The issues surrounding the Muslim Arabs’ war against the Jewish state of Israel, have been so muddied by her enemies, that it will take many excellent articles like this one by Daniel Greenfield, to finally unravel the truth behind the settlements. Israel is not an occupying power, though occupation is in fact a neutral term. It all depends upon the circumstances by which it came about.
NOTE: Either way, the world should be thanking the Israelis for the way they’ve handled the Arabs all these years. It’s in great contrast to how Arabs deal with other Arabs, which basically consists of lining them up and mowing them down.
Deconstructing the Israeli ‘Settlement’ Myth
Posted by Daniel Greenfield Bio ↓ on Jul 16th, 2012
“Under Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention its provisions are only binding on signatory states. To apply the Convention to the 1967 borders, the ICC had to treat the territory as Jordanian for that purpose, even while contradictorily accusing Israel of depriving Palestinian Arabs of political representation. Either the Arabs in the territories are Jordanian nationals, who are covered by the Convention, or they are Palestinian nationals and aren’t.
Article 4 of the Convention states: “Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.” Unless the ICC can show that Fatah and Hamas are bound by the Convention, they are not protected by it. The only way that the Fourth Geneva Convention can apply to the territories is if the Arab Muslims living there are recognized as Jordanian nationals. But that would also invalidate any further claims to a Palestinian State.”
The strategy of Israel’s Muslim neighbors was to wage a terrorist war using groups that would not be bound by the Convention. It is far too late to claim that the terrorists were retroactively protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention—even though they were never bound by it. It is also far too late to claim that the territorial demands that they would only begin making in the 1970s retroactively invalidated Israel’s prior claims to the area, or its towns and villages rebuilt at a time when Palestinian Nationalists were still claiming that Israel was actually part of Syria.
Finally, Al‑Khasawneh, one of the ICC judges, in a blatant conflict of interest, was an advisor to the King of Jordan and later became the Prime Minister of Jordan. The media outlets attacking the political allegiances of the Levy Report members might want to explain Al‑Khasawneh’s presence on a case involving the territorial interests of his monarchy.