Are the Israeli Settlements in the West Bank illegal under International Law? | Thinc

It is often claimed by media and many UN policy documents that the “Israeli settlements” in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are in violation of international law.

This report reviews the main legal and factual arguments associated with this claim and concludes that such simplistic characterizations are biased and unfounded under international law.

The law governing these territories (and Israeli citizens living or working there) is extremely complex. The report points out that – contrary to popular opinion – most, if not all, Israeli settlements in these territories and the Israeli government policy facilitating them, are legal under international law. Moreover, Israel has potentially valid claims under international law to sovereignty over these territories, despite the fact that this is still disputed by many states and international organisations for political reasons.

The Hague Initiative for International Cooperation advocates for unbiased, reasonable and non-discriminatory application of international law and the rule of law to all states and peoples.

Download the discussion paper.

What if? | Times of Israel

Sometimes, when considering the past, it is tempting to indulge in a “what if” thought experiment. 2017 is a year of milestones in the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is 50 years since the Six Day War, 100 years since the Balfour Declaration, which was the British Government’s statement of support for the re-establishment of the Jewish homeland, and, on November 29, 70 years since the UN General Assembly, New Zealand included, passed the Partition Plan. This anniversary, off the back of those other anniversaries, is a timely prompt to think about what might have been, had things turned out differently.

Resolution 181 (II), better known as the Partition Plan, was the UN’s proposal to divide British Mandate Palestine, a remnant of the Ottoman Empire, into a Jewish national homeland and a state for the local Arab population.

November 29,1947 was not the first time that the Arabs rejected a two state solution, nor would it be the last.  But it was that day that led to the rebirth of the Jewish homeland, with the imprimatur of the UN. It was, without doubt, a momentous milestone, a miracle for the Jewish people, and a miserable mistake for the Arabs.

But what might have been had the Arabs accepted the offer? What if the Palestinian Arabs, had, over the last 70 years, invested all their time, money, energy and emotion, into building a flourishing state, rather than destroying one?

What if, rather than pioneering and exporting suicide bombings and vehicular rammings, they pioneered and exported life-saving medical treatments and advances?

What if, instead of building terror tunnels, they built motorways, modern schools and multiple museums?

What if they inspired their young to become teachers and Nobel prize-winning scientists, rather than indoctrinated them with hate to become murderous martyrs?

What if, instead of storing rockets under hospitals, they built state of the art facilities that treated people of all races and religions and the victims of a brutal civil war raging on the border?

What if they went out to the world to help repair it, building solar plants and tech centers in Africa and sending the world’s top-ranking medical emergency field hospital to natural disasters, rather than encouraging boycotts, hatred and division?

What if they didn’t misuse the law to delegitimize a nation state, but they had a state governed by the rule of law, guaranteeing human rights for all its citizens, overseen by an independent, rigorous judiciary?

What if they had a thriving start-up economy that developed phenomenal technology and was driven by research, know-how and innovation, not billions of aid every year?

What if they did not try to appropriate the history of another people, but forged their own uniting vision, a collective identity and history they could be proud of?

What if they commemorated their own Independence Day every year, and not the “Nakba,” the “catastrophe” of Israel’s creation?

What if they were not a people who, some three generations after the “Nakba,” are told that they are “refugees” from a land neither they nor their parents ever set foot in, clinging to the hope that they can one day live in that land? They would instead share a border with that land, trade with it and benefit from it, and they would have a refuge, an ingathering of exiles, and the empowerment of self-determination.

But self-determination requires taking responsibility and being accountable. It means making tough decisions and accepting the consequences of those decisions. Individuals and nations develop the capacity for it as they mature. For a people who have suffered unfathomable hardship at the hands of others, there is nothing more highly prized. It is not something you pass up or give up.

Counterfactual thinking, as psychologists call a “what might have been” analysis, does not need to be an exercise in futility. It can help us make sense of the past, understand present circumstances and change the future.

But 70 years on, too many Palestinians, rather than learning from what might have been, pretend it hasn’t been. They refuse to utter the word “Israel” or draw her on a map. 100 years after the Balfour Declaration, in what can only be described as a tantrum befitting a 2-year old, their leaders threaten to sue the British Government over it. Their past remains their present, and as long as they continue to self-infantilize, to be stuck in denial and an identity borne out of the “Nakba,” that past will be perpetuated.

Palestinians only need to look at Israel to know what they could have had. The Jews chose redemption over refugees, triumph over tragedy, prosperity over paralysis, and self-determination over self-immolation.

It is time Palestinians learned to accept the past. It can be re-imagined, but it cannot be rewritten.

Source.

The Forgotten Truth about the Balfour Declaration | Mosaic

Lord Balfour touring Jerusalem in 1925

For 100 years the British statement, which inaugurated Zionism’s legitimation in the eyes of the world, has been seen as the isolated act of a single nation. The truth is much different.

…when the fuller story is told, the Balfour Declaration looks very different. It is no longer a British imperial grab but the outcome of a carefully constructed consensus of the leading democracies of the day. It is no longer in tension with the principle of self-determination, but a statement made possible by the very champion of the principle. And it is no longer an emanation of secret dealings but one of the first instances of public diplomacy. It is, in short, not a throwback to the 19th century but an opening to the 20th.

Read more.

Juliet Moses: Creation of Israel does not dishonour our soldiers – NZ Herald

Janfrie Wakim, an anti-Israel activist who never misses an opportunity to denigrate the Jewish homeland, manipulated the historical record for her ideological purposes in a column last Friday, “Arabs betrayed in war Kiwis fought 100 years ago”.

That much is predictable. But dishonouring the New Zealanders who died in a decisive battle in WWI is unforgivable.

Read more: Juliet Moses: Creation of Israel does not dishonour our soldiers – NZ Herald

The Balfour Declaration at the Ends of the Earth | The Times of Israel

Sheree Trotter

The Balfour Declaration has been exploited for political purposes by both supporters and opponents of the Jewish state. The following historical narrative situates the Balfour Declaration within the context of a small Jewish community at the ‘ends of the earth’, considers what it meant in its day and lessons for the present.

The 1917 Balfour Declaration was greeted with enthusiasm by the New Zealand Jewish community who believed it heralded a solution to the ‘Jewish Problem’.

Read more.

Janfrie Wakim: Arabs betrayed in war Kiwis fought 100 years ago | NZ Herald

British and ANZAC troops enter Jerusalem after it is taken from the Turks.

The horrors and futility of the battles of Gallipoli and Passchendaele, their human cost and consequences have been examined exhaustively as their centenaries have arrived.

We are reminded of Aucklanders who died in overseas wars by the mighty presence of the Auckland War Memorial Museum erected in 1929 on a hill known by Māori as Pukekawa or “hill of bitter memories”.

Battles, or countries in which New Zealanders fought, are engraved around the building. On the eastern wall is a striking inscription of the Gallipoli conflict and equally prominent on the western side is a memorial fountain which commemorates the campaign in Palestine.

New Zealanders fought and died in places with very familiar names – Jerusalem, Gaza, Jericho, Beersheba.

Read more.

Why does a NZer with Maori Samoan Italian and English ancestry count himself as a Zionist?

How did France’s Audrey Azoulay wind up as the new UNESCO chief? | Jerusalem Post

Her success is due in part to the rift between Saudi Arabia and Qatar that has sparked massive divisions between the countries of the Arab world.

PARIS – Audrey Azoulay’s election Friday night as UNESCO’s next director-general marks an unexpected victory for French diplomacy.

Her name first came up as candidate for the spot at the twilight of François Hollande’s presidency when she served as culture minister.

But the end of Hollande’s political career risked ending her political ambitions, as well, as new the new president, Emmanuel Macron, found himself in an uncomfortable position with a candidate he did not choose, to a post he did not seek.

In fact, countries hosting UN agency headquarters rarely seek to also conquer the agencies’ leadership.

Still, Macron took it upon himself personally to advance Azoulay’s candidacy – a gamble that paid off.

Read more.

The rise of antisemitism in Australia has a distinctly American tone | The Guardian

Larissa Roberts holds up a sign as protesters gather to march against racism in Oakland, California in August. Antisemtism in Australia echoes what’s happening in the US. (Getty Images)

A few years ago, I sat in the office of a rabbi in Perth discussing the state of the local Jewish community. The rabbi spoke with effusive pride at the academic success of the city’s Jewish high school, the warmth and charity of his small but sturdy flock, and the overall security and comfort in which the community lived and worshipped.

Then his tone became grave. He recalled how a short time before, a group of Holocaust survivors arrived at his synagogue for a special sabbath service and was confronted with neo-Nazi slogans and swastikas emblazoned on the walls of the building. The rabbi shed tears as he recalled the horror on their faces in what he termed “an attack on the souls” of people who had already experienced the limits of human suffering.

Read more.

Nuclear Inspiration: Has North Korea emboldened Iran? – Jerusalem Post

Will Iran be taking lessons from North Korea on its nuclear activity?

Israel is worried about the impact an unchecked rogue nuclear state could have on Iran’s own military ambitions.

“Only a determined international response [to North Korea] will prevent other states from behaving in the same way,” Israel’s Foreign Ministry said in a rare response to the North Korean nuclear crisis.

Read more: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Nuclear-inspiration-Has-North-Korea-emboldened-Iran-504258