In a democratic, civilized society, even a government elected by a majority is restrained from doing certain things to a minority, because these things constitute a violation of basic human rights and as such are illegal. Certain things are just not done.
For example, Her Majesty's Government would not decree that all the Jews (Jews only!) residing in Greater London would have to evacuate Greater London and move to live in other parts of the country. Had it tried to issue such a decree, there would be a great uproar and strong opposition, not only in the United Kingdom, but the Israeli government, too, would protest.
Such a decree would be somewhat more acceptable to public opinion and the uproar would be less if it transpires that the Jewish settlement in Greater London constitutes a transgression of international law.
Whatever the subject discussed, it is the case that for many years, Arab representatives and their friends focus on the 'occupation' and the illegality according to international law of Jewish presence and settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. This is done through all forms of media - radio, TV and the written word. From the beginning of the Oslo process, Israeli representatives, even if they are interviewed on radio or TV simultaneously with the Arab representative making these allegations, never ever respond, refer to or deny these allegations. As a result, there is an ever-growing 'innocent' public opinion in the world, and in Israel itself, that believes that these allegations are true.
In fact, quite the opposite is the truth: International law explicitly encourages Jewish settlement in these areas. International law prescribes that Jewish settlement in these areas should be facilitated and carried out with great urgency and it is forbidden to delay or freeze Jewish settlement in these areas. International law also forbids the transference of this land to a foreign power since the land is destined for a Jewish state. These are the conditions of the mandate of the League of Nations. These rights of the Jewish people are still valid, since it is enshrined in the charter of the United Nations (article 80), and confirmed by the International Court of Justice, that rights of nations valid by virtue of a League of Nations mandate are preserved and remain valid for the UN.
The absurdity of claiming that the settlements are illegal is demonstrated by, for example, noting that Kfar Darom - a reconstructed Gaza settlement that Prime Minister Sharon proposes to dismantle - disappeared in 1948 only because of Arab aggression. But nobody said before 1948 that it was illegal. Has the intervening Arab aggression between the original and the reconstructed Kfar Darom made it illegal? Of course not. In fact even if there was no Kfar Darom before 1948, and if there was no mandate by the League of Nations, the custom and the law in the world is that land acquired in a war of self-defense is not returned. Furthermore, even the (non-binding) UN Resolution 242 does not call for total withdrawal - and Israel already withdrew from more than 90% of the territories - and even limited withdrawal only in a context of total peace and to behind secure and recognized borders.
Even though the lower echelons of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs often say that they would like to publicly affirm that Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are legal according to international law (as they used to say until the beginning of Oslo), they claim that they are not allowed to do so because of instructions from above. The change from a Shimon Peres administration to an Ariel Sharon administration had no effect on the inability of Israeli diplomats to say in public that the settlements are legal. Despite repeated appeals to the higher levels of the Israeli government, there is a stubborn refusal to change the policy and to return to the old policy, which did not conceal the objective truth (i.e., it is not a question of appealing to "my country right or wrong"; it is simply objectively true that international law calls for the encouragement of settlements). Why is this self-defeating policy so stubbornly adhered to?
Could it be that the deliberate concealing of Jewish rights according to international law by the highest level of Israeli government was motivated, at least in part, by an a priori decision to get rid of the settlements, for whatever reasons? Whatever their intention, the effect of such a concealment is to make it easier to uproot the settlements in the face of public opinion in Israel and abroad. If it is not a question of surrender to terror - and we also know that there was no real political pressure from where it counts to dismantle and retreat, surely no more pressure than during all the years of Israel's existence - then only the "illegality" of the settlements can be summoned to "explain" the uprooting of the settlements.
Such a dismantling involves not just buildings, but the life of three generations or more of people who linked their life plans to these areas - a cruel and inhumane act by any standard of human rights. And only Jews are "selected" for the transfer - there is no exchange of population - by a "Jewish" government. That government is not even able to explain in a coherent way why it wants to do it so urgently, just now, and in opposition to the long-standing party manifesto upon which it was elected.
There are more than indications that the concealing of the legality of the settlements from public opinion in Israel and abroad is a deliberate device to facilitate the dismantling of the settlements by preventing public uproar. For example, about a year ago, long before Sharon announced his Gaza retreat, in the Voice of Israel program called Haarachat Matzav, Dr Alon Liel, a permanent guest of this program, said that Jewish settlements in the territories are illegal. Dr Liel has often expressed his antipathy to the settlements on Israel Radio, but he is not just anybody. Until not too long time ago, he was the director of Israel's Foreign Ministry. He is the person who should have explained to the world precisely the opposite of what he was saying, as was done by generations of Foreign Ministry personnel until Oslo began.
Following the program, the head of correspondents for Voice of Israel was contacted and it was suggested to him to bring to this on-going weekly program an expert in international law who would counter the frequent attacks on the settlements by Dr Liel. Voice of Israel is a state-run radio and their correspondents know what is expected from them. The response of the head of correspondents was that the legality of the settlements could not be mentioned since we have to prepare the nation for the dismantling of the settlements. There are many such examples, including a conversation in 2001 with Dov Weisglass - Sharon's strong man - that showed a total lack of interest in the settlements and their public relations.
The question is why Israeli leaders are so keen to dismantle the settlements even to the point that they instruct Israel's official representatives to conceal from the public the fact that settlements are legal. Why do they behave out of character and in opposition to their earlier, declared policy and against long-standing political party manifestoes, in the absence of some new pressure? Why now is it so urgent to dismantle settlements? What are the interests they serve?
For example, Her Majesty's Government would not decree that all the Jews (Jews only!) residing in Greater London would have to evacuate Greater London and move to live in other parts of the country. Had it tried to issue such a decree, there would be a great uproar and strong opposition, not only in the United Kingdom, but the Israeli government, too, would protest.
Such a decree would be somewhat more acceptable to public opinion and the uproar would be less if it transpires that the Jewish settlement in Greater London constitutes a transgression of international law.
Whatever the subject discussed, it is the case that for many years, Arab representatives and their friends focus on the 'occupation' and the illegality according to international law of Jewish presence and settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. This is done through all forms of media - radio, TV and the written word. From the beginning of the Oslo process, Israeli representatives, even if they are interviewed on radio or TV simultaneously with the Arab representative making these allegations, never ever respond, refer to or deny these allegations. As a result, there is an ever-growing 'innocent' public opinion in the world, and in Israel itself, that believes that these allegations are true.
In fact, quite the opposite is the truth: International law explicitly encourages Jewish settlement in these areas. International law prescribes that Jewish settlement in these areas should be facilitated and carried out with great urgency and it is forbidden to delay or freeze Jewish settlement in these areas. International law also forbids the transference of this land to a foreign power since the land is destined for a Jewish state. These are the conditions of the mandate of the League of Nations. These rights of the Jewish people are still valid, since it is enshrined in the charter of the United Nations (article 80), and confirmed by the International Court of Justice, that rights of nations valid by virtue of a League of Nations mandate are preserved and remain valid for the UN.
The absurdity of claiming that the settlements are illegal is demonstrated by, for example, noting that Kfar Darom - a reconstructed Gaza settlement that Prime Minister Sharon proposes to dismantle - disappeared in 1948 only because of Arab aggression. But nobody said before 1948 that it was illegal. Has the intervening Arab aggression between the original and the reconstructed Kfar Darom made it illegal? Of course not. In fact even if there was no Kfar Darom before 1948, and if there was no mandate by the League of Nations, the custom and the law in the world is that land acquired in a war of self-defense is not returned. Furthermore, even the (non-binding) UN Resolution 242 does not call for total withdrawal - and Israel already withdrew from more than 90% of the territories - and even limited withdrawal only in a context of total peace and to behind secure and recognized borders.
Even though the lower echelons of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs often say that they would like to publicly affirm that Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are legal according to international law (as they used to say until the beginning of Oslo), they claim that they are not allowed to do so because of instructions from above. The change from a Shimon Peres administration to an Ariel Sharon administration had no effect on the inability of Israeli diplomats to say in public that the settlements are legal. Despite repeated appeals to the higher levels of the Israeli government, there is a stubborn refusal to change the policy and to return to the old policy, which did not conceal the objective truth (i.e., it is not a question of appealing to "my country right or wrong"; it is simply objectively true that international law calls for the encouragement of settlements). Why is this self-defeating policy so stubbornly adhered to?
Could it be that the deliberate concealing of Jewish rights according to international law by the highest level of Israeli government was motivated, at least in part, by an a priori decision to get rid of the settlements, for whatever reasons? Whatever their intention, the effect of such a concealment is to make it easier to uproot the settlements in the face of public opinion in Israel and abroad. If it is not a question of surrender to terror - and we also know that there was no real political pressure from where it counts to dismantle and retreat, surely no more pressure than during all the years of Israel's existence - then only the "illegality" of the settlements can be summoned to "explain" the uprooting of the settlements.
Such a dismantling involves not just buildings, but the life of three generations or more of people who linked their life plans to these areas - a cruel and inhumane act by any standard of human rights. And only Jews are "selected" for the transfer - there is no exchange of population - by a "Jewish" government. That government is not even able to explain in a coherent way why it wants to do it so urgently, just now, and in opposition to the long-standing party manifesto upon which it was elected.
There are more than indications that the concealing of the legality of the settlements from public opinion in Israel and abroad is a deliberate device to facilitate the dismantling of the settlements by preventing public uproar. For example, about a year ago, long before Sharon announced his Gaza retreat, in the Voice of Israel program called Haarachat Matzav, Dr Alon Liel, a permanent guest of this program, said that Jewish settlements in the territories are illegal. Dr Liel has often expressed his antipathy to the settlements on Israel Radio, but he is not just anybody. Until not too long time ago, he was the director of Israel's Foreign Ministry. He is the person who should have explained to the world precisely the opposite of what he was saying, as was done by generations of Foreign Ministry personnel until Oslo began.
Following the program, the head of correspondents for Voice of Israel was contacted and it was suggested to him to bring to this on-going weekly program an expert in international law who would counter the frequent attacks on the settlements by Dr Liel. Voice of Israel is a state-run radio and their correspondents know what is expected from them. The response of the head of correspondents was that the legality of the settlements could not be mentioned since we have to prepare the nation for the dismantling of the settlements. There are many such examples, including a conversation in 2001 with Dov Weisglass - Sharon's strong man - that showed a total lack of interest in the settlements and their public relations.
The question is why Israeli leaders are so keen to dismantle the settlements even to the point that they instruct Israel's official representatives to conceal from the public the fact that settlements are legal. Why do they behave out of character and in opposition to their earlier, declared policy and against long-standing political party manifestoes, in the absence of some new pressure? Why now is it so urgent to dismantle settlements? What are the interests they serve?