Jews building settlements in Judea and Samaria is legal

January 2, 2013
By Salomon Benzimra, author of the book: The Jewish People’s Rights to the Land of Israel (http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Peoples-Rights-Israel-ebook/dp/B0065WZM14)

First and foremost, the first five pages of the Levy Report (“Legal Argument”) clearly summarizes why Israel is not an occupying power in Judea and Samaria – and East Jerusalem – and, therefore, why the settlements are not illegal. You can find the English version of these 5 pages here:

The following are the points on which this claim rests:

1. The legality of the “settlements” cannot be dissociated from the notion of “occupation.” As long as Israel is viewed as an “occupying power,” not only the “settlements” can be construed as illegal but the whole of Israel becomes “occupied territory” since there is no difference between land acquired or repossessed – a better term would be “liberated” – in 1967 and 1948-49 respectively.

2. The Fourth Hague Regulation of 1907 defines “occupation” in Article 43: it presupposes that “the authority of the legitimate power …passed into the hands of the occupant.” The annexation of Judea & Samaria (renamed in 1950 “The West Bank’) by Jordan has never been recognized as “legitimate.”


3. The San Remo Resolution (April 1920) integrated the Balfour Declaration(November 1917) to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (June 1919) and resulted in the following:

3a: The provisions of the Balfour Declaration (i.e. the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine) became binding upon Britain, which the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers selected as the Mandatory Power in the land.

3b. The establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine was no longer a mere a British foreign policy decision, but became an act of international law.

3c. Pursuant to the San Remo Resolution, in July 1922, the Mandate for Palestine was confirmed, approved by the 52 members of the League of Nations and entered into force in September 1923.

3d. No “special rights” were conferred to the Jewish people. The Supreme Council recognized a pre-existing rightby calling for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine – and not the “creation” – it being clearly understood that it would turn, in time, into a sovereign Jewish State, pending on an expected Jewish population majority.

4. Following the Churchill White Paper – the official British policy for Palestine – of June 1922, Britain separated the Transjordan part of Palestine – the land east of the Jordan River – and made it an exclusively Arab land where no organized Jewish settlement was allowed, as per the inserted Article 25 of the Mandate. However, in “western Palestine” – from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea – all the provisions of the Jewish National Home were upheld, including the encouragement of Jewish settlement of all lands (as per Article 6).

5. When the League of Nations ceased to exist, in 1946, following the creation of its heir, the United Nations, the acquired rights of the Jewish people remained enshrined in the UN Charter (Article 80).

6. The UN General Assembly Resolution 181 recommended a further partition of the remaining “western Palestine” into a Jewish State and an ArabState. Had this recommendation been accepted by both parties, the terms of the Mandate would have been superseded. But that was not the case, due to the Arabs’ rejection of the Resolution. Besides, the recommendationformulated in UNGA Res. 181 violated the UN Charter (Article 80) and the terms of the Mandate, still in force in 1947, especially Article 5 which prohibited the cession of any territory of Palestine to a foreign power.

7. Since no agreement occurred in 1947 pertaining to a further partition of Palestine, and no other binding agreement has been entered into between Israel and the Arabs ever since, which might affect the Jewish sovereignty over western Palestine, the provisions of the Mandate still hold, and especially the title to the land, vested in the Jewish people and that includes Judea and Samaria.

8. Point #7 therefore refutes the notion of Israel being an “occupying power” in any part of western Palestine –From the River to the Sea – since one cannot occupy land on which it has legal title.

9. Because the State of Israel is not an “occupying power” in any part of western Palestine, it follows that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply.This is especially true for Article 49 which deals with transfer and deportation of populations to and from occupied territories, in addition to other legal aspects (the nature of the Contracting Parties, the non-forcible transfers, etc.), and the preposterous situation of ethnic cleansing, which the Arabs demand that would result in making Judea and Samaria judenrein.

Conclusion: The claim that it is illegal for Jews to build in Judea and Samaria and that Israel “occupies” the land is an utter lie, arises from deliberate ignorance, pandering to the Arab/Muslim world, anti-Semitism or all of the above combined.

Guest Comment:
Statement: International law, under which Judea and Samaria is part of the legal land of the state of Israel has become a political law and thus the world has come to believe that Israel has no claim to any land beyond the ‘Green Line’.

All the UN resolutions condemning Israel on the “settlements” are based on lies, totally ignoring international law that has become international political law.

It is just like admitting that the existence of the Palestinian Authority and its recent “promotion” in the UN is based on going AGAINST the UN charter, AGAINST the Montevideo Agreement on what determines a state to be, etc. It’s exactly the same.

The main problem is not the lack of pertinent international law, but rather the practical irrelevance of any such law in a world that still basks in ritualistic anti-Semitism. Europe, as the always-residual source of such hatred, will never support Israel, irrespective of authoritative international law. Hence, the core problem here is not jurisprudential, but geopolitical. This is a problem that must be solved by Israelis only.

In the meantime, Israel is NOT making its legal case for construction in Judea and Samaria and is not defending itself. As it stands now, if Israel continues to build beyond the ‘Green Line’, the European Union may even begin taking harsher punitive measures against it.  As long as the government of Israel does not promote the jurisprudence that the “settlements” in Judea and Samaria are legal, world pressure will continue and get even worse.

We need to push back! And we begin right here with the facts and truth. Every time we see anyone complaining about the illegality of the “settlements” in Judea and Samaria we send them the below explanation as our reply. The government of Israel needs to use this one page as well. Enough of the lies.

Below is a 9-point summary explaining why Jews building in Judea and Samaria is NOT illegal. One page with the facts that settlements in Judea and Samaria are NOT illegal to act as a tool to push back and defend Israel from the anti-Semites in Europe and beyond.

Nurit Greenger

Silence of the dhimmis: New Vicious Anti-israel Campaign in NY *Crickets Chirping*

October 18, 2012

When our “islamorealism” ads went up (in response to a vicious anti-Israel ad that was running), Mayor Mayor Peter Swiderski (mayor@hastingsgov.org) and the Board of Trustees sent a letter to the entire village asking residents to express their outrage  to Joseph Lhota, MTA chairman,concerning our islamorealism ad (below, the ad updated as the number of deadly Islamic attacks increased an additonal 500 acts of jihad since early September.)
Islamorealism ad updated
Another vicious anti-semitic campaing is now running on NYC Metro North (see below). Mayor Peter Swiderski, the Board of Trustees, and Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul Feiner (who actually protested our ad) have been silent (subdued as Islamic supremacists demand) in response to the new defamatory campaign. As has the media (remember the furor?)
Where is the media ad furor?
I sent the following email to Mayor Swiderski and the Board of Trustees (and cc’ed the NY Times and the NY Post) — still waiting for a request for comment:

Pamela Geller pamelageller@gmail.com
to peter, boardoftrustees, Jennifer, Matt,

Will you be protesting this Jewish blood libel (the second anti-Israel ad campaign at Metro) or is your moral indignation and outrage employed only on behalf of slaughtering  jihadists?

And just for knowing, this is a map of what the Jewish people were promised at San Remo (international law) and in the Balfour agreement. ‘

To measure the extent of American commitment to the National Home at the beginning, we may quote from the terminology of the time: “RES. 52: Expressing satisfaction at the re-creation of Palestine as the national home of the Jewish race” (House Committee on Foreign Affairs). “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…” (1922).

Israel is a fraction of what was originally agreed to and the enemies are working to shrink it until it disappears altogether. Here is the San Remo map of what Israel (“Palestine”) was supposed to be (more here):
Sanremo_palestine_1

Arab Riots and Jewish immigration – In the spring of 1920, spring of 1921 and summer of 1929, Arab nationalists opposed to the Balfour declaration, the mandate and the Jewish National Home, instigated riots and pogroms against Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, Jaffa and Haifa.

And so there are two states – Israel and Jordan.
Here is the new anti-Israel ad runing on NYC’s Metro North: 

At Metro-North Railway, New Map, More Distortions Snapshot blog

Henry Clifford, who earlier bankrolled distorted maps about Israel and the Palestine Mandate at Metro-North Railway stations in New York, this month has come up with a new one. Well, actually, he pulled it from the Web site of PASSIA:
Ad at Metro North - October 2012.jpg
The map on the left is a huge manipulation for multiple reasons. First, though its title refers to “Land ownership” and it shows pockets of “Jewish-owned land” in 1947, the equivalent Arab-owned land is not identified. Instead, in an apples-versus-oranges misleading comparison, the Jewish-owned land is juxtaposed against land designated for an Arab state according to the U.N. Partition Plan.
So why doesn’t Clifford show us the Arab-owned land? If he did, commuters would see that the amount of privately-owned Arab land was nearly equivalent to privately-owned Jewish land. As previously noted by CAMERA:

During the Mandate, the British carried out detailed land surveys, marking off who owned what, and according to figures in the British Survey of Palestine, published in 1946 and republished by the PLO-affiliated Institute for Palestine Studies, at least 65 percent of the country was state land, and probably much more than that. Jews owned 8.6 percent of the land and Arabs owned 28.6 percent. But the Arab total included Bedouin grazing land (8.4 percent) and waste land (13.4 percent), neither of which was legally ownable according to the prevailing Turkish and British land laws. Not counting Bedouin grazing land and waste land, Arab owned land totaled only 6.8 percent.

Second, Clifford’s map falsely designates Jerusalem as part of the land slated to go to an Arab state under the 1947 partition plan. In reality, as illustrated by the U.N. map below, the plan called for Jerusalem and its suburbs to become an international zone:
palestine_partition_map_1947.jpg
Moreover, under the partition plan, Jaffa was supposed to have been part of the Arab state, but Clifford’s ad wrongly indicates it was to be part of the Jewish state.
As for the Moshe Dayan quote, CAMERA called Clifford out several months ago for truncating the statement, cutting out Dayan’s assertion that Jews purchased much of the land: “In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages.”
But Clifford, the one man show called the Committee for Peace in Israel and Palestine, will not be deterred by the facts. Like the commuter rail, he barrels on full steam ahead, running over any facts along the way.

fascinating. the new map responds to the allegation that the land was mostly state owned and then assumes ownership based on illegal homes… then further ignores actual data concerning Arab property. It’s a fucking lie is what it is when they merely show Jewish housing.