The 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps will never produce a peaceful outcome. Yet, the Obama proposals may actually contribute to developing a resolution to the conflict.

By Israel Zwick, CN Publications, May 22, 2011

I’m often amused by the “solutions” to the Arab-Israeli conflict proposed by American “experts” who have little knowledge of the issues and complexities of the conflict. Most often their knowledge is limited to reports from news media, videos on You Tube, or perhaps a 10-day organized tour to the region combined with a few interviews. So the University of California student will proclaim angrily, “The poor, oppressed Palestinian people have suffered long enough. They deserve to finally have their own sovereign state free from the brutal Israeli occupation.” At the other extreme we hear, “Israel should finally annex Gaza, Judea, and Samaria and expel most of the Arabs. Let them go to Jordan, Syria, or Egypt then they will appreciate all the freedoms and benefits that they are getting from Israel.” The truth of course won’t be found in either of these extremes. Most Israelis have no interest in either oppressing the Arab population or expelling them. They just want to go about their lives without having to worry about getting their limbs blown off while waiting for a bus, or having their throats slit while sleeping in their homes, or a rocket hitting a school bus. They would like to observe their Jewish heritage while living in peace with their Arab neighbors.

Even the high-level diplomats from the USA, EU, or UN, lack an understanding of the conflict. They get to visit the region on two-day whirlwind tour, riding in an armored limousine surrounded by 10 Israeli army vehicles. If they’re important enough, they might even get a 30 minute tour in an IDF helicopter. This is not the way to develop an understanding of the conflict. To really appreciate the complexities involved, one has to live there for a while, walk the streets, shop the markets, ride the buses and taxis, talk to the cab drivers, view the terrain, and study the maps. Even then, it’s still a long road to becoming an “expert.”

That’s why many Israelis were shocked when President Obama offered his simplistic solution to the conflict in a speech on May 19, 2011. The President can be forgiven for not understanding the complexities involved since he has spent very little time in the region. However, that’s why he has expert consultants like Dennis Ross to explain the issues to him. When it comes to understanding the complex issues, Mr. Ross is one of the most knowledgeable people in the world, since he has been intimately involved with high level negotiations for many years.

So how could President Obama offer such a simplistic and imbalanced “solution” that can never be implemented? He even reiterated it with some clarification at the AIPAC Conference in Washington on Sunday, May 22, 2011. This is what he said:

“I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

Then he clarified his position somewhat:

“By definition, it means that the parties themselves -– Israelis and Palestinians -– will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. That’s what mutually agreed-upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two people: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people and the State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people — each state in joined self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.”

I challenge anyone in the world, including Dennis Ross, George Mitchell, Mahmoud Abbas, or Benjamin Netanyahu, to apply this “well-known formula” to actually produce a map that will meet the conditions outlined by President Obama. There can be no “mutually agreed-upon swaps” that can satisfy the Arab desires for a “contiguous state” while satisfying the Israeli desires to live peacefully in “secure and recognized borders.” The only map that could result would have jigsaw-puzzle borders that would not satisfy either side and would be impossible to administer. How would a delivery truck for Angel’s Bakery make his rounds in the morning? He would have to follow a circuitous route or keep going through border checkpoints. The same would be true for a fruit wholesaler who supplies both Israeli and Palestinian markets. Would he also have to accept payment in two different currencies? How would taxi drivers navigate the area? Would all the bus routes have to be rerouted? How could trade between the two microstates be implemented? How would tourist groups travel from Jerusalem to Hevron and Bethlehem? What would the Palestinians have to do to visit friends and relatives living in other towns? What happens to roadways already in existence that would traverse both states. Would there be a border checkpoint at every kilometer?

It just isn’t workable! It can’t be done. The 1967 lines, which were actually the 1949 Armistice lines, were never practical or equitable from the very beginning. They were dissolved in 1967 and no longer exist. Much has changed in the last 44 years. Israel has made many improvements in the area to unite the territory and these changes are for the better and irreversible. There would be no benefit to driving in reverse, it would be much too dangerous for both the Israeli and Arab populations.

If this is true, then one might ask why there are so many Israelis who are supporting the Obama proposals for a “two-state solution?” Don’t they know all this, after all they live there? There is an answer to this. First, there are many Israelis, like there are many Americans, who are ignorant of their own history, geography, economy, and demographics, and really don’t understand the complexities involved. But there is a more important, sinister, and pernicious reason. Many of the secular left-wing Israelis, as represented by Peace Now and B’tselem, aren’t really interested in living in a Jewish state. They want to be unencumbered by the laws of Sabbath, Kashruth, and religious marriage. They are annoyed and angered by the absence of buses, shopping malls, and civil services on Jewish holidays. They must have their ham and cheese sandwich on Passover. They want to eat whatever they want when they want, and marry whomever they wish, even if they belong to the same sex. In other words, they really don’t want a Jewish state. What they want is a Belgium, Denmark, or Norway that has a warm climate, nice beaches, a lively nightlife, and plenty of outdoor concerts in the long rainless season. To them, a Jewish state is an anathema. They know that if Israel would be carved up into two states, the observant Jews would stay away. Israel would no longer be an attraction to them because the religious and historical sites would no longer be easily accessible. Travel to Jerusalem, Hevron, Bethlehem, Tiberias, Sefad, and Masada would become an arduous and dangerous ordeal. If the observant Jews stay away, then Israel would eventually become a free secular state, similar to those in Europe, with intermingling of Muslims and Jews. That’s what the secular leftists want, or think they want.  Their misdirected goal is to put an end to Israel as a Jewish state.  They put forth proposals that may sound equitable to the uninformed but would really lead to disastrous results.

So contrary to common belief, the Obama proposals may have actually done the Jewish state a favor. When the parties sit down to discuss borders with “mutually-agreed swaps,” it will become readily apparent to the world that this form of a “two-state solution” could never work and so will never come to fruition. So the matter will be eventually put to rest. Then the parties involved can finally move on to the next step which could actually offer a solution. That is, some form of semi-autonomous government for the Arab population that is short of a full sovereign state. The Arab population will be granted full civil liberties and be able to elect their own government, but will not be able to engage in practices that will endanger the Jewish identity and security of the state. Such alternative forms of government already exist around the world. It will be up to the governmental experts among the Arab and Jewish population to sit down and customize an arrangement that will work for their particular demography and geography. So in the long run, the Obama proposals may actually contribute to constructing an agreement that could lead to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, assuming that the Arabs will really want peace. Then, with the help of God,  our grandchildren won’t have to worry about the safety of their children.

Separation will not promote coexistence, it will only promote more hostility and conflict. The proposed parameters will not lead to a peaceful solution, but rather a Final Solution for the Jewish State of Israel.

By Israel Zwick, April 28, 2011

Yesterday, The Jewish Daily Forward published an editorial that urged President Obama to take the lead in the Arab-Israeli conflict and put his own peace plan on the table to move the process forward.  The editorial listed the “parameters” of a peace plan that proponents of the “two-state solution” believe is the most rational, sensible, and equitable solution for obtaining a final resolution that will produce a lasting peace for the parties involved in this long, obstinate conflict.

According to The Forward:

“The contours of a compromise are no mystery; President Bill Clinton outlined his “parameters” in December 2000, and they still make sense today. A sovereign Palestine that accommodates Israel’s security needs. Land swaps to allow a majority of settlers to remain part of Israel. Compensation for Palestinian refugees and opportunities for them to be resettled instead of an unfettered “right of return” to Israel. A shared Jerusalem, with Israeli and Palestinian authority over their respective neighborhoods and guarantees of protection for holy sites.”

These “parameters” seem to have been accepted by diplomats and commentators around the world as the final framework for ending the conflict, as if all that needs to be done is to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. Yet, if each of these “parameters” is carefully examined, it will become readily apparent that they would not lead to a peaceful solution, but rather a Final Solution for the Jewish State of Israel. Let’s take a look at each one individually.

•     A sovereign Palestine that accommodates Israel’s security needs.
      What does sovereign mean?  Will the government operate like the other 21 states in the  Arab League such as Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain? Will it have the right to  import whatever it wants by land and sea? Will there be restrictions on its military and  how will it be enforced? Will Israel have rights to the air space without fear of being shot  down by anti-aircraft defenses? How will Gaza and West Bank be connected? What will  be Israel’s security needs when it is flanked by a Palestinian state on the east and west,  that is close to major Israeli population and commercial centers? Who will control the Jordan Valley to prevent infiltration from the East? Who will monitor the barren hilltops  overlooking Israeli communities? How will tourists and  pilgrims travel from one  sovereign state to another? How will access to religious and historical sites be controlled?   Will terrorists be brought to justice or will they be honored as “heroes of the resistance?”  

•     Land swaps to allow a majority of settlers to remain part of Israel.
      Which Jewish communities will become part of the State of Israel, which will be allowed  to remain in the State of Palestine, and which will have to be dismantled?  How many  Jewish families will become uprooted? What compensation will they receive and where  will they live? What will the final map look like? Will it be functional? How will shared  infrastructure and resources be maintained and controlled?

•     Compensation for Palestinian refugees and opportunities for them to be resettled instead of an unfettered “right of return” to Israel.
  Will the Arab countries agree to this? Which countries will resettle the “refugees?”  Will they relinquish all claims against the State of Israel?   What about compensation for Jews who were expelled from Arab countries since  1948?  If Israel has to take in more Arabs, will there also be financial incentives for Israeli Arabs in the Galil to leave the country and go elsewhere so that Jews can maintain  a sizable majority in their truncated state? Who will pay for all this compensation and who will ensure that payments will be made? Are American taxpayers willing to contribute with even more tax increases or reductions in domestic programs?

•    A shared Jerusalem, with Israeli and Palestinian authority over their respective neighborhoods and guarantees of protection for holy sites.”
  How will Jerusalem be “shared” by two sovereign states? How will neighborhoods be divided? How will taxis, buses, and delivery trucks travel freely around Jerusalem? How will tourists and pilgrims travel around Jerusalem? How will religious sites be protected while having free access for all religions? Will Jewish visitation to holy sites be restricted as it is now on the Temple Mount? Who will maintain shared infrastructure?

The final and most important question is:
 If Israel agrees to these “parameters” will it finally enjoy peaceful coexistence with its Arab neighbors?  Will Israel be able to eliminate universal conscription for its teenage children?  Will Israel be able to remove the concrete barriers around children’s playgrounds and the heavy gates around schools?  Will Israel be able to remove the metal detectors and armed guards at the entrance to bus stations and shopping malls? Will Israel be able to reduce its military and intelligence expenditures to allow more funds for domestic programs and development? Will there be amicable mutual cooperation with the Palestinian state or continuous conflict over security, infrastructure, historical sites, archaeology, resources, and commerce?

These questions illustrate that the “parameters” for a peace plan didn’t make any sense in December 2000 and won’t make any sense in December 2011 or anytime after that. It will result in a truncated insecure State of Israel that Jews will be unable to live in or even visit in peace and security. The Arabs are just not ready yet to accept Jewish sovereignty on any land which they consider to be rightfully theirs, which is most of the State of Israel.  The conflict will continue until Arab children are educated to accept the rights of Jews to have their own sovereign Jewish State of Israel with Arabs living there as a peaceful minority group. A “peace agreement” that will just tolerate the presence of Jews will not end the conflict, but just prolong it for more generations.

It’s time to dismiss these “known contours” of an agreement as being untenable and instead work on an arrangement that will allow the Palestinian Arabs to control their own lives without dividing the tiny country into two sovereign states. We live in an era of globalization, not separation.  Separation will not promote coexistence, it will only promote more hostility and conflict. Israel must remain one country with a Jewish majority, and an Arab minority that will enjoy equal civil rights but not separate national rights. Almost every country in the world has different ethnic minority groups. If Muslims can accept being a minority group in European countries, the USA, and Canada, then they should also accept being a minority group in the Jewish State of Israel.  If they can’t, then they have 20 other much larger countries to go to where they can be part of the controlling majority. They should even be offered financial incentives to help them do so.

By Israel Zwick, April 14, 2011

Recent comments in the press by European and United Nations diplomats seem to suggest  that if only the poor, suffering, oppressed, kind, gentle, sweet Palestinian Arabs had their own little sovereign microstate free from the brutal Israeli occupation, persecution, humiliation, and aggression, – then peace, harmony, and mutual cooperation will finally come to the region and everyone will live happily ever after.  Yesterday’s comments by Rick Richman, published in Commentary, suggest otherwise.

“All Set to Be a Failed State

Rick Richman 04.13.2011 – 6:07 AM

Today Robert Serry, the “UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process,” presents his report on Palestinian state-building efforts—“as we approach the September 2011 target for the PA’s institutions to be ready for statehood.” Serry thinks the efforts are “clearly on track.” His next report (my guess: right around September 1) will undoubtedly declare the efforts complete.

Serry’s report is designed to assist the social promotion of the Palestinians in September, through a resolution by a body that lacks the authority to confer statehood on anyone, much less anyone as patently unprepared as the Palestinians. The Palestinians have yet to complete Phase I of the “Performance-Based Roadmap,” which required that they put an end to all incitement, dismantle all terrorist groups and their infrastructure, and produce a constitution. Eight years later, the incitement continues, the premier terrorist group was voted into office in Gaza, and the constitution is unfinished. 

Not to put too fine a point on it: if you can’t finish drafting your constitution; if your “president” is in the seventh year of his four-year term; if you have no functioning legislature and cannot hold parliamentary elections; if half your putative state is occupied by terrorists; if your education system is a cesspool of anti-Semitism; if you insist upon dedicating public squares to those who massacred civilians; if your ruling party is corroded by corruption; if you have no free press or independent judiciary; if you cannot implement anything in negotiations that you refuse to conduct in any event; and if you haven’t finished Phase I of the Roadmap . . . well, you might not be ready for a state.”

To this, I would like to add the practical and administrative issues that will undoubtedly arise by having two sovereign microstates next to each other and closely intertwined.  The cultural and religious differing ideology that encouraged the two-state solution is not going to disappear with a “peace agreement.”  The following questions must be asked before the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside of Israel can be considered:

1. Security. Will criminals and terrorists find safe haven in the new Palestinian state or will they be pursued and brought to justice?

2. Tourism.  The economy depends on this.  Will tourist groups from around the world have free access to travel to the various Jewish and Christian sites or will there be numerous restrictions that will discourage tourism?

3. Commerce. The two states will be dependent on each other for manufactured and agricultural goods.  Will materials be able to flow freely from one state to the other or will there be difficulties that will discourage free trade?

4. Historical, Archeological, Religious sites.  Will the Arabs cooperate to allow Jews free access to these sites or will they make it difficult by requiring complex bureaucracy, paperwork, and permits?   

5. Natural Resources.  Will there be cooperation in allocating, sharing, and conserving precious water and energy resources?

6. Infrastructure.  How will roads, airports, cell phone towers, power stations, water purification systems be shared and maintained?

7. Health and Emergency Response Teams.  Diseases and natural disasters aren’t mindful of international borders.  Will the Arabs cooperate to prevent spread of disease and respond to emergencies?

These are only a sampling of the daily administrative issues that are sure to arise after the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state.  Can we really expect that all of these issues will be resolved peacefully and amicably to everyone’s benefit or will they be continuous sources of strife and contention?  The astute observations and comments by Rick Richman suggest that a sovereign Palestinian state will not contribute to peaceful coexistence and will only lead to more strife and conflict.  The naive diplomats and secular progressive liberals who believe that the “suffering Palestinians” only want their own little state to be free of the “brutal Israeli occupation”  should tour the area and study the geography before they make outrageous claims about the future of a “peaceful, stable, democratic, Palestinian state.”  The experiences with South Lebanon, Gaza, and the Fatah-Hamas conflict  provide sufficient evidence to the contrary.  There is no evidence whatsoever that another Arab microstate will be an exemplary model of peaceful cooperation and harmony even within its own borders.

Israel can learn valuable lessons from Aesop’s immortal fables

By Israel Zwick, CN Publications, July 19, 2010

http://cnpublications.net/category/zwicks-picks/

Every schoolchild knows the story.  The haughty hare challenges the tortoise to a race and the tortoise accepts.  During the race, the overconfident hare takes a nap while the tortoise plods slowly along and reaches the finish line.  This story has been attributed to a slave and storyteller named Aesop who lived in Ancient Greece during the 5th century BCE.

There are hundreds of such ancient fables that use animal characters to teach moral lessons. Throughout the years and throughout the world, these tales have been used to provide moral education for children. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, these fables were known to the Talmudic sages and may have been the source for some of the 30 fables that appear in the Talmud. They have also inspired Jewish writers in the Middle Ages. The ambiguity of the stories inspired diverse interpretations that have contributed to their popularity and timelessness.

Today, we can use these stories to teach advocates for Israel how to respond to the incessant attacks against Israel from both friend and foe. The story of the tortoise and the hare teaches us that the goal of peace in the Middle East won’t be reached by pompous, inexperienced leaders who believe that they can accomplish in a few years what experienced statesmen failed to accomplish in the last 40 years.  The goal will only be reached by plodding along slowly and applying years of peace education to promote acceptance, tolerance, and cooperative ventures that will facilitate peaceful coexistence.  Pressuring the parties to sign a “peace agreement’ that they are not prepared for will only push the elusive goal further away from reach.    

Below are eight more fables attributed to Aesop that provide valuable lessons on how to deal with the challenges facing the State of Israel.  They are divided into two categories: 1 – what the critics of Israel are saying and 2 – how Israel should respond. While this is a lengthy read, it can be fun, informative, and instructive for children.

What the foes and critics of Israel are saying

The Cat and the Cock

A Cat caught a Cock, and pondered how he might find a reasonable excuse for eating him.  He accused him of being a nuisance to men by crowing in the nighttime and not permitting them to sleep.

The Cock defended himself by saying that he did this for the benefit of men, that they might rise in time for their labors.

The Cat replied, “Although you abound in specious apologies, I shall not remain supperless”; and he made a meal of him.

Lesson: Israel’s foes say tht Israel has no right to exist because it has taken Palestinian lands and oppressed the Palestinian people. Israel counters that it is a free and democratic country that has contributed to mankind with advances in agricultural science, water development, and healthcare.  So the foes say that proves that Israel is immoral and doesn’t deserve to exist because it has plenty of food, water, and medicine while its neighbors are suffering from deprivation.

The Wolf and the Lamb

Once upon a time a Wolf was lapping at a spring on a hillside, when, looking up, what should he see but a Lamb just beginning to drink a little lower down.  “There’s my supper,” thought he, “if only I can find some excuse to seize it.”  Then he called out to the Lamb, “How dare you muddle the water from which I am drinking?”

“Nay, master, nay,” said Lambikin; “if the water be muddy up there, I cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to me.”

“Well, then,” said the Wolf, “why did you call me bad names this time last year?”

“That cannot be,” said the Lamb; “I am only six months old.”

“I don’t care,” snarled the Wolf; “if it was not you it was your father;” and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb and ate her all up.  But before she died she gasped out, “Any excuse will serve a tyrant.”

Lesson: Israel’s foes will keep fabricating reasons for destroying Israel. It doesn’t matter that the reasons are fallacious, they will continue to justify their destructive enmity.

The Wolf and the Goat

A Wolf saw a Goat feeding at the summit of a steep precipice, where he had no chance of reaching her.  He called to her and earnestly begged her to come lower down, lest she fall by some mishap; and he added that the meadows lay where he was standing, and that the herbage was most tender.

She replied, “No, my friend, it is not for the pasture that you invite me, but for yourself, who are in want of food.”

Lesson: Some of Israel’s critics are asking Israel to make dangerous concessions to promote peace but really have only their own interests in mind and are recommending actions that would hasten Israel’s destruction.

How Israel should respond

The Bear and the Two Travelers

TWO MEN were traveling together and promised to help each other when danger threatened. When a Bear suddenly met them on their path, one of them climbed up quickly into a tree and concealed himself in the branches.  The other, seeing that he must be attacked, fell flat on the ground, and when the Bear came up and felt him with his snout, and smelt him all over, he held his breath, and feigned the appearance of death as much as he could.  The Bear soon left him, for it is said he will not touch a dead body.

When he was quite gone, the other Traveler descended from the tree, and jocularly inquired of his friend what it was the Bear had whispered in his ear.  “He gave me this advice,” his companion replied.  “Never travel with a friend who deserts you at the approach of danger.”

Lesson: Misfortune tests the sincerity of friends.  Israel should not accept the promises and guarantees of protection from friends who will abrogate their promises and run away when danger strikes. Israel can rely only on its own abilities and ingenuity to ensure its security.

The Eagle and the Arrow

An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death.  Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it.  Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes.  “Alas!” it cried, as it died, “We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction.”

Lesson: Israel must stop providing its enemies with the tools that can be used for Israel’s destruction.

The Doe and the Lion

A DOE hard pressed by hunters sought refuge in a cave belonging to a Lion.  The Lion concealed himself on seeing her approach, but when she was safe within the cave, sprang upon her and tore her to pieces.  “Woe is me,” exclaimed the Doe, “who have escaped from man, only to throw myself into the mouth of a wild beast?’

Lesson: In avoiding one evil, care must be taken not to fall into another. Israel must be extra cautious to avoid concessions that could lead to danger.

The Four Oxen and the Lion

A Lion used to prowl about a field in which Four Oxen used to dwell.  Many a time he tried to attack them; but whenever he came near they turned their tails to one another, so that whichever way he approached them he was met by the horns of one of them.  At last, however, they fell a-quarrelling among themselves, and each went off to pasture alone in a separate corner of the field.  Then the Lion attacked them one by one and soon made an end of all four.

Lesson: United we stand, divided we fall. Jews always had disagreements and always will, but on the key issue of security for the State of Israel, we must be united.

The Lion and the Ass

A bold Ass once brayed insultingly at a Lion. At first, the Lion snarled angrily and showed his teeth. The Ass, emboldened by the Lion’s inaction, brayed even louder.  This time, the Lion responded contemptuously, “Bray away, I shall take no notice. But remember this, you are such a pathetic creature that it isn’t even worth my effort to devour you.”

Lesson: This might be the most important lesson of all. Many of Israel’s critics are “dumb asses” that are ignorant of Israel’s history, geography, and culture, yet they are quick to mock Israel’s defensive actions.  Responding to them will only give them legitimacy and embolden them to criticize even more.  Sometimes it is better to just ignore them and they will go away on their own.

The above is only a small sampling of the timeless, valuable lessons that can be learned from these wonderful fables.  For more visit the website, http://www.aesopfables.com/aesopsel.html

As the US is struggling to advance the “peace process,” there are three words that are wholly responsible for impeding the development of peaceful relations between Israel and its Arab population.  These words are: “Occupied Palestinian Territory.”  These pernicious words have led many in the world to believe that Jews came to Palestine after World War II, drove out the indigenous Arab population, and have continued to occupy their lands.  Until this malicious fabrication is dismissed and the international community acknowledges that Jews are indigenous to the region and have every legitimate right to reclaim and settle land anywhere within the borders of the former British Palestine Mandate, there will never be peace between Israel and the Arab population.

Compiled by Israel Zwick, CN Publications, June 24, 2010

Excerpts from Wikipedia explain how the erroneous term “Occupied Palestinian Territory” originated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_territory

Occupied territory is territory under military occupation. Occupation is a term of art in international law; in accordance with Article 42 of the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Fourth Hague Convention); October 18, 1907,^[1] territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. At the end of a war, usually the victorious side is in possession of territory previously possessed by another state. This territory is known as occupied territory. Acquisition of occupied territory is incidental to a war, where the military forces of the occupying power come into the possession of territory previously held by another state. Occupation is usually temporary; and under the subsequent articles of the Hague convention (articles 43, 44, and etc.), and the Fourth Geneva Convention the status quo must be maintained pending the signing of a peace treaty, the resolution of specific conditions outlined in a peace treaty, or the formation of a new civilian government.^[2]

Examples of occupied territory include Germany and Japan by the Allies in the aftermath of World War II; Cambodia by Vietnam from 1979 until 1989; Iraq by the United States and its allies after the 2003 invasion, and the territories occupied by Israel after the Six-Day War of 1967.

The Israeli-occupied territories are the territories which have been designated as occupied territory by many international organisations, governments and others to refer to the territory captured by Israel from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria during the Six-Day War of 1967. They consist of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and much of the Golan Heights and, until 1982, the Sinai Peninsula. The West Bank and Gaza Strip are also referred to as Palestinian territories or Occupied Palestinian Territory. Palestinian Authority and numerous international bodies consider East Jerusalem to be part of the West Bank, a position disputed by Israel.

Israeli position

The use of the terms “occupied” for these territories has been disputed. Paul S. Riebenfeld, an international lawyer, who represented Jewish interests at the League of Nations, argued that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip do not belong to any other sovereign state, are part of former Mandate Palestine, and therefore fall legitimately within Israel’s jurisdiction.    

Whether or not Israel still occupies the Gaza Strip, following its unilateral disengagement from there, assuming it can even be considered that it “occupied” it in the first place, is disputed

The above excerpts are from Wikipedia.

Though the following articles are old, they are still relevant, perhaps more today more than when they were written, as history becomes more distorted with time.

Commentary; New York; Jul/Aug 2002; Efraim Karsh;

Abstract:
Few subjects have been falsified so thoroughly as the recent history of the West Bank and Gaza. The history of Israel’s so-called “occupation” of Palestinian lands and the ways in which Palestinians and Arabs have distorted Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza are discussed.

What Occupation?

NO TERM has dominated the discourse of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict more than “occupation.” For decades now, hardly a day has passed without some mention in the international media of Israel’s supposedly illegitimate presence on Palestinian lands. This presence is invoked to explain the origins and persistence of the conflict between the parties, to show Israel’s allegedly brutal and repressive nature, and to justify the worst anti-Israel terrorist atrocities. The occupation, in short, has become a catchphrase, and like many catchphrases it means different things to different people.

For most Western observers, the term “occupation” describes Israel’s control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, areas that it conquered during the Six-Day war of June 1967. But for many Palestinians and Arabs, the Israeli presence in these territories represents only the latest chapter in an uninterrupted story of “occupations” dating back to the very creation of Israel on “stolen” land. If you go looking for a book about Israel in the foremost Arab bookstore on London’s Charing Cross Road, you will find it in the section labeled “Occupied Palestine.” That this is the prevailing view not only among Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza but among Palestinians living within Israel itself as well as elsewhere around the world is shown by the routine insistence on a Palestinian “right of return” that is meant to reverse the effects of the “1948 occupation”-i.e., the establishment of the state of Israel itself.

Palestinian intellectuals routinely blur any distinction between Israel’s actions before and after 1967. Writing recently in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, the prominent Palestinian cultural figure Jacques Persiqian told his Jewish readers that today’s terrorist attacks were “what you have brought upon yourselves after 54 years of systematic oppression of another people”-a historical accounting that, going back to 1948, calls into question not Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza but its very legitimacy as a state.

Hanan Ashrawi, the most articulate exponent of the Palestinian cause, has been even more forthright in erasing the line between post-1967 and pre-1967 “occupations.” “I come to you today with a heavy heart,” she told the now-infamous World Conference Against Racism in Durban last summer, “leaving behind a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing naqba [catastrophe]“:

In 1948, we became subject to a grave historical injustice manifested in a dual victimization: on the one hand, the injustice of dispossession, dispersion, and exile forcibly enacted on the population …. On the other hand, those who remained were subjected to the systematic oppression and brutality of an inhuman occupation that robbed them of all their rights and liberties.

This original “occupation”-that is, again, the creation and existence of the state of Israel-was later extended, in Ashrawi’s narrative, as a result of the Six-Day war:

Those of us who came under Israeli occupation in 1967 have languished in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip under a unique combination of military occupation, settler colonization, and systematic oppression. Rarely has the human mind devised such varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalization and persecution.

Taken together, the charges against Israel’s various “occupations” represent-and are plainly intended to be-a damning indictment of the entire Zionist enterprise. In almost every particular, they are also grossly false.

IN 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded or destroyed to make way for the establishment of Israel. From biblical times, when this territory was the state of the Jews, to its occupation by the British army at the end of World War I, Palestine had never existed as a distinct political entity but was rather part of one empire after another, from the Romans, to the Arabs, to the Ottomans. When the British arrived in 1917, the immediate loyalties of the area’s inhabitants were parochial-to clan, tribe, village, town, or religious sect-and coexisted with their fealty to the Ottoman sultan-caliph as the religious and temporal head of the world Muslim community.

Under a League of Nations mandate explicitly meant to pave the way for the creation of a Jewish national home, the British established the notion of an independent Palestine for the first time and delineated its boundaries. In 1947, confronted with a determined Jewish struggle for independence, Britain returned the mandate to the League’s successor, the United Nations, which in turn decided on November 29, 1947, to partition mandatory Palestine into two states: one Jewish, the other Arab.

The state of Israel was thus created by an internationally recognized act of national self-determination-an act, moreover, undertaken by an ancient people in its own homeland. In accordance with common democratic practice, the Arab population in the new state’s midst was immediately recognized as a legitimate ethnic and religious minority. As for the prospective Arab state, its designated territory was slated to include, among other areas, the two regions under contest today-namely, Gaza and the West Bank (with the exception of Jerusalem, which was to be placed under international control).

As is well known, the implementation of the UN’s partition plan was aborted by the effort of the Palestinians and of the surrounding Arab states to destroy the Jewish state at birth. What is less well known is that even if the Jews had lost the war, their territory would not have been handed over to the Palestinians. Rather, it would have been divided among the invading Arab forces, for the simple reason that none of the region’s Arab regimes viewed the Palestinians as a distinct nation. As the eminent Arab-American historian Philip Hitti described the common Arab view to an Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1946, “There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.”

This fact was keenly recognized by the British authorities on the eve of their departure. As one official observed in mid-December 1947, “it does not appear that Arab Palestine will be an entity, but rather that the Arab countries will each claim a portion in return for their assistance [in the war against Israel], unless [Transjordan's] King Abdallah takes rapid and firm action as soon as the British withdrawal is completed.” A couple of months later, the British high commissioner for Palestine, General Sir Alan Cunningham, informed the colonial secretary, Arthur Creech Jones, that “the most likely arrangement seems to be Eastern Galilee to Syria, Samaria and Hebron to Abdallah, and the south to Egypt.”

THE BRITISH proved to be prescient. Neither Egypt nor Jordan ever allowed Palestinian self-determination in Gaza and the West Bank– which were, respectively, the parts of Palestine conquered by them during the 1948-49 war. Indeed, even UN Security Council Resolution 242, which after the Six-Day war of 1967 established the principle of “land for peace” as the cornerstone of future Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, did not envisage the creation of a Palestinian state. To the contrary: since the Palestinians were still not viewed as a distinct nation, it was assumed that any territories evacuated by Israel, would be returned to their pre-1967 Arab occupiers-Gaza to Egypt, and the West Bank to Jordan. The resolution did not even mention the Palestinians by name, affirming instead the necessity “for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem”-a clause that applied not just to the Palestinians but to the hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from the Arab states following the 1948 war.

At this time-we are speaking of the late 1960′s– Palestinian nationhood was rejected by the entire international community, including the Western democracies, the Soviet Union (the foremost supporter of radical Arabism), and the Arab world itself. “Moderate” Arab rulers like the Hashemites in Jordan viewed an independent Palestinian state as a mortal threat to their own kingdom, while the Saudis saw it as a potential source of extremism and instability. Pan-Arab nationalists were no less adamantly opposed, having their own purposes in mind for the region. As late as 1974, Syrian President Hafez alAssad openly referred to Palestine as “not only a part of the Arab homeland but a basic part of southern Syria”; there is no reason to think he had changed his mind by the time of his death in 2000.

Nor, for that matter, did the populace of the West Bank and Gaza regard itself as a distinct nation. The collapse and dispersion of Palestinian society following the 1948 defeat had shattered an always fragile communal fabric, and the subsequent physical separation of the various parts of the Palestinian diaspora prevented the crystallization of a national identity. Host Arab regimes actively colluded in discouraging any such sense from arising. Upon occupying the West Bank during the 1948 war, King Abdallah had moved quickly to erase all traces of corporate Palestinian identity. On April 4, 1950, the territory was formally annexed to Jordan, its residents became Jordanian citizens, and they were increasingly integrated into the kingdom’s economic, political, and social structures.

For its part, the Egyptian government showed no desire to annex the Gaza Strip but had instead ruled the newly acquired area as an occupied military zone. This did not imply support of Palestinian nationalism, however, or of any sort of collective political awareness among the Palestinians. The local population was kept under tight control, was denied Egyptian citizenship, and was subjected to severe restrictions on travel.

WHAT, THEN, of the period after 1967, when these territories passed into the hands of Israel? Is it the case that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have been the victims of the most “varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalization and persecution” ever devised by the human mind?

At the very least, such a characterization would require a rather drastic downgrading of certain other well-documented 20th-century phenomena, from the slaughter of Armenians during World War I and onward through a grisly chronicle of tens upon tens of millions murdered, driven out, crushed under the heels of despots. By stark contrast, during the three decades of Israel’s control, far fewer Palestinians were killed at Jewish hands than by King Hussein of Jordan in the single month of September 1970 when, fighting off an attempt by Yasir Arafat’s PLO to destroy his monarchy, he dispatched (according to the Palestinian scholar Yezid Sayigh) between 3,000 and 5,000 Palestinians, among them anywhere from 1,500 to 3,500 civilians. Similarly, the number of innocent Palestinians killed by their Kuwaiti hosts in the winter of 1991, in revenge for the PLO’s support for Saddam Hussein’s brutal occupation of Kuwait, far exceeds the number of Palestinian rioters and terrorists who lost their lives in the first intifada against Israel during the late 1980′s.

Such crude comparisons aside, to present the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as “systematic oppression” is itself the inverse of the truth. It should be recalled, first of all, that this occupation did not come about as a consequence of some grand expansionist design, but rather was incidental to Israel’s success against a pan-Arab attempt to destroy it. Upon the outbreak of IsraeliEgyptian hostilities on June 5, 1967, the Israeli government secretly pleaded with King Hussein of Jordan, the de-facto ruler of the West Bank, to forgo any military action; the plea was rebuffed by the Jordanian monarch, who was loathe to lose the anticipated spoils of what was to be the Arabs’ “final round” with Israel.

Thus it happened that, at the end of the conflict, Israel unexpectedly found itself in control of some one million Palestinians, with no definite idea about their future status and lacking any concrete policy for their administration. In the wake of the war, the only objective adopted by then-Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan was to preserve normalcy in the territories through a mixture of economic inducements and a minimum of Israeli intervention. The idea was that the local populace would be given the freedom to administer itself as it wished, and would be able to maintain regular contact with the Arab world via the Jordan River bridges. In sharp contrast with, for example, the U.S. occupation of postwar Japan, which saw a general censorship of all Japanese media and a comprehensive revision of school curricula, Israel made no attempt to reshape Palestinian culture. It limited its oversight of the Arabic press in the territories to military and security matters, and allowed the continued use in local schools of Jordanian textbooks filled with vile anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda.

Israel’s restraint in this sphere-which turned out to be desperately misguided-is only part of the story. The larger part, still untold in all its detail, is of the astounding social and economic progress made by the Palestinian Arabs under Israeli “oppression.” At the inception of the occupation, conditions in the territories were quite dire. Life expectancy was low; malnutrition, infectious diseases, and child mortality were rife; and the level of education was very poor. Prior to the 1967 war, fewer than 60 percent of all male adults had been employed, with unemployment among refugees running as high as 83 percent. Within a brief period after the war, Israeli occupation had led to dramatic improvements in general well-being, placing the population of the territories ahead of most of their Arab neighbors.

In the economic sphere, most of this progress was the result of access to the far larger and more advanced Israeli economy: the number of Palestinians working in Israel rose from zero in 1967 to 66,000 in 1975 and 109,000 by 1986, accounting for 35 percent of the employed population of the West Bank and 45 percent in Gaza. Close to 2,000 industrial plants, employing almost half of the work force, were established in the territories under Israeli rule.

During the 1970′s, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world-ahead of such “wonders” as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself. Although GNP per capita grew somewhat more slowly, the rate was still high by international standards, with per-capita GNP expanding tenfold between 1968 and 1991 from $165 to $1,715 (compared with Jordan’s $1,050, Egypt’s $600, Turkey’s $1,630, and Tunisia’s $1,440). By 1999, Palestinian per-capita income was nearly double Syria’s, more than four times Yemen’s, and 10 percent higher than Jordan’s (one of the betteroff Arab states). Only the oil-rich Gulf states and Lebanon were more affluent.

Under Israeli rule, the Palestinians also made vast progress in social welfare. Perhaps most significantly, mortality rates in the West Bank and Gaza fell by more than two-thirds between 1970 and 1990, while life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000 (compared with an average of 68 years for all the countries of the Middle East and North Africa). Israeli medical programs reduced the infant-mortality rate of 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000 (in Iraq the rate is 64, in Egypt 40, in Jordan 23, in Syria 22). And under a systematic program of inoculation, childhood diseases like polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles were eradicated.

No less remarkable were advances in the Palestinians’ standard of living. By 1986, 92.8 percent of the population in the West Bank and Gaza had electricity around the clock, as compared to 20.5 percent in 1967; 85 percent had running water in dwellings, as compared to 16 percent in 1967; 83.5 percent had electric or gas ranges for cooking, as compared to 4 percent in 1967; and so on for refrigerators, televisions, and cars.

Finally, and perhaps most strikingly, during the two decades preceding the intifada of the late 1980′s, the number of schoolchildren in the territories grew by 102 percent, and the number of classes by 99 percent, though the population itself had grown by only 28 percent. Even more dramatic was the progress in higher education. At the time of the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, not a single university existed in these territories. By the early 1990′s, there were seven such institutions, boasting some 16,500 students. Illiteracy rates dropped to 14 percent of adults over age 15, compared with 69 percent in Morocco, 61 percent in Egypt, 45 percent in Tunisia, and 44 percent in Syria.

ALL THIS, as I have noted, took place against the backdrop of Israel’s hands-off policy in the political and administrative spheres. Indeed, even as the PLO (until 1982 headquartered in Lebanon and thereafter in Tunisia) proclaimed its ongoing commitment to the destruction of the Jewish state, the Israelis did surprisingly little to limit its political influence in the territories. The publication of proPLO editorials was permitted in the local press, and anti-Israel activities by PLO supporters were tolerated so long as they did not involve overt incitements to violence. Israel also allowed the free flow of PLO-controlled funds, a policy justified by Minister of Defense Ezer Weizmann in 1978 in these (deluded) words: “It does not matter that they get money from the PLO, as long as they don’t build arms factories with it.” Nor, with very few exceptions, did Israel encourage the formation of Palestinian political institutions that might serve as a counterweight to the PLO. As a result, the PLO gradually established itself as the predominant force in the territories, relegating the pragmatic traditional leadership to the fringes of the political system.*

Given the extreme and even self-destructive leniency of Israel’s administrative policies, what seems remarkable is that it took as long as it did for the PLO to entice the residents of the West Bank and Gaza into a popular struggle against the Jewish state. Here Israel’s counterinsurgency measures must be given their due, as well as the low level of national consciousness among the Palestinians and the sheer rapidity and scope of the improvements in their standard of living. The fact remains, however, that during the two-and-a-half decades from the occupation of the territories to the onset of the Oslo peace process in 1993, there was very little “armed resistance,” and most terrorist attacks emanated from outside-from Jordan in the late 1960′s, then from Lebanon.

In an effort to cover up this embarrassing circumstance, Fatah, the PLO’s largest constituent organization, adopted the slogan that “there is no difference between inside and outside.” But there was a difference, and a rather fundamental one. By and large, the residents of the territories wished to get on with their lives and take advantage of the opportunities afforded by Israeli rule. Had the West Bank eventually been returned to Jordan, its residents, all of whom had been Jordanian citizens before 1967, might well have reverted to that status. Alternatively, had Israel prevented the spread of the PLO’s influence in the territories, a local leadership, better attuned to the real interests and desires of the people and more amenable to peaceful coexistence with Israel, might have emerged.

But these things were not to be. By the mid1970′s, the PLO had made itself into the “sole representative of the Palestinian people,” and in short order Jordan and Egypt washed their hands of the West Bank and Gaza. Whatever the desires of the people living in the territories, the PLO had vowed from the moment of its founding in the mid1960′s-well before the Six-Day war-to pursue its “revolution until victory,” that is, until the destruction of the Jewish state. Once its position was secure, it proceeded to do precisely that.

BY THE mid-1990′s, thanks to Oslo, the PLO had achieved a firm foothold in the West Bank and Gaza. Its announced purpose was to lay the groundwork for Palestinian statehood but its real purpose was to do what it knew best-namely, create an extensive terrorist infrastructure and use it against its Israeli “peace partner.” At first it did this tacitly, giving a green light to other terrorist organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad; then it operated openly and directly.

But what did all this have to do with Israel’s “occupation”? The declaration signed on the White House lawn in 1993 by the PLO and the Israeli government provided for Palestinian self-rule in the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip for a transitional period not to exceed five years, during which Israel and the Palestinians would negotiate a permanent peace settlement. During this interim period the territories would be administered by a Palestinian Council, to be freely and democratically elected after the withdrawal of Israeli military forces both from the Gaza Strip and from the populated areas of the West Bank.

By May 1994, Israel had completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (apart from a small stretch of territory containing Israeli settlements) and the Jericho area of the West Bank. On July 1, Yasir Arafat made his triumphant entry into Gaza. On September 28, 1995, despite Arafat’s abysmal failure to clamp down on terrorist activities in the territories now under his control, the two parties signed an interim agreement, and by the end of the year Israeli forces had been withdrawn from the West Bank’s populated areas with the exception of Hebron (where redeployment was completed in early 1997). On January 20, 1996, elections to the Palestinian Council were held, and shortly afterward both the Israeli civil administration and military government were dissolved.

The geographical scope of these Israeli withdrawals was relatively limited; the surrendered land amounted to some 30 percent of the West Bank’s overall territory. But its impact on the Palestinian population was nothing short of revolutionary. At one fell swoop, Israel relinquished control over virtually all of the West Bank’s 1.4 million residents. Since that time, nearly 60 percent of them-in the Jericho area and in the seven main cities of Jenin, Nablus, Tulkarm, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Bethlehem, and Hebron-have lived entirely under Palestinian jurisdiction. Another 40 percent live in towns, villages, refugee camps, and hamlets where the Palestinian Authority exercises civil authority but, in line with the Oslo accords, Israel has maintained “overriding responsibility for security.” Some two percent of the West Bank’s population-tens of thousands of Palestinians-continue to live in areas where Israel has complete control, but even there the Palestinian Authority maintains “functional jurisdiction.”

In short, since the beginning of 1996, and certainly following the completion of the redeployment from Hebron in January 1997, 99 percent of the Palestinian population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have not lived under Israeli occupation. By no conceivable stretching of words can the anti-Israel violence emanating from the territories during these years be made to qualify as resistance to foreign occupation. In these years there has been no such occupation.

IF THE stubborn persistence of Palestinian terrorism is not attributable to the continuing occupation, many of the worst outrages against Israeli civilians likewise occurred-contrary to the mantra of Palestinian spokesmen and their apologists-not at moments of breakdown in the Oslo “peace process” but at its high points, when the prospect of Israeli withdrawal appeared brightest and most imminent.

Suicide bombings, for example, were introduced in the atmosphere of euphoria only a few months after the historic Rabin-Arafat handshake on the White House lawn: eight people were murdered in April 1994 while riding a bus in the town of Afula. Six months later, 21 Israelis were murdered on a bus in Tel Aviv. In the following year, five bombings took the lives of a further 38 Israelis. During the short-lived government of the dovish Shimon Peres (November 1995-May 1996), after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, 58 Israelis were murdered within the span of one week in three suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

Further disproving the standard view is the fact that terrorism was largely curtailed following Benjamin Netanyahu’s election in May 1996 and the consequent slowdown in the Oslo process. During Netanyahu’s three years in power, some 50 Israelis were murdered in terrorist attacks-a third of the casualty rate during the Rabin government and a sixth of the casualty rate during Peres’s term.

There was a material side to this downturn in terrorism as well. Between 1994 and 1996, the Rabin and Peres governments had imposed repeated closures on the territories in order to stem the tidal wave of terrorism in the wake of the Oslo accords. This had led to a steep drop in the Palestinian economy. With workers unable to get into Israel, unemployment rose sharply, reaching as high as 50 percent in Gaza. The movement of goods between Israel and the territories, as well as between the West Bank and Gaza, was seriously disrupted, slowing exports and discouraging potential private investment.

The economic situation in the territories began to improve during the term of the Netanyahu government, as the steep fall in terrorist attacks led to a corresponding decrease in closures. Real GNP per capita grew by 3.5 percent in 1997, 7.7 percent in 1998, and 3.5 percent in 1999, while unemployment was more than halved. By the beginning of 1999, according to the World Bank, the West Bank and Gaza had fully recovered from the economic decline of the previous years.

Then, in still another turnabout, came Ehud Barak, who in the course of a dizzying six months in late 2000 and early 2001 offered Yasir Arafat a complete end to the Israeli presence, ceding virtually the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the nascent Palestinian state together with some Israeli territory, and making breathtaking concessions over Israel’s capital city of Jerusalem. To this, however, Arafat’s response was war. Since its launch, the Palestinian campaign has inflicted thousands of brutal attacks on Israeli civilians-suicide bombings, drive-by shootings, stabbings, lynching, stonings-murdering more than 500 and wounding some 4,000.

In the entire two decades of Israeli occupation preceding the Oslo accords, some 400 Israelis were murdered; since the conclusion of that “peace” agreement, twice as many have lost their lives in terrorist attacks. If the occupation was the cause of terrorism, why was terrorism sparse during the years of actual occupation, why did it increase dramatically with the prospect of the end of the occupation, and why did it escalate into open war upon Israel’s most far-reaching concessions ever? To the contrary, one might argue with far greater plausibility that the absence of occupation-that is, the withdrawal of close Israeli surveillance-is precisely what facilitated the launching of the terrorist war in the first place.

There are limits to Israel’s ability to transform a virulent enemy into a peace partner, and those limits have long since been reached. To borrow from Baruch Spinoza, peace is not the absence of war but rather a state of mind: a disposition to benevolence, confidence, and justice. From the birth of the Zionist movement until today, that disposition has remained conspicuously absent from the mind of the Palestinian leadership.

It is not the 1967 occupation that led to the Palestinians’ rejection of peaceful coexistence and their pursuit of violence. Palestinian terrorism started well before 1967, and continued-and intensified-after the occupation ended in all but name. Rather, what is at fault is the perduring Arab view that the creation of the Jewish state was itself an original act of “inhuman occupation” with which compromise of any final kind is beyond the realm of the possible. Until that disposition changes, which is to say until a different leadership arises, the idea of peace in the context of the Arab Middle East will continue to mean little more than the continuation of war by other means.

[Author note]
EFRAIM KARSH is head of Mediterranean studies at Kings College, University of London. His articles in COMMENTARY include “Israel’s War” (April 2002) and “The Palestinians and the `Right of Return”‘ (May 2001).

The following is reprinted from Palestine Facts

http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_territories_occupied_or_not.php

ISRAEL 1967-1991, OCCUPIED TERRITORIES?

Are the West Bank and Gaza “occupied territories” as Palestinain Arabs assert?

As a result of the Six Day War, Israel gained all of Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Sinai, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank (historically known as Judea and Samaria). Palestinian Arabs often insist on using the term “occupied territories” to describe these areas, usually connected to the assertion that they fall under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. Yet, Palestinian spokesmen also speak about Israeli military action in Area A as an invasion, an infringement on Palestinian sovereignty. The use of both forms of terminology is a contradiction. If Israel “invaded Palestinian territories” in the present, then they cannot be regarded as “occupied”; however, if the territories are defined as “occupied,” Israel cannot be “invading” them.

Israeli legal experts traditionally resisted efforts to define the West Bank and Gaza Strip as “occupied” or falling under the main international treaties dealing with military occupation. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention:

• … is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign.

In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948. Jordan’s 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain and Pakistan and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states.

International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense. Former US State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel’s case:

• Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.

Israel only entered the West Bank in 1967 after repeated Jordanian artillery fire and ground movements across the previous armistice lines; additionally, Iraqi forces crossed Jordanian territory and were poised to enter the West Bank. Under such circumstances, even the United Nations rejected Soviet efforts to have Israel branded as the aggressor in the Six-Day War.

Regardless of how many times the Palestinian Arabs claim otherwise, Israel cannot be characterized as a “foreign occupier” with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Fundamental sources of international legality decide the question in Israel’s favor. The last international legal allocation of territory that includes what is today the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory, including the sector east of the Jordan River, almost 80% of the original Mandated territory, that was given to Palestinian Arabs and Emir Abdullah to create the country of Trans-Jordan (later renamed Jordan). Moreover, the rights under the Mandate were preserved under the United Nations as well, according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, after the termination of the League of Nations in 1946.

It is important to observe that, from the time these territories were conquered by Jordan, Syria and Egypt in 1948 to the time they were gained by Israel in 1967, the territories were not refered to as “occupied” by the international community. Furthermore, the people living in those territories before 1967 were not called “Palestinians” as they are today; they were called Jordanians and Egyptians. (In fact, before Israel was founded Jews and Arabs alike who lived in the region were called Palestinians. The newspaper was the “Palestine Bulletin” and later the “Palestine Post” before becoming today’s “Jerusalem Post”, the Jewish-founded electric company was “Palestine Electric” and so on.) There was no call for “liberation” or “national rights” for the Arabs living there and no Palestinian nation was discussed.

No UN resolution requires Israel to withdraw unilaterally from the territories, nor do they forbid Israelis from going there to live. In particular, the often-misquoted UN Security Council Resolution 242 (and related Resolution 338) make no such demand or requirement. The demand that Israel stop creating “illegal settlements” is similarly baseless.

Under the Oslo Accords, the “peace process” started in 1991 at the Madrid Conference, Israel agreed to withdraw from the disputed territories and Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority (PA) was given control over land chosen so that more than ninety-nine percent of the Palestinian population lived under the jurisdiction of the PA. But the committment to Israel’s security that was the backbone of the Oslo agreements was never honored by the PA and Israel was forced to periodically re-enter the ceded territory to quell terrorism. In 2000, Yasser Arafat rejected sweeping concessions by Israel at Camp David — promoted by US Pres. Clinton in an attempt to reach a final peace agreement — and the Palestinian Arabs turned again to violence with the Al Aqsa Intifada. That is, after the PA was governing nearly all Palestinian Arabs and a generous peace offer with international backing was on the table, the only response Israel got was increased violence. This is the sole reason Isreal continues to have a military presence in the disputed territories.

Sources and additional reading on this topic:

• Disputed Territories: Forgotten Facts About the West Bank and Gaza Strip
• Is the Occupation Illegal?
• Occupied Territories or Disputed Territories?
• The Myth of “Occupied Territories”
• What Occupation?
• The Occupied Territories
• The Media’s ‘Occupation’ Myth
• We are NOT colonialists
• Israeli Settlements and International Law
• Blame It On The Occupation
• Pinchas Rutenberg and the Palestine Electric Corporation
• Foreign Newspapers on Microfilm at the Boston Public Library
• Comments by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, August 6, 2002
• Europe’s preoccupation with occupation

In the long term, the boycott could actually increase the strength and vitality of the settlements in the liberated Jewish territories.

By Israel Zwick, CN Publications, May 28, 2010

http://cnpublications.net/category/zwicks-picks/

According to Google News, there are thousands of articles about the Palestinian boycott of products made in the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria.  The issue is gaining in prominence and its potential for increasing friction between Jews and Arabs in Israel and in the liberated Jewish territories. Palestinian leaders Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad have been personally involved in promoting the boycott, destroying millions of dollars of goods produced in the Jewish settlements, imposing steep fines on Palestinian merchants who sell these goods, and forbidding 25,000 Palestinian workers to continue their employment in Jewish industries.

Understandably, Israeli leaders have become increasingly concerned. Israeli businesses could lose hundreds of millions of dollars if the boycott spreads in intensity and geography.   Some businesses have already been forced to close.  Israeli leaders have termed the boycott, “economic terrorism” and a “declaration of war.”   While the boycott is ostensibly damaging to the settler enterprise, it could actually develop into a boon for the settler movement while undermining the position of the Arabs in Judea and Samaria.  In the long term, the boycott could actually increase the strength and vitality of the settlements in the liberated Jewish territories.

Before explaining the reasons for this unusual claim, I would like to emphasize that I am a strong proponent of harmonious coexistence in multi-ethnic populations.  I live in Flushing, NY, which has been cited as the most multi-ethnic neighborhood in the entire United States.  When I moved into the neighborhood about 35 years ago, my neighbors were mostly a mixture of Orthodox and Conservative Jews.  About 20 years ago, large numbers of Asians mostly from Taiwan and Korea began to move in while young Jewish families were moving out. Relations with the Asians have been amicable.  They work hard, maintain their property, support the public schools, and make an effort to be friendly. As the cute, little children pass by on their way to school, they wave and say, “Hi.”

More recently, there has been an increasing influx of Muslims, mostly from Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh.  We see more stores with Arabic writing selling Halal meat and more people with the distinctive Muslim clothing.   Several small mosques have opened in the area.  To date, there has been no friction with the Muslim immigrants.  Jews, Asians, and Muslims shop in the same stores, and walk the same streets without incident.  A stroll through the local Queens Botanical Gardens on a Sunday afternoon reveals multiple ethnic groups of all colors and conveys the impression that perhaps a UN convention is being held there. I look around and can’t help thinking how nice it would be if this harmonious coexistence could be transplanted to Judea and Samaria.  I was hoping that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s plan for “economic peace” in the territories would inaugurate a new era of mutual cooperation in the territories.     

Now the Palestinian boycott has dashed those hopes and threatens to increase the strife and conflict. Yet a careful examination of the situation suggests that the boycott may be self-defeating for the Palestinians while benefiting the Jewish settler movement.  First, it has to be understood that Arabs and Europeans who are buying goods from the settlements are not doing so to support the settlements but are buying because of a favorable combination of price, quality, and service.  I recall a time when Jews in New York would buy Israeli wines to support the Israeli economy even though the New York kosher wines were much cheaper.  That is not the situation now when Israel is producing a large variety of wines that are comparable to the best wines from California, France, and Italy. Israeli wines are now in high demand.

The Arabs who are buying Israeli products are doing so because they are good products that are well priced and readily obtainable. If they cease to buy Israeli products and work in Israeli industries, they will have to seek an alternative, which may not be readily available. The billions of dollars that the Europeans and Americans have donated to the Palestinians were not used to build industries, schools, and hospitals.  The Palestinians are still dependent on services from UNRWA and medical care from Israel. They have not been successful in developing their own industries and social services.  No one really knows what happened to all those billions but there are suspicions that much of it was deposited in the private bank accounts of influential Fatah members.

Now the PA Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, who helped initiate and fuel the boycott, wants to build a fund of $50 million dollars to compensate the 25,000 Palestinians who will have to terminate their employment in Israeli businesses.  Fayyad is hoping that the rich, generous Europeans can be relied on to contribute to the fund and support the boycott.  However, the Europeans are running out of money and will continue to purchase Israeli products as long as Israel continues to provide the right combination of price, quality, and service. If Israel loses a few European and Arab markets, there are still plenty left in North America, South America, Africa, and Asia.

Ultimately, the losers in this boycott will be the Palestinian Arabs.  They will lose their goods, services, jobs, and income.  Israeli businesses will initially lose some income and employees, so they will have to seek and develop new markets and sources for skilled labor. There is unlimited potential for new markets in the developing countries of Asia and Africa.  As for labor, there is still considerable underemployment in the Haredi, Russian, Ethiopian, and immigrant populations.  These sources need to be tapped and developed.  When they are, there will be a need for more Jewish housing in the liberated Jewish areas of Judea and Samaria. When the resident Arabs lose their income and can’t obtain goods for their families, they may be more inclined to move elsewhere, perhaps to countries that are so concerned for the “plight of the poor, oppressed, suffering, occupied Palestinians.”  Then Jews will be able to buy Arab properties at reduced prices and develop more Jewish neighborhoods and farms.  Settlement in the liberated Jewish territories will become opportune and necessary.  The Israeli population will have to become more supportive of the settlement enterprise.  The ultimate result will be increased growth of Jewish settlements with a concomitant decrease in the Arab population on the liberated Jewish lands.

Admittedly, this is an optimistic outlook for what appears to be a bleak situation, but Jews have always been dependent on hopes, dreams, and miracles. Everyday that Israel survives and prospers is a miracle.  The PA boycott of Jewish goods may also turn out to be a blessing in disguise.  Those who support the rights of Jews to settle in the liberated Jewish lands should continue the struggle to make it happen.  It may be the miracle that we have been praying for.

Millions of other Muslims are among the neediest

Compiled by Israel Zwick, CN Publications, April 27, 2010

Editor’s Note: While much of the world shows so much concern for the “plight of the Palestinian refugees” living in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria, little attention is given to the millions of real refugees and IDP’s who are living in tents without food or clothing. The following information was taken from the website, Concern Worldwide, http://www.concern.net/ .

About Concern

Concern Worldwide is an international humanitarian organisation dedicated to reducing suffering and ending extreme poverty. Since the beginning, over 40 years ago, our focus has been on improving the lives of the poorest people.

http://www.concern.net/sites/concern.net/files/documents/annual-reports/Concern_AR_08.pdf

Where we work/country overview

Africa

Asia

Caribbean

Haiti

Our Programmes

Education

With 113 million children of primary school age not enrolled in school, Concern is focused on providing basic education to those who need it most.

Emergencies

Concern aims to respond to emergencies as they arise. We also work to reduce the frequency of disasters.

Health

Concern recognises the importance of nutrition and a safe environment in the promotion of good health.

Livelihoods

“Livelihoods” means a person’s ability to earn a living. Our livelihoods work is fundamental to what we do.

HIV and AIDS

Over 40 million people around the world are now living with HIV. Among these, more than 95% live in developing countries

For More information, Contact Concern Wordwide

Eithne Healy
Communications Manager
Direct line +353 (0) 1 417 7794
eithne.healy@concern.net

Paul O’Mahony
Communications Officer
Direct line +353 (0) 1 417 7750
paul.omahony@concern.net

Eimear Rigby
Communications Officer
Direct line + 353 (0) 1 417 7789
eimear.rigby@concern.net

media@concern.net

No demands are made on the Arabs to promote peaceful coexistence. Only Israel must make concessions and goodwill gestures

By Israel Zwick, CN Publications, March 28, 2010

Soon I will be shutting down my computer for the Passover holiday. I’m grateful for these extended holidays because it gives me a longer reprieve from reading about the incessant condemnations of Israel in the international media. Hardly a day goes by when there aren’t numerous articles that chastise Israel for building Jewish housing or for the way it treats the “poor, suffering, oppressed, tormented, deprived” Arabs living within its borders. Israel even gets blamed for the living conditions of Arabs in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority which aren’t even under Israeli control.

To compensate for all this “brutal aggression” that Israel is inflicting on the “suffering, stateless, disadvantaged, disenfranchised Palestinians,” Israel is repeatedly ordered by the UN, EU, and USA, to make “concessions for peace.” Sometimes the lexicon varies and Israel is asked to make “conciliatory gestures” or “goodwill measures” or “gestures for peace.” Among these concessions that Israel is asked to make are the following, which is only a partial list:

1. Ease the “blockade” of Gaza to allow more goods to get through, preferably on ships carrying “humanitarian” supplies. This should include an ample supply of building materials which can also be used to build concrete bunkers, tunnels, rockets, and armaments.

2. Completely stop building any housing for Jews in Eastern Jerusalem around Sheikh Jarrah, Northern Jerusalem around Ramat Shlomo and Pisgat Zev, or Southern Jerusalem around Gilo. Of course, there should be no restrictions on Arab housing anywhere in Jerusalem because that would be a violation of their humanitarian rights.

3. Remove more roadblocks and checkpoints in Judea and Samaria to make it easier for the Palestinian Arabs to go to Jerusalem for medical visits, shopping, and recreational facilities. It would also make it easier for terrorists who want to blow up buses and restaurants.

4. Relinquish more territory in Judea and Samaria to PA control. This would produce more areas like Ramallah where Israelis are not permitted to go to at all. It would also make it easier to shoot more rockets at Israeli population centers and provide safe havens for fugitive terrorists.

5. Allow PA troops trained by General Keith Dayton to assume more security functions in Judea and Samaria. This would prevent IDF troops from pursuing the fugitive terrorists who have found safe havens in the increased areas under PA jurisdiction.

The above are some of the “confidence building” measures that the world demands of Israel in order to advance the “peace process.” Below are the concessions, goodwill gestures, and confidence building measures that the world demands of the Arabs to promote peace:

No, this is not a typo. It is what you see, empty space, nothing, zilch, nada, gurnisht. No demands are made on the Arabs to promote peaceful coexistence. Only Israel must make concessions and goodwill gestures. It is time for Israel to insist that the UN, EU, and USA also make demands on the Arabs to show some sign that they are prepared to live in peaceful coexistence with a Jewish state. Below are some small “confidence building measures” that the Arabs can make that might encourage Israelis to support the formation of a Palestinian state.

1. Gilad Shalit. Arab prisoners held in Israeli jails are permitted family visits, educational opportunities, and use of cell phones, and computers. In contrast, the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit has been held by Hamas for almost four years without even a visit from the International Red Cross. He has held in a secret location with no communication to the outside world. Wouldn’t it be a nice humanitarian gesture if Gilad Shalit would at least be permitted a visit from the Red Cross, Amnesty International, or Human Rights Watch, organizations which are conciliatory to the Gaza population.

2. Athletics. Arabs could show some good will by allowing a soccer match between Israeli and Arab teams, or a joint Arab-Israeli team that could compete in Europe or a Muslim country.

3. Arts. Wouldn’t it be nice to see a concert or theatrical performance which includes both Israeli and Arab performers take place in Bethlehem or Hebron. After the 1967 war, such events actually existed but we no longer have them and Jewish access to these areas is now restricted.

4. Academic and Medical Conferences. Perhaps Ramallah could host a conference for Israeli and Palestinian academics that would discuss issues of regional concern.

5. Commerce. Arabs are frequently seen shopping in Israeli malls but Israelis are restricted from the shopping centers in Ramallah, Nablus, Jericho, and Bethlehem. Wouldn’t everyone benefit if these areas were opened to Israeli and Jewish shoppers?

6. Industry. Both Israelis and Palestinians would benefit if a large assembly plant could be established in Judea or Samaria that could compete effectively with China. It could be operated by both Israel and the PA and employ both Jewish and Arab workers. It might assemble products that could be used regionally as well as exported, such as small autos, electronic items, and home appliances.

Admittedly, none of these are original or novel ideas. They have been suggested many times, but we still don’t see them. Some of these activities are taking place on a very small scale by private parties on both sides who are interested in promoting peaceful coexistence and mutual cooperation. We rarely hear about them out of concern that it might irritate Arab groups who are opposed to “normalization” with Israel. We don’t even see these activities with Egypt or Jordan which already have peace treaties with Israel.

Before Israel is asked to make major sacrifices that limit the rights of Jews to their ancestral homelands and can endanger their security, shouldn’t Arabs at least make these minimal gestures that would benefit them and indicate that they are willing to live in peaceful coexistence with a Jewish state. If Arabs aren’t willing to make even these minimal “confidence building” gestures, then Israel should not be asked to make any moves that would endanger its security or relinquish rights to its historical and cultural homelands.

Jews are living in over 100 countries with no restrictions on where they can live. Yet many of these same countries insist that Jews should not be permitted to live in the environs of Jerusalem. This is a gross violation of human rights.

By Israel Zwick, CN Publications, March 21, 2010

My wife is telling me to get off the computer because we have to pack for our trip to Israel tomorrow.  She says that I’m a news addict. She’s probably right because since I retired  two years ago, I spend almost three hours daily reviewing the news on the web, mostly about Israel and the Middle East with a sprinkling of science and health news.  Some of my favorite links can be found on the website, CN Publications, www.cnpublications.net.   I am most attached to Google News because it enables me to review a selection of the most recent articles around the world according to region or topic of interest.  So when I opened my computer tonight to check on the latest news about Israel, this is what I found:

Settlements must stop says Ban Ki-moon

Albuquerque News.Net - ‎1 hour ago‎

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has declared that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal. The Secretary-General, meeting with Palestinian Prime …

Ban Ki-Moon’s visit may oblige Israel to abide by UN resolutions Xinhua

Ban Ki-Moon: Hamas Must Stop Rocketing Israel Arutz Sheva

UN chief Ban Ki-moon demands Israel settlements halt BBC News

Radio Netherlands – TransWorldNews (press release)

all 9,790 news articles »

That is, there were about 9,790 articles around the world condemning Jewish housing in Jerusalem and Judea, significantly more articles than any other topic on the page. To see what all the fuss was about, I went to the lead article from the Albuquerque News and found this:

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has declared that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal.

The Secretary-General, meeting with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad during a tour of the West Bank this weekend said: “The world has condemned Israel’s settlement expansion plans in East Jerusalem. Let us be clear, all settlement activity is illegal anywhere in occupied territory and this must stop.”

So the UN Secretary General claims that all Israeli settlements are illegal but didn’t provide any support for his statement. To find out more, I went to his last statement released on March 9,2010 on the official UN website.  This is what I found:   

New York, 9 March 2010 – Statement Attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General on Israeli settlement activity

“The Secretary-General condemns the approval of plans for the building of 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem by the Israeli Ministry of Interior earlier today. He reiterates that settlements are illegal under international law. Furthermore, he underscores that settlement activity is contrary to Israel’s obligations under the Roadmap, and undermines any movement towards a viable peace process.”

Still, no explanation as to why the “settlements are illegal under international law.”  So I went to Wikipedia to seek an answer and this is what I found under the heading “International law and Jewish settlements.”

The consensus view of the international community is that the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.^[1][2][3][4] This view is largely based on UN Security council resolutions, including resolutions 446, 452, 465, 471 and 476 which find the settlements to be illegal.^[5] The legal arm of the UN, the International Court of Justice, has found the settlements to be illegal under international law.^[6]

To find the Israeli viewpoint, I went to the site of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs and located this:

• · The provisions of the Geneva Convention regarding forced population transfer to occupied sovereign territory cannot be viewed as prohibiting the voluntary return of individuals to the towns and villages from which they, or their ancestors, had been ousted. Nor does it prohibit the movement of individuals to land which was not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state and which is not subject to private ownership. In this regard, Israeli settlements have been established only after an exhaustive investigation process, under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Israel, designed to ensure that no communities are established on private Arab land.
• · It should be emphasised that the movement of individuals to the territory is entirely voluntary, while the settlements themselves are not intended to displace Arab inhabitants, nor do they do so in practice.
• Repeated charges regarding the illegality of Israeli settlements must therefore be regarded as politically motivated, without foundation in international law. Similarly, as Israeli settlements cannot be considered illegal, they cannot constitute a “grave violation” of the Geneva Convention, and hence any claim that they constitute a “war crime” is without any legal basis. Such political charges cannot justify in any way Palestinian acts of terrorism and violence against innocent Israelis.

Furthermore, in a brief for the Jerusalem Center for Public affairs dated January 19, 2003, Jeffrey Helmreich writes, “One may legitimately support or challenge Israeli settlements in the disputed territories, but they are not illegal, and they have neither the size, the population, nor the placement to seriously impact upon the future status of the disputed territories and their Palestinian population centers.”

Helmreich noted the following:

In three recent emergency special sessions of the UN General Assembly, Israeli settlement was cited as a violation of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. These international humanitarian instruments, forged in the ashes of the Holocaust to prevent future genocidal brutality and oppression, were never invoked in 50 years until the case of condominium construction in Jerusalem during 1998. Was such construction — any settlement construction — a violation of the Geneva Convention?

No. The relevant clause, Article 49, prohibits the “occupying power” from transferring population into the “occupied territory.” Aside from the fact that the territory is not occupied, but disputed, Morris Abrams, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, had pointed out that the clause refers to the forcible transfer of large populations. By contrast, the settlements involve the voluntary movement of civilians. The U.S. Department of State, accordingly, does not view Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as applicable to settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. For that reason, the official U.S. position has been over the years that settlements are legal, even though successive administrations have criticized them on political grounds. (Only the Carter administration for a short time held that settlements were illegal; this position was overturned by the Reagan administration.) .

The basis for the legal arguments against Jewish settlement is that Israel is building on “”Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).”  Helmreich has an answer for that as well.

1. The settlements are not located in “occupied territory.” The last binding international legal instrument which divided the territory in the region of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza was the League of Nations Mandate, which explicitly recognized the right of Jewish settlement in all territory allocated to the Jewish national home in the context of the British Mandate. These rights under the British Mandate were preserved by the successor organization to the League of Nations, the United Nations, under Article 49 of the UN Charter.
2. The West Bank and Gaza are disputed, not occupied, with both Israel and the Palestinians exercising legitimate historical claims. There was no Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza Strip prior to 1967. Jews have a deep historic and emotional attachment to the land and, as their legal claims are at least equal to those of Palestinians, it is natural for Jews to build homes in communities in these areas, just as Palestinians build in theirs.
3. The territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was captured by Israel in a defensive war, which is a legal means to acquire territory under international law. In fact, Israel’s seizing the land in 1967 was the only legal acquisition of the territory this century: the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank from 1947 to 1967, by contrast, had been the result of an offensive war in 1948 and was never recognized by the international community, including the Arab states, with the exception of Great Britain and Pakistan.

So the territory can’t be called “Occupied Palestinian Territory” because the  Palestinian Arabs never owned it. It was previously occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which was an illegal occupation that banned all Jews from visiting their holy sites.

This is still not sufficient to sway all those who condemn Israeli settlements.  They say that Israel is,  “building on land that the Palestinians claim for their future state.” That’s an argument that Jon Stewart could have a lot of fun with on his Daily Show. Jews can’t live there now because the Palestinians believe that it should be part of a future Palestinian state.  Even if there is a future Palestinian state, why shouldn’t Jews be allowed to live there? There are Jews living in 100 countries around the world with no restrictions on where they can live. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to live in a future state of Palestine if there ever will be one?  Should Jews also be banned from the Golan Heights because Syria claims that territory?  Perhaps Jews should also be banned from northern Israel because Hezbollah claims that territory.  Actually, Hamas claims that all of Israel is “occupied Arab land” so perhaps all the Jews should just move to Alaska where there is plenty of space and they won’t get in anybody’s way.

If there is no legal basis to prevent Jews from living in their ancestral lands, then why does the “world” continue to condemn the establishment of Jewish communities in Jerusalem and its environs.  The answer can be found in two Hebrew words that have a similar sound: sinah and kinah, translated as hatred and jealousy.  With all the trouble going on in the world, the focus on Jewish housing in Jerusalem can only be explained by continued hatred of the Jewish people and jealousy over its accomplishments. The world can’t stand to see Jews claiming ownership over a valuable piece of real estate such as Jerusalem.  They would rather see Jews scattered over 100 countries with no sovereign rights.

If the condemnation of Jewish housing in Jerusalem is based on bias, hatred, and discrimination, then all the NGO’s and human rights organizations that are so concerned about the “suffering of the Palestinian people” should also come to the defense of Jews who want to live in lands where they have strong historical, religious, and cultural connections.  If Muslims have a right to live anywhere in the world, then the handful of Jews who want to live in their ancestral homeland deserve international support as well, not condemnation.

The United Nations and human rights groups should be supporting Jewish settlements throughout the Holy Land, not condemning them. That would be the right thing to do both under “international law” as well as humanitarian rights.

Shirley Zwick, Shprintza bas Yosef, died peacefully in her sleep on January 13, 2010, 27 Tevet 5770 at the age of 49. Below are the eulogies presented by her two brothers at the funeral. Rabbi Michael P. Strasberg officiated at the funeral and burial. Agi and Israel Zwick were unable to attend the funeral because they were in Jerusalem visiting their children.

By brother Israel Zwick

Thursday January 14, 2010, Meadow Park Rehabilitation Center, Fresh Meadows, NY

Shirley was my little baby sister, 12 years my junior. Born to a sick mother, she lacked much of the maternal care, nurturing, and feminine influence that a little girl needs. She had to depend on the three males in her family, a father and two older brothers to raise her. Though we tried, we couldn’t compensate for the loss of a mother. Shirley grew up different from other girls her age.

I wish I could tell you about all the wonderful things that she accomplished in her life, but I can’t. She leaves no flock of children and grandchildren, no published writings, no fortune to bequeath to a university or hospital. Yet she left us with valuable lessons that will endure forever and change our lives.

The closest analogy to Shirley’s life is the story of Bontshe Shveig by Yitzhak Leib Peretz. Written in Yiddish, the story describes a man who endured a life of suffering but accepted his troubles silently. When greeted in the afterworld and offered his choice of reward for his virtue, he asked only for a hot roll and fresh butter for his daily breakfast.

Stricken with a neurodegenerative disorder, Shirley had to endure a number of surgeries, chronic illnesses, and disabilities. Like her mother, she had to endure numerous hospitalizations and subsequent medical treatments, but at a younger age. Consequently she couldn’t marry, have children, or hold a job. But she was never angry or bitter. All she ever asked for or expected were a few basic comforts: a room that she could call her own, simple food items, or a basic recreational activity. She never asked for a trip to Disneyland, the latest fashion clothing, or the newest electronic gadgets. Shirley was happy when my wife brought her a new pair of pajamas and some fresh vegetable soup, when I brought her a few items from the supermarket, and my brother sent her a new CD or DVD.

Despite her physical handicaps, Shirley was able to develop enduring social relationships. She gravitated to others who also had some form of disability or anomaly. Her caring and kindness were readily apparent so she developed mutually beneficial relationships with a number of individuals that lasted many years to her final days. Even when she had to forego her apartment to live in this rehab center, she sought out those that were even less fortunate and tried to help them in any way she could. She did this so frequently that she was often mistaken for a staff member instead of a patient.

Like Bontsche Shveig, Shirley leaves us with an appreciation for the true eternal values and virtues of life. She teaches us that happiness doesn’t require fame, fortune, or power. One can achieve happiness with a few devoted friends, the satisfaction of helping others, and an appreciation for the simple comforts in life. Happiness can be simply the ability to walk outside on a sunny day and enjoy an ice cream, which Shirley could not do.

Those of us who were involved with Shirley’s life have all benefitted from the association. We learned to be grateful for what we have instead of being angry and bitter for what we don’t have. We learned that giving can be even more rewarding than receiving. We learned that no matter how busy or complex our lives may be, we can still devote time and effort to achieve the gratification of helping others who are less fortunate. The last time that Shirley was in the hospital, I had to run out frequently to feed the parking meter. I wasn’t angry or bitter at the traffic officer who was eager to present me with a $60 ticket. Instead, each time I returned I said, “Thank you G-d for giving me the ability to run up and down three flights of stairs to reach the meter in time to avoid a ticket.” Similarly, when Shirley sent me on a scavenger hunt to find a few items that she wanted from a supermarket or drug store, I said, “Thank you G-d for giving me the ability to drive to the store, navigate the aisles, and identify the items that Shirley wants.” For many people like Shirley, this would be an impossible task.

Shirley, I hope you will forgive me for not coming to your funeral. I never expected it to happen this way. It has been 32 years since our father’s only request to me on his deathbed was to take care of his orphaned little girl. I tried the best I could. I’m sorry if I was ever impatient or impertinent with you. If I failed you in any way, please forgive me. Now that you have joined our parents, I want you to know that I will remember you always and appreciate what you did for me. Agi and I will always be grateful for the influence you have had on our lives. You have given us much more than anything we have given you. On behalf of Agi, Isaac, Lisa, and our entire family, I beg for your forgiveness and ask for your blessings.

The End of a Perplexing Relationship

by brother Isaac Meyer Zwick

I’m not here to mourn Shirley but remember her. I’m here to bury Shirley’s body with the full awareness that Shirley now coexists elsewhere with greater satisfaction and opportunity.

About 1,000 years ago, Maimonides wrote one of the first self-help books – The Guide to the Perplex. It’s a classic study and analysis of thought, of faith, values, and reason. My relationship with Shirley was a perplexed one as I tried to help her reconcile these three concepts as I tried to raise her not as a brother does with a sister but also as a parent with a daughter.

The first memories I have of Shirley aren’t the ones that many of you share. I remember her as a thin, young child with curly hair, a bright smile and a positive attitude. My parents raised me to deal with the nitty-gritty, daily rising of Shirley since she was 8 as my mother was too sick and my father too busy. I was merely 7 years older and was still home. Our relationship was a close one.

Some of my earlier memories dealt with negotiating with her yeshiva to keep her enrolled because we couldn’t afford tuition. Then I tried to get her to graduation because her school claimed she had behavioral problems. She graduated.

Mom died when Shirley was 13 and Pop died when she was barely 17. Shirley and I were both literate and street-smart. We had to be. So were my parents. They survived WWII in Russia by dealing with the black market and whatever was necessary to live each day to the next. They met at a displaced person camp after the war.

Just as the USA provided them with opportunities and choices that they never had, I attempted to provide Shirley with more opportunities and choices. But Shirley rarely followed the opportunities and choices I was mapping out for her. Instead she made her own and, like many parents with children, we disagreed. But I was also aware that I wasn’t her guardian, I was merely her brother and carried little weight. She knew that as well. So raising Shirley was filled with being perplexed, frustrated, bewitched, bothered, and bewildered – but with no authority to do anything about it.

At a joint therapy session I had with Shirley, the therapist advised that I couldn’t be everything to Shirley. I could only be her brother. It took me a while but, eventually, I transitioned Shirley to my brother’s care when she was about 30. I must admit it was satisfying to see my brother struggle with her as I did.

Over the last few years, I saw Shirley’s body deteriorate. I witnessed her struggle against the closure of many opportunities and choices. In the last few months, she was dependent on the kindness of strangers and the frequent visits my brother and his wife made to the rehab home. She also had close, enduring friends visiting her that she enjoyed most of all.

As much as she criticized and ordered those around her, Shirley was always alert and aware that life for her wasn’t ever going to get better. At the end, she passed silently in sleep, passing on towards a new level of consciousness where our souls fly freely throughout space and time. I wish Shirley love, success, and offer her best wishes as she enters a new world filled with new opportunities, friends, family, and all that dreams are made of.