Saturday, November 23, 2013

An Answer to Ms. Max Coutinho, on Israeli Occupation of Palestine

Dear Ms. Coutinho,

As before, I would like to address your claims one at a time, which necessitates a separate post. Please refer to my new post, following this comment.

I don’t argue the right of Israel to defend itself against enemies. In fact, I was a combat soldier and officer in the Israeli military, and so have been my two boys (one of them non-officer in fact). However, I can’t agree to your phrase “at all costs”, which may point out to immoral measures. Please clarify if this is not the case: does “at all costs” include the cost of the lives of innocent Palestinian people? Or you think that there are no innocent among them? Please clarify.

I am not focusing on one side only, I am well aware that some Palestinians have committed terrible crimes. I am just puzzled and taken by the fact that this is being abused by so many right-wing speakers, to justify the wrong doings of the Israeli (I should say actually, the Zionist side). One evil cannot justify another evil. And the actions of the Israeli government at this moment in history are evil, to a great extent. The definitely don’t “abide by international agreements” in many cases, for which I can give you a few examples.

According to the International Law, “the territories” are truly occupied. The may be “disputed” as for their political future, and there is no dispute among international legal entities that they have been occupied in a war, and therefore there is no freedom and protection of the law for all who are living there – only for the Jews. Did we mention Apartheid? What is Apartheid if not separate law for different people, based on their ethnicity? Further to that, even the greatest friend of Israel never recognized its right to build the settlements, and this is the reason that the US sees even the Capital of Israel as part of the Settlement system, which is why they won’t build their embassy there!

Yes, I have read the part of the Forth Geneva Convention which is relevant. There is a dispute if Israel has the right to build settlements in the occupied territories, according to that convention. Section 49 of the Convention states that an occupier cannot transfer people into the occupied territory. Israel has signed this document, but stated that it didn’t apply to the West Bank, because – well, because it never belonged to any country. Some excuse.

On top of all that, the Israeli government, this is my interpretation as a resident of this country), is using the Settlement system in order to prevent any possible future solution; so claiming that it has the right to settle there “until its final status is resolved” is a bitter irony. Even the Israeli supreme court has acknowledged that at least some of the settlements (such as “East Matityahu”) have been built to annex Palestinian territories, and not as the State claimed in court (which was refuted by military experts), that it was built for security reasons.

What I call “irrelevant” is not because I can’t explain it (as your demagogic rhetoric suggests), but because, if Palestinians lived in those territories 100 years, 1 year or one day before the Jews came in – is irrelevant; you can’t kick them out just because the ancient Romans kicked my ancestors out – that’s not the Palestinian’s fault.

Again, your assumption that I “get a sense of deep joy when you see young Arab boy throwing rocks at Israeli vehicles and murdering people” is just another sign of your demagogia. Can’t you criticize your government’s action without feeling joy when people are murdered?

By stating that I said “ the Jews have no claim to their own land” you are, again, putting in my mouth words which I never said (which is quite typical to right-wing advocates, I must say). Did I say that? Or did I say that there are two nations here who are fighting for a piece of land which most of them already agree that it can be shared (read the polls, and check out the Geneva Initiative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Initiative

or The People's Voice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People%27s_Voice)

You will find there the same guidelines for any future solution which has been around for more than a decade now, but the Israeli government is constantly refusing even to have one discussion about it. Strangely enough, it is supported by the big majority of Jews and Palestinians (according to polls), but one of the most stable Israeli governments ever doesn’t acknowledge them! Strange you say? Absolutely, it’s one of the mysteries of Israeli politics. More on that in the next post on my blog.

5 comments:

  1. PART I

    Mr Avner,

    First of all, thank you for the honour bestowed upon me: a post addressed to me. Because of this; there is only one detail that now would be interesting to clarify (because I am under the impression you didn't read my profile): I am Ms Coutinho.

    You have asked me a very interesting question:
    '(..) does “at all costs” include the cost of the lives of innocent Palestinian people? Or you think that there are no innocent among them? Please clarify.'

    Osama Bin Laden raised one interesting question regarding the word "innocent": he stated that no western civilian was innocent because they elected their political leaders. If we follow Bin Laden's logical thought, we would have to dispute your "innocent Palestinian people" since the majority elected Hamas and many of them support Fatah and their militant groups. But are there innocent people among the Arabs of Palestine? Yes, there are innocent people among them.
    But to answer your first question: "at all costs" doesn't have to include the lives of "innocent Palestinian people" because Hamas and others already do a pretty good job at sacrificing their lives (when they cowardly use them as human shields).

    You stated 'According to the International Law, “the territories” are truly occupied' but failed to explain how. For debate sake, let's discuss how the Samaria & Judea are not occupied under the international law. The Declaration of San Remo (which laid the ground for the British Mandate) stated the undermentioned:

    "The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 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...
    Recognition had thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

    What does "being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" mean? It means that the Arabs and others, living in Palestine, had to see their civil and religious rights protected - not their rights to national aspirations (which would be totally contrary to the legal document in se). In sum, the Arabs had no legal rights to that land.

    Fastforwarding to the UN partition in 1947. The Jews accepted it, the Arabs rejected it; meaning that the partition never took place, thus it was not binding under the international law. Yet, Egypt and Jordan had the portion of the land rejected by the Arabs of Palestine under their control; having Jordan annexed the so-called West Bank three years later. This annexation was neither recognised because it had no legal basis nor the Arabs supported it.
    Meaning that, and I quote Dr Levy "(..) the original legal status of the territory was restored, namely, a territory designated as a national home for the Jewish people, who had a 'right of possession' to it during Jordanian rule while they were absent from the territory for several years due to a war imposed on them, and have now returned to it."

    Therefore, legally speaking, Israel had/has every right to claim sovereignty over those territories. Politically speaking, there are blurred lines...because it has been convenient to nurture them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. PART II
    You spoke of "International legal entities" (that doubt not of occupation) could you specify them for me, please?

    "What is Apartheid if not separate law for different people, based on their ethnicity?"

    Apartheid is a system of racial segregation enforced by legislation; in which it is a criminal offence to have sexual relations with people of different races; where there are separate amenities; where there is only one political ideology and only the permitted races are allowed to vote - is this what is happening in Israel today?
    To my best knowledge, in Israel people of different races can engage in sexual relations with people of different races; it is quite common to see Arab, black, Asian and fair skinned women giving birth next to each other in Israeli hospitals, they use the same restrooms; any political ideology and party are welcome there (i.e. there are Arab parties and people of all skin shades serving in the Knesset); and every Israeli citizen, of any colour and shape, has the right to vote (as recognised by the PA and the Arab League themselves when they urged the Arabs in Israel to vote in order to "boost their numbers at the polls so that they can strengthen their representation in Israel." meaning that they have the Israeli citizenship conferring them that right).
    This being said: there is no Apartheid in Israel. And I do not see the point of perpetuating this lie.

    Israel's greatest friends have been bound by political interests; i.e. oil. As they gain energetic independence, do you think they position will hold? Looking at the present conjuncture, in the ME, I would say that probably not.

    Let's assume that Israel is indeed an Occupying Power (which is not as presented in PART I; meaning that it is not bound by the article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention): did the State of Israel decree to transfer people into Samaria and Judea or did those people move in there voluntarily? There is a difference.

    ReplyDelete
  3. PART III

    "(...) but because, if Palestinians lived in those territories 100 years, 1 year or one day before the Jews came in – is irrelevant; you can’t kick them out just because the ancient Romans kicked my ancestors out – that’s not the Palestinian’s fault."

    You said it well "[Palestinians] lived in those territories" they didn't own those territories.
    In any case, and in objective terms, the law is the law. Internationally binding agreements say that "Recognition had thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

    "Can’t you criticize your government’s action without feeling joy when people are murdered?"

    It is your democratic right to criticise your government when it acts against the mandate granted to it by the electorate. However, when you criticise your government while refusing to denounce the fact that the "Palestinians" murder civilians (directly or indirectly, for political reasons) and refuse to criticise them for that poor approach, is the same as applauding when Israelis are murdered by them. Double-standards is rationally unacceptable.

    Mr. Avner, the international law says that the disputed piece of land belongs to the Jewish People, period. To the claim that they can live side by side in peace, I will quote Mr Ismail Haniyeh:

    "I say that it does not suffice to say that we do not recognize Israel. Rather, we say this with a shout and as a slogan during the summer camps [of the ‘Generation] of Return’: There is no future for Israel on the soil of Palestine!"

    It took me a while to recognise it as well; but finally I conceded: the "Palestinians" do not want peace and they will never recognise the Jewish State.

    This present government was re-mandated by the people of Israel (who knew what the involved political elements were all about) therefore the people of Israel - the majority at least - want their historical land restored (or at least part of it). The challenge is to get that while ensuring that the "Palestinians" have a state.

    חנוכה שמח, אחי

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Ms. Continho,
    First, I must apologize to you, Ms. Continho, for not recognizing that you belonged to the better gender. I should have noticed this from your language, sorry about that…

    To the point: the majority of Palestinians elected Hamas (in the Gaza Strip only!), not because the majority of Palestinians have become so fanatically religious or anti-peace (although the Israeli government is giving them all the reasons to be so), but – because Hamas, in addition to being a terrorist organization, is also a welfare organization and jobs provider. This is much like the Shas party of Israel, which is an ultra-orthodox, anti-democratic political party (they don’t allow women in their roster; they are being led by an orthodox Rabbi strictly according to the Jewish Halachic rules – or so they say, I wish that it was even partially true; etc.); their supporters are not necessarily religious at all (they are what we call “traditionalists”), but they still elected this party, for providing long education days with hot meals to their children, and jobs to the parents.
    In short, electing Hamas doesn’t make the Palestinian public any less innocent, compared to the Israeli public which elected this evil and dishonest government.
    As to your point, that Hamas are using innocent people as “human shields”: this is much like the Jewish settlers, who put their women and children’s lives at risk, by living in towns and villages provocatively built inside and far out in Palestinian territory. Not to mention, that the IDF (the Israeli military) is “cowardly using” (as you said about Hamas) local residents, uninvolved in combat, as human shields during search missions. This procedure was eventually banned by Israeli Supreme Court, but has been used nonetheless occasionally.

    As for your (own) interpretation to the Declaration of San Remo: well it is, in my humble opinion, completely wrong. Here’s why: the November 2, 1917 declaration (known as “the Balfour Declaration”), upon which San Remo’s was based, called for “a national home for the Jewish people”, and as you rightly mentioned, must not “prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities”. If you are so meticulous in reading the civil and religious rights as not pertaining to “national aspirations”, then you must be just as meticulous as to acknowledge, that a “national home” does not necessarily mean an independent state! Because, although the Israeli government has long ago acknowledged the right of the Palestinian minority for self-government, it has always done its best to deprive them form giving this a political implementation, but rather fulfil this be some kind of “autonomy”, whatever that means. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for a Jewish State in the land of Israel; I have fought for it, and I brought my boys up to do the same. But if the 1917 declaration does not imply a state for the Palestinians, then honesty obliges that it does not imply a Jewish state, just as well. Not to mention, that the end goal, “to protect the civil and religious rights” as you said, has never been fully achieved – as an official government committee (the Or Committee, 2000) has clearly stated.

    Fast forwarding to 1947: the UN resolution, taught in Jewish school as “calling for the establishment of a Jewish State”, actually called for establishing two states, Jewish and Palestinian, the last part omitted from the curriculum for some reason.
    Please see my detailed response in a separate post:
    http://avners.blogspot.co.il/2013/12/yet-another-answer-to-ms-max-coutinho.html

    With all due respect,
    Avner Efendowicz

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Brother Avner,

    I will reply in your other reply to me then. Thank you.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete