Click here for Part 1
 

Understanding the Media terminology in order to realize its secret agenda

The terror atrocity at the school in Beslan,  Russia

This atrocity spanning a few days of terrorist hostage taking in a Russian school,  ended in a blood bath of mindless killing of 250 children, parents and teachers. Once again, the entire world was ‘shocked’.  This human butchery, once again,  was conducted by Muslims, this time Chechen Muslims who attacked and occupied the school on its opening day – meant to be a joyful family event for hundreds of Russian families. 

How did the Media present these human butchers to the world as the horror developed?

ABCNEWS.com called them “secessionist Chechen rebels”
CBS News called them “militants” and “hostage takers”
CNN.com called them  “a group of attackers”
MSNBC called them “hostage-takers” and  “Chechen rebels”.
USATODAY.com called them  “armed militants”.
Al-Reuters.com called them  “an armed gang” and says  “It remained unclear who the attackers were”.

It is this type of Media terminology which blinds the masses to the real threat facing civilization in these traumatic times of international terrorism and which serves to hide the openly declared Cause of Islam to rid the world of ‘infidels’,  i.e. all those who refuse to become Muslims.  The use by the Media of whitewashing terminology to refer to these demoniac human butchers, amounts to siding with terror

Winston, a Mid-East analyst and commentator concludes: “When those who purvey their (the Arab Islamic Terrorism) hostile opinions and NOT the news or when they take the side of Terrorists,  they became co-conspirators with Terror.  Freedom of Speech is not a hunting license to assist Terrorists build up their rationale for more murder”. 

With Islam wielding this Sword of homicide over humanity today, it is therefore not strange that Israel and the Jews have become the scapegoat for humanity’s bleak future – also in the opinion of the Media.

The NEW YORK TIMES has once again shown its anti-Israel bias as a fellow traveler of the pro-Arab State Department. In its leading editorial of September 2^nd,  2004,  it starts out to lull us with its sensible point of view that Terror is here to stay - but then goes on to blame the State of Israel for Global Terror. (1)

According to the NEW YORK TIMES: All Global Terror driven by Muslim ‘Jihadists’ will cease as soon as Israel is backed into the Mediterranean Sea by Yassir Arafat and his cohorts,  and the non-people called the Arab Palestinians (a title invented in 1967) had their own state on land evacuated in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).

Each time (over the last few decades) that the Arab Muslims attacked to occupy the sliver of land allocated to Israel, the Arabs lost land after each battle. They whined to the world that it was unfair that they lost and that they wanted back what they really never owned to begin with.  Such anti-Jewish institutions as the United Nations, the European Union, the Arabist US State Department adopted their false claims and began to champion the Terrorists while the leading media outlets like the NEW YORK TIMES, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, LOS ANGELES TIMES, CNN, NPR, and BBC, etc. became PR spokesmen for the Arab Muslim Palestinian cause. In effect, they became provocateur collaborators as they championed Arafat’s war of Terror.  (2)

 “The sycophants of the NYT would like to tell us that Arab Muslims are really peaceful folks and, if Israel were to disappear tomorrow, all would be well. But, it is the NEW YORK TIMES and many other media outlets who are the spoilers. The Terrorists need these media resources and the media need the Terrorists in a sick, symbiotic relationship. What good is Terror IF the media don’t report it so as to terrorize other victims into obeying their demands?”

Winston then poses the question:  “How will the NYT and U.S. State Department spin the news of the atrocity in Beslan,  Russia, to protect the Arabs? 

Winston’s question was confirmed within hours after his writing, when it was announced that 20 Arabs were already found amongst the hostage takers – one wounded terrorist was kicked to death by Russian parents who dragged him from an ambulance – an act which will no doubt be used by the backers of terror to depict justification for their vile and inhuman strategies.

This consorted pro-Arabist onslaught of the Western Media on the minds of people, follows amazingly accurate to the definition of ‘terrorism’ set by the declarations in the Final Documents of the XIV Ministerial Conference of the Non-Aligned held in Durban, South Africa,  17-19 August 2004.

"100. The Ministers unequivocally condemned international terrorism. and urged all States to fulfill their obligations under international law, including prosecuting or, where appropriate, extraditing the perpetrators of such acts and preventing the organization, instigation and the financing of terrorism against other States from within or outside their territories or by organizations based in their territories. They .called upon all States to fulfill their obligations under international law and international humanitarian law to refrain from facilitating, organizing, instigating, assisting, participating or supplying arms or other weapons that could be used for terrorist acts in other States, or acquiescing in or encouraging activities within their territory towards the commissioning of such acts…

107. The Ministers . solemnly reaffirmed the Movement's unequivocal condemnation of any political, diplomatic, moral or material support for terrorism. They also encouraged all States to consider to accede to and implement existing international conventions against terrorism."

Certainly sounds like a strong and resolute stand against terror - except for what might be appropriately termed a "terrorism escape clause":

"104. The Ministers also reaffirmed the Movement's principled position under international law on the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation for national liberation and self-determination, which does not constitute terrorism and once again called for the definition of terrorism to differentiate it from the legitimate struggle of peoples under colonial or alien domination and foreign occupation for self-determination and national liberation." (3)

Clearly, mindless terrorism is sanctioned by this definition, for certain defined reasons!  Which of course, makes it incumbent on the Media to ‘lead’ the minds of their readers and viewers to agreement, by their selective terms of description of what other wise would simply be “mindless, soulless and heartless human butchering terrorists”.

Clearly, the concerned reader or viewer should acquaint him/herself with the intent of Media terminology.  Also with the twisted and contorted views of pro-Arabists and Islamists which are so often presented as ‘pro-humanist’.  For instance, during this school highjacking, an Arab Islamic Mufti in North Ossetia appealed to the  “gang”   to free “some” of the hostages  - the children, who are considered Muslim because  “all children are born Muslim”  and should therefore not be murdered by their brethren: N. Ossetiabs mufti urges hostage-takers to free infants. (Hat tip: Jihad Watch.)  No doubt, his “appeal” warmed the hearts of those ignorant Westerners who believe in ‘the good of Islam’,  and who regarded this appeal as ‘proof’ of the ‘humane concern’ of Islam for all people. The Media has managed to blind them to the fact that this ‘concerned’ Mufti sanctioned the mindless slaughtering of parents and teachers amongst the hostages!

Similarly, watch those ‘condemnations’ by Palestinian authorities after suicide bombings in Israel:  Such condemnations of the slaughter of Israeli civilians are always phrased so as to be secondary to the killings of Palestinian terrorists by Israel, eg. They would state: “The killing of innocent Palestinians and Israelis are to be condemned” – they thus use the opportunity simply to seal a further condemnation against Israel while the Media use it to establish the ‘humane concern’ of these butchers.  These ‘condemnations’ are only presented to the English Media, while the same sources applaud the killings in the Arab news media.

BIBLE REVELATIONS Comment: While this may sound like a conspiracy by the Media, the Truth is more likely to be as follows:

Bible Prophecy is clear that in the End Time, Satan will go around like a raving lion, devouring and plundering in his final desperate attempts to prevent the establishment of the Kingdom of YHVH in the Promised Land of Israel, with Jerusalem as its universal headquarters.  There are thus two main opposing powers behind world events:  one side being prepared for the establishment of this Kingdom and the other side opposing it.  In this great Battle, humanity is exposed to the Choice of either opposing it, or promoting and subjecting to it.  In choosing opposition to it, one therefore becomes part of the greater community of evil – “by their works, they shall be known.”  It does not require great intelect to see the difference – but is does require great intellect and insight to prevent and realize, that one is not unwittingly part of the opposing side.

References:

1.  WINSTON MID EAST ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY September 3, 2004 Email: gwinston@interaccess.com  quoting "Mr. Bush & the Truth About Terror" NEW YORK TIMES September 2, 2004

2.  WINSTON MID EAST ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY September 3, 2004

3.  IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Website: www.imra.org.il   For free regular subscription:

Subscribe at no charge: imra-subscribe@imra.org.il

 June 6,  2004

 The Quran confirms Jewish right to the Land and to Jerusalem

Extract from Frontpage Interview's with Prof. Khaleel Mohammed, Assistant Professor  at the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University .

The Quran in Chapter 5: 20-21 states quite clearly: "Moses said to his people: 'O my  people!  Remember the bounty of  God upon you  when  He bestowed  prophets upon  you , and  made  you  kings and gave you that which  had not been given to  anyone before  you amongst  the nations. O my people!  Enter the Holy Land which God has written for  you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers.'"

The thrust of my analysis is where Moses says that the Holy Land is that which God has  "written" for the Israelites. In both Jewish and Islamic understandings of the term "written",  there is the meaning of finality, decisiveness and immutability. And so we have the Written  Torah (unchangeable) and the Oral Torah (which represents change to suit times). And in  the Quran we have "Written upon you is the fast"- to show that this is something that is  decreed, and which none can change.  So the simple fact is then, from a faith-based point  of view: If God has "written" Israel for the people of Moses, who can change this?

When the Muslims entered that land in the seventh century, they were well aware of its  rightful owners, and when they failed to act according to divine mandate (at least as  perceived by followers of all Abrahamic faiths), they aided and abetted in a crime. And the  present situation shows the fruits of that action wherein innocent Palestinians and Israelis  are being killed on a daily basis.

I also draw your attention to the fact that the medieval exegetes of Quran--without any  exception known to me--recognized Israel as belonging to the Jews, their birthright given to  them. Indeed, two of Islam's most famous exegetes explained "written" from Quran 5:21   thus:

Ibn Kathir (d. 774/1373) said: “That which God has written for you” i.e. That which God  has promised to you by the words of your father Israel that it is the inheritance of those  among you who believe” . Muhammad al-Shawkani (d. 1250/1834) interprets Kataba to  mean “that which God has allotted and predestined for you in His primordial knowledge,  deeming it as a place of residence for you” (1992, 2:41 ).

The idea that Israel does not belong to the Jews is a modern one, probably based on the  Mideast rejection of European colonialism etc, but certainly not having anything to do with  the Quran.  The unfortunate fact is that most Muslims do NOT read the Quran and  interpret it on the basis of its own words; rather they let imams and preachers do that for  them.

How did the Jews lose their right to live in the Holy Land ? All reliable reports show that it  was by the looting and burning that followed from 70-135 C.E.  When the  Muslims  entered  the  place in  638, liberating it from the Byzantines,  they  knew full  well to whom  it rightfully belonged.  The later Muslim occupation and building a mosque on the site of  the Temple was something that was not sanctioned by The Qur’an. How honest is  contemporary Islam with this? Given the situation in the Middle East , politiking etc stands  in the way of honesty.

May 18,  2004

The Demolition of Palestinian Structures Used for Terrorism

- The Legal Background

Foreign Ministry of Israel

For nearly four years, Israelis have been the victims of a relentless and ongoing campaign  by Palestinian terrorists to spread death and destruction, condemning our region to  ongoing turmoil, killing more than 900 Israelis and injuring more than 6000. In light of this  unprecedented lethal threat, Israeli security forces have sought to find new effective and  lawful counter-measures that would minimize the occurrence of such terrorist attacks in  general, and suicide terrorism in particular, and to discourage potential suicide bombers.

Palestinian terrorists employ the most abhorrent and inhuman methods, including suicide  terrorism in order to target Israeli civilians and soldiers, contrary to any notion of morality,  and in grave breach of the international laws of armed conflict. Palestinian terrorists operate from within densely populated areas, abusing the protection granted by international law to the civilian population.

Faced with the failure of the Palestinian leadership to comply with its obligations to fight  terrorism, stop incitement and prevent the smuggling of weapons, Israel has been  compelled to combat the threat to the lives of Israelis, exercising its right to self defense  while upholding its obligations under international law. One such security measure is the
demolition of structures that pose a real security risk to Israeli forces.

Terrorists often operate from within homes and civilian structures. When terrorists fire  from within these buildings or activate roadside charges from orchards and fields, military  necessity dictates the demolition of these locations. Under International Law, these  locations are considered legitimate targets. Therefore, in the midst of combat, when  dictated by operational necessity, Israeli security forces may lawfully destroy structures used by terrorists.

A further instance necessitating the demolition of buildings is the use made by terrorist  groups of civilian buildings in order to conceal openings of tunnels used to smuggle arms,  explosives and terrorists from Egypt into the Gaza Strip. Similarly, buildings in the West  Bank and Gaza Strip are used for the manufacturing and concealment of rockets, mortars,  weapons and explosive devices to be used against Israel. The demolition of these
structures is often the only way to combat this threat. Another means employed by Israel  against terrorists is the demolition of homes of those who have carried out suicide attacks  or other grave attacks, or those who are responsible for sending suicide bombers on their  deadly missions. Israel has few available and effective means in its war against terrorism.  This measure is employed to provide effective deterrence of the perpetrators and their  dispatchers, not as a punitive measure. This practice has been reviewed and upheld by the  High Court of Justice.

Israel's security forces adhere to the rules of International Humanitarian Law and are  subject to the scrutiny of Israel's High Court of Justice in hundreds of petitions made  annually by Palestinians and human rights organizations.

Israeli measures are not a form of "collective punishment" as some have claimed, as if the  intention were to cause deliberate hardship to the population at large. While the security  measures taken in self-defense and necessitated by terrorist threats do unfortunately cause  hardships to sectors of the Palestinian population, this is categorically not their intent.  Wherever possible, even in the midst of military operations, Israel's security forces go to  great lengths to minimize the effects of security measures on the civilian population not  involved in terrorism.

In this context, Israel adopts measures in order to ensure that only terrorists and the  structures they use are targeted.

Furthermore, though permissible under the laws of armed conflict, Israel refrains whenever  possible from attacking terrorist targets from the air or with artillery, in order to minimize  collateral damage, a policy which entails risking the lives of Israeli soldiers. The death of 13 soldiers in ground operations in the Gaza Strip in early May 2004 is an example of the heavy price Israel pays for its commitment to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties.

While there is no question that the Palestinian population is suffering from the ongoing  conflict, that suffering is a direct result of Palestinian terrorism aimed at innocent Israelis,  and the need for Israel to protect its citizens from these abhorrent attacks. In the reality of the present conflict, Israel is facing a difficult war against terrorism. It is a war that has been forced upon it. It is a war in which the terrorists apply no rules or mercy, a war that takes a  toll of Israeli lives on an almost daily basis. In this reality, Israel must take the necessary  measures to protect the lives and security of its citizens and it is doing so while making  earnest efforts to uphold international law and the rights of Palestinians not involved in terrorism.

Source - IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

For free regular subscription:
Subscribe at no charge: imra-subscribe@imra.org.il

June 30, 2003

ARE THE ISRAELI 'SETTLEMENTS' LEGAL?

By Eugene W. Rostow, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, (1966-1969) and 
former Dean of the Yale Law School

(Consolidated Articles of April 23, 1990 and October 21, 1991 from The New Republic.) .

BIBLE REVELATIONS introductory Comment:  The following authoratative reasoning  highlights the intricate background of international law behind the ongoing crisis  regarding ownership of the Biblical Covenant Land.  No consideration whatsoever is  given to the Divine Mandate which the Bible record confirms as having been declared  over this disputed insignificantly small stretch of almost barren land in the volatile Middle East.  Mankind may argue amongst themselves, but the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe has declared what His Special Purpose is for this Land and its internationally disliked Jewish inhabitants.  All mankind is included in this Purpose.  After reading this commentary, be sure to refer to our study:
Declaring War on God!

Text of the commentary follows:

With varying degrees of seriousness, all American administrations since 1967 have  objected to Israeli settlements in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) on the ground that it  would make it more difficult to persuade the Arabs to make peace.  President Carter  decreed that the settlements were "illegal" as well as tactically unwise.  President Reagan  said the settlements were legal but that they made negotiations less likely. The strength of  the argument is hardly self-evident. Jordan occupied the West Bank (Judea and Samaria)  for nineteen years, allowed no Jewish settlements, and showed no signs of wanting to make peace.

(United Nations) Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.  Resolution 242, adopted after the Six-Day War in 1967, set out criteria for peace-making by the parties (to the conflict);  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.

(Since 1967) Arab states have pretended that the two resolutions are "ambiguous" and can be interpreted to suit their desires. And some Europeans (Russian) 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 if 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 Under Secretary 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 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 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 agreement, 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 withdraw from the entire Sinai, which had never been part of the British Mandate ….

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 heated question of Israel 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 UN 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 an obstacle to the peace process.

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-1957 borders, Israel was barely 10 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 (Sr.) administration statements and actions on the Arab-Israeli question,  and especially Secretary of State James Baker's disastrous speech of May 22, 1989  betray(ed) a strong impulse to escape from the Resolutions as they were negotiated,  debated, and adopted, an award to the Arabs all the territories between the 1967 lines and  the Jordan River, including East  Jerusalem.  The Bush (Sr.) administration seem(ed) 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 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 dedicate 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 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 duty 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 4th 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, 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 UN Charter, which provides that nothing in the Charter shall be construed "to alter in any manner rights conferred by existing international instruments."  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 ruled 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 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.

Source:  Women For Israel's Tomorrow  (Women in Green)
mailto:michael@womeningreen.org
http://www.womeningreen.org
To subscribe to the Women in Green list, please send a blank email message to:
list4-subscribe@womeningreen.org

More Pages on BIBLE REVELATIONS Web Site for selected News & Reviews on the Middle East Crisis and its effects on Israel in Prophecy:
Jerusalem Facts - Part 1  - Continuation of above Page
Middle East Update - features LATEST selected News items of the last 7 days
Jerusalem Countdown  - Features older News item Links in the Countdown to Armageddon
The Coming Middle East War  - Flint to spark the Final War of 'Armageddon'
Discovering Islam  - "By his fruits, a man shall be known"
Palestinian State - Developments and implications for Israel and the world
Temple Mount Destruction - Palestinian desecration and Israeli disinterest
Decline of Israel - Israel shall surely rise from its current Decline
Final Resurrection of Israel - the Invincible nation - to the Glory of the God of Israel
The Scepter shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh Comes - God's Sign Piece to the world for all time!
Jerusalem - Facts of History - a short historical overview since antiquity

OTHER LINKS
Myths & Facts Online - A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict - 22 chapters covering the most comprehnsive resources that you may wish to find with information hyperlinked to the Jewish Virtual Library, the world's most comprehensive online encyclopedia of Jewish history and culture.
 

READ the testimony of a former Palestinian terrorist, now Webmaster of a pro-Israel Web Site!

The unmaking of a Palestinian terrorist

Click on 'Google' to search for your topic on this site ...

Contact Us

For further information, questions or comments
 please contact the Publishers of this Web Site