Occupation can't be erased
Boaz Okon
Published: 11.07.12, 11:02
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
85 Talkbacks for this article
1. The Rule of Law and the Left
This article demonstrates the position on the Left in regards to the Law. The Law is only real justice when in fact it coresponds to the Ideologu of the Left. In this case, the Judge investigated the Claim by the International Community that according to International Law, Judea and Sameria are "occupied". The Judge has proven otherwise and the international communities claim is now baseless. This cannot be argued. The judge also did not include any personal recommendations, so this article goes well beyond the scope of reality.
2. reality check. San Remo Conference
Golan ,   modiin   (07.11.12)
the land on both banks of the Jordan (West and East) belong to the Jews as part of the League of Nations mandate and United Nations Charter. this is why the UN partition has no basis in international law (rather suggestion) and UN resolution 273 is silly since the Jewish State right to exist (and its borders on both banks of the Jordan) is part of the UN Charter. If Israel does not have a right to exist neither does the UN, Iraq, Syria, Bulgaria, and Poland.
3. Does the Author Know How Palestinians in Lebanon, Syria and
Netanya ,   Netanya   (07.11.12)
other places are Treated? They also do not have passports and live in much worse conditions than in Israel, yet you only look at Israel, very clear where you stand Do you know that the Palestinians in Syria (S. Syria was part of Palestine, prior to Israel's existence) who are trying to escape the violence are being sent back when they get to the Jordanian border? Please read, "Jordan: Bias at the Syrian Border" To claim that Israel is apartheid, while ignoring the 1949 illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing of Jews from the area you write about is hypocritical, if not outright deception, by omission of all the facts. Why does Ynet even publish this crap? Aren't there enough left wing newspapers that could print this in Israel and around the world? Is Israel the only place that has anyone under occupation? Cyprus and many other places are worse, so this leftist author should think about stopping his demonizing of Israel, it is putting Jews in danger, maybe himself or his own family.
4. I agree
Tim ,   Brighton   (07.11.12)
5. Arabs guests or Arab settlers, if you want,
C.M.   (07.11.12)
as well as illiterate Jews (like this author) must realize that Yehuda and Shomron a.k.a. West Bank is part of the Jewish land according to Torah. Israel acquired Jerusalem because of its Jewish history according to Torah, so too are the cities in Yehuda and Shomron Jewish history according to Torah. If Arabs cannot conduct themselves as guests settled in a foreign country they should be sent back to where they came from; i.e. Jordan and its neighboring countries. By the way, wouldn't it be nice if Jews in Israel were a bit educated in Torah and Jewish history?
6. Great article!
Salma ,   Palestine   (07.11.12)
thank you, Boaz Okon ! this article deserves to be read over and over again especially by the settlers and the ministers of "Israel" .
7. Excuse my naivete but who is Boaz Okon?
Israeli 2   (07.11.12)
What I really mean to say is that when I thought I have heard all of the leftist bozos spew their nonsense, here pops up another one. Your facts are distorted , Sir... or you and I live in different dimensions. The territories you claim are "occupied" actually belong entirely to Israel. What may confuse you is the fact that Israel made a big mistake not annexing it and not declaring it as part of Israel. Every other nation would have done so long time ago.
8. If the Arabs would be made Israeli citizens
Zev ,   Israel   (07.11.12)
in the areas where Israel starts Israeli law they would not be occupied.
9. #5
Jassi ,   New Delhi, India   (07.11.12)
Dear CM, religious baloney cannot be the basis for the establishment of a state. As for Arabs being guests, I think the reverse is closer to the truth. Noone really invited you to turn up in Palestine and set up camp after WWII.
10. the left and crying
Michael ,   Australia   (07.11.12)
Of course when the high court judges, most of them leftist, put forward condemnations of settlements and settlers, or when they kick people out of their homes based on leftist NGO vexatious claims, this is applauded and is democracy. But when a report against your leftist ideology is brought forth, it must be shelved and its proponents labelled as letting their political views influence their decisions. That's the great thing about being a liberal leftist....you only have to be liberal until something pisses you off and then you can become a fascist if you so choose.
11. Liberated from Jordanian ethnic cleansing
Eric ,   Tel Aviv & NY   (07.11.12)
The author seems to forget that Jews have lived in that area for 3,500 years, or at least until Jordan captured it in a colonial war of aggression. Then for almost 20 years it was ethnically cleansed with an occupation population relocated into it. Then in 1967 Israel liberated it from occupation. Those who moved in during the 20 years of occupation do not get rights to the land and those Arabs who lived there before often deliberately choose not to have legal ownership of the land under the Ottomans or British as a way to avoid taxes. Thus they can not prove ownership today. The Palestinians are no more entitled to their own country based on their claims than the Kurds in Turkey, the Mayans in Central and South America, Tibetans in China, or the Basque in Spain. So if the UN wants to create homeland for the Palestinians it first needs to do so for those other populations who have stronger and longer claims.
12. Boaz Okon is a guy with a big pension and
Rod ,   Fargo N.Dakota   (07.11.12)
is prolific left wing writer quoted in many anti Israel internet sites. Google or use whatever search engine you choose you'll find him
13. I'm not in total disagrement with the paper
Yossef   (07.11.12)
but why don't allow palestinians to choose between Israeli or Jordanian citizenship ? And have an agreement with Jordan to rule the big Arab towns of Yudah-Shomrom ?
14. Dear Boaz: Territories, Freedom, and Occupation
George ,   Ashdod   (07.11.12)
Dear Boaz: 1. There are no “territories”. There is just Judea and Samaria which is a territory—and even there you need to be specific about who has what rights in Areas A, B, and C. The Palestinians have control of every square millimeter of Gaza from which they are free to launch daily bombardments of southern Israel. 2. Freedom must be earned. One cannot expect to have freedom when one demands to eradicate one’s neighbor. If people live under military rule, it is because of the choices that those people made. If they face limitations on movement, work, and education, it is because of the choices that those people made. 3. Occupation regime, outrageous discrimination, scent of apartheid, I fear that you have so bought into the vocabulary of those who seek to eliminate Israel through delegitimization that anything you say on the subject is hopelessy biased.
15. To No 8
Bertram ,   London, UK   (07.11.12)
Exactly. Unfortunately, for most talkbackers here religion trumps politics. The argument appears to go like this: 1. The legitimacy of Israel is theologically (Torah) based. 2. In which case 'Judea and Samaria' are not occupied terrtories; they are sacrilised as part of Israel. 3. The existing non-Jewish population of 'Judea and Samaria' are designated as foreigners, not entitled to Israeli citizenship, and therefore can be treated differently (i.e. under military jurisdiction). Point 3 is really important because it contributes to a Zionist narrative which says the land of Israel was empty when the first olim arrived. Consequently, all Arabs are immigrants and all Jews, since they are descended from the original 'indigenous' population (we will ignore the story of Abraham's trek from whaty is now Iraq), can rightfully claim the entire land as theirs - and nobody else's. Now, why won't the Arabs - and others ('leftists',secularists, etc.) accept this? I mean, you cannot with religion, can you?
16. Setting the record straight
PaulZion ,   Israel   (07.11.12)
I will start by saying that I belong to the Left. However, I find this article offensive, mainly because the author tries to taint people with unimpeachable professional integrity, by hinting that they have ulterior motives. Furthermore, even Moshe Negbi, Radio 1's legal reporter and a lawyer himself, and one not known for being right wing ( that's an understatement) stated that HE has no doubt that those who sat on the committee looked at the issue from a purely legal perspective. He went even further, and said that the committee's conclusions have legal merit, even though he does not agree with it's conclusions. However, the report is at this point just a legal opinion, albeit a good one. If the Left wants to put its case forward, it needs to address the report seriously, point by point and table a counter argument, not by dismissing it out of hand and not by besmirching the reputations of the committee members. As for Mr Okon's thoughts about the oppressed Palestinian people: Yes, there is oppression - but you need to ask why. Could it possibly be because of the terrorist attacks, who hide behind the skirts of the general population, at best with their implicit acquiescence, and at worst with their complict approval? I believe that if the terrorist attempts were to cease, the oppression of the Palestinians would stop, too. That said, for as long as we are doomed to rule over them, we owe it to ourselves to maintain their human dignity.
17. @2: You are on shaky ground
PaulZion ,   Israel   (07.11.12)
1. The San Remo Conference formally adopted the Balfour Declaration into the League of Nations Charter, WITH ALL ITS PROVISOS AND CONDITIONS. The same section that allowed the establishment of a Jewish Homeland ( note, not STATE, and the British never intended for there to be a Jewish State) conitinues with a proviso that the right of the establishment of that Homeland should not prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. In other words, our right to a Jewish homeland in the West Bank based upon San Remo, which you so proudly wave around, is conditional upon fulfilling this proviso. You cannot claim one without fulfilling the other. Since the civil rights of the Palestinians ( ie an existing non-Jewish community in Palestine) ARE prejudiced ( that is indeniable), your rights to settle in The West Bank according to San Remo, are VOID. 2. Correction. The UN Partition was voted upon and adopted by a 2/3 majority. That gives it legal status in International Law. Therefore the boundaries explicitly mentioned in the Plan do have legal definition.
18. #2 Right on the nail, Golan
Mark ,   Lodz, Poland   (07.11.12)
Regarding the British Mandate for Palestine...ie re-establishing the Jewish homeland....we've made too many concessions already 'in the name of this fleeting peace' with the 'Dar al-Islam With hindsight, Israel should have annexed all territories reclaimed in 1967.. ...and have nipped the insanity that refers to us as occupiers in the bud.
19. Beware this Islamic Ploy - its a global one.
BUTSeriously ,   Sydney   (07.11.12)
In India, when a third of her land was carved off for an Islamic state the Muslims never left India, in order to keep demanding more lands. It is further compounded by forbidding citizenship to Indians, creating a one-way population influx. This same strategy is seen in Palestine, Europe, Asia & America.
20. Correction to 15
Bertram ,   London, UK   (07.11.12)
The last sentence should read: I mean, you cannot argue with religion, can yo?
21. Repatriate the Arabs -Then they won't be occupied
a person ,   planet earth   (07.11.12)
If one were to agree with the author's assessment that the Arabs who live in these areas are occupied and live under apartheid then the natural solution is to deport them and repatriate them to their true homeland.
22. #16, #17 excellent
Excellent posts, but let's take them one step further: "not prejudice the...rights of EXISTING...communities". "Existing communities" means exisiting before 1920 (maybe earlier), but certainly does not mean newer communities established since 1920. There is no Israeli who does not agree to give full citizenship and equal rights to all non-Jews who lived in Israel prior to 1920. The problem is that the PLO defines "Palestinian" as any non-Jew who lived in Israel until 1948, including immigrants who came in 1947. The reason is simple: from 1920 the British occupation forces massively imported Arabs from surrounding countries while preventing Jewish immigration. These Arab immigrants who are not members of "existing communities" make up between 50 and 80% of the "Palestinians" of today. You see, if you follow the law you realize the Leftists and Arabists are wrong, and you can solve the Arab-Israeli problem exactly as the Zionists suggest.
23. Liberated from illegal Jordanian rule.Arabs have their own
govt Fatah in the WB,Hamas in Gaza.
24. Thed vast majority of WB Arabs are ruled by Fatah & have
their own schools hospitals courts etc etc.
25. Bertram the Levy report has NOTHING to do with religion &
everyrthing to do with international law. Thyat is why you are evading the topic and trying to focus on religion which does not get a mention in the report. Progressive dialectic is not the answer,facts are. When are you leaving Malvinas?
26. I don't see an issue here
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (07.11.12)
Israel acquired Judea and Samaria in the course of fighting a defensive war against Jordan. Jordan lost. Let me repeat that, for the terminally stupid -- JORDAN LOST. All Arabs resident in Judea and Samaria are Jordanian citizens, courtesy of Jordan's Citizenship Law of 1954, which granted Jordanian citizenship to all Arabs resident in the West Bank -- AND THEIR PROGENY -- irrevocably. Yes, of course, Jordan has tried on any number of occasions to revoke that law, but the International Court in The Hague has consistently denied their efforts. An irrevocable grant of citizenship is precisely that, says the Court. So, there really isn't a problem. Israel can easily repatriate those Jordanian citizens. There is no "occupation." Israel won a defensive war against Jordan. Jordan has to take the hit -- and the consequences -- which means roughly 2.5 million Arabs (who are Jordanian citizens) will be repatriated. Of course the tiny Iraqi king and his Kuwaiti bride may not like it, but there's nothing they can do about it. Israel, having won that defensive war in 1967, gets to call all the shots. The little Iraqi king of a made-up country gets to deal with it. How difficult is that?
27. To: No. 15
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (07.11.12)
Oh, you disappoint me. You seem to think that this boils down to a religious argument. News flash: it doesn't. It does, however, boil down to an issue of international law and convention. Israel acquired Judea and Samaria in the course of fighting a defensive war against Jordan. Please name ONE convention which says that Israel, having emerged the victor in a war against an aggressor, is required to return land to the vanquished. Please. Just one. ONE. Can you imagine the land transfers that would have to take place if you decide that a separate set of rules apply to Israel than that which applies to every other sovereign state? This has NOTHING to do with religion. It has NOTHING to do with Zionism. It does, on the other hand, have EVERYTHING to do with the rules of war. Those are clear. Moreover, the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria are citizens of Jordan. They are not stateless refugees. So, I await your geopolitical and historically relevant response. I would like you to tell me why Israel, which acquired non-sovereign Judea and Samaria in the course of fighting a defensive war against Jordan, should relinquish that land. Please keep religion out of it. Religion has no place in politics. I'm waiting.
28. Judea and Samaria belong to Israel. End of story.
Chaim ,   Israel   (07.11.12)
The ability of Israeli leftists to inflict their lunacy on Israel, against the wishes of the vast majority, appears to finally be ending. Judea and Samaria belong to Israel. We are the legitimate owners. Not "occupiers". Our legal ownership of Judea and Samaria has been incontrovertibly proven. End of story.
....DACON9   (07.11.12)
PLEASE BUY A HOUSE IN GAZA OR LIVE IN THE LUXURY 5 STAR HOTEL or shop in t he luxuary malls or look into the local bank there inspecting the accouns of abbas and family and other terrorist.... THEN WRITE AN ARTICLE
30. Secular leftists came to Israel due to its biblical origins
Sam ,   Canada   (07.11.12)
Having achieved a state on Israel that Palestinians see as occupied the seculers become holier than thou humanists in regards to the West Bank. The Palestinians, who wish the destruction of Israel see an opportunity to seize the West Bank because of naive Jews and the West. The Palestinians will have every opportunity to determine their lives if they negotiate a peace treaty. Jewish apologists are just shooting themselves in the foot.
Next talkbacks
Back to article