WarSclerotic

Palestinian terrorist government – good. Israeli housing – bad, Anne’s Opinions, June 6, 2014

[W]ho came in galloping like a knight on a white horse to save the day for Israel? Our new best friend, Australia, who (along with Canada, our other very staunch friend) has recently been stepping up to the plate to defend Israel in international forums.

Offensive Jewish housing (a golden oldie that’s as relevant as ever)

In response to the formation of the Fatah-Hamas unity government, Israel announced yesterday the approval for building 1,500 (possibly up to 3,000) housing units in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem:

The Ministry of Housing and Construction has announced it will approve the construction of 1500-3000 new housing units in Jerusalem’s Ramat Shlomo and Givat Ze’ev neighborhoods, as well as the town’s of Efrat, Beitar Ilit, Adam and other settlements.

These are all in areas “over the Green Line” – in other words areas which are considered by the nations of the world as“verboten” for Jews to build there. After all, Heaven forfend that a Jew should be allowed to build a home in his own homeland.

Well, judging from the outraged squawks emanating from the four corners of the world, one would have thought that… well… that Israel maybe brought a terrorist organization into its government.

The US – never backwards in coming forwards (as we saw with their over-eager rush to recognize the new terrorist Palestinian government) – were the first to condemn Israel’s housing plans:

“We oppose settlement construction in the West Bank as well as announcements regarding such construction,” Dan Shapiro told Army Radio. “We would do so with or without this disputed case of a new Palestinian transitional government.”

This is true, but that makes the American position only worse. They cannot find it in themselves to condemn a Palestinian government comprising a proscribed terrorist group, but Jewish housing on disputed territory deserves an immediate condemnation. This is not even a double standard. It is a stand-alone hypocrisy of the highest order.

A similar harsh condemnation was issued by the French and the EU, followed closely by – who else? – the UN.

The Palestinians, playing the part of the robbed Cossack, threatened an unprecedented response to Israel’s housing plans – as if creating a terrorist governing body isn’t bad enough, although, as Dan Miller points out:

The “unprecedented” Palestinian response is also unspecified. However, complaining to the U.S. and/or the U.N. would hardly be “unprecedented.” Nor, for that matter, would increased terrorist activity be “unprecedented.” What “unprecedented response” do they have in mind?

So far so unexpected.

But then, who came in galloping like a knight on a white horse to save the day for Israel? Our new best friend, Australia, who (along with Canada, our other very staunch friend) has recently been stepping up to the plate to defend Israel in international forums.

Australian Attorney-General George Brandis

Australia’s Attorney-General George Brandis boldly stated that Australia will not be using the term “occupied territory” any more in regards to Israeli-held “East” Jerusalem:

In a dramatic change of policy, the Australian government on Wednesday declared that it does not consider East Jerusalem to be occupied territory.

The statement was made by Attorney-General George Brandeis during a Senate hearing after Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon referred to East Jerusalem as occupied territory several times. Brandeis reportedly dismissed the use of the term “occupied” and said that labeling it as such would predetermine an issue that is subject of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

“The tendentious description that Senator Rhiannon is using is not the descriptor that the government uses,” he said. ”I don’t profess view on this matter. I’m merely correcting the use of a term.”

Brandeis initially refused to answer when several senators demanded that he specify what the government’s opinion on East Jerusalem is, but several hours later read a written statement that said the government does not define East Jerusalem as occupied.

The statement said that ”The description of East Jerusalem as ‘Occupied East Jerusalem’ is a term freighted with pejorative implications, which is neither appropriate nor useful.”

The statement went on to say that Australia supports a peaceful solution to the “dispute” between Israel and the Palestinian people, which “recognizes the right of Israel to exist peacefully within secure borders and also recognizes the aspiration to statehood of the Palestinian people.”

”The description of areas which are subject to negotiations in the course of the peace process by reference to historical events is unhelpful,” the statement read.

I feel like standing up and applauding, although we have reached a  sad state of affairs if such a statement of plain truth by the Australians is considered so controversial and so courageous in today’s extreme politically-correct climate.

Australian and Israeli Foreign Ministers Julie Bishop and Avigdor Liberman

This is not the first time that Australia has come to Israel’s defence regarding the settlements. In January, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop pointedly asked which precise law the settlements were violating.

Sadly, Australia’s stance runs counter to what some in Israel’s own Knesset declare!

Backing up Australia’s (and Israel’s) reasoned opinion that the “disputed territories” and East Jerusalem are not occupied, here is Eli E. Herz at Myths and Facts:

The term “occupied territory,” which appears in the Fourth Geneva Convention, originated as a result of the Nazi occupation of Europe. Though it has become common parlance to describe the West Bank and Gaza as “occupied territories,” there is no legal basis for using this term in connection to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on the Law of Nations, categorically rejected the use of the term “occupied territory” to describe the territories controlled by Israel on the following counts:

(1) Article 49 relates to the invasion of sovereign states and is inapplicable because the West Bank did not and does not belong to any other state.

(2) The drafting history of Article 49 [Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War] – that is, preventing “genocidal objectives” must be taken into account. Those conditions do not exist in Israel’s case.

(3) Settlement of Jews in the West Bank is voluntary and does not displace local inhabitants. Moreover, Stone asserted: that “no serious dilution (much less extinction) of native populations” [exists]; rather “a dramatic improvement in the economic situation of the [local Palestinian] inhabitants since 1967 [has occurred].”

Be that as it may, given the hostile climate towards Israel in international forums, we must applaud Australia’s brave and principled stance, and pray that more nations join her in defending Israel’s basic and inalienable rights to settle its own land. We should also not be afraid to condemn and criticise those, like the US and EU, who condemn and criticise us for no wrong-doing while giving a free pass to terrorists.

This entry was posted on June 6, 2014 at 3:57 PM and is filed under Uncategorized. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments.

Tags: Disputed Territory, Israel, Settlements