Excellent piece in the Jewish Journal by David Suissa, a rightwing columnist who believes that Israel has a right to the West Bank, stating that the talks will fail because Israel has “the mark of ‘thief’” on its forehead and therefore the Palestinians will never compromise with it, and who can blame them. Suissa laments this mark, but says that a global campaign has been successful in affixing it.
there’s an underlying emotional reason why these talks are doomed to continue the failures of the past.
No one wants to negotiate — let alone compromise — with a thief.
For several decades now, the Palestinians have successfully sold the world and themselves on the narrative that Israel stole their land. This has given them zero incentive to compromise.
Over time, as this unchallenged narrative has taken on the aura of accepted truth, it has undermined all attempts to reach a final peace agreement, as well as expose Israel to a global campaign of boycotts and condemnations.
To make matters worse, whenever there is more settlement construction, the perceived level of “criminality” has only gone up….
As long as you enter negotiations with the mark of “thief” on your forehead, good luck trying to get the other side to compromise.
Much of Suissa’s column is dedicated to his argument that Israel has the right to Judea and Samaria, and it has failed to defend that right. It can’t win. It’s not Palestinian marketing that’s undermined his position, it’s that the rest of the world does not accept the Israeli interpretation of the Geneva Convention on transfer of populations.
The article demonstrates how much is at stake with the European stance on unlawfulness of the settlements. Israelis have undertaken negotiations in some measure because they are seeking a EU fig-leaf compromise on that stance. So as to escape the thief label.
“It’s not Palestinian marketing that’s undermined his position, it’s that the rest of the world does not accept the Israeli interpretation of the Geneva Convention on transfer of populations.”
In fact, even the original UN partition borders did not entail any Palestinian representation, and that partition itself was by the UN GA, and never secured as legitimate by UN SC vote. That Israel won’t accept those borders, but wants more land on the land it conquered by war in ’67, just reveals how rogue Israel is; it Israel was smart it would accept the armistice green line, which gave the Jews more than they deserved in the first place. Further, the original UN recognition of Israel came with a condition subsequent, that is, Israel promised to ASAP allow the return of the natives who were scared off their land. Nobody will make Israel account for its actions, it’s failure to conform to the gift the world powers gave them at the expense of the innocent Palestinian people. It’s disgusting, not just the chutzpah, but the Gentile world’s buying into it as a righteous just cause.
Talks will fail because Palestinians shouldn’t negotiate with ‘a thief,’ Israel supporter concedes
That simple truth destroys the US talking points on the settlements. You can’t say the settlements have no legitimacy or are illegitimate, while demanding that the Palestinians negotiate for their removal.
For decades the Israeli Supreme Court employed the legal fiction that the military commander could not establish facts on the ground that were more permanent than the occupation itself. The Court said that he could not convey a better title to expropriated property than the one he possessed under international law: none at all. See the Elon Moreh and Gaza Coast Council cases.
It’s axiomatic that Palestinian land, homes, or other property expropriated on the grounds of “military necessity” during the occupation, would automatically revert to the Palestinian owners when the hostilities and the occupation come to an end.
Prior to the Clinton era Camp David summit, the Palestinians were only required to negotiate the terms of the peace in exchange for the return of all their territory. But the Clinton proposals ushered in a new era where the USA explicitly began to suggest that the Israelis could acquire some of the territory by war, despite the customary and conventional prohibitions.
More correctly:
The overwhelming majority of the world see Israelis as theives because they are theives…..no way they can change that fact based opinion.
I think the world and Palestine would accept or ‘forget’ their 65 year theivery if Israel went back to it’s assigned UN parcel and minded it’s own business for the next for 65 years—-giving people time to get over it.
But nope they are too greedy to do that…their greed is gonna end up destroying them imo.
The question of ownership of property , rights and interests within occupied territory was addressed at the 1943 International conference in London, its mandate was to upgrade the Hague Regulations since they were not specific enough on property transfers, particularly because of the Nazi depredations in much of occupied Europe, these resolutions were put together by the leading jurists of their time and represent the latest and definitive word on the transfer of property rights and interests, the USA, USSR, China and the UK and Dominions amongst others adopted them, here are Resolutions 1, 2 and 3.
(1) The rules governing the validity in third countries of the acts of belligerent occupants and of transfers of, or dealings with, property, rights and interests of any description whatsoever derived from such acts, are rules of international law the non observation of which entails international responsibility.
Note: In courts of third States cases may be decided according to a variety of legal considerations, but the result must be in harmony with the rules of international law, the main contents of which are set out below. The Conference has not discussed the conditions under which a third State that does not give effect to the said rules is liable to pay damages to the injured party and/or his State.
(2) The occupant does not succeed, even provisionally, to the status or rights of the sovereign whom he displaces. The occupant has at most, under international law, only limited rights or jurisdiction and administration; acts in excess of these limited rights are null and void in law and are not entitled to legal recognition in any country.
(3) The rights of the occupant do not include any right to dispose of property, rights or interests for purposes other than the maintenance of public order and safety in the occupied territory. In particular, the occupant is not, in international law, vested with any power to transfer a title which will be valid outside that territory to any property, rights or interests which he purports to acquire or create or dispose of; this applies whether such property, rights or interests are those of the State or of private persons or bodies. This status of the occupant is not changed by the fact that the annexes by unilateral action the territory occupied by him.
This resolution is quoted in full in Von Glahn, “The occupation of enemy territory” [1957] pp 194-195. It was also used by Yesh Din in the recent Quarries case.
It would appear to be the case that the occupant nor his associates has the right to transfer a title of any property rights or interests whether private or public to a third country in breach of International Law.
The illegal nature of these property transfers means that the settlers only have physical possession of the property rights and interests [in effect illegal possession] which is obviously insufficient in law to acquire good title. The legitimacy of possession together with the ‘right to property’ is also required. The uniting of all these factors in the same person[s] is necessary for good title to pass. It follows that in the chain of sales”possession” is all that has been transferred to the settlers [the nemo dat quod non habet rule applies] no-one can give a better title than he has got.So because the military commander cannot transfer these property rights or concessions to illegal settlers under Hague Regulations 43 and 55, also Geneva 49.6 the transfers are incompatible with International Law and make the resolutions detailed in the 1943 Resolutions above applicable.