West Bank of what?
David Ha’ivri
Published: 23.03.12, 14:39
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
98 Talkbacks for this article
31. To: No. 28
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (03.23.12)
1. Israel is not a "belligerent occupier." Israel was attacked by Jordan in 1967. Too bad for Jordan. 2. The ersatz "Palestinians" are NOT stateless. They are Jordanian citizens. We have every intention of repatriating them. Where was the World Court and every country in the world when one million Jews were expelled from their homes in Arab and Moslem lands with little more than the clothes on their backs? Where was the World Court and every country in the world when three million Italians were expelled by Yugoslavia?: Where was the World Court and every country in the world when nearly eight million Germans who had lived in Poland and Czechoslovakia for generations were expelled following World War II? 3. The Geneva Convention does NOT apply, because Judea and Samaria are non-sovereign. 4. Educate yourself here: http://zionism-israel.com/issues/are_settlements_legal.html 5. It's okay. I hate mealy-mouthed self-hating Jews, so I guess we can agree to despise one another.
32. Response to#23
John R ,   NYC USA   (03.23.12)
Since 1928, the Kellogg Briand pact ( and reinforced by art 2 of the UN Charter and international common law) you cannot gain land by war. When Jordan did in 1950 by annexing the West Bank, that was illegal. You are absolutely correct that when Israel annexed the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem it was also illegal. I am not justifying Israel's behavior but by the same token, I cannot justify Jordan's either.
33. #28 learn to read
Gee ,   Zikron Yaakov   (03.23.12)
The Geneva Convention states that it does not govern disputed territory so your entire argument is without any foundation. And you continue to misquote what the Israeli Supreme Court stated, not that it matters because they too do not judge international laws. Something you have never figured out. Yes the land belongs to us and us alone because the Arabs have no other claim than that of 'I want it' which is no legal basis.
34. #23 No one is buying that Palestinians get Israel too
Sam ,   Canada   (03.23.12)
Palestinians can't BS the large majority of Jews. We know the intent of Palestinians is not just the West Bank. It's just the first step for Palestinians. Palestinians want all of the West Bank and Israel too. You will get nothing but many more Jewish settlers with that attitude.
35. To nr 1 - Gregg, are you really Jewish?
Alexander ,   Tel Aviv, Israel   (03.23.12)
Without history there is no present time. What happens and exists in the present time is due to history - the past. No nation exists in a historical vacuum and no nation ends up in this world out of nowhere. All nations have an origin. The legitimacy of Israel is based on its 4000 years of history in this land. The Bible is not "a" book but MANY books in one volume, written by many authors over a period of many centuries. The Bible does contain religious stories - most likely legends without any historical validity but the Bible contains much history as well. The telling and writing of history in ancient times were often mixed with legends and this is true not only to Israel but to all ancient civilizations. If the Bible is all together jiggery-pokery and "magic" and "fairytales" how do you explain that geographical places mentioned in the Bible such as Israel, Jerusalem, Beer Sheva, Yafo, Hevron, Schechem, Jericho, Nasareth, Betlehem, Jordan River, the Dead Sea, Golan Heights and even Israel's ancient neighbors - Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Canaanites, Edomites, Philisteenes, Hittites, Persians are ALL mentioned in the Bible? And how come ALL these nations speak of ancient Israel, ancient Judah and the ancient Jewish people? How come they validate much of the history of the Bible that you love to hate so much? If you are not Jewish - what are you doing in my country? If you are Jewish - how can you hate your country so much? What has Israel ever done to you? If you are Jewish how on earth do you explain your own origins without validating your own history?
36. Excellent article!!!
Ben ,   Sweden   (03.23.12)
37. Let's recall the history books and correct them
Sami ,   Mt. Olives   (03.24.12)
38. Response to#33
John R ,   NYC USA   (03.24.12)
In Julius Stones book he stated earlier rulings by the Israeli Supreme Court did in fact label Israel "as if' it were a belligerent occupier. That changed , which he termed cowardly by the Court, and what I quoted for the 2005 rulings is accurate. The Court stated that Israel is a "belligerent occupier" ( no" as if") in 2 rulings in 2005 and that is confirmed by Nicholas Rostow, Eugene Rostow's son. You of course never read the rulings( I did) although you implied you did in a prior talkback. As for the Geneva Convention, it is irrelevant who owns the land because the Convention applies to Palestinians under Article 4 as "protected persons". As "protected persons" Article 6 of the Conventions lists those Articles which shelter them and Article 49 is one of them. (that is the one that makes your settlements illegal) In the 2004 ICJ ruling on the security wall, not only do 15 of 15 judges, (including the US judge who was a former concentration camp victim) say the Convention applies. The Court also quotes the Israeli Supreme Court in a 2004 ruling they issued on the town of Rafah in which they said the Convention applied in the occupied territories. Hence the World Court unanimously, your own Israeli Supreme Court. a literal reading made by Eugene Rostow's son in an article on the settlements and 9 UNSC resolutions all say the Convention applies. Fortunately,Gee the village idiot, says it doesn't apply. I guess the rest of the world must be wrong.
39. #32 but our claim is based on international law
Gee ,   Zikron Yaakov   (03.24.12)
The San Remo Treaty of 1920 and the Mandate for Palestine, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations - both predate the Kellog Briand Pact and are not gained by war. They were assigned to us by international law. The 'Palestinians' claim is solely based on war - the Jordanians stole it and now they want it. Where is their claim? Come on you keep saying ours is illegal when it's not and the Arabs is non-existent.
40. to no.23
Karin ,   Israel   (03.24.12)
First - you say nobody recognize the west bank is not occupied - you're wrong, according to the UN this area defined as disputed area and not occupied one. Secondly - you had your chance you know...this land was offered to you in 1947, 2000 and 2008 - your leaders rejected all of those suggestions. so what do you want?
41. Rewriting and rewriting history
buba ,   Ny   (03.24.12)
Poor israles, they are trying so hard to prove something that can not be proven. They just do not get it, the world know about. Palestine and the history so stop it already.
42. Response to#39
John R ,   NYC USA   (03.24.12)
The San Remo Resolution(not treaty and Article 22) establish an international obligation to form a Jewish state "IN' the Mandate. It is not a governing document and establishes no borders for that state. That is confirmed by an assessment by the Council on Foreign Relations. In 1948 that state was formed based on an agreement between the Jewish Agency referenced in the Mandate and the UN. The byproduct of that agreement was recognition by 33 countries. Without it, Israel would have never been legally formed. A letter from Israel to President Harry Truman acknowledged their statehood declaration based on frontiers established by the UN resolution (181). That you gained land by war outside those borders is not in dispute with either your own Supreme Court or the World Court. You can rewrite history but you cannot rewrite the law.
43. west bank
desertson ,   london uk   (03.24.12)
Isn't it because it's on the west bank of a river?
44. 35
Gregg is not Jewish & is gay. Not a content person either.
45. Questions for John R and the magical year of 1928
Alexander ,   Tel Aviv, Israel   (03.24.12)
How do you explain that countries' borders have de facto changed as a result of war - both by wars of aggression, wars of self defense and civil wars - and all these examples took place de facto after 1928? Israel, the Balkans, Finland, Pakistan-India, Cyprus vs Turkey, South Yemen vs North Yemen, South Vietnam vs North Vietnam, North Sudan vs South Sudan etc. And these changed borders were not as a result of voluntary treaties but enforced treaties by the victors. You have some explaining to do.
46. #42 try continuing that thought
Gee ,   Zikron Yaakov   (03.24.12)
Yes the San Remo Treaty did not establish the borders, but did order that they be done. And guess what they were by the December 1920 Franco-British Boundary Convention, which was accepted by the League of Nations. And that included ALL of Jordan, Israel, Gaza, Judea and Samaria. Go ahead and attempt to dispute that. Cherry picking treaties doesn't work, the information is out there and you refuse to read it. Where is the Arab claim(s)? You nitpick to death our claims yet have never and I do mean never produced a single basis for the Arabs to claim that territory. Why? The Israeli Supreme is not an authority on international law and has never stated any opinion on the legality of it. They have stated that we must ACT AS IF it were occupied, not that it was, your pathetic claims are not facts. As for the apartheid World Court. We are barred from membership of that political body that is mainly made up of racists without any knowledge of international laws. We refuse to submit anything to them because of the prejudice that they have consistently expressed. We did not gain anything from war - the treaties state that it is our land, it's the Arabs that are demanding land that they attempted to gain from war. Where is(are) their claim(s)? When are you going to answer that question? Why do you ignore it? You are the one that is attempting to rewrite international law, not us.
47. #45 adding to your list
Gee ,   Zikron Yaakov   (03.24.12)
The Chinese occupation of Tibet. All of the border changes at the end of the 2nd World War - Germany, Poland, USSR, Bulgarian, etc. etc. etc. Creation of East Timor. Most of Africa every couple of years. Only about half the world's borders have changed as a result of many wars, but somehow we are the exception to the rule.
48. A proposal
Istvan ,   BUDAPEST HUNGARY   (03.24.12)
I suggest again to name this arab populated area OLIVIA, the land of oil trees. This make a difference from Jordan and Gaza as well.
49. To nr 41 - Israel has existed for 4000 years
Alexander ,   Tel Aviv, Israel   (03.24.12)
and Israel and the Jews are one of the oldest living civilizations on earth. We Jews are the natives and ancient, original and historical population of Israel - including Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The Latin, Greek and Russian alphabets come from the Hebrew alphabet. Christianity and Islam come from Judaism. Many ancient civilizations among them the ancient Jews/Israelites themselves and Canaanites, Phoenicians, Philisteenes, Edomites, Egyptians, Hittites, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, the Byzantine Empire and the Arabs ALL speak of Jews and Israel but NONE of them speak of any "Palestinian" state or people. Why?
50. Questions for John
Alexander ,   Tel Aviv, Israel   (03.24.12)
Several questions to John R. 1) Why is "Palestine" a Roman/Latin name? 2) Why is there no letter "p" in Arabic? 3) Nationalism is alien to Arabs who have, for 1400 years, lived as nomads and Beduins in multi-ethnic and multi-racial "Arab" empires whose majority population - locals, subjects, soldiers, mercenaries, scientists, mathematicians, physicians and merchants, were no ethnic Arabs, merely Arab speaking Persians, Kurds, Turks, Jews, Berbers and Africans. Why is that? 4) There is no "Palestine" in the Bible or the Koran. Why? 5) The Bible and the Koran BOTH admit that Israel is the Jewish homeland. How come? 6) Jewish/Israelite history started 2000 B.C.E in Israel - 4000 years ago. Arab history of the original Arabians, started in the 7th century C.E. 1400 years ago, in the southwestern corner of the Arabian peninsula, hundreds of kilometers away from Israel, 2600 years AFTER the start of Jewish civilization. How can Arabs be the "natives" of Israel? 7) Most Arabs arrived in Israel as recently as the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. How is that ancient history and how does that make "Palestinians" the "natives"? 8) When and where exactly did a "Palestinian" state, republic, nation state, kingdom, city state, duchy, principality or empire exist in recorded history, what are the names of kings and dynasties, cities, towns, villages and currency and why is there not a single ancient civilization mentioning anywhere any "Palestinian" state, civilization, nation or people?
51. To John R - facts about ICJ. ICJ deals with states.
Alexander ,   Tel Aviv, Israel   (03.24.12)
The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council from a list of persons nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. So 15 judges represent 7 billion people? The UN General Assembly elects these judges. And we all know who sits in the UN General Assembly - countries like Iran, Turkey, 22 Arab states, China, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, Cuba, Sudan and other enlightened countries. The election of the judges is political and the judges, despite their legal profession, are biased and prejudiced against Israel. Furthermore: In contentious cases (adversarial proceedings seeking to settle a dispute), the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court. Only states may be parties in contentious cases. Accordingly, ICJ only applies to states. "Palestine" is no state. ICJ can only produce a binding ruling if STATES AGREE to submit to the ruling of the court. Furthermore: Article 94 establishes the duty of all UN members to comply with decisions of the Court involving them. If parties do not comply, the issue may be taken before the Security Council for enforcement action. There are obvious problems with such a method of enforcement. If the judgment is against one of the permanent five members of the Security Council or its allies, any resolution on enforcement would then be vetoed. Since I've described to you that the UN is deeply flawed, wouldn't also the very judges who judge Israel be flawed themselves since they are elected by theocracies, military juntas and despotic regimes? ICJ disagrees with Israel? ICJ should try to have objecive truthful judges instead of corrupt politically biased judges.
52. To John - regarding the UN legitimacy
Alexander ,   Tel Aviv, Israel   (03.24.12)
UN Resolutions are null and void because you cannot enforce UN Resolutions. In case you didn't know, it's not legal experts that implement UN Resolutions. UN Resolutions come into being through political voting in the General Assembly and the reason the representatives of sovereign/independent states vote in the manner they do is because of realpolitik and Arab oil - and also because of lots of prejudice and bias against Jews and Israel. And these representatives do not in any way and under no circumstances represent their countries - not even democratic countries. UN representatives do not speak for despotic countries - theocracies and military juntas - that constitute the bulk of the UN member states and the bulk of world states. Representatives for democratic countries still do not represent their voters since no voters can elect their UN representatives. The UN has not been able to stop a single war or genocide over they years. UN soldiers are known for having committed atrocities against local populations in the third world. The UN is a corrupt organization where countries such as Iran, Syria, Sudan, China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Libya have a say on human rights. The UN is deeply flawed and is not by any chance any organization that represents world peace and freedom but rather anti-Semitism, prejudice, bias, racism, despotism and corruption. Again: ICJ are human beings with opinions. Their opinions are not divine. Lawyers and legal people are human beings too with their own interests. It is utter hypocrisy to claim that since they made a decision it is all of the sudden "legitimate". I don't recognize ICJ's authority. Spare me this legal dictatorship. National and domestic laws come first - accept it. Occupation can only take place involving states and the 4th Geneva Convention deals with states and forcible transfer. Therefore ICJ is wrong.
53. To John R - Explain to me the following
Alexander ,   Tel Aviv, Israel   (03.24.12)
WHO exactly is Israel supposed to give these disputed territories to since a) Israel has signed a peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan b) Egypt and Jordan have no claims on Judea, Samaria and Gaza c) no "Palestinian" people, nation, tribe, culture or civilization has ever existed in recorded history d) no "Palestinian" state has ever existed in recorded history (if you dispute my claim, provide me with exact details of kings, dynasties, language, alphabet, religion, palaces, temples, cities, villages, towns, dates, places and exact historical sources) and e) occupation can ONLY occur when State A has conquered State B as a result of war - but no "Palestinian" state existed in 1967, 1949, 1948, 1947, 100 years ago, 500, 1000, 5000 or 10.000 years ago f) why should international law be given precedence over national domestic laws - don't numerate your "knowledge" of "international law - just answer the question g) since you admitted that international law is no absolute truth, is flexible and can be changed and modified, why treat it as absolute truth? h) who are you to judge us and Israel and why don't you judge other nations and why don't you judge the American genocide on Native Americans, Black slavery and de facto apartheid laws in the US well into the 1950s and 1960s? (non existent phenomenon in Israel), i) not a single sovereign/independent state on this earth has claimed Judea, Samaria and Gaza - the Arabs of these territories don't belong to any state, j) you say that territorial conquest as a result of war is illegal, then you have to explain why the world has accepted Israel's expanded borders after 1949, why Vietnam's changed borders are accepted - since it was a result of war. k) Arab demographic majority in Gaza, Judea and Samaria does not mean a) historical rights b) right to live on the land c) right to land or right to claim land. They are de facto foreigners in my land.
54. #15 john
solomon ,   bklyn   (03.24.12)
What changed was the realization that the arabs want to kill the Jews as they will never accept a Jewish state in the area. BTW: they have never agreed to a demilitarized state. And calling the area Judea and Samaria is simply using the original names, not the name given by the Romans to break the Jewish connection to the land. They didn't need to break the arab connection, as there wasn't any.
55. #27, #28, #32 john
solomon ,   bklyn   (03.24.12)
Here we go again, with you making statements while totally ignoring the answers you have already received on other TB's... "every country in the world" is the beginning of a statement showing wishful thinking. Many countries have not said anything as they don't care. When the arabs started the war, the arabs in the area stated unequivocally that they are not 'Palestinians' but arabs. And you have the right to change that, yes? You cannot gain land by war; but you can gain it by defending against an attacker. You distort this as others distort the 'principle of proportionality'; this does not refer to defense, or it would tie the hands of the defender. UN Charter Article 51 clearly recognizes “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations” by anyone. As you rely on the ICF, read the following: Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) states: “(a) a state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense; “(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense; “(c) where the prior holder of territory [Jordan] had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title. “… as between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title. In addition it is worth noting that there is the legal rule that an aggressor (such as Jordan, Syria and Egypt in 1948, 1967, 1973) shall not benefit from the fruits of his aggression and that is why it is lawful and customary that territory gained in self-defence is not returned. There are many examples realizing this rule such as the many countries that incorporated German territory into their national territories, Belgium even from the First World War, or the Japanese islands in Russian possession. All law is related to the circumstances. You are telling only half the story while trying to justify it. Won't work.
56. #17 chris
solomon ,   bklyn   (03.24.12)
Most translations into English refer to Philistia, a few to Palestina, as the land of the Philistines. This includes the King James 2000 Edition. The Philistines were Greek. Read it you moron; "Palestine" is most definitely NOT mentioned. http://bible.cc/exodus/15-14.htm
57. #42 john
solomon ,   bklyn   (03.24.12)
If you state that Israel cannot claim land as the arabs do not agree, how can the agreement between the Jewish Agency and the UN hold water if the arabs did not agree? The arabs rejected the San Remo Resolution as well as the aforementioned agreement. End of story.
58. #42 john - ps
solomon ,   bklyn   (03.24.12)
If the State of Israel was "formed based on an agreement between the Jewish Agency...and the UN" it had no eastern border. The 'green line' was always an armistice line, insisted as such by the arabs and accepted as such by Israel and the UN. Israel was legally formed by Israel. The US accepted its existence, as well as acknowledging the eastern 'green' line as an armistice line. UN Resolution 181 was not accepted by the arabs. You cannot support your argument based on a resolution not accepted by all parties. You seem to know so much, yet you ignore even more.
59. #41 buba - correct
solomon ,   bklyn   (03.24.12)
...except you speak of the arabs. Poor arabs; they are trying so hard to prove something that can not be proven. They just do not get it. The world knows about "Palestine" and it's non history so stop it already. How much of history (aka facts) do you intend to distort, change and ignore?
60. NEVER again pretend we are willing to cede Judea/Samaria..
Chaim ,   Israel   (03.24.12)
Judea and Samaria have belonged to Jews for more than 3,500 years. No state has a stronger claim on it's land than Israel has on Judea and Samaria. Countless legal experts, including Eugene Rostow, author of U.N. Resolution 242, admitted Judea and Samaria belong to Israel. Israel must stop acting like trespassers on our own land. Judea and Samaria are ours. Love our land, defend our land, massively settle our land. Let us NEVER again pretend we are willing to cede our land.
Previous talkbacks
Next talkbacks
Back to article