What’s the big difference between Israel’s 1967 occupation and its 1948 occupation?

Israel/Palestine
on 33 Comments

What’s the big difference between Israel’s 1967 occupation and its 1948 occupation? In short, the difference is that the second one disturbed Zionists a little bit more. Not for moral reasons – but for nationalist ones.

1948 was an occupation. Although Israel had initially made it clear just before its declaration of independence, at least towards USA, that it would adhere to the sketched UN 181 Partition Plan, it expanded into territories assigned to the ‘Arab’ part – and virtually all battles occurred on the latter territories. The occupation of these combined territories entailed military rule for the next 19 years – for the Palestinian civilian constituency only.

Although Israel had made it quite clear that it was not about to withdraw from the combined territories, Israel was admitted to UN in 1949 despite its already present and blatant violations of UN resolutions. Whilst the UK for example expressed great concern about admitting such a state, other countries expressed ‘hope’ that admittance would encourage Israel to follow through with the requirements of the resolutions. They could not have been more wrong.

Now, the 1948 occupation did not disturb Zionists that much for two reasons:

1) There was a widespread consensus, expressed emphatically by David Ben-Gurion (mostly in ‘internal’ dirty laundry deliberations), that the territories assigned by UN 181 (which assigned 55% of Palestine to a third of the population, which owned 7% of land) were far too constraining.

2) The great majority of the Palestinian population had already been ethnically cleansed– about 80% (750,000 out of 900,000). So the size of the remaining minority was a ‘tolerable’ size, albeit under military rule.

Zionism had disseminated the victimhood propaganda quite effectively, professing a ‘war of self-defense’, ‘fighting for our existence’; and as the Holocaust was still very fresh, the ‘west’ was mostly prone to accept this rationale.

The military rule seemed to have stopped in 1966 for mostly ‘moral’ concerns (big deal; holding your own civilian population under military rule is a no-brainer form of moral corruption), yet accepting the fact of this minority’s existence was a tolerable matter.

When 1967 came, it initially caused Israelis the same sense of euphoric ‘liberation’ from the territorial ‘constraints’ of the 1949 Armistice lines (which the ‘leftist’ Israeli ambassador Abba Eban had compared to ‘Auschwitz’, hence the colloquial term ‘Auschwitz borders’), as well as conveying ‘deterrence’ towards the surrounding states. The idea of retreat from the territories occupied was very, very far from the mainstream left leadership.

Crimes of the 1967 war — including summary executions of POW’s, attack on a USA vessel and further ethnic cleansing — are less known about today than crimes of 1948; because many 1948 documents have been declassified, but the classification of 1967 documents has been extended for another 20 years.

For most Israelis, the 1967 occupation began as a very acceptable, even cherished, success. The opposition to the occupation of 1967 was not moral at its core. It was a realization that the intention to hold on to these territories without the possibility to effectively ethnically cleanse them, without causing international furor, would leave Israel with a large Palestinian constituency under its control. It was, after all, not 1948 anymore – Israel was already established. Besides, the short 1967 war did not provide the same protracted time span for thorough ethnic cleansing as 1948 had.

The ‘moral’ arguments about the inevitable violence of such subjugation (coupled by gratuitous barbarism of soldiers) have amounted, and still do, to what is known as ‘shooting and crying’. This ‘moral’ argument, accompanied with arguments such as ‘the occupation destroys our moral fabric’, have competed with an inherently morally corrupt ideology of quasi-ethnic exclusivity (known as Zionism), held as sacred by the same ‘moralists’. This represents a typical inherent contradiction of liberal Zionism, where the ‘humanity’ moralism applied in one case is cancelled out by the corrupt moral aspect of the other.

The double moral is in reality not merely contradictory, but also false in its ostensible ‘balance.’ There is no balance; it is simply that the nationalist concern supersedes the ‘humanitarian’ concern. In the end, Zionist ideology is about ‘us’ against ‘them’. The way in which Zionist liberals manage to maintain Zionism together with the ‘humanitarian concern’ (unto themselves as well as unto others) is by advocating the nationalist ‘advantage’ obtained by adopting the ‘humanitarian’ concern– but it’s still an ‘extra’ to the nationalist advantage. Thus the mainstream Zionist left advocates a ‘two state solution’ for the demographic advantage it would give the state. With a touch of sentimental ‘humanity’ and a bemoaning of what the occupation ’causes us to have to do’– they also are prone to ‘blame the Arabs’ for ‘not missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity’ (as Eban quipped). Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak also blamed the Arabs in 2000 in his deceitful misrepresentation of the ‘generous offer‘ he made to Yasser Arafat, whose ‘refusal’ of the offer proved ‘there was no one to talk to’.

The Israeli left shifted considerably to the right from that point. The left would thus bemoan the gradual loss of this ‘opportunity’, and with time, they will, and do, adapt to the ‘reality’, ‘forced upon them’ by circumstance.

Then there are those further to the right who simply do not have such moral scruples. Their goal is more direct, in the sense of keeping it all and making the world comply by all means. The game they are bound to play, when holding key power positions (as Netanyahu does), in order to uphold the puppet show of ‘liberalism’ in the alliance with USA, is an occasional lip-tax of ‘intending’ or ‘wanting’ to end the occupation, whilst on other occasions vowing to keep the occupation.

For all purposes and intents, the so-called ‘two-state’ solution has been a mere smoke-screen by the left (which initiated and fervently expanded settlement activity throughout its rule) and the right. No one intended it for real.

With time, most all Zionists are already in the mode of maintaining status quo, and awaiting the time in which the world will finally drop its ‘hostile’ requirements. For after all, ‘it’s not really Israel’s fault’, and ‘you have to be realistic’…

Israelis don’t want to speak about ‘occupation’ that much anymore. Left leader Yitzhak Herzog chides journalist Gideon Levy for ‘obsessing’ about it. And a new discourse is gaining strength in Israel: that settlers are not all that bad, they are mostly normal people like you and me.

Indeed, there is not much difference between the settlers of 1967 and those of 1948. In time, the world may come to regard both simply as ‘the Israeli situation:’ a ‘settler state,’ because it ‘had no other choice’.

The consequence of such an understanding is of course that Israel is an Apartheid state. Those who seek to maintain its liberal image despite this damning fact, seek to prolong the idea of it being ‘temporary’.

Temporary? This is how Zionism has operated, ever since its pre-state ‘fence and tower’ settlements: creating ‘facts on the ground’ and using whatever propaganda and coercion necessary to make the facts a fait accompli.

About Jonathan Ofir

Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

33 Responses

  1. Citizen
    January 19, 2016, 11:11 am

    Yep. Israel does what it does because the USA supports it, funds it, immunizes it at UN from accountability.

  2. pabelmont
    January 19, 2016, 12:45 pm

    Thanks for pointing out that the territorial seizures of 1948 created an occupation — maybe two (of the UNGA 181 territory and of the rest) — and that some nations said so and openly expressed the hope that Israel would withdraw (presumably falling back onto the UNGA 1818 territory). All this needs to be said, and said, and repeated, and said again.

    Now many people have remarked that UNGA doesn’t “do” dispositive stuff for the UN; only UNSC does. And the UNSC had declined to take dispositive steps w.r.t. UNGA 181. Therefore, in my view, The seizure by Palestinian Jews and their foreign Jewish invitees of the UNGA 181 territory was ALSO an occupation. And so far as I know Israel has never taken any steps to declare its national boundaries — whereby it seeks to expand its de facto holdings and make them de jure, but could also (if sufficient force and pressure existed, which as of now it does not) allow a reduction iof both its de facto and de jure holdings. (The “de jure” idea seems to me to refer to what many countries attempted to convey by “recognizing” Israel. But even recognition by the USA and USSR were not sufficient to get Israel to declare its once-and-for-ever boundaries, so I suppose they are still fluid.)

  3. Liz
    January 19, 2016, 1:48 pm

    Superbly written. Thank you for writing this. It captures so well the distinctions between 1948 and 1967, which are so important to be able to distinguish when talking to folks about these issues.

  4. Michael Rabb
    January 19, 2016, 2:17 pm

    For more than seven decades, Jews have waged an unrelenting war of genocide and ethnic cleansing on Palestine. They have set up a brutal military occupation of the territory of Palestine they conquered, and instituted a racist, colonial system of apartheid on the indigenous non-Jews and blocked borders to keep the Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes. There is no difference in the territory occupied since 1967 and the land the Jews gained in the 1948 conquest. Ending the occupation of ALL Arab lands (not just the land occupied in 1967) is the objective of the Palestine national liberation movement. End Israel / Free Palestine.

    • hophmi
      January 19, 2016, 3:34 pm

      Jews waged this war? I guess Jews and Israelis are the same here. Remember, folks, it’s anti-Zionism and not antisemitism, even though every comment this Rabb character makes refers to Jews, and not Israelis. He’s also got a history of saying completely ridiculous things, like claiming that most synagogues raise money for Israel every Sabbath, which he might learn wasn’t remotely true if he stepped foot in a synagogue, rather than picketing synagogues, as he’s done in the past.

      Jeez, BDS really does have an antisemitism problem.

      • talknic
        January 19, 2016, 6:45 pm

        @ hophmi “Jews waged this war?”

        It is the Jewish State, governed by a Jewish majority

        ” I guess Jews and Israelis are the same here”

        By majority, in effect, yes.

        “Jeez, BDS really does have an antisemitism problem”

        Please explain how it’s antisemitism to demand a state to adhere to the law

      • Kris
        January 19, 2016, 6:45 pm

        @hophmi: “which he might learn wasn’t remotely true if he stepped foot in a synagogue, rather than picketing synagogues,…”

        Seriously, hophmi, are you saying that you attend synagogue?

        If this is true, please explain to us non-Jews why it is that Israeli Jews and their supporters think that God approves of the cruel treatment of Palestinians that we see at the hands of Israeli Jews every single day.

      • eljay
        January 19, 2016, 7:08 pm

        || hophmi: … I guess Jews and Israelis are the same here. … ||

        Seriously? Have you not been paying attention to what you and your Zio-supremacist co-collectivists have been saying? You know:
        – conflating Israel with all Jews;
        – conflating all Jews with Israel;
        – insisting that Israel is the “Jewish State” – a state established and maintained primarily for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews (rather than for all Israelis, equally);
        – insisting that Israel is the “historic homeland” of all Jewish people in the world;
        – insisting that Israel is the “one true homeland” of all Jewish people in the world;
        – insisting that loyalty to the “Jewish State” of Israel is an essential part of being Jewish?

        If it’s anti-Semitic to conflate Israel with all Jews and all Jews with Israel, why do you Zio-supremacists keep doing it? Why do you hate Jews so much?!

        || … Jeez, BDS really does have an antisemitism problem. ||

        BDS isn’t anti-Semitic – at most it could be said to be anti-Israeli – but I don’t doubt that some of its supporters are anti-Semitic.

        Zionism, by contrast, doesn’t have a “supremacism problem” – it IS supremacism. And every one of its supports is a supremacist.

      • Bumblebye
        January 20, 2016, 5:37 am

        You’re such a hypocrite hophmi.

        How often do you use the language of “we” and “us” when discussing the Jewish State? And you an American living in America.

        “Jewish” is the nationality imposed on those who make and carry out the decisions in this context – thus it is not used as a signifier of religion. However, zio-contortionists will grab and hold fast in order to make accusations of anti-semitism.

    • Annie Robbins
      January 19, 2016, 6:12 pm

      michael rabb, in the future please don’t generalize about (all) jews. thanks.

      • Michael Rabb
        January 19, 2016, 11:49 pm

        I did not say “all” Jews. But Jews have waged war on Palestine. “Certainly there are Jewish people who actively support the Palestinian cause and speak out against the Israeli crimes. Members of my family do so, some of my friends in Palestine and around the world who are Jewish do so, and of course the ultra-orthodox Neturei Karta do so. And although these Jewish voices are beginning to be heard, all told we are a negligible few.
        So next time a Palestinian says the “Yahud” killed my family, the Yahud took my land, the Yahud put my father in prison, the Yahud forced my family into exile, spare them the indignation. Spare them the long lecture about the distinctions between Jew and Israeli, Israeli and Zionist, etc. Instead, it is time to demand the Yahud give answers. Because though Jews are known for asking tough questions, on this issue, as a collective they are far too silent.” — Miko Peled

  5. eljay
    January 19, 2016, 2:50 pm

    “Jewish State” is an unjust, immoral and religion-supremacist construct that has no right to exist. It should cease to exist.

    The geographic region of Palestine should consist of the Free City of Jerusalem plus two secular and democratic states divided along Partition lines:
    – Israel, the secular and democratic state of and for all of its citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally; and
    – Palestine, the secular and democratic state of and for all of its citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally.

    Democratic self-determination – and not Jewish supremacism, Arab nationalism, Muslim “caliphate-ism”, Western imperialism or any other device – should decide whether Israel, Palestine and Jerusalem remain separate entities or eventually merge into a single secular and democratic “Unified State” of and for all of its citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally.

  6. Blake
    January 19, 2016, 3:22 pm

    Exactly. No difference at all.

  7. JWalters
    January 19, 2016, 4:57 pm

    Thanks for discussing this important question. It’s been my observation that when someone learns about the Nakba it’s a game-changer. The glossy myth about Israel is shattered, and it can’t be put back together.

    It seems to me this is because the events of the Nakba are so at odds with the myth of Israel, and because they occur at the very beginning of the story. It’s obvious there’s simply no way to reconcile them.

    Also, the fact that the Nakba is NEVER mentioned in the U.S. establishment media, despite the fact that ALL the pundits and reporters are SURELY aware of it, shows conclusively the choke-hold Israel has over America’s establishment media. There is simply no other explanation in this reality.

  8. talknic
    January 19, 2016, 6:36 pm

    The big difference is: that there’s no mention of occupation in UNSC resolutions prior to Israel’s admittance to the UN, even tho the Israeli Government clearly stated at the time that occupation had taken place. http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

    In effect the rejection of Israel’s first attempt to join the UN allowed Israel to illegally acquire even more territories by war without being directly censured

    Israel’s legal advisers were not stupid. Anyone versed in the machinations of the UN knows the UN cannot censure non-members and cannot censure members retrospectively for their pre-membership actions, even tho those actions might be illegal under International Law. The only time “Israel” appears in a UNSC resolution prior to membership, was in respect to its membership application

    They would also have been aware that once accepted as a Member State, only one veto vote needs to be secured in the UNSC in order to be protected against any UN action being taken under Chapt VII for violations mentioned in Chapt VI resolutions

    Although the Armistice Demarcation Lines (Green Line) are borders of a kind (more: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/israel-should-golan#comment-820604 )
    A) none of the Armistice Agreements were between Israel and Palestine and;
    B) none of the territories stated on May 22nd 1948 by Israel to be “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”, have ever been legally annexed by agreement with their legitimate citizens, sans Israelis, to the State of Israel

    Israel’s 11th August 1949 attempt to legally acquire territories it had by then illegally acquired by war, was rebuffed by the Conciliation Commission, citing the Armistice Agreements http://wp.me/pDB7k-l5#israels-intentions

    MAP: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_Palestinian_territories_acquired_by_war_Not_annexed_to_Israel.jpg

    • Dan
      January 19, 2016, 9:24 pm

      @Talknic

      “Anyone versed in the machinations of the UN knows the UN cannot censure non-members and cannot censure members retrospectively”

      Do you have any evidence to support that?

      The poster Sibiriak has asked for that evidence previously. I don’t believe you ever responded. In fact Sibiriak demonstrated that you are wrong.

      http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/executed-arshid-hebron#comment-807191

      Unless you can provide some documentation it’s reasonable to conclude that you are deliberately spreading misinformation.

      • talknic
        January 20, 2016, 12:56 am

        @ Dan .. Oooops I missed Sibiriak’s post …

        //“Anyone versed in the machinations of the UN knows the UN cannot censure non-members and cannot censure members retrospectively”//

        “Do you have any evidence to support that?”

        Perhaps some learned contributor can show us an instance where they have censured non-Members or Members for their pre-Membership acions. Meanwhile there appears to be a complete lack of resolutions directly condemning the actions of non-Members for breaches of International Law and a complete lack of resolutions directly condemning Members for their actions prior to becoming Members

        ” … Sibiriak demonstrated that you are wrong”

        What Sibiriak did shown is that the UN can tell Member States how they may or may not treat non-members. http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/executed-arshid-hebron#comment-807191

        … the author outlines quite a number of actions the UN General Assembly and Security Council can take in relation to non-members”

        UNGA and UNSC are comprised of Members

        … the provisions of Articles 39, 41 and 42 are formulated in such a way as to be interpreted in the sense that any country, member or non-Member, may be the object of enforcement measures”

        Indeed, enforcement measures by UN Members.

      • Sibiriak
        January 22, 2016, 8:18 am

        talknic: Perhaps some learned contributor can show us an instance where they have censured non-Members or Members for their pre-Membership actions.
        —————————

        I. First of all, whether or not the UN is prohibited from censuring non-members is a red herring. According to the international legal and political consensus, the “Green Line” is the dividing line between “Israeli Territory” and “Occupied Palestinian Territory”. That has been affirmed in numerous UN resolutions and in the ICJ Wall case.

        There isn’t a single UN resolution or ICJ opinion that affirms that the dividing line between Israeli territory and “Occupied Palestinian Territory” is something other than the Green Line.

        There isn’t a single UN resolution or ICJ statement that affirms that Israeli settlement outside “partition borders” but inside the Green Line is illegal.

        Your explanation for this critical fact is:

        [talnic:] There is no statement on the matter because the UN cannot censure non-Members and cannot censure Members retrospectively for their actions prior to Membership.

        But a “statement on the matter” need not be in the form of censure or condemnation; it could take theform of affirmation, statement, assertion, opinion, recommendation etc., all of which you do not contest are within the UN and ICJ’s power.

        Therefore a prohibition on censure, even if it did exist, does not at all address the issue of the multiple UN/ICJ affirmations which posit the Green Line, not UN res 181 partition borders, as the provisional border between Israel and Palestine.

        For example, the UN resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6 May 2004, 58/292:

        1. Affirms that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation, and affirms, in accordance with the rules and principles of international law and relevant resolutions of the United Nations, including Security Council resolutions, that the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory and that Israel, the occupying Power, has only the duties and obligations of an occupying Power under the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949 and the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, of 1907;

        2. Expresses its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a just and comprehensive negotiated peace settlement in the Middle East resulting in two viable, sovereign and independent States, Israel and Palestine, based on the pre 1967 borders and living side by side in peace and security. [emphasis added]

        —————
        The UN resolution does not “censure”; it “affirms” and “expresses”.

        There is nothing that prevented the UN from affirming that ” Palestinian territory occupied outside the partition borders defined by UN res181 remains one of military occupation.” The UN could have done that, but they chose not to.

        Furthermore, there was nothing that prevented the UN from applying the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force to the territory between partition lines and the Green Line. The UN could have done that, but they chose not to.

        Likewise the ICJ determined that the construction of the wall was illegal because it was “in departure from the Armistice Line of 1949 (Green Line) and which has involved the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources …[emphasis added] . The Court reaffirmed the UN’s definition of Occupied Palestinian Territory as territory across the 1949 Green Line.There is nothing that prevented the ICJ from expressing the opinion that the wall was illegal because it was “in departure of the partition borders established by UN res 181. The ICJ could have done that, but they choose not to.

        ————————–
        II. As a matter of fact, there is no prohibition on the censure or condemnation of non-members. I quickly found a few examples. I’m sure there are a number of others.

        Spain:

        “United Nations Security Council Resolution 4, adopted on April 29, 1946, condemned the Franco regime in Spain and formed a sub-committee to decide whether or not his rule was leading to international friction, and if so, what to do about it.” (Wikipedia, emphasis added). Spain became a UN member in 1955.

        UN General Assembly Res 39 (1) Condemns the Franco regime.
        http://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f08d8.html

        North Korea

        “[…] Security Council adopted two resolutions, respectively, no. 83 of June 27, 1950 and no. 84 of July 7, 1950, which accused North Korea of aggression and recommended that the Member States intervene with military means in the defence of South Korea”. (Benedetto Conforti “ The Law and Practice of the United Nations” p.128, emphasis added) North Korea became a UN member in 1991.

        Southern Rhodesia

        “United Nations Security Council Resolution 216 was adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 12 November 1965, the day after the British Dependency of Southern Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence from the British Empire as the state of Rhodesia. The vote was ten to none, with one member, France, abstaining. In the resolution’s two operative paragraphs, the Security Council:

        1. Condemned the unilateral declaration of independence “made by a racist minority” in Southern Rhodesia.

        2. Called upon all states to refuse the “illegal racist minority régime” in Southern Rhodesia recognition and to refrain from rendering any assistance to it.

        Resolution 216 was followed on 20 November by United Nations Security Council Resolution 217, in which the Security Council further elaborated on its condemnation of the UDI regime and proposed steps to be taken to address the crisis.” (Wikipedia, emphasis added)

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_216

        Yugoslavia

        “United Nations Security Council resolution 757, adopted on 30 May 1992, after reaffirming resolutions 713 (1991), 721 (1991), 724 (1991), 727 (1992), 740 (1992) 743 (1992), 749 (1992) and 752 (1992), the Council condemned the failure of the authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to implement Resolution 752.” (Wikipedia, emphasis added)

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_757

        The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia-Montenegro) was not a UN member between 1992 and 2000.

        Those examples demonstrate that the UN does in fact have the power to condemn non-member states.
        ———————————-

        III. Finally, you write:

        UNGA and UNSC are comprised of Members

        … the provisions of Articles 39, 41 and 42 are formulated in such a way as to be interpreted in the sense that any country, member or non-Member, may be the object of enforcement measures” [Benedetto Conforti “ The Law and Practice of the United Nations”]

        Indeed, enforcement measures by UN Members.

        But if the UNSC can authorize enforcement measures to be taken against non-members, including economic sanctions and military action, then surely any such measures would be preceded by resolutions condemning the non-member for violations that justify those enforcement measures.

        It is completely nonsensical to argue that UNSC has the authority to unleash war on a non-member yet is prohibited from censuring that non-member.

      • Talkback
        January 22, 2016, 9:42 am

        @ Sibiriak

        1.) Jerusalem is occupied (and was illegaly annexed) by Israel. Google “SEC RES 471 UNISPAL”

        And the Security Council did condem the annexation of Jerusalem, not only the annexation of East Jerusalem.

        2.) The Security Council can even adress non state actors. In April 1948 (Google “SEC RES 46 UNISPAL”) it asked from the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Council to refrain from proclamating states (see 1d) and even asked neighbouring states (Jordan became UN member in 1955) to assist (see 3) this and other measures.

      • Sibiriak
        January 22, 2016, 12:25 pm

        Talkback: 1.) Jerusalem is occupied (and was illegaly annexed) by Israel. Google “SEC RES 471 UNISPAL”
        —————-

        Indeed. But please note the explicit references to the territories occupied since 1967 in that resolution:

        Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967 , including Jerusalem.

        […]

        Reaffirming its resolution 465 (1980), by which the Security Council determined “that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem. [emphasis added]

        ——————-

        United Nations Security Council Resolution 471, adopted on 5 June 1980 under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter was on the issue of the Israeli occupation and settlement activity in the Palestinian territories of East Jerusalem , the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. [emphasis added]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_471

        ———————–

        United Nations Security Council Resolution 478, adopted on 20 August 1980, is one of seven UNSC resolutions condemning Israel’s attempted annexation of East Jerusalem. In particular, UNSC res 478 notes Israel’s non-compliance with UNSC res 476[1] and condemned Israel’s 1980 Jerusalem Law which declared Jerusalem to be Israel’s “complete and united” capital, as a violation of international law. The resolution states that the Council will not recognize this law, and calls on member states to accept the decision of the council. This resolution also calls upon member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city. [emphasis added]

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_478

        ————————–

        Throughout the ICJ “Wall” opinion (2004) the Court defines Occupied Palestinian Territory with reference to the Green Line (pre-1967 borders) and makes multiple references to Occupied Palestinian Territory “including East Jerusalem”.

        For example, p.35:

        The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power. [p.35 ] [emphasis added]

        http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

        (See also pages 14, 32, 43, 49,69 for references to Occupied East Jerusalem. There are no references to West Jerusalem.)

        ———————-

        Recall also that Palestine is claiming East Jerusalem as its capital. (China, btw, just supported this claim: https://www.rt.com/news/329765-sovereign-palestine-jerusalem-china/).

        As Hostage put it:

        … the overwhelming majority of UN member states, 169+, have long-since recognized the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people over the natural resources of the territory in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem that came under Israeli military control in 1967.

        Those boundaries are very well known. They were established as permanent international armistice lines of demarcation in accordance with Chapter VII UN Security Council resolutions that Israel is still bound to respect. [emphasis added]

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/slater-takes-on-one-state-scenarios-from-mearsheimer-munayyer-and-walt#comment-501611

      • talknic
        January 22, 2016, 1:37 pm

        @ Sibiriak

        “I. First of all, whether or not the UN is prohibited from censuring non-members is a red herring. According to the international legal and political consensus, the “Green Line” is the dividing line between “Israeli Territory” and “Occupied Palestinian Territory”. That has been affirmed in numerous UN resolutions and in the ICJ Wall case.”

        The ICJ was not asked to rule on any issues pre- Israeli Membership. The ICJ opinion concerns only “territory that came under lsraeli military government control in 1967” and it only affirms the necessity of ” … ending the conflict on the basis of the two- State solution of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security based on the Armistice Line of 1949, in accordance with relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, “.

        It affirms the necessity because there has not yet been an agreement on the matter per the agreements re the Armistice Demarcation lines

        “2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary , and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.” http://www.avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm01.asp#art5

        “There isn’t a single UN resolution or ICJ opinion that affirms that the dividing line between Israeli territory and “Occupied Palestinian Territory” is something other than the Green Line”

        There is not a single UN resolution or ICJ opinion that actually assigns any territory acquired by war by Israel since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) to Israel for the simple reason that there is yet to be a final agreement on the Question of Palestine

        “Therefore a prohibition on censure, even if it did exist, does not at all address the issue of the multiple UN/ICJ affirmations which posit the Green Line, not UN res 181 partition borders, as the provisional border between Israel and Palestine”

        “provisional” being the operative word

        “For example, the UN resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6 May 2004, 58/292: “

        By which time Israel is a UN Member and by which time Palestine had signaled its willingness to accept only some 22% of their rightful territories for peace. Israel has yet to agree. Nothing has been finally determined

        “The UN resolution does not “censure”; it “affirms” and “expresses”

        https://www.google.com.au/search?q=United%20nations%20censure

        “There is nothing that prevented the UN from affirming that ” Palestinian territory occupied outside the partition borders defined by UN res181 remains one of military occupation.” The UN could have done that, but they chose not to.”

        Like a football club censuring a non members, it’d be meaningless.

        However, Israel itself stated the territories it had acquired by war by May 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” and ” under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard”

        Ditto – the Provisional Israeli Government proclaimed Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation 12 Aug 1948

        Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

        “Furthermore, there was nothing that prevented the UN from applying the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force to the territory between partition lines and the Green Line. The UN could have done that, but they chose not to.”

        Israel isn’t mentioned in any UNSC resolution until its membership application/s

        “There is nothing that prevented the ICJ from expressing the opinion that the wall was illegal because it was “in departure of the partition borders established by UN res 181. The ICJ could have done that, but they choose not to.”

        They weren’t asked

        ” there is no prohibition on the censure or condemnation of non-members. I quickly found a few examples. “

        None of which directly order anything of the offending state. They tell Member states what they may/might do to encourage that state to comply

        “But if the UNSC can authorize enforcement measures to be taken against non-members, including economic sanctions and military action, then surely any such measures would be preceded by resolutions condemning the non-member for violations that justify those enforcement measures”

        Condemn and inform Members what they may/might do, but no direct censure to the offending state.

        “It is completely nonsensical to argue that UNSC has the authority to unleash war on a non-member yet is prohibited from censuring that non-member”

        UN Charter: The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

      • Sibiriak
        January 22, 2016, 2:18 pm

        @talknic You made this claim:

        there appears to be a complete lack of resolutions directly condemning the actions of non-Members for breaches of International Law and a complete lack of resolutions directly condemning Members for their actions prior to becoming Members [emphasis added]

        In response, I listed multiple UN resolutions that directly condemn the actions of non-members.

        Now you argue that condemnation is not censure, as if that was some critical linguistic point, as if censure wasn’t defined as “the expression of formal disapproval” which is exactly what those resolutions did.

        It seems no amount of logic or evidence can possibly induce you to reconsider your position.

        Then there’s this:

        [Sibiriak] The UN resolution does not “censure”; it “affirms” and “expresses”

        [talknic] ink to google.com.au

        Surely you can see the “the” in my statement and realize I was referring to one specific resolution that I quoted. And yet you try to dispute my statement by pretending that I was referring to all UN resolutions. What’s the point of that kind of silly strawmanning?

        Anyway, it’s very late where I live, so I’ll have respond further tomorrow.

      • talknic
        January 22, 2016, 8:21 pm

        @ Sibiriak ” I listed multiple UN resolutions that directly condemn the actions of non-members”

        They call for reinforcement measures by UN Member States in order to encourage the errant state to comply. For instance Southern Rhodesia : Called upon all states to refuse the “illegal racist minority régime” in Southern Rhodesia recognition and to refrain from rendering any assistance to it .

        Whereas UNSC res 660 against a UN Member State

        “1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;” and ;
        “2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990; “ and ;
        “3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;”

        ” Surely you can see the “the” in my statement and realize I was referring to one specific resolution that I quoted. “

        In retrospect, yes. My bad

      • Talkback
        January 23, 2016, 4:20 am

        @ Sibiriak

        There’s a difference between the legal point of view (Jerusalem is occupied, partition is based on resolution 181) and the nowaday political point of view in the UN how to solve the conflict (partition based on 1949 line).

      • Sibiriak
        January 23, 2016, 5:22 am

        Talkback: There’s a difference between the legal point of view (Jerusalem is occupied, partition is based on resolution 181) and the nowaday political point of view in the UN how to solve the conflict (partition based on 1949 line).
        ———————–

        The ICJ “Wall” opinion I have cited presents a legal point of view.

        The Court affirmed that legally the Green Line (pre-1967 border) divides Israeli territory from occupied Palestinian territory–not UN res. 181 recommended partition borders.

      • talknic
        January 23, 2016, 6:46 pm

        @ Sibiriak “The Court affirmed that legally the Green Line (pre-1967 border) divides Israeli territory from occupied Palestinian territory “

        I cannot find any such statement http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

        What there is is an affirmation of “the necessity of ending the conflict on the basis of the two-State solution of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security based on the Armistice Line of 1949, in accordance with relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions,”

        “the necessity of ending” It has not yet happened. Israel has not yet agreed to ANY borders beyond those it proclaimed May 15th 1948

      • Sibiriak
        January 23, 2016, 10:20 pm

        talknic: […]. For instance Southern Rhodesia : Called upon all states to refuse the “illegal racist minority régime” in Southern Rhodesia recognition and to refrain from rendering any assistance to it .

        Whereas UNSC res 660 against a UN Member State

        “1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;” and ;
        “2.
        Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990; “ and ;
        “3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;”

        ———————–
        Compare: UNSC Res. 82 against a non-member state:

        Noting with grave concern the armed attack on the Republic of Korea by forces from North Korea,

        Determines that this action constitutes a breach of the peace; and

        I
        Calls for the immediate cessation of hostilities;

        Calls upon the authorities in North Korea to withdraw forthwith their armed forces to the 38th parallel; [emphasis added]

        http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=3b00f15960
        ————————-

        So, there is no basis for the distinction you are making. You’ve presented no evidence to support the claim that the UN cannot condemn non-member states, let alone make affirmations about their actions.

      • Sibiriak
        January 23, 2016, 11:50 pm

        talknic: @ Sibiriak “The Court affirmed that legally the Green Line (pre-1967 border) divides Israeli territory from occupied Palestinian territory “

        cannot find any such statement link to icj-cij.org

        What there is is an affirmation of “the necessity of ending the conflict on the basis of the two-State solution of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security based on the Armistice Line of 1949, in accordance with relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions
        ————————————-

        A few examples:

        1) Four paragraphs above the paragraph you quote you will find this paragraph:

        “Gravely concerned at the commencement and continuation of construction by Israel, the occupying Power, of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, which is in departure from the Armistice Line of 1949 (Green Line) and which has involved the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources, the disruption of the lives of thousands of protected civilians and the de facto annexation of large areas of territory<, and underlining the unanimous opposition by the international community to the construction of that wall”. [emphasis added]

        The ICJ affirmed that UN position, which makes it perfectly clear that it is the Green Line– not UN res 181 recommended partition borders– that defines the boundary between Israeli land and Palestinian land and defines the term “Occupied Palestinian Territory”.
        ———————-

        2) Paragraph 67, p. 32 :

        The Court notes furthermore that the request of the General Assembly concerns the legal consequences of the wall being built ” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem”. As also explained below (see paragraphs 79-84 below), some parts of the complex are being built, or are planned to be built, on the territory of Israel itself; the Court does not (consider that it is called upon to examine the legal consequences arising from the construction of those parts of the wall. [emphasis added]

        Territory outside UN res 181 recommended borders/inside the Green Line is clearly labeled by the Court as “territory of Israel itself.”

        Once again, the Court is clearly affirming the Green Line as the dividing line between Israeli territory and Occupied Palestinian Territory.
        ——————————-

        3). Page 35:

        The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories […] [emphasis added]

        The Court makes it clear that on the Palestinian side of Green Line, not UN res 181 recommended partition border, Israel is an “occupying Power”; on the Israeli side, Israel is NOT an “occupying Power.”
        ————————–

        4.) From the separate opinion of Al-Khasawneh :

        The Green line, to quote Sir Arthur Watts, “is the starting line from which is measured the extent of Israel’s occupation of non-Israeli territory” (CR200413, p. 64, para. 35).

        http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1685.pdf
        —————————–

        None of the above implies that adjustments cannot be made to the Green Line (pre-1967 borders) in a final agreement. But unless and until such adjustments are agreed upon, the Green Line remains the internationally recognized provisional border between Israel and Palestine. Neither party is compelled to agree to any changes in the Green Line border. A final agreement may never be negotiated.

        So you are absolutely correct that a big difference between Israel’s 1948 and 1967 territorial acquisitions is that under international law only the latter are considered occupied Palestinian territory.

        We just disagree on the reasons for that legal distinction.

      • talknic
        February 1, 2016, 4:11 pm

        @ Sibiriak Further to direct condemnation and censure against non-member states

        “Those examples demonstrate that the UN does in fact have the power to condemn non-member states”

        They’re not direct condemnations and censures against states

        UNSC 660 Condemns and demands directly of a UN Member State, being “Iraq”

        1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;

        2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately … etc …;

        3. Calls upon Iraq … etc …

        —————
        inbound39 nails the matter of 67 borders/Israeli territories succinctly

        67 Borders are acknowledged by the 193 members because that is what the Palestinians asked for. Israel rejected and still rejects 67 Borders. All Nations only ever accepted Israel on its Partition Plan Borders because that is what the Provisional Israeli Government declared in 48. It has never legally annexed any other land. So, therefore ,Israels only legitimate Borders are those of 1948 WHICH IT DECLARED,until by legal process, the State of Palestine is legally rendered legitimate and Israel withdraws its troops and illegal settlers from Occupied territory outside of its declared Borders
        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/park-slope-food-coop-puts-up-firewall-against-boycott-of-israeli-goods/#comment-822671

  9. Stephen Shenfield
    January 19, 2016, 7:41 pm

    Of course 1947-8 and 1967 are two stages in the same process of Zionist expansion, but there are some significant differences. The ethos is different. The ethos in the first stage of settlement and conquest was secular and collectivist, left-nationalist, national socialist in the broad sense. The ethos in the current stage is religious nationalist.

    • echinococcus
      January 20, 2016, 6:28 am

      The ethos, as you call it (interesting choice of word), is making a lot of difference to the people facing the business end of it, doesn’t it?
      As for “national socialist in the broad sense of it”, one would be hard put to distinguish it from the narrow sense –either then or today.

    • Talkback
      January 23, 2016, 4:30 am

      Stephen Shenfield: “The ethos in the current stage is religious nationalist.”

      That’s just a facade.

      • Keith
        January 23, 2016, 4:55 pm

        TALKBACK- “That’s just a facade.”

        No, it is quite real. The founding fathers of Israel were by and large Jewish atheists who looked down on the religious Jews. Over time, Israel has come to adopt many of the beliefs of Classical Judaism (pre-modern Judaism) and its anti-Gentile mythos. In fact, following the 1967 six day war, all of Zionism gravitated towards an intensified quasi-religious tribal irrationality which I refer to as Judeo-Zionism. This represents the merging of traditional blood and soil nationalism with Classical Judaic mythology. This new Holocaust Religion has to a significant degree usurped modern Judaism even as it transformed Zionism. In “Jewish History, Jewish Religion,” Israel Shahak maintains that Israel cannot be understood without reference to the history and mythos of Classical Judaism. In other words, Israel’s policies are guided at least as much by fealty to quasi-religious ideology as by cold rationality. This appears to be increasing with the passage of time.

Leave a Reply