Trending Topics:

‘NYT’ capitulates to rightwingers, declaring settlements not illegal

Israel/Palestine
on 97 Comments

Extremely distressing. The New York Times– obviously under pressure from Israel lobby groups– has issued a correction to a statement about the illegality of the settlements.

The other day Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren wrote of the settlements:

The United States, along with most of the world, considers these settlements illegal…

Now the Times has stuck this correction on at the end, filled with weaseling language that reflects the surrender of US politicians to rightwing Israelis:

An article on Monday… misstated the United States’ view of such settlements. While much of the rest of the world considers them illegal, as the article noted, the United States has taken no formal position in the last several years on whether they are legal or illegal. (In a statement on Tuesday, the State Department said, “We do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity.” )

Ali Abunimah got to this before me. His piece on US policy shifts is devastating and precise. Excerpt:

A plain reading of the “correction” is that it is an effort to mislead readers into thinking the United States has never considered Israeli settlements to be illegal. This is obviously untrue.

If the Times wanted to inform readers, instead of serving as a propaganda platform for whitewashing Israeli policies, it could have said something like this: “The United States has in the past stated that Israeli settlements are illegal, and has voted for UN Security Council resolutions affirming this position. In recent years, the United States has, however, refused to re-state its position publicly, opting instead for formulas less likely to put it into conflict with Israel and its US-based lobby.”

I’d add this. I specifically congratulated Jodi Rudoren for describing the settlements as illegal the other day. But the Times obviously came under massive pressure from groups that didn’t like that statement. And who has the Times’s ear? Rudoren has my sympathy. Every statement she makes is vetted by the lobby.

And one more thing: The imbedding of rightwing Israeli interests inside our political culture is why the Israel situation is historically more similar to Algeria than South Africa. I’m going to be writing about this a lot in weeks to come. We’ve created a disaster.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

97 Responses

  1. CitizenC
    CitizenC
    August 8, 2013, 10:27 am

    And one more thing: The imbedding of rightwing Israeli interests inside our political culture is why the Israel situation is historically more similar to Algeria than South Africa. I’m going to be writing about this a lot in weeks to come. We’ve created a disaster.

    Algeria rather than S Africa, very good, Phil. Think Day of the Jackal. Packs and packs of jackals are loose within the metropole. And the pied-noirs have nukes.

  2. amigo
    amigo
    August 8, 2013, 10:52 am

    I posted this on another thread but here it is again.AIPAC has no control over the EU so the NYT can print whatever it likes.The subject of the legality/illegality is about to hit the headlines when the EU begins demanding labels on illegal products coming from illegal settlements.

    “Jerusalem demands clarification || Israel to tell EU: We won’t sign agreements based on settlement guidelines
    Israel will refuse to sign future agreements restricting EU funding to Israeli bodies with connection to East Jerusalem, West Bank and Golan Heights, and won’t acknowledge lack of sovereignty beyond 67 lines.
    By Barak Ravid | 15:15 08.08.13 | 9”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.540522

  3. geofgray
    geofgray
    August 8, 2013, 11:09 am

    algeria, but with this twist: the new york time’s piece is setting up the american people for the coming annexation of the west bank. what i foresee is that after the 9 months of the “peace process” Israel is going to annex most of the west bank. israel knows world opinion is running against it and will continue to do so. so the israeli’s make the effort and then move to the final solution. the obama regime’s focus on widespread worldwide surveillance, remote killing and intimidation, etc is the putting in place of the necessary infrastructure to contain the potentially violent resistance that will result from that event. as with the french in algeria, the us will get it’s hair mussed.

    • Brown-Eyed Girl
      Brown-Eyed Girl
      August 8, 2013, 8:25 pm

      Then America will be as much of an international pariah as Israel will be. No amount of surveillance or remote killings will prevent the “terrorist” attacks against American citizens. Boston will have only been the beginning of the blow-back. I cannot see Israel doing anything but formally annexing the West Bank; they have stolen all the land, formal annexation will be a technicality. What Obama and our government is doing: making the US an outlaw nation and the surveillance against it’s own citizens, surely must be called treason.

    • mcohen
      mcohen
      August 9, 2013, 5:36 pm

      geofgray says:

      what i foresee is that after the 9 months of the “peace process” Israel is going to annex most of the west bank

      the mechanisms are already in place for the event the catalyst right next door.as with the golan the west bank has become a strategic liabilty, the threat from arab spring jihadists will leave israel with no option but to seize control .it is the west bank arabs who will have to choose sides much like the palestinians have had to in syria and lebanon.it is external forces that are shaping there future

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      August 10, 2013, 1:45 pm

      geofgray:

      the new york time’s piece is setting up the american people for the coming annexation of the west bank

      Part of the West Bank. Israel will never annex territory with lots of Palestinians, as that would threaten Jewish supremacy in Israel.

      One way or another, Israel will absorb the large settlement blocks, and relegate Palestinians to truncated enclaves. If the Palestinians won’t agree to that, de facto annexation will occur– officially it can be delayed for years.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 11, 2013, 3:02 pm

        Key point. Sibiriak. Israel will not annex portions of West Bank with too many non-Jews.

  4. Donald
    Donald
    August 8, 2013, 11:24 am

    “The imbedding of rightwing Israeli interests inside our political culture is why the Israel situation is historically more similar to Algeria than South Africa. ”

    That’s a fascinating and very ominous comparison. I’ll be interested to see what you have to say on this.

  5. Talkback
    Talkback
    August 8, 2013, 11:44 am

    Another misleading title: “‘NYT’ … declaring settlements legal”

    Where did the NYT declared the settlements to be legal? It only declared that “the United States has taken no formal position in the last several years on whether they are legal or illegal.”

    Ali Abunimah got it right.

    • philweiss
      philweiss
      August 8, 2013, 12:14 pm

      You’re right. I fixed it.

      • Xpat
        Xpat
        August 8, 2013, 4:26 pm

        Phil – I love your headlines. The new one is much better!

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        August 8, 2013, 4:51 pm

        Why do you keep misleading readers with your headlines?

        NYT didn’t declare anything about the legality of settlements, but that “the United States has taken no formal position in the last several years on whether they are legal or illegal.”

        Easy target for the Hasbara clowns.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 11, 2013, 10:18 am

        NYT didn’t declare anything about the legality of settlements, but that “the United States has taken no formal position in the last several years on whether they are legal or illegal.”

        The United States has actually taken the position that they are legitimate, while publicly claiming to be neutral. There is no legal or rational basis to conduct negotiations to bring a flagrantly illegal or criminal situation to and end. Full stop. That is not how the laws work. That is how they are circumvented by the USA and Israel. If you require negotiations to remove the settlements, you’re implicitly saying they are legitimate.

        The United States is well aware of the fact that Israel intends to violate the prohibition against acquiring territory by war and facilitating the transfer of portions of its population into the Arab territories it still occupies. It has no intention of applying either the land for peace formula or the prohibition against conquest and territorial aggrandizement contained in resolution 242 and the UN Charter.

        For its own part, the Israeli government has long since abandoned and circumvented the High Court of Justice ruling in the Elon Moreh case, which held that Israel’s military commanders cannot create facts on the ground that are more permanent than the temporary occupation regimes they administer under the terms of customary international law. Any land expropriated for the settlements on the basis of temporary “military necessity” logically comes to an end, together with the occupation itself. So the settlements should cease to exist along with the occupation, in exchange for an agreement to dismiss the state of belligerency and all belligerent claims.

        The Carter administration was the last to publicly label the settlements illegal. After the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the settlements were temporary, the Reagan administration accepted the legal fiction and the President stated publicly that he believed the settlements were not illegal.

        Clinton conducted the Oslo Accord signing ceremony on the White House lawn. On its face, it was a special agreement that violated the terms of Article 8 of the 4th Geneva Convention, by renouncing some of the protections against population transfer, involuntary displacement, and deportation pending negotiations on the so-called final status issues. Afterward, military orders were once again issued to expropriate private property for such things as roads, and utility infrastructure. Israel also established new settlements and expanded existing ones. The Clinton administration assisted Israel in preventing the establishment of a Palestinian State, while promoting a plan that abandoned the land for peace formula and allowed Israel to unilaterally retain a significant portion of the occupied territory.

        Obama has promised to veto recognition of the State of Palestine and insists, rather nonsensically, that Palestinian self-determination and statehood can only be achieved through negotiation with Israel. The Zionists obviously didn’t achieve statehood that way.

        The Government of Israel tells its citizens that it will never give up the “eternal capital” of Jerusalem and that the settlement blocs and the undivided city will be part of Israel under any final settlement. It even has assured them that they can veto any agreement through a referendum.

        At the same time, the US Government claims that “the expansion of settlement activity and the taking of measures to facilitate the convenience and safety of settlers do not prejudice the outcome of permanent status negotiations.” In short we are dealing with a Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) to perpetrate aggression, persecution, and apartheid against the Palestinian people. The NYT doesn’t mention any of that, while talking about the Palestinian “hobby” of stone throwing.

  6. Citizen
    Citizen
    August 8, 2013, 11:56 am

    Very depressing.

  7. DaveS
    DaveS
    August 8, 2013, 12:03 pm

    Just as significantly, the Times’s “correction” states: “While much of the rest of the world considers them illegal . . .” “Much of the rest of the world”? Who does not? Are there any countries out there that consider the settlements legal or even possibly legal? I know that countries such as Palau, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, etc. often vote with Israel in lopsided 150-7 UN votes on Israeli withdrawal, but even if there are a handful of states that have questioned the prevailing view of illegality of settlements (and I’m not sure there are), wouldn’t the Times have been more accurate in referring to “almost every other country in the world” or at least “most of the rest of the world”? In fact, “much of the rest” does not even imply a majority.

    • Nevada Ned
      Nevada Ned
      August 8, 2013, 12:30 pm

      It would be more accurate to say that

      “No country in the world (besides Israel) considers Israel’s settlements to be legal under international law.” and then quote what international law says.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      August 9, 2013, 3:34 am

      Just as significantly, the Times’s “correction” states: “While much of the rest of the world considers them illegal . . .”

      That’s an interesting point. I’m having trouble parsing the double talk:
      1) When the rest of the world voted to adopt a draft resolution in February of 2011 which reaffirmed “that all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal,”
      2) US Ambassador Rice did not disagree. In fact, she responded by saying: “While we agree with our fellow Council members—and indeed, with the wider world—about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, we think it unwise for this Council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians.”

      She could only agree with the rest of the world if she too was using the term of art “illegitmate” as a synonym for the term of art the other members employed, “illegal”.

      Similarly, the President’s Cairo speech stated that continued Israeli settlement had no legitimacy and violated Israel’s international commitments. Once again, the terms Rice and Obama employed are synonymous with the terms illegal, illicit, or unlawful, but not the term “legal”.

      If the establishment of the settlements rested on any legal foundation at all, then the President and the Ambassador misspoke when they said the settlements or settlement activities were either illegitimate or had no legitimacy. Neither of those statements can be applied to any lawful undertaking or activity.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 9, 2013, 1:53 pm

        Bravo, Hostage. The illegal colonies of Jews in West Bank are of course illegal. No matter how much pressure is put on the White House by rich and powerful Jews in the US.

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        August 10, 2013, 8:09 am

        James, I would say simply the rich and powerful. There are varied vested interest in keeping the myths and fear alive. It feeds not only control, but a huge industry.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 11, 2013, 3:01 pm

        @Ellen – – I know a fair number of rich and powerful Americans, and I would say most of them would favor a fair deal on Israel/Palestine. Privately.

  8. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw
    August 8, 2013, 12:40 pm

    The US is a signatory to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, here is paragraph 6 of article 49.. “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” under International law the settlements are clearly illegal. I can only assume the New York Times regard the West Bank sorry Palestine or the Golan Heights Syria, as not occupied. This could run and run.

  9. Citizen
    Citizen
    August 8, 2013, 1:06 pm

    Here’s US policy statements on the settlements in each administration, starting with Johnson’s and ending with Obama’s: http://www.cmep.org/content/us-statements-israeli-settlements_short

  10. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    August 8, 2013, 1:10 pm

    RE: “‘NYT’ capitulates to rightwingers, declaring settlements legal”

    MY “PUSH BACK”: Israel is “disputed territory”! ! !

    ELABORATION: Since Israelis constantly refer to the West Bank as “disputed territory”, I have decided to begin likewise referring to pre-1967 Israel as “disputed territory”. Hey, turnabout is fair play, right? What goes around, comes around. You get what you give.* What’s good for the goose . . .

    * New Radicals: “You Get What You Give” [VIDEO, 04:40] – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL7-CKirWZE

    ● P.S. ON HIS INTERNET BROADCAST/PODCAST TODAY, SAM SEDER WAS BEMOANING THE FACT THAT COREY BOOKER WILL PROBABLY BE THE NEXT SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY, AND HE REFERRED VERY FAVORABLY TO RUSH HOLT’S CANDIDACY. THE PRIMARY IS ON AUGUST 13, SO IT IS TIME TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION IF YOU CARE TO.
    • Rush Holt for U.S. Senate – http://www.rushholt.com/
    • Rush Holt blasts Cory Booker in ad – http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/rush-holt-blasts-cory-booker-in-ad-95186.html
    • Democrats Square Off In First Full Debate In U.S. Senate Race – http://montclair.patch.com/groups/new-jersey-news/p/4-democrats-square-off-in-first-full-debate-in-us-senate-race

  11. Citizen
    Citizen
    August 8, 2013, 1:19 pm

    NYT Diplomatic Memo from 2011: “Not a single government supports the settlements” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/middleeast/03mideast.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      August 8, 2013, 2:31 pm

      @Citizen. And how many hundreds of millions of dollars are expended by rich American Jews, to try to deceive the public into thinking the illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank are not illegal?

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        August 8, 2013, 6:09 pm

        @ James Canning
        The $ spent by AIPAC drones via the myriad of Jewish Establishment entities/groups has worked its nefarious magic very well. Dick and Jane have not a clue; they certainly are unaware they get ripped off daily at the tune of $8.5 M per day, all for a foreign rogue state the size of NJ.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 11, 2013, 2:59 pm

        @Citizen – – You are kind to Aipac in assessment of how much US spends to protect Israel, enrich Israel, etc etc etc etc. And Dick and Jane have no clue, and seem to want to have no clue.

  12. joemowrey
    joemowrey
    August 8, 2013, 1:24 pm

    “Congratulate” Judi Rudoren? “Sympathize” with her? This is the Judi Rudoren who just wrote that lovely little piece characterizing Palestinian stone throwing as some kind of quaint rite of passage, never once mentioning the occupation or pointing out that, duh, Palestinians just might have a few reasons to throw stones.

    Sorry, but Rudoren is a propagandist, first and foremost. The fact that she let slip with the “I” word concerning Israeli Settlements (Colonies is a more appropriate term) is nothing to congratulate her for. Certainly not given the pro-Israel slant of most of her writing. And with the amount the Times pays her (not to mention speaking fees, etc.) she sure doesn’t need anyone’s sympathy when she gets a few nasty letters from the very Zionist she supports and encourages. There is no courage or integrity in her performance at the Times. She is a well-paid hack and a shill for Zionism. There are a lot more deserving places to put our sympathy and congratulations.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      Maximus Decimus Meridius
      August 9, 2013, 12:07 pm

      Agree completely. Unless she’d been living under a rock for years, Rudoren knew the NYT’s editorial line very well before she chose to take on the job. If she feels that the constant pressure put on her from Zionist lobbies undermines her journalistic integrity, she can always do the honourable thing and resign.

      But she won’t.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 9, 2013, 1:43 pm

        She should state the truth and note the pressure to do otherwise.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        Maximus Decimus Meridius
        August 9, 2013, 2:47 pm

        The NYT would not publish it, and Rudoren would not have a job for much longer.

  13. ckg
    ckg
    August 8, 2013, 1:28 pm

    The ICJ and ICC won’t care what the U.S. position is. The illegality of the settlements is a matter of international law.

    • Philphil
      Philphil
      August 8, 2013, 4:26 pm

      Is there any country in the world that has gone on record stating that the creation of settlements in the West Bank is legal under the Geneva Conventions?

  14. James Canning
    James Canning
    August 8, 2013, 2:29 pm

    NYT richly deserves contempt for grovelling at feet of Israeli warmongers. Liar-warmongers.

    • Ellen
      Ellen
      August 10, 2013, 8:16 am

      The media is always complicit when crimes of massive scale are tolerated by society. This is what forms our opinions and outlook.

      The Jewish Holocaust Museum in Berlin has a a very good section dedicated to the media hand in THAT machine.

      To review that exhibit now against the modern day fear and warmongering work of the New York Times and other media (albeit not as primitive as the NZ media machine of the late 30’s) is …well… there are no words.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 11, 2013, 12:06 pm

        To review that exhibit now against the modern day fear and warmongering work of the New York Times and other media (albeit not as primitive as the NZ media machine of the late 30′s) is …well… there are no words.

        Netanyahu has declined invitations to write Op-Ed’s for The New York Times, but it has published plenty of them from the likes of Danny Danon, Danny Ayalon, and Michael Oren that rival anything published during the Nazi era for their lack of self-awareness, racism, and bellicosity.

  15. DaveS
    DaveS
    August 8, 2013, 3:03 pm

    Here is a one-hour video by Eugene Kontorovich, a Professor of Law at Northwestern (impressive credential) explaining how the settlements actually are legal. http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2013/05/video-eugene-kontorovich-on-israeli.html
    I did not have the stomach or the time to sit through this, but he apparently argues that Israel did not populate the region with its citizens; Jewish settlers moved there on their own. Watch at your own peril.

    • Xpat
      Xpat
      August 8, 2013, 3:14 pm

      Has he read “Lords of the Land” by Anita Shapira and Akiva Eldar?
      They argue compellingly in a heavily referenced tome what we all know.
      The Israeli government sent every settler to the West Bank:
      1. Who built the roads that connect Israel to the settlements?
      2. Who financed the settlements?
      3. Who offers material mortgage credits and other hefty incentives for Jews to move to the West Bank?
      4. Who provided all the infrastructure: electricity, water etc.?
      5. Who provides security for the settlers?
      6. Whose ideology is realized through Jewish colonization of the West Bank?

      The answer to all is: the Israeli government.

      Perhaps the legal requirement to make the settlements illegal is that an official Israeli government employee has to drive every settler to the new settlement in a government-owned vehicle. Otherwise, how can the Israeli colonization of the West Bank be any more explicitly official than it already is?

      • DaveS
        DaveS
        August 8, 2013, 3:28 pm

        Elliot, don’t bother me with common sense. Watch for five minutes ans see how obviously proud this twerp is of his grandly constructed legal fiction that finds zero support among every country in the world – whoops, almost every.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 8, 2013, 6:31 pm

        As Hostage has said before David,

        These hacks always claim to be winning the legal debate, except where it matters, before the ICJ, where they have lost comprehensively. So they stick to they echo chambers and hermetically sealed bubbles to pretend they are making a winning argument.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      August 8, 2013, 5:09 pm

      David Samel says: “I did not have the stomach or the time to sit through this, but he apparently argues that Israel did not populate the region with its citizens; Jewish settlers moved there on their own. Watch at your own peril.”

      He probably thinks that only settlers are to be protected against involuntary transfer, but the IRCR clearly states in a commentary to article 49 (6):

      “This clause … is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.”
      http://www.icrc.org/ihl/COM/380-600056

      It’s the usual Zionists approach to Humanitarian law: We don’t care what’s really humane, we only care what’s good for Jews. Therefore we alway ignore Martens clause and customary international law and always try to find loopholes in codified international law.

      But if someone thinks with sanity and reason it’s obvious that no citizen of an occupying power should be allowed to colonialize an occupied territory under the protection of the occupation.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      August 8, 2013, 6:16 pm

      @ David Samel
      The Israeli government has in every way supported the illegal settlements since it got control off the land in 1967. This is not a disputed fact by anyone. Even the NYT said so in 2011.

      • DaveS
        DaveS
        August 9, 2013, 1:12 am

        People like Kontorovich are a last gasp of the dying, painting lipstick on a pig.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      August 9, 2013, 3:55 am

      Here is a one-hour video by Eugene Kontorovich, a Professor of Law at Northwestern (impressive credential)

      No thanks, I’ve taken on his partisan propaganda before, e.g. See Settlements, Territory, and the ICC and my reply in the comments section @ the EJIL: Talk! http://www.ejiltalk.org/settlements-territory-and-the-icc/

      • Xpat
        Xpat
        August 9, 2013, 8:54 am

        @Hostage – thank you. Interesting that Eugene Kontrovich didn’t provide any response whatsoever to your detailed rebuttal.

      • DaveS
        DaveS
        August 9, 2013, 9:38 am

        Hardly surprising. A Northwestern Law prof can’t be bothered with responding to riffraff. I would be interested to know how EK got to that position, which really is impressive, and what sort of “scholarship” he is known for. He must have done something more than regurgitating the old San Remo BS and making the lame “settlers voluntary movement” argument. He does look like the nerdy cousin who gleefully explains why 2+2=5.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 9, 2013, 11:51 am

        Hardly surprising. A Northwestern Law prof can’t be bothered with responding to riffraff.

        That’s probably the case. He’s always been very chatty with others. He and a group of hasbara flacks, including Eli E. Hertz, tag teamed Iain Scobbie’s, “Justice Levy’s Legal Tinsel: The Recent Israeli Report on the Status of the West Bank and Legality of the Settlements” with an exchange of 42 comments.

        http://www.ejiltalk.org/justice-levys-legal-tinsel-the-recent-israeli-report-on-the-status-of-the-west-bank-and-legality-of-the-settlements/

    • SQ Debris
      SQ Debris
      August 9, 2013, 6:40 pm

      I attended one of Kontorvich’s Zionist Road Show lectures. He’s a hoot if you enjoy satirization of civilization. His foundational premise was that the gold standard for all behavior on the planet are the proclamations of the League of Nations (as in the Mandate of Palestine). Accordingly, there really isn’t anything beyond Lo’N resolutions that can be called International Law; it just doesn’t exist. He even poo-pood the Hague Convention of 1899, since it’s a convention, not a law. He built straw-men then stood behind them and waved around miniatures of the one he just built. Not exactly a novel zionist rhetorical tactic. In the end his lecture boiled down to The Law of the Jungle. Familiar in fact, if not in academia.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 11, 2013, 2:02 pm

        His foundational premise was that the gold standard for all behavior on the planet are the proclamations of the League of Nations (as in the Mandate of Palestine).

        The Mandate for Palestine was simply a resolution of the Council of the League of Nations. The Permanent Court of International Justice ruled at the time that none of the resolutions of the Council were legally binding, except to the extent that all of the parties concerned had agreed to accept their terms. See “Interpretation of article 3, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne” (series B, case 12)
        http://www.icj-cij.org/pcij/serie_B/B_12/01_Article_3_du_traite_de_Lausanne_Avis_consultatif.pdf

        The British, US, and Israeli legal systems are each based upon the theory of dualism. Treaties and other international legal instruments are not automatically considered to be “self-executing”. Non-self-executing agreements have no legal force or effect, except to the extent their provisions have been incorporated into some local enabling legislation or ordinance. There is a competing principle of international law which holds that no state can cite its own municipal laws as an excuse to violate the intent of a treaty to which it is a signatory or to violate a customary law.

        During the Mandate era, the Palestine High Court of Justice ruled that the Mandate resolution was not self-executing and was preempted in cases where a conflict existed with the local ordinances. See for example the case of Bernard A. Rosenblatt (petitioner) vs. the Registar of Lands, Haifa ; Director of Land Registration, Jerusalem; Edmond N. Levy (respondents) (High court case no. 19/47): in the Supreme court sitting as a High Court of Justice ; before the chief justice Sir William Fitzgerald and Mr. Justice de Comarmond; hearings on 9th May, 1947 and 12th May, 1947.

        Accordingly, there really isn’t anything beyond Lo’N resolutions that can be called International Law;

        That view is completely anachronistic. The mandates were conferred and drafted by the Principal Allied Powers, who also reserved the right to delimit the boundaries of the new states. It was done that way, because the majority of states and scholars did not believe that international organizations, like the League of Nations, could conclude valid treaties or binding agreements on their own behalf. There were no express provisions in the Covenant on that particular subject. The members of the UN specifically empowered the Organization to conclude agreements in the text of the Charter itself. The ICJ confirmed that it had its own international legal personality, distinct from that of the members, in the 1948 Reparations case. It held that the members were bound to respect agreements concluded by the Organization.
        http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/4/1835.pdf

        The ICJ’s legal analysis in the Wall case was based upon the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations, a binding treaty agreement. But it also noted (para. 129) that the rights of Palestinians were protected under other international safeguards going back far in time.

        The Court noted that the most recent example had been the declaration contained in Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin (1878). It pointed out that those “existing rights” of the non-Jewish communities had been the subject of a safeguarding clause in Article 13 of the LoN Mandate and an entire chapter of the UN partition plan. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

        For their own part, the Principle Allied Powers had also inserted a safeguarding clause into the resolution concerning the mandates that the Supreme Council adopted during the San Remo Conference, which was separate and an addition to the safeguards contained in the Balfour Declaration. It stipulated that the mandate would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine. http://www.cfr.org/israel/san-remo-resolution/p15248

        Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin stated that:

        The Sublime Porte having expressed the intention to maintain the principle of religious liberty, and give it the widest scope, the Contracting Parties take note of this spontaneous declaration. In no part of the Ottoman Empire shall difference of religion be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honors, or the exercise of the various professions and industries, in any locality whatsoever.

  16. jon s
    jon s
    August 8, 2013, 3:47 pm

    For once, I agree with Phil : that the analogy (imperfect as all such analogies are) with Algeria fits better than the comparison with South Africa. The French annexed Algeria, considered it to be part of France, but after a long, bloody , conflict ,they finally withdrew. When the French state pulled out, the settlers, the pieds noirs, left, too. Algeria became independent , and it maintains important economic, cultural and diplomatic ties with France, despite the scars of the past. The conflict could only be resolved through two states. So, too, the only possible resolution to the conflict here can be achieved through two states.

    • philweiss
      philweiss
      August 8, 2013, 4:26 pm

      But Jon partition was notioned in Algeria, and rejected. Partition of Algeria, that is.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      August 8, 2013, 4:54 pm

      That’s a bad analogy. It would only be a good analogy if “France” was a section of Algeria stolen from the Algerians by alien invaders from overseas, as “Israel” is a state on land stolen from the Palestinians by aliens from Europe and elsewhere. If the israelis were to all leave the land of Palestine and all go back to Europe, Russia, North America, etc., and leave all of Palestine to the Palestinians then you are closer to an analogy to the Algeria situation.

      South Africa is a correct analogy. A group of European invaders take over land that is alien to them and oppress the natives of that land under a cruel, inhuman, racist system.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 11, 2013, 2:10 pm

        South Africa is a correct analogy. A group of European invaders take over land that is alien to them and oppress the natives of that land under a cruel, inhuman, racist system.

        It’s also the correct analogy in that securing equal rights for the indigenous population remains an issue inside the territory of the State of Israel/South Africa and in a separate occupied colonial era territory of Palestine/Namibia.

    • Donald
      Donald
      August 8, 2013, 6:44 pm

      Jon, your version of the Algerian analogy would only work if France itself had originally been largely Arab, with Algeria conquered later.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      August 8, 2013, 7:46 pm

      And let the illegal Jews now in the West Bank pay compensation in order to stay?

      • American
        American
        August 8, 2013, 11:35 pm

        James Canning says:
        August 8, 2013 at 7:46 pm

        And let the illegal Jews now in the West Bank pay compensation in order to stay?…James
        >>>>>>

        Why are you absolutely stuck on the idea that the illegal settlers in the West Bank should be allowed to stay?
        These people are nothing more than a combination of common theives and welfare babies getting a deal in an illegal enterprise..
        Why on earth should Palestine let them stay?

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 9, 2013, 2:14 pm

        @American – – One good reason is that allowing them to stay would facilitate protecting 1967 borders.

      • American
        American
        August 9, 2013, 2:33 pm

        @American – – One good reason is that allowing them to stay would facilitate protecting 1967 borders…” James

        oh brother James….you are a true zionist!

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 11, 2013, 2:56 pm

        @American – – Wrong. I just happen to think notion of removal of illegal Jews in West Bank causes more problems than it solves.
        Consider how many might very well leave on their own motion. After Palestine achieves ability to enforce laws of Palestine.

  17. jon s
    jon s
    August 8, 2013, 4:46 pm

    In the (imperfect)analogy France = Israel, Algeria = Palestinian territories (West Bank + Gaza). Israel should end the occupation and repatriate the settlers, as the French did.
    The Algerians achieved independence , established an Algerian state , the French have a French state, the conflict ended.

  18. just
    just
    August 8, 2013, 4:47 pm

    The Palestinians are wronged again. When will this infernal horror end???

    ” We’ve created a disaster.”

    And, we keep feeding this monstrous disaster to the tune of billions and a disgusting hypocrisy that knows no bounds……….. the world is watching us, and knows that we are self- destructing with regard to “foreign policy”.

  19. Ellen
    Ellen
    August 8, 2013, 5:36 pm

    If you visit the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin (which is right next to the US Embassy, and only recently was declared to also include the hundred of thousands of others murdered under the NAZI regime, but still does not acknowledge their suffering in the museum) there is an entire section dedicated to the complicity of the media of the time. The critical complicity that made such horrific crimes possible.

    As they say….history repeats itself.

  20. Citizen
    Citizen
    August 8, 2013, 6:29 pm

    Algeria as an analogy? The French eventually left and never looked back. There’s no Massada or Samson Option in that model. France never even entertained the notion of using nukes to protect its colony in Algeria. And France never had a sole superpower enabling its colonization. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/30/comment

    I fail to see how apartheid S Africa is not a closer analogy in terms of defeating the Zionists via BDS & alternate media in USA.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      August 8, 2013, 7:33 pm

      France actually had incorporated Algeria into “Metropolitan France”. Then had to reverse the deal.
      Analogy would be Puerto Rico becoming a state in US, then becoming independent subsequently.

    • American
      American
      August 9, 2013, 12:14 am

      Yes it might take a battle of Algiers ………

      Similarity is there already.

      “”The film opens with a scene in which “Paras” (French paratroopers) brutally torture an old Arab man. The information they get from him will lead them to the hide-out of Ali la Pointe, the last remaining leader (so they hope) of the FLN, the movement they are determined to crush. As they close in on the hide-out, the film retraces how the Algerian revolutionary movement began, showing us some of the routine indignities visited on Arabs by French colonials: a bunch of young French punks trip Ali just for the fun of seeing him take a fall. . . . As the Arabs begin to demand an independent Algerian state and terrorist cells begin to leave bombs in places frequented by the French (the race-track, bars, the Air France office) the colonists (many of them called pieds-noirs because they were born in Algeria) become more and more enraged, attacking even small Arab children trying to sell candy on the street.”

      “This rebellion is not merely challenging the power of the settlers, but their very being. For most Europeans in Algeria, there are two complementary and inseparable truths: the colonists are backed by divine right, the natives are sub-human.
      This is a mythical interpretation of reality, since the riches of the one are built on the poverty of the other. In this way exploitation puts the exploiter at the mercy of his victim, and the dependence itself begets racialism. It is a bitter and tragic fact that, for the Europeans in Algeria, being a man means first and foremost superiority to the Moslems. But what if the Moslem finds in his turn that his manhood depends on equality with the settler? It is then that the European begins to feel his very existence diminished and cheapened.”

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      August 10, 2013, 1:56 pm

      Citizen:

      I fail to see how apartheid S Africa is not a closer analogy in terms of defeating the Zionists via BDS & alternate media in USA.

      Both analogies fail in crucial ways.

  21. ToivoS
    ToivoS
    August 8, 2013, 7:00 pm

    About a decade ago I read an article by an Israeli who argued that Algeria is the precedent that Israel should worry about and not South Africa.

    I agreed. The precedent that concerned him was that when the dam bursts and Israel is forced to give equal rights to the native people, the Israeli Jews of European ancestry will simply leave. My understanding of the Algerian struggle for independence was that the rebels never demanded that the Pied Noirs return to France but that Algeria be an independent state. The French left on their own accord. That was probably a smart thing to do. If after WWII the French settlers had agreed to demands for independence then they probably would have felt free to remain. The French simply committed too many atrocities against the Algerian people during the war for there not to be some really long lasting resentments.

    Israeli leaders and their people know this perfectly well. In fact the emigration is already in progress. What is the current number of Israelis that live (and have citizenship in the West)? Something like 700,000 is a number I saw a few years ago. What is the number of Israeli citizens that have passports from other countries? Two to two and half million has been mentioned.

  22. James Canning
    James Canning
    August 8, 2013, 7:08 pm

    @ToivoS – – The French were very badly outnumbered by Muslims in Algeria. In Israel, Jews outnumber non-Jews by about three to one.

    • American
      American
      August 8, 2013, 11:53 pm

      ”In Israel, Jews outnumber non-Jews by about three to one.”…James

      If Algeria was replicated in Palestine/Israel you would have millions of Arabs from all over the ME flooding into the fight on the Palestine side….as well as attracting ALQ and every other kind of radical in the ME.
      That would be a situtation where the fight would be up close, personal and dirty, not the remote bombing Israel is use to.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 11, 2013, 2:54 pm

        @American – – Yes, no chance for a repeat of Algerian civil war, in Israel.

      • American
        American
        August 11, 2013, 3:45 pm

        James

        you need to reprogram your auto bot software or something—-your responses and comments make no sense.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 11, 2013, 7:14 pm

        @American – – The French in Algeria were outnumbered by Muslims, by what ratio? As you understand.
        Whites in South Africa. Overwhelmed by too many blacks.
        Israeli Jews outnumber non-Jews by 3 to 1.
        Obviously not another Algeria.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        August 11, 2013, 10:04 pm

        James Canning :

        The French in Algeria were outnumbered by Muslims, by what ratio? As you understand.
        Whites in South Africa. Overwhelmed by too many blacks.
        Israeli Jews outnumber non-Jews by 3 to 1.
        Obviously not another Algeria.

        Your analysis is clear, concise, and logical. The search for the “correct” historical analogy to serve as a model of the I/P conflict is misguided in my view.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        August 11, 2013, 11:14 pm

        I agree,

        James, you seriously have to watch the amount of garbage you are posting on this forum. If you have so much to say, start your own blog to vent. I am getting sick of my notification in box being filled wit your meaningless rants and ones line responses. I have to sort though them just to get to something worth reading.

        I know you mean well, but please show some regard for other members of the forum.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 12, 2013, 12:22 am

        Your analysis is clear, concise, and logical. The search for the “correct” historical analogy to serve as a model of the I/P conflict is misguided in my view.

        The ratio of minorities to the majority will never alter the answer to the moral question anyway. We are talking about perpetuating a regime of systematic inequality and discrimination under the law or practicing military occupation, forced eviction, colonialism, and apartheid.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        August 12, 2013, 9:28 am

        Shingo:

        James, you seriously have to watch the amount of garbage you are posting on this forum

        Saying someone’s posts are garbage is one thing; demonstrating that with facts/logic is quite another. I respectfully suggest you do less of the former and more of the latter.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 12, 2013, 1:43 pm

        @Shingo – – An example of “garbage”?

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 12, 2013, 1:52 pm

        Thanks, Sibiriak. If the French in Algeria outnumbered Muslims by 3 to 1, Algeria probably would have remained part of France.

    • ToivoS
      ToivoS
      August 9, 2013, 1:20 am

      Totally irrelevant comment James. We are not talking about an exact analogy, but a possible precedent. Also your numbers are wrong. Israel has no borders. If we take into consideration the number of Palestinians refugees then it becomes about two or three Palestinians for every Israeli Jew. If we ignore the refugees but just consider the WB and Gaza then it is about 1 Jew for every non-Jew.

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 9, 2013, 4:28 am

        ToivoS “Israel has no borders. “

        There’s no official recognition of Israel’s borders having changed since the day they were announced and Internationally recognized as officially requested by the Israeli Government May 15th 1948

        “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

        Israel has never legally annexed ANY territory beyond its recognized borders of 1948 nor has there been any agreement with the Palestinians enabling legal change to Israel’s borders of 1948.

        “If we take into consideration the number of Palestinians refugees then it becomes about two or three Palestinians for every Israeli Jew”

        In actual Israeli territory? Impossible. A complete nonsense perpetuated by Israel propagandists in order to instill fear and prevent any RoR at all.

        The Palestinian claim for RoR is under UNGA res 194. No lineal descendants and applicable only to Israel as it was recognized in 1948 http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/418E7BC6931616B485256CAF00647CC7

        The scary millions figure comes from the UNRWA definition which
        A) by date is irrelevant to RoR under UNGA Res 194 (1948). UNRWA didn’t exist until 1949. and;
        B) by the UNRWA mandate its definition is irrelevant to RoR

        (Q2) “Is UNRWA involved in the Middle East peace negotiations and in the discussions on a solution to the refugee issue?”
        (A2) “No. UNRWA is a humanitarian UN agency and its mandate from the UN General Assembly defines its role as one of providing services to the refugees. As such, the Agency is not involved in the political discussions on the future of the refugees.” http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=87#final_status

        Furthermore, the life expectancy in 1948-50 in the region was 47 years. 65 years has since passed. The vast majority of Palestine refugees who had a RoR to Israel as it was recognized in 1948 are DEAD!

        There are only a few thousand Palestinians with RoR to Israel, they were at best children or babies when they were dispossessed. Their MINIMUM age is 65 yrs, past the age of rampant procreation. They present no demographic threat to Israel what so ever.

        The demographic threat is to Israel’s illegal facts on the ground in territories “outside the State of Israel” http://pages.citebite.com/x1r0b4d1y6mkv other areas from ’67 and since none of which have ever been legally annexed to Israel and for which the Palestinians have no need yet to claim any RoR quite simply because none of it is yet Israeli!

        ” If we ignore the refugees but just consider the WB and Gaza then it is about 1 Jew for every non-Jew

        Problem… the WB and Gaza are only a part of the equation. There’s still some 50% of what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared and recognized as independent from Palestine, none of which is yet legally Israeli territory http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 9, 2013, 10:58 am

        The Palestinian claim for RoR is under UNGA res 194.

        There are over one hundred thousand Palestinians who have been displaced internally or who have had their residency revoked since the occupation of 1967 began. Their repatriation is required under the terms Article 6 and 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention. There is also customary state practice on the obligation to repatriate descendants. For example: Article 116 par. 2 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) reads:

        “Former German citizens who between January 30, 1933 and May 8, 1945 were deprived of their citizenship on political, racial, or religious grounds, and their descendants, shall on application have their citizenship restored. They shall be deemed never to have been deprived of their citizenship if they have established their domicile in Germany after May 8, 1945 and have not expressed a contrary intention.’ http://www.germany.info/Vertretung/usa/en/05__Legal/02__Directory__Services/02__Citizenship/__Restored.html

      • talknic
        talknic
        August 9, 2013, 1:11 pm

        Hostage “There are over one hundred thousand Palestinians who have been displaced internally or who have had their residency revoked since the occupation of 1967 began … etc … 4th Geneva Convention”

        I have no doubt of the rights of people displaced ’67 and post ’67.

        However there are numerous variables. To be specific:

        Since 1967 A) were they Israeli or Palestinian residents or citizens B) was their citizenship and/or residency revoked and; C) from which territory?

        Israeli citizens from Israel as it was/is recognized 1948?
        Israeli or Palestinian residents and/or citizens from territory “acquired by war” 1948-49? (never legally annexed)
        Israeli or Palestinian residents and/or citizens from “territories occupied” 1967? (never legally annexed)

        Messy isn’t it. Some were displaced twice, once ’47-’49, again in
        ’67 and since.

        —-

        In respect to customary International law vs customary state law. It is my layman’s understanding that once a majority of states have adopted a similar legal practice it automatically passes into Customary International Law.

        Q) As the majority of states have never been in the situation of having to grant RoR, surely it would only pass into Customary International Law if the majority of states have adopted legislation should the issue come up for them some time in the future?

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 9, 2013, 1:58 pm

        @ToivoS – – Non-Jews may outnumber Jews, in Palestine plus Israel w/in 1967 borders.
        Within Israel, Jews are about three to one.
        Most European diplomats see 1967 borders as the only realistic way forward. Even if you do not.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 12, 2013, 1:44 pm

        ToivoS – – I said non-Jews and Jews were about equal, in Palestine and Israel combined.

    • Djinn
      Djinn
      August 9, 2013, 1:56 am

      Apples & oranges James. You are comparing the coloniser & the colony with just the coloniser.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        August 11, 2013, 2:52 pm

        Djinn – – What is your understanding of number of Jews in Israel, compared to number of non-Jews, in Israel?

  23. eGuard
    eGuard
    August 8, 2013, 9:04 pm

    Phil, you write: Rudoren has my sympathy. Every statement she makes is vetted by the lobby. Rudoren can quit every minute from this job but does not. Her bending does not imply a backbone.

    My opinion is: you think she is great because she is jewish and she pushes back. Sure. Ask a Palestinian about her pushing direction.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      August 11, 2013, 3:36 pm

      @ eGuard
      Your view and Phil’s view are not inconsistent. He’s speaking as a Jew; it’s difficult to be publicly critical of Jewish activity through AIPAC and Israel agency. You can get shunned. Look at what happened to Goldstone. He capitulated. Ask the Amish how hard it is to break away from their community to stand as an individual with universal values.

      Of course, it’s even more difficult for gentile Americans to be critical as Phil is. They will lose their career. Since America is 98% Gentile, goes to show just how much power the Israel First community has–no Fifth Column has ever held such power in America or any nation state.

      • eGuard
        eGuard
        August 11, 2013, 6:56 pm

        Well, then Phil could have kept silent. Applauding Rudoren was a choice by Phillip Weiss. Within two days NYT and Phil were outfacted. Journalist Rudoren had lied.

        Maybe there was a good reaon to support her. I did not find one. Phillip Weiss is a Rudoren fan, OK then. To me, Rudoren is not a journalist. She lies to be Zionist.

        Here is Phillip Weiss on Rudoren, just last week: Rudoren has my sympathy. Every statement she makes is vetted by the lobby.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/jodi-rudoren-intentionally-obscured-reality-in-her-recent-piece-on-beit-ommar.html

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        August 12, 2013, 1:32 am

        Applauding Rudoren was a choice by Phillip Weiss. Within two days NYT and Phil were outfacted. Journalist Rudoren had lied.

        WTF? It’s rather doubtful that Phil is fan of Rudoren, much less that he was “outfacted” two days later when Bekah Wolf reported here on Mondoweiss that “Jodi Rudoren intentionally obscured reality in her recent piece on Beit Ommar.”

        Phil was highly critical of Rudoren and the NYT in the article in question: “In a West Bank Culture of Conflict, Boys Wield the Weapon at Hand” for failing to mention the occupation as the basis for Palestinian hostility, while stereotyping young Palestinians for making a hobby out of stone throwing. Phil applauded articles by Ben Ehrenreich and Amira Hass, but not that Rudoren article. He merely stated that she had done a better job of referring to the occupation in another, unrelated article published on the same day: “Israeli Decree on West Bank Settlements Will Harm Peace Talks, Palestinians Say”. But that isn’t the same article that Bekah Wolf subsequently wrote about when she accused Rudoren of obscuring the truth. At that time, the NYT, had not yet published the dubious correction to the second article which effectively rescinded the “better job” it had done of referring to the occupation. But that was also the subject of this follow-up article on Mondoweiss. So please tell us, where did Phil get his facts wrong?

        Mondoweiss has done a pretty good job of keeping Rudoren under scrutiny and critiquing all of her work since she replaced Ethan Bonner, e.g.
        *New ‘NYT’ bureau chief Jodi Rudoren faces outcry from Israel advocates over Twitter messages;
        *My correspondence with NYT’s Rudoren

        Expressing sympathy for Rudoren’s troubles with the Lobby is not an example of applauding her or her work. Maybe you should remain silent until you get your own facts straight.

  24. iResistDe4iAm
    iResistDe4iAm
    August 9, 2013, 12:10 pm

    UN states that consider Israeli settlements illegal = 192 of 193 (99.5%), including USA.
    UN states that consider Israeli settlements legal = 1 of 193 (0.5%), Israel.

    UN states trying to legitimise illegal Israeli settlements = USA.

  25. MSeveral
    MSeveral
    August 9, 2013, 1:02 pm

    Philip Weiss is simply wrong: Jodi Rudoren did not describe the settlements as illegal. Rather, she inaccurately stated that the United States has, along with most of the international community, declared them illegal. The correction the following day is accurate, and to assume the accurate correction is the result of pressure from the Israel lobby is quite a stretch, especially since Mr. Weiss presented no evidence that that occurred. Being rather familiar with the issues surrounding the legality and illegalilty of the settlements, I was a bit surprised to read what Ms. Rudoren wrote, and am glad the correction was made. If we are going to deal with this issue, lets get our facts straight and not make up things, including assertions of behind the scene forces controlling our world.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      August 11, 2013, 4:13 pm

      The correction the following day is accurate, and to assume the accurate correction is the result of pressure from the Israel lobby is quite a stretch

      No it is not. We have declassified documents of conversations between US and Israeli government officials, regarding reports in the New York Times on the plans for permanent settlements by Hedrick Smith, in which the Assistant Secretaries of State (Lucien Battle and Nicholas Katzenbach) stressed the importance of the need to avoid airing differences of opinion between Israel and the US in the public press, e,g. See paragraph 4 and footnote 4 http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d451

      It’s a matter of public record that Israel and its supports, including registered US lobbying organizations, have managed from time to time to obtain Letters of Assurance from the US government that guarantee it will keep quiet about certain disagreements or adopt policy statements that are in line with Zionist propaganda.

      Here is another example. The United States was a signatory and ratified several treaties that legally required it to formally recognize a separate Mandated State of Palestine, e.g. the Treaty of Lausanne, the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention, and the Most Favored Nation Trade Agreements with Great Britain. The U.S. federal courts even disposed of cases in the 1950’s by ruling that the Executive branch had formally recognized the State of Palestine in those treaties. See “Kletter v. Dulles, Secretary of State”, the United States District Court District Of Columbia (1953) http://dc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19530417_0000023.ddc.htm/qx

      During an international conference in 1949, the Government of Israel insisted that it was in no sense a successor of the government or State of Palestine, because there had not been an orderly transfer of territory or sovereignty from that entity to the government of Israel. Israel insisted it had come into existence through its own act of secession. See D.P. O’Connell (author) “The Law of State Succession”, Volume V of the Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, 1956, Hersh Lauterpacht editor, pages 10-11, and 178; and CApp 41/49 Simshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory LTD. v. Attorney-General (1950) http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/49/410/000/z01/49000410.z01.pdf

      The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 201 Reporter’s Note 3 says: “The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist.”

      In the 1960’s the State of Israel complained because the United States continued to use “Jerusalem, Palestine” on official documents. For example, the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), 1964–1968, Volume XVIII, Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1964–67, Document 30, footnote 2 reveals that:

      Telegram 774 to Tel Aviv, March 5, summarized an informal conversation between Davies and Israeli Minister Gazit concerning Israel’s efforts to obtain U.S. agreement to drop the use of “Jerusalem, Palestine” in passports issued or renewed in Jerusalem and issued to officers stationed in Jerusalem. Davies strongly protested Israel’s refusal to honor Consul Robert H. Munn’s passport, which contained this usage. (Ibid.) A chronology of discussions on this subject, dating back to February 1963, is attached to A–104 from Jerusalem, March 30. (Ibid.)

      http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v18/d30

      The same document revealed that:

      2. We will cease using “Palestine” in passports as place of assignment and cease issuing, renewing, or amending passports with seal bearing word “Palestine”.

      In 1995 the State Department published a Memorandum of Conversation between William Crawford Jr. and Mr. Shaul Bar-Haim from the Israeli Embassy (February 7, 1963) regarding Jerusalem. Bar-Haim said “The use of the term “Palestine” is historical fiction; it encourages the Palestine entity concept; its “revived usage enrages” individual Israelis”. Crawford replied “It is difficult to see how it “enrages” Israeli opinion. The practice is consistent with the fact that, ”in a de jure sense”, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty.” — See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Vol. Xviii, Near East, United States. Dept. of State, G.P.O., 1995, ISBN 0160451590, page 341.

      The Zionists remain outraged and have launched unsuccessful lobbying, legislative, and lawfare campaigns to overturn the decision and force officials to enter “Jerusalem, Israel” on official documents. See the list of registered Jewish lobbying organizations that filed amicus briefs on behalf of the petitioner in M.B.Z. v Clinton, Secretary of State: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/m-b-z-v-clinton/

      We also know for a fact that Israeli propaganda and that of its supporters, claimed for years that the Carter Administration was the first to declare the settlements were illegal. CAMERA even continued to demand corrections to news articles to that effect, after the publication in the FRUS of a memo written by Secretary Rusk of the Johnson administration, advising Israel that the settlements contravened Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention. See Gershom Gorenberg, Uncandid CAMERA, Moment Magazine, October/November 2007 http://web.archive.org/web/20120310185007/http://www.momentmag.com/moment/issues/2007/10/200710-OpinionGorenberg.html

      So it is common practice for the government of Israel and its proxies to demand these bogus corrections.

  26. James Canning
    James Canning
    August 11, 2013, 7:16 pm

    Great post, Hostage.

  27. Djinn
    Djinn
    August 11, 2013, 10:55 pm

    My views are, like anyone else who can read, is that of course there are more Jews in Israel than non Jews BUT that’s NOT the comparison you were making, you said:

    The French were very badly outnumbered by Muslims in Algeria. In Israel, Jews outnumber non-Jews by about three to one.

    You compared the number of people in the OCCUPIED territory with the number of people in BOTH the occupied territory and that of the occupier.

    If you had compared the numbers in Israel and the OPT with the numbers in France and Algeria you would have had a point.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      August 12, 2013, 1:56 pm

      Djinn – – Algeria was part of France, but simple fact there were so many Muslims who did not want to be French, meant that Algeria would become an independent country if the Muslims demanded independence. As they did.

  28. Sibiriak
    Sibiriak
    August 12, 2013, 9:49 am

    Djinn:

    My views are, like anyone else who can read, is that of course there are more Jews in Israel than non Jews BUT that’s NOT the comparison you were making, you said:

    The French were very badly outnumbered by Muslims in Algeria. In Israel, Jews outnumber non-Jews by about three to one

    That IS the correct comparison. Let’s back up and look at the analogy in question:

    [jon s]In the (imperfect)analogy France = Israel, Algeria = Palestinian territories (West Bank + Gaza). Israel should end the occupation and repatriate the settlers, as the French did.

    So far, so good.

    Then a different analogy was suggested, where Israel (not the O.T.)= Algeria.

    ToivoS :

    About a decade ago I read an article by an Israeli who argued that Algeria is the precedent that Israel should worry about and not South Africa.

    I agreed. The precedent that concerned him was that when the dam bursts and Israel is forced to give equal rights to the native people, the Israeli Jews of European ancestry will simply leave.

    This new analogy (Israel =Algeria), however, fails on demographic grounds alone, as James Canning pointed out several times.

    In Algeria, the European settler population was greatly outnumbered by the local non-European population.

    In Israel, just the opposite: the Jewish population greatly outnumbers the non-Jewish population.

    The second analogy, therefore, fails.

Leave a Reply