Historical Approach to the Issue of Legality of Jewish Settlement Activity
by the Late Eugene W. Rostow
This article appeared in The New Republic on April 23, 1990
The Jewish right of settlement in the West Bank is conferred by the same provisions of the Mandate under which Jews settled in Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem before the State of Israel was created. The Mandate for Palestine differs in one important respect from the other League of Nations mandates, which were trusts for the benefit of the indigenous population. The Palestine Mandate, recognizing "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country," is dedicated to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
The Mandate qualifies the Jewish right of settlement and political development in Palestine in only one respect. Article 25 gave Great Britain and the League Council discretion to "postpone" or "withhold" the Jewish people's right of settlement in the TransJordanian province of Palestine-now the Kingdom of Jordan-if they decided that local conditions made such action desirable.
With the divided support of the council, the British took that step in 1922. The Mandate does not, however, permit even a temporary suspension of the Jewish right of settlement in the parts of the Mandate west of the Jordan River.
The Armistice Lines of 1949, which are part of the West Bank boundary, represent nothing but the position of the contending armies when the final cease-fire was achieved in the War of Independence. And the Armistice Agreements specifically provide, except in the case of Lebanon, that the demarcation lines can be changed by agreement when the parties move from armistice to peace. Resolution 242 is based on that provision of the Armistice Agreements and states certain criteria that would justify changes in the demarcation lines when the parties make peace. Many believe that the Palestine Mandate was somehow terminated in 1947, when the British government resigned as the mandatory power. This is incorrect. A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose.
Thus in the case of the Mandate for German South West Africa, the International Court of justice found the South African government to be derelict in its duties as the mandatory power, and it was deemed to have resigned. Decades of struggle and diplomacy then resulted in the creation of the new state of Namibia, which has just come into being. In Palestine the British Mandate ceased to be operative as to the territories of Israel and Jordan when those states were created and recognized by the international community. But its rules apply still to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which have not yet been allocated either to Israel or to Jordan or become an independent state.
Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank in 1951, but that annexation was never generally recognized, even by the Arab states, and now Jordan has abandoned all its claims to the territory. The State Department has never denied that under the Mandate "the Jewish people" have the right to settle in the area. Instead, it said that Jewish settlements in the West Bank violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which deals with the protection of civilians in wartime. Where the territory of one contracting party is occupied by another contracting party, the Convention prohibits many of the inhumane practices of the Nazis and the Soviets before and during the Second World War-the mass transfer of people into or out of occupied territories for purposes of extermination, slave labor, or colonization, for example. Article 49 provides that the occupying power "shall not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
But the Jewish settlers in the West Bank are volunteers. They have not been "deported" or "transferred" by the government of Israel, and their movement involves none of the atrocious purposes or harmful effects on the existing population the Geneva Convention was designed to prevent. Furthermore, the Convention applies only to acts by one signatory "carried out on the territory of another." The West Bank is not the territory of a signatory power, but an unallocated part of the British Mandate. It is hard, therefore, to see how even the most literal-minded reading of the Convention could make it apply to Jewish settlement in territories of the British Mandate west of the Jordan River. Even if the Convention could be construed to prevent settlements during the period of occupation, however, it could do no more than suspend, not terminate, the rights conferred by the Mandate. Those rights can be ended only by the establishment and recognition of a new state or the incorporation of the territories into an old one.
As claimants to the territory, the Israelis have denied that they are required to comply with the Geneva Convention but announced that they will do so as a matter of grace. The Israeli courts apply the Convention routinely, sometimes deciding against the Israeli government. Assuming for the moment the general applicability of the Convention, it could well be considered a violation if the Israelis deported convicts to the area or encouraged the settlement of people who had no right to live there (Americans, for example). But how can the Convention be deemed to apply to Jews who have a right to settle in the territories under international law: a legal right assured by treaty and specifically protected by Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, which provides that nothing in the Charter shall be construed "to alter in any manner" rights conferred by existing international instruments" like the Mandate? The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the existing Palestinian population to live there. Another principle of international law may affect the problem of the Jewish settlements. Under international law, an occupying power is supposed to apply the prevailing law of the occupied territory at the municipal level unless it interferes with the necessities of security or administration or is "repugnant to elementary conceptions of justice." From 1949 to 1967, when Jordan was the military occupant of the West Bank, it applied its own laws to prevent any Jews from living in the territory. To suggest that Israel as occupant is required to enforce such Jordanian laws-a necessary implication of applying the Convention-is simply absurd. When the Allies occupied Germany after the Second World War, the abrogation of the Nuremberg Laws was among their first acts. The general expectation of international law is that military occupations last a short time, and are succeeded by a state of peace established by treaty or otherwise. In the case of the West Bank, the territory was occupied by Jordan between 1949 and 1967, and has been occupied by Israel since 1967. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 rule that the Arab states and Israel must make peace, and that when "a just and lasting peace" is reached in the Middle East, Israel should withdraw from some but not all of the territory it occupied in the course of the 1967 war. The Resolutions leave it to the parties to agree on the terms of peace.
The controversy about Jewish settlements in the West Bank is not, therefore, about legal rights but about the political will to override legal rights. Is the United States prepared to use all its influence in Israel to award the whole of the West Bank to Jordan or to a new Arab state, and force Israel back to its 1967 borders? Throughout Israel's occupation, the Arab countries, helped by the United States, have pushed to keep Jews out of the territories, so that at a convenient moment, or in a peace negotiation, the claim that the West Bank is "Arab" territory could be made more plausible. Some in Israel favor the settlements for the obverse reason: to reinforce Israel's claim for the fulfillment of the Mandate and of Resolution 242 in a peace treaty that would at least divide the territory. For the international community, the issue is much deeper and more difficult: whether the purposes of the Mandate can be considered satisfied if the Jews finally receive only the parts of Palestine behind the Armistice Lines-less than 17.5 percent of the land promised them after the First World War. The extraordinary recent changes in the international environment have brought with them new diplomatic opportunities for the United States and its allies, not least in the Middle East.
Soviet military aid apparently is no longer available to the Arabs for the purpose of making another war against Israel. The intifada has failed, and the Arabs' bargaining position is weakening. It now may be possible to take long steps toward peace. But to do so, the participants in the Middle East negotiations- the United States, Israel, Egypt, and the PLO- will have to look beyond the territories
The occupation in perspective
A call for a contextual understanding
By Maurice Ostroff June 11, 2011
If calls for a settlement are to be meaningful, the ill-defined expression 'end the occupation' must be replaced by a call for 'territorial compromise’ as contemplated in the careful wording of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. As in the case of Kashmir, the land in which a compromise is to be realized is “disputed territory”
Is Israel occupying Palestinian land?
In the aftermath of the disengagement from Gaza, intense pressure from all quarters is building up to “end the occupation. There are however, as many confusing differences of opinion about what is intended by “ending the occupation” as there are over what is meant by the word “occupation” iself.
Recently, while discussing with a BBC correspondent the legality or otherwise of Israel’s presence on the West Bank and previously in the Gaza strip, his answer was very simple. Ariel Sharon, the principal architect of the settlements policy had, at last, used the word "occupation.” Omitting a few logical steps the reporter’s conclusion was obvious. End the occupation and all will be well with the world.
The furor caused by Sharon’s use of this highly charged word “occupation” should cause us not only to examine more carefully our own use of words, but also our interpretation of words used by others. It highlights the confusing situation in which each member of the media, each political party and even each individual, interested in the conflict, attaches his/her own self-serving meaning to words, which are crucial to understanding the conflict.
What Sharon actually said on the radio was that it was not good for the Palestinians, nor for Israel, nor for the economy to continue indefinitely the kibush (i.e. conquest or occupation) over 3.5 million Palestinians. The next day, he explained to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that he meant to say “it is undesirable for us to rule over a Palestinian population”.
Israel's underfunded PR efforts are vulnerable to the type of simplified logic displayed by the BBC man. In assuming that the justice of its cause is self-evident, Israel has consistently failed to challenge fundamentally incorrect statements, which have been repeated so frequently by Palestinian spokespeople, that they have been absorbed into conventional wisdom and accepted as fact by international politicians and journalists.
In fact, Sharon was not at all original in describing Israel’s presence in the territories as occupation. The Camp David Accords, which Menachem Begin signed in 1978, refer clearly to “occupation”. Even UN Security Council resolution 242, which will be referred to again in this article, explicitly uses this taboo word.
But the question of whether or not Israel’s presence in these territories is described as “occupation” is not the real issue. Rather, the real issue which needs clarification is the common misconception that the territory Israel is occupying was taken from the Palestinians; a view that prejudges the territorial negotiations envisioned in 242 and also provides the emotional excuse of "resisting occupation" to justify ongoing terrorism.
It is therefore important at this late stage, to identify significant relevant information relating to arguments, which are raised daily in all earnestness and sincerity by people who are unaware of the historical facts.
It is surprising that so many commentators fall victim to the debating technique of 'Begging The Question' in which the matter to be proved is already assumed in the language used in the premise of the argument. Interviewers on TV and radio are frequently guilty of failing to challenge statements, which prejudge the issue under discussion, such as 'Palestinian terror will cease when the illegal occupation ends’. This statement, which is regularly made as a self-evident truth, ignores the undisputable fact that Arab terrorism did not begin with the 1967 occupation. In the years 1951-1955, for example, Arab terrorists killed 922 Israelis. Typical was the March 1954 ambush of a bus traveling from Eilat to Tel Aviv, killing the driver and wounding most of the passengers. The terrorists then boarded the bus, and shot each passenger, one by one, spitting on their bodies.
The context of Israel’s presence in the territories
While famous for his military expertise, Sharon has never been regarded as an authority on international law and it is indeed amazing how persons who should know better have seized upon his use of a particular word to justify irrelevancies. As it is always helpful to understand clearly the meaning of words we use, let’s consider the context of Israel’s presence in the West bank and Gaza.
Jordan illegally entered the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1948 and remained in occupation until 1967. It attempted to annex the territory in 1951, but that annexation was recognized only by Britain and Pakistan; not even by Egypt nor any other Arab state. Egypt, similarly occupied Gaza in 1948 in violation of UN resolution 181, but unlike Jordan Egypt did not attempt to annex it and significantly, did not accept the return of Gaza in its peace agreement with Israel.
That territorial adjustments were contemplated from the earliest days is confirmed by article II.2. of the 1949 Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, which specifically stated: "no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations".
As Jordan no longer makes any claim to the West Bank and Egypt makes no claim on Gaza the only remaining claimants are Israel and the Palestinians. As to who has the stronger claim, the Palestinians never had any title to these territories. Moreover, international law distinguishes clearly between "aggressive conquest" and territorial acquisition after a war of self-defense. Former US State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title”
Significantly, even the UN rejected Soviet efforts to have Israel branded as the aggressor in the Six-Day War.
In these circumstances, the most accurate and realistic description of the West Bank and Gaza is disputed territory, whose final disposition will be determined by negotiation as provided in resolution 242 (about which more later).
“Disputed”, rather than “occupied” territories is the designation used in other similar situations such as Kashmir, which is claimed by India, Pakistan, and the Kashmiris and even the Northwest Passage which Canada claims as part of its territorial waters, while the United States regards it as international waters, not to speak of Taiwan and Tibet. (See "Disputed territories around the world
It is ironical that neither Jordan nor Egypt offered to create a Palestinian state in these territories when they were in a position to do so.
Legality of the occupation
Quite apart from its historical ties to Judea, Samaria and especially Jerusalem, Israel has a very strong claim to both territories. They were unambiguously allocated to the Jewish state in the League of Nations Mandate the preamble of which stated that its purpose was "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people in Mandatory Palestine" (which included not only present day Israel, but also the West Bank and what is now known as Jordan).
Jordan was hived off in terms of Article 25, of the mandate, which entitled the Mandatory, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of the mandate, as it may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions. As such permission was given in respect of territory east, but not west of the Jordan, the West Bank, Jerusalem and present day Israel remained allocated for the Jewish national home. Their capture by Israel in a defensive war from states that originally seized them by armed aggression was therefore fully justified.
The late Eugene W. Rostow, who played a leading role in producing the famous Resolution 242, as well as the late Professor Julius Stone, one of the twentieth century's leading authorities on the Law of Nations, both pronounced that the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the existing Palestinian population to live there. According to Rostow, the Armistice Lines of 1949, which are part of the West Bank boundary, represent nothing but the position of the contending armies when the final cease-fire was achieved in the War of Independence. And the Armistice Agreements specifically provide, except in the case of Lebanon, that the demarcation lines can be changed only by agreement when the parties move from armistice to peace. Resolution 242 is based on that provision of the Armistice Agreements and states certain criteria that would justify changes in the demarcation lines when the parties make peace. (See articles by Rostow)
Acknowledgement of the legality of the occupation does not preclude advocating withdrawal from part or all of the West Bank in order to achieve a peaceful settlement. It is however, intellectually dishonest to use the invalid assumption that the occupation is illegal to bolster a case for such withdrawal.
The legal position
An authoritative clear analysis of the legal status of the West bank and Gaza in terms of international law, by Australian lawyer, Ian Lacey, is available at
In an update, Ian lacey adds
that in his view, any possible concept of an occupation came to an end with the Oslo Accords.
The current binding legal instrument under the Accords is the Interim Agreement of 1995, which governs the status of the Territories on an interim basis until a final status agreement is negotiated. Under Article XI all of the civil powers and responsibilities in the whole of the Territories are now exercised by the Palestinian Authority, although in the lightly populated area still defined as Area C, this does not include powers relating to territory. The result is that 100% of the Palestinian population of the territories is presently governed by the Palestinian Authority.
|Under Article XII(1), ie. by express agreement with the Palestinians, Israel retains responsibility for defense and the overall security of Israelis and settlements, and has the powers to take the steps necessary to meet this responsibility. In other words Israel forces are present in the Territories by agreement and only to the extent made necessary by attacks on Israelis.
Further, under Article XXXI permanent status negotiations are to include Jerusalem, Settlements and Borders. In other words it is expressly acknowledged that existing Settlements are not illegal during the interim period, and that ultimate borders will be subject to negotiation. This reinforces the description of the Territories as disputed. As can be seen, they are certainly not occupied in any sense.
The legal position may enter a state of flux as a result of the election of a Palestinian government which has expressly stated that it does not intend to enter into the permanent status negotiations contemplated by Oslo. If the Interim Agreement were to be officially repudiated by the PA, and if that repudiation was officially accepted by Israel, then the legal situation would revert to the status quo ante. Israel would remain the only State body entitled to exercise sovereignty in the Territories, certainly until a permanent peace was negotiated, and arguably with a right of unilateral annexation, in whole or part, for the purposes of defense against future aggression, and as occurred in Europe after the Second World War.
What is meant by “end the occupation”?
The mantra 'end the occupation' is in itself wooly and should not be used without clarification of its intended meaning. Some assume it refers only to territory gained by Israel in 1967. Others refer to all land beyond the 1947 partition boundaries. But the insurmountable obstacle to any long-term peaceful solution is that many Palestinian and Arab spokespeople openly declare that there is no place for Israel at all and that they will continue their attacks until Israel ceases to exist. Until his last days, the late Chairman Arafat wore a badge on his uniform depicting a Palestinian state, which included the entire area of present-day Israel, from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. This strategic Palestinian goal goes a long way to explain the dramatic rise in terror attacks while peace talks were in progress during 1993 and 1994.
Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank should not be seen as correction of an illegal situation. Rather it is a declaration, that despite Israel's presence in these territories being completely justified by the circumstances, which prompted the 1967 war, and despite their legality in terms of international law, withdrawals and territorial adjustments have been made and more will be offered in a sincere effort to attain a meaningful peace.
Very few indeed, even among the most ardent advocates of 'ending the occupation' call for Israel to relinquish, the Western Wall and access to Mount Scopus which had been inaccessible to Israel prior to 1967. If suggestions for a settlement are to be meaningful, the misleading expression 'end the occupation' must be avoided and replaced by the concept of 'territorial compromise' as contemplated in the careful wording of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. These resolutions require the Arab states and Israel to make peace, and that when "a just and lasting peace" is reached in the Middle East, Israel should withdraw from some but not all of the territory it occupied in the course of the 1967 war. The Resolutions leave it to the parties to agree on the peace borders.
Much has been written about the implications of Resolution 242 and if we are to avoid the distortions introduced by propagandists, obviously, the most reliable source from whom to seek clarification are the persons who drafted it. In drafting Resolution 242, British Ambassador to the UN in 1967, Lord Caradon, and American Ambassador, Arthur Goldberg, deliberately omitted a demand for Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders. In an interview in the Beirut Daily Star on June 12, 1974, Lord Caradon stated:
"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967 because these positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers on each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them, and I think we were right not to."
Articles by the Late Eugene W. Rostow, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969 who played a leading role in producing the famous Resolution 242.
a. Historical Approach to the Issue of Legality of Jewish Settlement Activity (The New Republic April 23, 1990).
b. Are the settlements legal? Resolved. (The New Republic, October 21, 1991).
|
 DOCUMENTS & ARTICLES
RECOMMENDED LINKS
Sultan Knish, a blog by Daniel greenfield
Israel & Midden Oosten
A Soldier's Mother
I have been a mother for more than 20 years, seeing my children through their baby years, their school years, into their teenage years. And now, as I see my oldest son enter the army of Israel, I become a soldier's mother.
Honest Reporting
Israel is in the midst of a battle for public opinion waged primarily via the media. To ensure Israel is represented fairly and accurately HonestReporting monitors the media, exposes cases of bias, promotes balance, and effects change through education and action.
A Haifa Diary
By CoHaV CEO Stuart Palmer
After a career in International Marketing, Stuart realised how little people outside of Israel really know about the country. He now devotes his time to try and correct this.
Letter from Israel
by DavidFrankfurter,a business consultant, corporate executive and writer who frequently comments on the Middle East.
Afternoon tea in Jerusalem
By Michael Horesh, whose work brings him in contact with an array of new companies, exciting technologies and dynamic people. Sitting back with a relaxing cup of strong tea (with milk), he says you realise just how much there is to appreciate in the Holyland.
CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting)
Founded in 1982, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America is a media-monitoring, research and membership organization devoted to promoting accurate and balanced coverage of Israel and theMiddle East. http://www.camera.org/
Take-A-Pen!
Take-A-Pen for Truth on Israel! is a multilingual international grassroots organization and website, operating since 2000.
Coalition of Hasbarah Volunteers (CoHaV)
An international umbrella for volunteer Israel advocacy groups
Scottish Friends of Israel
Candidly Speaking from Jerusalem
Isi Leibler, a veteran international Jewish leader with a distinguished record of contributions to the cause of human rights,
THINK-ISRAEL features essays and commentaries that provide context for the continuing crisis in Israel. www.think-israel.org
ISRAEL ACADEMIA MONITOR monitors abuses of academic freedom and politicization of Israeli campuses by radicals who collaborate with anti-Semites and bashers of Israel from around the worldwww.israel-academia-monitor.com
BICOM
The Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, is an independent organisation devoted to creating a better understanding ofIsrael in the UK.
Zionism and Israel Information Center
explain Zionism and anti-Zionism, and to support the elementary proposition that the Jewish people have the same right to self-determination as the Czechs, Poles, Greeks, Americans, British, French, Armenians, Turks, Jordanians, Lebanese and any other group that chooses to develop its own national culture.
Engage
a resource for the monitoring and the critique of left and liberal antisemitism.
Ex Ihle
A balanced informative blog by Jon Ihle, an American journalist with a particular interest in Jewish issues who lives and works in Ireland. .
BlogCatalog
|
|
| |
Are the settlements legal? Resolved
By Eugene W. Rostow,
The New Republic Inc.
The New Republic, October 21, 1991
Assuming the Middle East conference actually does take place, its official task will be to achieve peace between Israel and its Levantine neighbors in accordance with Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Resolution 242, adopted after the Six-Day War in 1967, sets out criteria for peace-making by the parties; Resolution 338, passed after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, makes resolution 242 legally binding and orders the parties to carry out its terms forthwith. Unfortunately, confusion reigns, even in high places, about what those resolutions require.
For twenty-four years Arab states have pretended that the two resolutions are "ambiguous" and can be interpreted to suit their desires. And some European, Soviet and even American officials have cynically allowed Arab spokesman to delude themselves and their people--to say nothing of Western public opinion--about what the resolutions mean. It is common even for American journalists to write that Resolution 242 is "deliberately ambiguous," as though the parties are equally free to rely on their own reading of its key provisions.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces "from territories" it occupied during the Six-Day War--not from "the" territories nor from "all" the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from "all" the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the "fragile" and "vulnerable" Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called "secure and recognized" boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.
Resolution 242 built on the text of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, which provided (except in the case of Lebanon) that the Armistice Demarcation Lines separating the military forces were "not to be construed in any sense" as political or territorial boundaries, and that "no provision" of the Armistice Agreements "Shall in any way prejudice the right, claims, and positions" of the parties "in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine problem." In making peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai, which had never been part of the British Mandate.
For security it depended on patrolled demilitarization and the huge area of the desert rather than on territorial change. As a result, more than 90 percent of the territories Israel occupied in 1967 are now under Arab sovereignty. It is hardly surprising that some Israelis take the view that such a transfer fulfills the territorial requirements of Resolution 242, no matter how narrowly they are construed.
Resolution 242 leaves the issue of dividing the occupied areas between Israel and its neighbors entirely to the agreement of the parties in accordance with the principles it sets out. It was, however, negotiated with full realization that the problem of establishing "a secure and recognized" boundary between Israel and Jordan would be the thorniest issue of the peace-making process. The United States has remained firmly opposed to the creation of a third Palestinian state on the territory of the Palestine Mandate. An independent Jordan or a Jordan linked in an economic union with Israel is desirable from the point of view of everybody's security and prosperity. And a predominantly Jewish Israel is one of the fundamental goals of Israeli policy. It should be possible to reconcile these goals by negotiation, especially if the idea of an economic union is accepted.
The Arabs of the West Bank could constitute the population of an autonomous province of Jordan or of Israel, depending on the course of the negotations. Provisions for a shift of populations or, better still, for individual self-determination are a possible solution for those West Bank Arabs who would prefer to live elsewhere. All these approaches were explored in 1967 and 1968.
One should note, however, that Syria cannot be allowed to take over Jordan and the West Bank, as it tried to do in 1970.
The heated question of Israel's settlements in the West Bank during the occupation period should be viewed in this perspective. The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to "close settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory. It was provided that local conditions might require Great Britain to "postpone" or "withhold" Jewish settlement in what is now Jordan. This was done in 1922. But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter,
"the Palestine article," which provides that "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments...."
Some governments have taken the view that under the Geneva Convention of 1949, which deals with the rights of civilians under military occupation, Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal, on the ground that the Convention prohibits an occupying power from flooding the occupied territory with its own citizens. President Carter supported this view, but President Reagan reversed him, specifically saying that the settlements are legal but that further settlements should be deferred since they pose a psychological obstacle to the peace process.
In any case, the issue of the legality of the settlements should not come up in the proposed conference, the purpose of which is to end the military occupation by making peace. When the occupation ends, the Geneva Convention becomes irrelevant. If there is to be any division of the West Bank between Israel and Jordan, the Jewish right of settlement recognized by the Mandate will have to be taken into account in the process of making peace.
This reading of Resolution 242 has always been the keystone of American policy.In launching a major peace initiative on September 1, 1982, President Reagan said, "I have personally followed and supported Israel's heroic struggle for survival since the founding of the state of Israel thirty-four years ago: in the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again."
Yet some Bush administration statements and actions on the Arab-Israeli question, and especially Secretary of State James Baker's disastrous speech of May 22, 1989, betray a strong impulse to escape from the resolutions as they were negotiated, debated, and adopted, and award to the Arabs all the territories between the 1967 lines and the Jordan river, including East Jerusalem. The Bush administration seems to consider the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to be "foreign" territory to which Israel has no claim. Yet the Jews have the same right to settle there as they have to settle in Haifa. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never parts of Jordan, and Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank was not generally recognized and has now been abandoned. The two parcels of land are parts of the Mandate that have not yet been allocated to Jordan, to Israel, or to any other state, and are a legitimate subject for discussion.
The American position in the coming negotiations should return to the fundamentals of policy and principle that have shaped American policy towards the Middle East for three-quarters of a century. Above all, rising above irritation and pique, it should stand as firmly for fidelity to law in dealing with the Arab-Israeli dispute as President Bush did during the Gulf war. Fidelity to law is the essence of peace, and the only practical rule for making a just and lasting peace. .
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment