which it is signatory as witness, the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, in which it was agreed by the parties, pending a permanent status agreement, to exercise powers and authority in the areas under their respective control. Such powers include planning, zoning and construction. The issues of settlements and Jerusalem, as agreed upon between the parties, are negotiating issues, and hence, determinations by the EU undermine the negotiating process and run against the EU’s status as signatory.
  • The legality of Israel’s presence in the area stems from the historic, indigenous and legal rights of the Jewish people to settle in the area, as granted in valid and binding international legal instruments recognized and accepted by the international community. These rights cannot be denied or placed in question. This includes the 1922 San Remo Declaration unanimously adopted by the League of Nations, affirming the establishment of a national home for the Jewish People in the historical area of the Land of Israel (including the areas of Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem) as well as close Jewish settlement throughout. This was subsequently affirmed internationally in the League of Nations Mandate Instrument, and accorded continued validity, up to the present day, by Article 80 of the UN Charter which reaffirmed the validity of the rights granted to all states or peoples, or already existing international instruments (including those adopted by the League of Nations).
  • The inference regarding Israel’s borders as recognized by the EU is no less misguided and historically and legally wrong. The pre-1967 Armistice lines (so-called “green” line) were never considered to be borders. UN Security Council resolution 242 (1967), endorsed by the European members of the Council, called for “secure and recognized boundaries” to replace the pre-1967 Armistice lines. The European leaders further endorsed this principle in their 1980 Venice Declaration. By its persistence in referring to the pre-1967 lines, the EU is undermining future negotiation on this issue by pre-determining its outcome.
  • In a similar vein, the repeated use by the EU of the term “occupied Arab” or “Palestinian territories” to refer to the area of Judea and Samaria, has no basis in law or fact. The area has never been determined as such, and thus the continued EU usage of the term runs against the very concept of negotiations to resolve the dispute regarding these areas, supported by the EU, to determine their permanent status.

And, leaving aside the legal basis for the settlements for a moment, while the geopolitical situation between Israel and the Palestinians is undeniably tense, it is also remarkably ordinary when perceived through a wider, global lens – especially when you glance at the long list of disputed territories around the world which has somehow eluded the attention of the ‘international community’.

Furthermore, the actual area inside the West Bank that’s being bickered over is much smaller than popularly understood. Built-up Jewish settlements account for a tiny fraction of the disputed territories. An estimated 70 percent of the settlers live in what are in effect suburbs of major Israeli cities such as Jerusalem. These are areas that virtually the entire Jewish population believes Israel must retain to ensure its security.

Probably the only net benefit to be reaped from the Oslo Accords is that their failure clarified what the true obstacle to peace between Israel and the Palestinians is and has always been. It is not the territories, nor the settlements, nor the settlers – but the very existence of Israel.  Recent history confirms this Arab intransigence: from 1949-67, when Jews were forbidden to live in the West Bank and “East” Jerusalem, the Arabs nonetheless refused to make peace with the “Zionist Entity”.

If it is not the settlements, then what is the true reason for this 45-year-old stalemate? While there are no easy answers, allowing the Jewish population in the territories to grow could arguably even serve as a catalyst for negotiations since the Palestinians would quickly realize that time is on the side of an Israel that is building settlements and creating facts on the ground.

Realizing this, Israel’s peace partners may finally acknowledge that the only way out of its dilemma is face-to-face negotiationswithout preconditions such as the demand (met by Israel) to release Palestinian prisoners convicted of murder, attempted murder, or being an accessory to murder – many of whom identify with terrorist movements which reject peace with the Jewish state under any terms.

Ultimately, the disposition of settlements is a matter for final status negotiations. While one may legitimately support or challenge Israeli settlements in the disputed territories, they are not illegal, and demonizing Jews who live in communities across the green line is certainly not moral and does not help the peace process.

Harriet Sherwood’s ‘obstacles to peace’ have neither the size, population, nor placement to have a serious impact on sincere efforts to reach a comprehensive agreement on all issues related to the disputed territories.

Gidon Ben-Zvi is a Jerusalem-based writer who regularly contributes to Times of Israel and the Algemeiner.

This article was originally published by CIF Watch.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Wallace brand

    My view was one of the thousand sent by Alan Baker to Catherine Rushton. Sherwood is wrong.

  • Wallace brand

    Sherwood is mistaken.

  • Wallace brand

    Sherwood is mistaken. World Jewry owns the political rights to Palestine west of the Jordan River as decided by the Principal Allied War Powers in 1920 at San Remo when they reconvened after the 1919 Paris Peace talks where Arab and Jewish claims
    were made. The WWI Allies decided in favor of the Jews by adopting the Balfour policy word for word. Brand, Roots of Israel’s Sovereignty and Boundaries in International Law: In Defense of the Levy Report. http://Www.think-Israel.org/brand.allegedoccupation.html

    • Wallace Edward Brand, JD Harvard, 1957

      Update to 2014

      SSRN.com/abstract=2385304 SSRN.com/abstract=2404738

  • Peace talks between Israel and her Palestinian rivals have begun but is this yet another Trojan Horse?

    http://thebilateralist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/peace-in-our-time.html

  • Sandy Brown

    What else would you expect from the Guardian. It is a left wing newspaper.

  • LARRY D NACHMAN

    There are two separate questions.
    1. What will be the future borders of Israel?
    2. Are there places where Jews should be prohibited from living? Not so long ago there were Europeans who believed that one place where Jews should not be permitted to live is the Earth. Now there are Europeans who say that it is against international law for Jews to live in East Jerusalem. What principle of international law is that? Are there similar prohibitions on where Christians and Muslims may or may not live?
    I would like to see a list that would be comprehensive, indicating all those places where Jews are not permitted to live. That is to say, what parts of the world should be, to revive an old term, ?

    • LARRY D NACHMAN

      the last word was omitted.
      It should read: to revive an old term, Judenrein

  • Debbie Efron

    Are you really so ignorant of the history of ‘civilized norms’? Off the hat, do you know what the white man did to the Indians in North America? What is Britain still doing in Gibraltar and the Faulklands? Oh, I get it, Hitler never happened – Germany is far too ‘civilized’ as were his cronies!
    Go learn some history before you spew blind hatred. As the saying goes “There’s none so blind as those who will not see”!

  • mika

    Who cares about the Guardian? Leave it to die already. All these propaganda outlets are one short breath away from death. Stop giving them oxygen by reading and responding to the propaganda trolls that they publish.

  • All the hasbara and pilpul in the world can’t obscure the fact that Israel is essentially a criminal enterprise – one that violates all of the civilized norms so painfully established over millennia. It is not only the settlements across the line that spit in the face of humanity’s yearning for peace, justice and simple human decency.

    Nature has a way of restoring equilibrium. If I were an Israeli, I would get out before the proverbial sh.. hits the fan.

    • Jacobite

      It’s interesting that you refer to the civilised norms of countries other than Israel, one supposes your referring to the Palistinians, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Iran to name a few, and religious groups and fanatical splinter groups that use children to kill and terrorise as the norm aspired to over millenior.
      I think should you ever traced the facts of history over the last two thousand years, you will find that removed from the oppostate counterfeit religions that grandstand centre stage of this age we live, out of Israel came a message that has profoundly changed human thinking and the effect is that mankind has acted in a more civilised manner, that message to the Gentiles came from Jesus Christ. (the son of G-D).
      Part of his message to the Gentiles was that in the Latter Days of the Gentile Kingdoms Israel would be gathered back from the four corners of the globe and settled back into the land they once owned Israel, today they are living in the midst of the land when comparing the borders of ancient Israel, just as recorded. If you like it or not Fact.
      Now a little more of what is said to happen in the Latter Day account.
      Israel will again be visited by a confederate army which will meet its end on the mountains of Jehoshaphat, disputed land of the West Bank. So I recommend you open your eyes and do a lot more research into this subject, because the outcome may not quite be what you are hoping for.

    • I Grubnik

      I believe it already has, and its name is Roger Tucker

    • Otto Schiff

      This comment does not the problem as it is illustrated in
      the article. It is just a mean spirited comment.

    • Hi Roger. Thank you for reading and replying to my piece. The language you use indicates that you may be having some difficulty in distinguishing between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism.

      As such, I suggest that you test your views of Israel in the following manner:

      Are you demonizing Israel? When Israel’s actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz – this is anti-Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

      Are you applying a double standard to Israel? When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel’s Magen David Adom, alone among the world’s ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross – this is anti-Semitism.

      Are you delegitimizing Israel’s right to exist?: when Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied – alone among all peoples in the world – this too is anti-Semitism.

Algemeiner.com