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.

Partners in this Great Enterprise

 

In November several thousand people gathered at the Royal Albert Hall to see a variety show that commemorated the centenary of the Balfour Declaration.  It has been the catalyst that has brought about the creation of the State of Israel under modern international law.

At a dinner hosted by Lord Rothschild at the Royal Albert Hall, Balfour in describing the relationship between non-Jews and Jews in the future task of creating a Jewish homeland, “We are partners in this great enterprise.”

Whether one believes in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or not, it is still remarkable that the words of Isaiah, who lived in the 8th Century BC, should be fulfilled nearly three thousand years later:

“Who has ever heard of such things?
Who has ever seen things like this?
Can a country be born in a day or a nation brought forth in a moment?” — Isaiah 66:8

The performers included Andrei Popov, Shir, the Israeli Dance Institute, and Tally Koren.

This outstanding performance and moving commemoration can be viewed at this web address:  http://bit.ly/2Bn2PCy

 

 

Did you know…

New Zealand was one of 33 countries that voted in the UN to confirm Israel as a nation.
It was on November 29 1947. That’s 70 years ago exactly.
There is a monument in Rishon Le Zion, a town in Israel, dedicated to Resolution 181 with the flags of the nations that voted for Israel.
People up and down NZ will be marking the day when we stood for Israel not against her!!
Resolution 181: Adopted at the 128th plenary meeting:
In favour: 33 Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela.
Against: 13 Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
Abstained: 10 Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia

The ANZAC story: The capture of Tel el Saba, 1917 | NZ Defence Forces

A well produced video about the ANZAC victory at the Battle of Beersheva, 1917.

Remembering the 100th Anniversary of the Light Horse Charge of Beersheba

Here is a 1-hour lecture from Eran Tearosh, giving an overview of the Sinai-Palestine Campaign of WW1. This campaign successfully freed the region from Turkish hegemony.

This victory set the stage for the establishment of the modern states of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

He is speaking to an Australian audience.  Thanks to the Israel Travel Centre for making this video available.

ANZAC Campaign food – misery galore

We continue our series of articles as we mark the centenary of the ANZAC Palestine campaign in 1917:  This month, in the second of our series,  we give you a taste of what food was like on the NZ campaign.

The NZ Army Museum in Waiouru is currently hosting an exhibition called “Food, Glorious Food: An Army Marches on its Stomach” to enlighten Kiwis on the horrors of army food rations in the First World War. Sadly the Sinai Palestine campaign was no gourmet exception, rather it was quite the reverse. Our soldiers suffered disproportionately because of their isolation and location and the fact that they could not recuperate on normal rations during their leave periods.

Certainly, the Middle East campaign disrupted food supplies for locals and others and given the huge numbers of extra personnel involved. Even a limited variety of fresh fruit and vegetables were not readily available. Service personnel relied on their governments to send basic food supplies which were also supplemented by parcels from home. So despite having knowledge of prevention of diseases like scurvy, the NZ soldier’s condition was only going to deteriorate in the campaign from lack of calories, vitamins and minerals. This was all too real after the Jordan Valley phase in 1918 when the men lost fighting condition. Dietary restrictions and harsh conditions must have impacted on their long term health as well.

The basic diet comprised a small daily water bottle of fresh water, sometimes barely potable and a ration of porridge or rice, tinned greasy corned beef, a biscuit that resembles a large modern dog biscuit, a can of questionable condensed milk, marmalade, some tea and sugar and very little else. Camp rations weren’t much better. The biscuit was so hard many soldiers cracked or lost teeth trying to eat it. Rations were barely enough to cover the calorific requirements of active service. The monotony of the diet must have been demoralizing, but hunger would have driven them to eat almost anything. Additional army supplies included seasonal jams seasonal. A cherished fruitcake or gingernuts made with love would have provided welcome relief and an opportunity to share with your mates. Sometimes supplies were left in the sun and became too hot to handle or went off adding to the misery. The volume of flies drawn by the smell of food made eating a quick and stressful affair.

So you can imagine the joy our soldiers must have felt to arrive in Rishon Le Zion and see the orchards. The day after the battle the soldiers were given a famous Jaffa orange each. It must have been like heaven! Then in the next days they were able to sample the delicacies of the local wines both in Rishon and in Jaffa, all for medicinal purposes! Later on in the campaign they could purchase food like tomatoes and cucumbers from Jordan Valley locals to supplement army supplies.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:  Joanna Moss is a Wellington-based researcher and writer.  See the food exhibition at National Army Museum Waiouru until Nov 1917 & at Hamilton’s Waikato Museum “Sand in the Apricot Jam” 4 March -11 June.

Sand, sand and more sand

ANZACs in the Desert

We continue our series of articles as we mark the centenary of the ANZAC Palestine campaign in 1917:  In the first two parts of this series we explained how ANZAC troops came to be deployed to fight the Turks in the Sinai Palestine area.  In the third part, we gave you a taste of what food was like on the NZ campaign.

Following the Turk’s unsuccessful charge on the Suez in 1916, the Allied forces began their defence of the Suez Canal and the clearance of the Sinai Peninsula. This was to take them the rest of 1916 and into 1917 yet the distance covered was less than 200km.

It’s 180km from Port Said to Rafah, the border town between Sinai and Israel today. This distance is equivalent to driving from Auckland to the outskirts of Tauranga or from Christchurch to just south of Timaru.

In effect there were three enemies, the Turks supported by superior German aircraft, the 35,000 Bedouins who resided in Sinai and the desert conditions, the latter described by the men as the Chief Enemy.

Any one of them was capable of destroying life in a short span of time. Once the Suez Canal was behind them our troops encountered a horizon dominated by sand, sand and more sand. The conditions were vastly different to Gallipoli or anything else they had seen in their lives beforehand.

Coupled with limited appreciation of how long they would spend in the desert, it must have been a dismal sight. For the horses, it would be a baptism of sand and extreme hardship.

British Lieutenant General Sir Archibald Murray chose the trans Sinai route known as the King’s Highway (Dar El Sultani) a track not far in from the Mediterranean Sea identified by a telegraph cable, the only real marker.

Its coastal proximity meant soft sand that precluded conventional shipping of supplies requiring reliance on camels with lesser carrying capacity. It was slow going for the troops trudging through the soft sand.

However, the real reason for the slow progress was the building and defence of a train track and a water pipeline – the necessities of life.

The enemy knew they could defeat the Allies simply by denying them water and blowing up the wells. In order to survive some troops had to be based at camps near water as a protective measure, so their first destination was the Katia oasis 40 km east of the Canal and later the Romani and Etmaler wells. These desert oases comprised small patches of date palms and shrubs.

However, being near to the coast, the water was often salty and bitter, so not very potable. The engineers offered a vital service in verifying tracked down water sources, repairing wells, testing and designating water quality. Water brought in from outside was often treated Canal water.

Meanwhile the troops had to remain invisible from the air and hidden from Turkish scouts or Bedouin, who could give them away. They would divide up to be better concealed, but had to always remain within signal range for safety sake.

Consequently, much driving progress was made at night. As the horses were their only means of transport, they remained top priority and required many hours of daily care (feeding, watering and grooming) to maintain battle-ready condition. Digging trenches and patrolling were the top two occupations.

The ANZACs were met with a grim reality when they discovered the toll the Easter Katia Turkish raid had taken on their Yeomanry British counterparts. As the summer wore on the conditions in the daytime became unbearable and some of the men suffered from sunstroke and were hospitalised.

Getting them out of the desert would not have been easy. Survival hinged on managing the desert conditions both to live and to fight. At times, this included fogs, mirages, freezing conditions, of course the proverbial sandstorms and the famous Kamsin winds that dried everything.

Sometimes the water would arrive in drums too hot to drink, adding to the misery. As time went on the troops became very familiar with the desert and were able to navigate at night using only a compass.

Moonlight provided some terrain guidance, but could also work to their enemy’s advantage. The Turks were pushed back and Sinai was finally conquered in early January as the troops moved on into Gaza.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:  Joanna Moss is a Wellington-based researcher and writer. See the food exhibition at National Army Museum Waiouru until Nov 1917 & at Hamilton’s Waikato Museum “Sand in the Apricot Jam” 4 March -11 June.

Gaza – Victory Snatched By Poor Intel

Prisoners of War captured by the Turks after the First Battle of Gaza.

We continue our series of articles as we mark the centenary of the ANZAC Palestine campaign in 1917:  In the first three parts of this series we explained how ANZAC troops came to be deployed to fight the Turks in the Sinai Palestine area; we gave you a taste of what food was like on the NZ campaign and we discussed the climate and conditions met by the ANZACs.

By January 1917, Rafah had been captured and the Sinai was in British hands. It was time to press on northward towards Gaza.

The coastal railroad continued to supply troops with provisions and much needed water indicating a coastal campaign was preferable. The Anzac troops took the opportunity to get some rest before beginning the next phase in late February.

Khan Yunis was occupied by the ANZACs on 28th with very little resistance. The British command expected the Turks to retreat northward. Lloyd George was now PM and he wanted victory quickly to counter the stalemate on the Western Front.

Murray ordered the first Gazan offensive in late March taking the Turks by surprise. It was the best use of the mounted division and conducted under extreme cold and fog that camouflaged their position.

Once the Germans got wind of the attack they called for reinforcements. Time was of the essence. The ANZACs had to penetrate the fields to the north ringed by cacti hedges (3m high and 5m wide) with their bayonets and get the wells.

The Wellingtons made it into Gaza capturing the outer streets as did the Australians. Sadly Chetwode and Dobell were concerned about water and reinforcements and so ordered the troops to withdraw. It was to be a costly blunder.

The ANZAC leaders stood their ground waiting for confirmation in disbelief. It was a bitter blow to the troops and to their confidence in British leadership. When the error was discovered some troops were sent back only to be repelled. It was too late.

The second battle began on the 17th March, but by this time the Turks had reinforced in numbers and dug in expecting a major offensive on Gaza and the Gaza-Beersheva road. The EEF were no match for them. This time the campaign had to be largely infantry driven (British) with the mounteds playing a supporting role.

Overhead the German Taubs monitored enemy positions. The infantry losses were considerable and with little chance for advancement, a retreat was ordered. By the end the NZMR had four nights without sleep and suffered heavy losses of horses; who were attacked from the air. NZ casualties were 88.  The troops became more despondent. The potential for a Western Front type stalemate loomed.

Lieut Gen Murray; who had been based in Egypt, had declared a victory in the first battle to the Home Office with British media suggesting huge numbers of Turks defeated and little resistance.

It was far from the truth. Murray had failed again in the second battle. He was ordered back to England in June and subsequent promotions meant that Edward Chaytor, a New Zealander, would now command the ANZAC Mounted Division and William Meldrum the NZMR.

Things would be relatively quiet for six months until a workable plan could be hatched by the incoming General Allenby.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:  Joanna Moss is a Wellington-based researcher and writer.  See the food exhibition at National Army Museum Waiouru until Nov 2017 & at Hamilton’s Waikato Museum “Sand in the Apricot Jam” 4 March -11 June.

From the 1917 Balfour Declaration to the Rebirth of Israel in 1948

100 Years Since the Balfour Declaration Conference – February 28, 2017

Dr Gauthier begins with a lament of the lack of knowledge amongst Jews and Israelis of their legal rights under International Law.  Click below to watch this fascinating talk.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Dr. Jacques Gauthier, is the principal and founder of Gauthier & Associates, an international law firm established in Toronto, Canada in 1984. He is a member of the Intercontinental Grouping of Accountants and Lawyers (IGAL).

Introduction to the ANZAC Israel Campaign

Re-enactment of the Battle of Beersheba (Reuters)

The Sinai-Palestine campaign in World War I as it was known, was comprised of two parts and extended from Jan 1916-July 1919 when the troops finally departed for home. There were 14 major battles and we won seven and lost seven. Of the military campaign the Sinai portion began in May 1916 as the troops marched along the Mediterranean coast towards Israel and ended a century ago in the Rafa battle.

The troops fighting were primarily NZ Mounted riflemen a distinct group comprised of farm boys on horses from the provinces riding under their provincial banners – the Aucklands, the Wellingtons and the Canterburys.

The slow progress, few battles and desert conditions made this campaign particularly harsh and monotonous. But it cemented a link with the land and the people they met.