Friday, June 29, 2012

Unsettling Lies About Israel

Guest Voice

In this Guest Post, Salomon Benzimra responds to an article by Naomi Chazan published in The Jewish Daily Forward ("Israel's Best Friends/June 22, 2012). Mr. Benzimra initially offered this article to The Forward, but they declined. In the interests of fair and balanced reporting and in intellectual honesty, always a good thing, here is his article. Mr. Benzimra writes: "Well, I am no legal scholar but I’d rather be on the side of those right-wing 'contortionists' than on Ms. Chazan’s, whose sympathy for the “Palestinian cause”—lamely cloaked in “human rights”—is quicker than her comprehension."

*******************************************
by Salomon Benzimra, P.E.

Cicero Denounces CatilineAt the Roman senate in 63 BCE, Cicero (left) denounces Catiline (right) for his conspiracy against Rome. All senators spurn Catiline and stay away from him.
Artist Credit: Cesare Maccari [1840-1919]; 1889
Source: Wikipedia

Naomi Chazan was deputy speaker of the Knesset and the dean of the School of Government and Society at the Academic College of Tel Aviv-Yaffo. Given her credentials, one would have thought that she would have a good grasp of politics and law. But in a recent article published in The Forward, she stated that “Israel’s settlement enterprise...violate[s] international law” because “colonizing occupied land is illegal [based on] the Geneva Conventions,” notwithstanding the contrary opinion expressed in “the contortions of a few right-wing legal scholars.”

Well, I am no legal scholar but I’d rather be on the side of those right-wing “contortionists” than on Ms. Chazan’s, whose sympathy for the “Palestinian cause”—lamely cloaked in “human rights”—is quicker than her comprehension. Here are a few legal scholars, including eminent ones, whom Ms. Chazan dismisses offhand, and whose so-called “contortions” strongly confirm the legality of the “settlements” and support the legitimate rights of Israel in Judea and Samaria:

  • Stephen M. Schwebel, Professor of International Law at the School of Advanced International Studies of The Johns Hopkins University (Washington), former Deputy Legal Advisor of the U.S. State Department and President of the International Court of Justice from 1997 to 2000: "Where the prior holder of territory [Jordan] had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense [Israel] has, against that prior holder, better title.” 
  • Eugene W. Rostow, Former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs and Distinguished Fellow at the U.S. Institute for Peace: “The Jewish right of settlement in the West Bank is conferred by the same provisions of the Mandate under which Jews settled in Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem before the State of Israel was created... The Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan River, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated...” 
  • Julius Stone, one of the 20th century leading authorities on the Law of Nations, Doctor of Juridical Science from Harvard and Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law at universities in Australia and California: “The terms of Article 49(6) [of the Fourth Geneva Convention] however they are interpreted, are submitted to be totally irrelevant. To render them relevant, we would have to say that the effect of Article 49(6) is to impose an obligation on the state of Israel to ensure (by force if necessary) that these areas, despite their millennial association with Jewish life, shall be forever ‘judenrein’.” 
  • David Matas, world-renowned human rights lawyer and honorary counsel to B’nai Brith Canada: “For there to be an occupation at international law, there has to be an occupying and occupied power both of which are members of the community of nations. The only conceivable occupied power for the West Bank is Jordan. Yet Jordan has renounced all claims over the West Bank.”
  • David M. Phillips, Professor at Northeastern University School of Law: “Indeed, the analysis underlying the conclusion that the settlements violate international law depends entirely on an acceptance of the Palestinian narrative that the West Bank is “Arab” land. Followed to its logical conclusion – as some have done – this narrative precludes the legitimacy of Israel itself…The ultimate end of the illicit effort to use international law to delegitimize the settlements is clear – it is the same argument used by Israel’s enemies to delegitimize the Jewish state entirely.” 
  • Jeffrey S. Helmreich, author and writer for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: “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 80 of the UN Charter.”
And yet, Ms. Chazan disingenuously refers to “international law” time and time again in her article–eight times, no less!—to accuse Israel of its “45 years of occupation” which, she says, brought “international obloquy” to the Jewish State and is turning Israel into an “international pariah.” I heard similar accusations at a presentation she gave at the Darchei Noam Synagogue of Toronto on May 9, 2010, where she praised the New Israel Fund (NIF, which she presides) for the support it gave to the infamous Goldstone Commission. In response to a question from the audience she said, flatly: “I don’t call it ‘Judea and Samaria’; I call it the West Bank.” That says it all. Perhaps unwittingly, she bears some responsibility for the “international obloquy” that Israel is facing, by disfiguring the truth in such a grotesque way.

And she is not alone. Many Israelis who share her “naive” mindset (to put it mildly) are eagerly quoted by the most vociferous anti-Zionists. Ilan Pappé is the poster boy of “Israel Apartheid Week.” Neve Gordon discredited his university by supporting the Israel boycott campaign. Gilad Atzmon and Avi Shlaim were quoted approvingly by Turkish PM Erdogan at the Davos Economic Forum in 2009, when he blasted Shimon Peres and the State of Israel before abruptly leaving the conference (video at min. 2:30). These Jews and others have made a career of slandering Israel and distorting the truth, as Ms. Chazan does when she claims that there are a “dwindling number of supporters of Israel’s settlement enterprise.” That statement flies in the face of a recent poll conducted by the Ariel University Center, which showed that 64% of Israelis support continued settlement activity in Judea & Samaria. Some dwindling number!

Factual evidence is the last concern of Israel’s detractors. To peddle their treacherous agenda, they must be sheltered from facts, or turn them upside down, or invent fake ones out of thin air. But Israelis and Diaspora Jews are increasingly aware of their machinations. And this is what exasperates the post/anti-Zionists who feel more and more left in the dust with the colossal failure of their ill-conceived schemes.

As Cicero was worrying, over two thousand years ago, about the survival of the Roman Republic when it was internally threatened by treacherous insiders, we might ask: For how long will the Jewish anti-Israel crowd be abusing our patience? And for how long will their unbridled madness mock and slander the Jewish State?

***********************************
Salomon Benzimra is a chemical engineer based in Toronto, where he professional work includes process design of water-pumping stations, energy systems and project economic analysis. He is interested in Middle East politics, and, accordingly, he co-founded Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights (CILR), which has been in existence since 2009.
**********************************
Copyright ©2012. Salomon Benzimra. All Rights Reserved. 

9 comments:

  1. International law has a different meaning for the most hated country on earth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When hateful ideology triumphs facts and law, we are in trouble.

      Delete
  2. Whether the settlements in Judea and Samaria are legal or illegal is a matter of opinion. When opinion is offered, lawyers and judges looks to the training and experience of those whose opinions are offered. As Mr. Benzimra shows, on the one hand we have eminent jurists, acclaimed for their expertise in International Law such as Stephen M. Schwebel, Eugene W. Rostow, Julius Stone, David Matas, and David M. Phillips. On the other hand we have Naomi Chazan whose training and experience in legal matters has yet to be shown. In a court of law her opinion would not be admissible because of the hearsay rule which excludes testimony not of facts seen or heard by the witness with some exceptions. One of these is the opinion of experts who are trained or experienced in the subject matter of their opinion. An examination of Naomi Chazan, i.e. an examination of her training and experience in international law, would easily show her views are not worthy of submission to a jury. Ms Chazan prefers the term"The West Bank" to the centuries old names of the areas of settlement, Judea and Samaria. Is that because Ms Chazan knows she would look silly to preach that Jews are illegally building homes in Judea? I am surprised that the Jewish Forward would print Naomi Chazan's view and ignore Mr. Benzimra's most relevant criticism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your point is well taken; an opinion carries more weight when it is informed by facts and knowledge. In declining to publish Mr. Benzimra's article, The Forward missed a golden opportunity to present some facts that are not well-reported.

      Delete
  3. They are not well reported because platforms that are readily available to "Arab Intellectuals" and "Post Zionism history revisionists" appear to be unavailable to those who want to present the Zionist perspective. See:, e.g. http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2012/06/salubrius-responds-to-eli-hertz-myths.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear salubrius:

      I am not surprised, since the only acceptable solution to the Quartet is the two-state solution; any other option, other than a one-state Arab territory—Israel quietly leaves the Land—is considered heresy in their faith.

      Delete
  4. In September, 1917, two months before publication of the Balfour Policy supporting the reconstituting of a Jewish state in Palestine, the British Foreign Office issued a memo to counter the argument that the grant of exclusive political rights to the Jews would be anti-democratic. That is because the Jewish population as of 1917 was only 60,000 out of 600,000 total population or about ten%. The Foreign Office agreed with that concept but said that in actual practice it was "imaginary. That is because the political rights would be given in trust and therefore couldn't be exercised by the Jews until they vested -- when the Jews in Palestine has attained a population majority. On April 25, 1920 this was transformed from British policy to International law at San Remo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yet, the San Remo Conference (1920) and its resolutions is hardly mentioned, even in Israel. Why is that?

      Delete
  5. Keep this going please, great job!
    my page :: derma science anti ageing cream

    ReplyDelete

All comments ought to reflect the post in question. All comments are moderated; and inappropriate comments, including those that attack persons, those that use profanity and those that are hateful, will not be tolerated. So, keep it on target, clean and thoughtful. This is not a forum for personal vendettas or to create a toxic environment. The chief idea is to engage, to discuss and to critique issues. Doing so within acceptable norms will make the process more rewarding and healthy for everyone. Accordingly, anonymous comments will not be posted.