Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Israeli settlements are both legal and necessary
1. As you know, Ehud Olmert is one of the most corrupt politicians
Israel has ever produced. I would lock away the silverware if he ever
came for a visit. His political agenda has long been up for sale to
the highest bidder.
Israel's dual justice system, which never prosecutes those toadies
obeying and pursuing the Left's agenda, just ruled that Olmert is as
clean as the driven snow with regard to two out of three corruption
charges against him. His office assistant was convicted however. A
bit like claiming that the janitor in the Nixon White House was to
blame for the Watergate break-in. Olmert was found guilty of one of
the three counts. Don't hold your breath though for him to do any
jail time. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4253310,00.html
2. A fascinating development this week in Israel was the release of
the report of a governmental commission, whose assignment was to
define the legal status of the "occupied territories" for purposes of
government policy. The commission was headed by Edmund Levy, an
interesting Supreme Court Judge and one of the only ones who is not a
judicial activist leftist.
The Obama people are upset with the report
(http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4253423,00.html) an
indication of how good it is - and Israel's moonbat Left is positively
wetting itself in anguish. The synopsis of the report itself can be
read in English here:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4252945,00.html
Basically the report says that the West Bank Judea and Samaria are
not occupied territories at all but, at most, disputed territories,
something like the US-Canadian border areas were during parts of North
American history. As such, there is no reason why Israel cannot build
there and even seize land there under eminent domain. There is
nothing in international law that would make settlements "illegal."
And these should thus be proclaimed by Israel as completely legal.
Whether or not Israel should build settlements then becomes a matter
of Israeli interests and policy, not legal obstacles.
It has been a while since I stated just what the issue is regarding
settlements, so let me briefly re-state it here:
* It is in Israel's acute national interest to prevent the West Bank
from serving as a terrorist base, from which rockets, mortars and
possibly weapons of mass destruction would be launched at Israel.
Life in Israel would be impossible with the West Bank serving as a
"Palestinian State," basically a clone of Hamastan in Gaza. It is
thus critical to do everything to prevent that from happening.
* Every accord or "deal" that provides for any sort of "Palestinian"
state or sovereignty or entity operating outside Israeli control in
the West Bank will produce the scenario of the previous point, mass
terrorist aggression from "Palestine," making life in Israel
impossible. It does not matter what would be written in any accord
or treaty. Gaza is clear proof of what Israel can expect from any
"withdrawal" from Judea and Samaria, except it would be a thousand
times worse.
* Israel would be prevented from taking serious action against
terrorist aggression from this "Palestine" by international pressures
and sanctions, and the Israeli Left would rally the world against
Israeli "aggression" in all such cases.
* The only way effectively to prevent the conversion of the West
Bank into a Hamastan terror base is by maintaining a significant
Jewish population there. This effectively prevents international
pressure from producing the conversion of the West Bank into the
second Hamastan, and effectively prevents endlessly-appeasing and
cowardly Israeli governments from capitulating to those pressures.
(Imagine what Olmert would have done without the settlements. Since
most of the settlers are actually living in Jerusalem suburbs, their
presence there also effectively prevents any capitulations by Israel
to pressures regarding relinquishing Jerusalem.
* While there are other moral and historic arguments why Israel and
Jews have the right to live in the West Bank, the only REAL purpose of
"settlements" is to prevent the emergence of any "Palestinian state."
No other rationalization or justification is needed. There are no
alternative effective ways to prevent the conversion of the West Bank
into Hamastan.
West Bank settlements are no obstacle at all for the economic
development of the "Palestinian" population centers there, nor to
forms of limited autonomy, which should be the MOST that Israel is
willing to concede to the "Palestinians." (And even they are not an
entitlement.)
There is a more fundamental problem with the whole word
"occupation." The anti-Israel Lobby, including Israel's Left, adopted
the nonsense word "occupation" originally after 1967 because at the
time it still conjured up associations with the Nazi occupation of
Europe and the Japanese occupation of East Asia before and during the
War. As in everything else, Israeli leaders decided that semantics
do not matter and refused to fight that battle against the word, and
the battle was forfeited more than 40 years ago. The analogous Hebrew
word "Kibush" is an even stupider word, meaning "conquest." It is
like claiming that the Belgian and Dutch territories liberated from
the Nazis by the Allies are now "conquered territories." As a matter
of general policy, I would suggest that any time an Israeli uses the
nonsense word "kibush," and that includes half the articles in
Haaretz, then you should regard absolutely everything else that person
says about everything and anything in the world to be absolute
nonsense.
Israel has ever produced. I would lock away the silverware if he ever
came for a visit. His political agenda has long been up for sale to
the highest bidder.
Israel's dual justice system, which never prosecutes those toadies
obeying and pursuing the Left's agenda, just ruled that Olmert is as
clean as the driven snow with regard to two out of three corruption
charges against him. His office assistant was convicted however. A
bit like claiming that the janitor in the Nixon White House was to
blame for the Watergate break-in. Olmert was found guilty of one of
the three counts. Don't hold your breath though for him to do any
jail time. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4253310,00.html
2. A fascinating development this week in Israel was the release of
the report of a governmental commission, whose assignment was to
define the legal status of the "occupied territories" for purposes of
government policy. The commission was headed by Edmund Levy, an
interesting Supreme Court Judge and one of the only ones who is not a
judicial activist leftist.
The Obama people are upset with the report
(http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4253423,00.html) an
indication of how good it is - and Israel's moonbat Left is positively
wetting itself in anguish. The synopsis of the report itself can be
read in English here:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4252945,00.html
Basically the report says that the West Bank Judea and Samaria are
not occupied territories at all but, at most, disputed territories,
something like the US-Canadian border areas were during parts of North
American history. As such, there is no reason why Israel cannot build
there and even seize land there under eminent domain. There is
nothing in international law that would make settlements "illegal."
And these should thus be proclaimed by Israel as completely legal.
Whether or not Israel should build settlements then becomes a matter
of Israeli interests and policy, not legal obstacles.
It has been a while since I stated just what the issue is regarding
settlements, so let me briefly re-state it here:
* It is in Israel's acute national interest to prevent the West Bank
from serving as a terrorist base, from which rockets, mortars and
possibly weapons of mass destruction would be launched at Israel.
Life in Israel would be impossible with the West Bank serving as a
"Palestinian State," basically a clone of Hamastan in Gaza. It is
thus critical to do everything to prevent that from happening.
* Every accord or "deal" that provides for any sort of "Palestinian"
state or sovereignty or entity operating outside Israeli control in
the West Bank will produce the scenario of the previous point, mass
terrorist aggression from "Palestine," making life in Israel
impossible. It does not matter what would be written in any accord
or treaty. Gaza is clear proof of what Israel can expect from any
"withdrawal" from Judea and Samaria, except it would be a thousand
times worse.
* Israel would be prevented from taking serious action against
terrorist aggression from this "Palestine" by international pressures
and sanctions, and the Israeli Left would rally the world against
Israeli "aggression" in all such cases.
* The only way effectively to prevent the conversion of the West
Bank into a Hamastan terror base is by maintaining a significant
Jewish population there. This effectively prevents international
pressure from producing the conversion of the West Bank into the
second Hamastan, and effectively prevents endlessly-appeasing and
cowardly Israeli governments from capitulating to those pressures.
(Imagine what Olmert would have done without the settlements. Since
most of the settlers are actually living in Jerusalem suburbs, their
presence there also effectively prevents any capitulations by Israel
to pressures regarding relinquishing Jerusalem.
* While there are other moral and historic arguments why Israel and
Jews have the right to live in the West Bank, the only REAL purpose of
"settlements" is to prevent the emergence of any "Palestinian state."
No other rationalization or justification is needed. There are no
alternative effective ways to prevent the conversion of the West Bank
into Hamastan.
West Bank settlements are no obstacle at all for the economic
development of the "Palestinian" population centers there, nor to
forms of limited autonomy, which should be the MOST that Israel is
willing to concede to the "Palestinians." (And even they are not an
entitlement.)
There is a more fundamental problem with the whole word
"occupation." The anti-Israel Lobby, including Israel's Left, adopted
the nonsense word "occupation" originally after 1967 because at the
time it still conjured up associations with the Nazi occupation of
Europe and the Japanese occupation of East Asia before and during the
War. As in everything else, Israeli leaders decided that semantics
do not matter and refused to fight that battle against the word, and
the battle was forfeited more than 40 years ago. The analogous Hebrew
word "Kibush" is an even stupider word, meaning "conquest." It is
like claiming that the Belgian and Dutch territories liberated from
the Nazis by the Allies are now "conquered territories." As a matter
of general policy, I would suggest that any time an Israeli uses the
nonsense word "kibush," and that includes half the articles in
Haaretz, then you should regard absolutely everything else that person
says about everything and anything in the world to be absolute
nonsense.
# posted by Steven Plaut : 5:24 AM
