Pal-watch:  all your cities are belong to us ….

Palestinian Authority Minister of Religious Affairs threatens war over Jerusalem

Speaker: Mahmoud Al-Habbash, PA Minister of Religious Affairs
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is in the audience.

Pal Watch

“Jerusalem is not just a city. Al-Aqsa is not just a mosque. Jerusalem is the key to peace, and Jerusalem can ignite a thousand and one wars. Unless the issue of Jerusalem is solved, so that it returns to its owners; unless Jerusalem will be Palestinian, as it was throughout history, the capital of the Palestinian state and the capital of the Palestinian people, the place which is the object of heartfelt longing and which all Muslims aspire to reach; unless Jerusalem is like that way, there is no peace. There is no peace without Jerusalem. There is no stability without Jerusalem. If Jerusalem is dishonored, if Jerusalem is disgraced, if [Jerusalem] is lost, it may leave the door open to all possibilities of struggle, all possibilities of war. The term ‘war’ cannot be erased from the lexicon of this region as long as Jerusalem is occupied, as long as Jerusalem is dishonored, as long as the residents of Jerusalem are being targeted. It’s not possible; Jerusalem has to return to its owners. And we are its owners.”

PA TV to kids: Israeli cities Haifa, Jaffa, Lod, Ramle, Acre are all “occupied cities”

Official Palestinian Authority TV continues to teach children that all of Israel is “occupied Palestine.” A repeating message on the children’s show The Best Home, currently broadcast three times a week during the month of Ramadan, is that all Israeli cities are “occupied” Palestinian cities.

Continued below the fold….

The PA TV host refers to cities in Israel alternately as “1948 occupied cities,” “occupied cities” or “occupied territories.” The Israeli cities described as Palestinian cities include Haifa, Jaffa, Lod, Ramle and Acre.

The following are examples from three of the TV programs in which the PA TV host refers to Israeli cities as “occupied Palestinian cities.”

PA TV host to girl: “You live in Jerusalem. Do you visit the 1948 occupied cities (Israeli cities)?”
Girl: “I’ve been to Hebron.”
TV host: “No, Hebron is a city [in the Palestinian Authority] that we all can enter. The occupied cities – such as Lod, Ramle, Haifa, Jaffa, Acre (all Israeli cities) – have you visited them?”
Girl: “I’ve been to Haifa and Jaffa.”
TV host: “Tell us, are they beautiful?”
Girl: “Yes…”
TV host: “We hope all children of Palestine will be able to go to the occupied territories, which we don’t know and have never been able to see. Personally, I have never been there.”
[PA TV (Fatah), Aug. 25, 2010]

PA TV host to children in studio:
“No doubt you’ve all been waiting to know lots of things about Ramadan in those days, in some of the occupied areas, in the occupied territories. Today we’ll find out lots about Jaffa in those days of Ramadan.”
[PA TV (Fatah), Aug. 22, 2010]

PA TV host to children in studio:
“Don’t you want to see Ramadan from those days in an occupied Palestinian city, to which we hope to return?”
The children are told a story of Ramadan in Ramle.
[PA TV (Fatah), Aug. 24, 2010]

PA TV is controlled by Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s office.

See more examples on PMW’s website of how the PA presents Israel as “occupied Palestine.”

The truth about “the occupation” and “the settlements”

By Ted Belman

The pro-Palestinian propaganda machine has succeeded in stigmatizing  the Israeli occupation and the settlements. Time and again we hear about  the “brutal occupation” and the “illegal settlements”.  We rarely hear  the truth in opposition to these lies.


Israel is accused of occupying the West Bank and Gaza.  In fact these  territories are described as “The occupied Palestinian territories.”  Not only are they not occupied in a legal sense, but also they are not  “Palestinian” lands in a sovereign sense..

The Fourth Geneva Convention (FGC) is a treaty between signatory  states that are called High Contracting Parties (HCP). It regulates the  obligations of one HCP who occupies the land of another HCP.  It defines  the terms “Occupying Power” and “Occupied State”.  Thus this convention  does not apply to the territories because they were not the land of any  HCP. They have never been the land of an HCP.  Prior to 1967, Jordon  was in occupation of these territories, just as Israel is currently in  occupation.  Jordanian sovereignty over these lands was never recognized  and ultimately Jordan relinquished any claims she claimed to have over  these lands. The FGC was never applied when Jordan occupied the land and  it shouldn’t be applied now that Israel does.

Yet the International Court of Justice, when it gave an advisory opinion  on the Israeli security fence, “identified Jordan as the occupied power  of the West Bank”. According to David Matas, an international lawyer of  considerable repute, in his well argued book Aftershock <> ,”The judgment moves on from this legal reasoning to labeling the West  Bank as Palestinian occupied territory. But this labelling is based on  the ethnic composition of the West Bank, not on its legal status.”   “This assertion by the ICJ that the West Bank is occupied territory is a  contortion the Court imposed on the law to get to its desired results  of slapping the label “occupier” on Israel.”. “ shows that the  primary concern of the court was to connect to pro-Palestinian  rhetoric”. As a result the Palestinians consider themselves the  “occupied power”.

Matas notes “That the Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War do not  recognize the legal possibility of the occupation of a people, only the  occupation of the territory of a state.” A Protocol to these conventions  does recognize such a possibility but Israel is not a signatory to it  and is thus not bound by it.

It must be clearly understood that Israel’s occupation is not illegal  and the UN has never claimed it to be. In fact Resolution 242 permits  Israel to remain in occupation until they have an agreement on “secure  and recognized borders”.

The Palestinians have no greater claim to a state than any minority  group in any other state that wants a state of their own. The Basques  and the Kurds come to mind. No one is demanding that they be given  statehood.

When Israel’s counsel acknowledged to Israel’s High Court when it was  deliberating on the fence, that Israel held the land in “belligerent  occupation”, he did so to enable the Court to use the law of occupation  in its deliberations. It was not an admission that the lands were  Palestinian land or that the FGC applied.

Matas also takes issue with Dore Gold and others for calling the land  “disputed land”, because others argue all of Israel is disputed land.

UNSC Res 242 sanctioned Israel’s right to remain in occupation until  such time as the parties reached an agreement on secure and recognized  borders. This resolution makes no mention of the FGC.  Israel has  accepted the PA as the negotiating party. Nevertheless she knows the PA  is currently an illegitimate government, having overstayed its mandate,  and speaks for no one much less Hamas.


The anti-Zionists argue the settlements are illegal and rely solely  on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention which provides that  the Occupying power is prohibited from transferring civilian populations  to occupied territories. They say that the prohibition against transfer  includes a prohibition against encouragement to settle.  The matter has  never been put to a court for interpretation or determination. But the  International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) advises “that this  provision was intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second  World War in which certain powers transferred portions of their  populations to occupied territories for political and racial reasons or  in order, as they claimed to colonize those territories.”

Nazi Germany enforced two kinds of transfers but in both cases they  were forced transfers. The victims were the persons being forced.

Transferring populations is not a grave breach of the Geneva  Conventions.  However a Protocol to the GC makes it so but Israel is not  a party to the protocol and is not bound by it.

The anti-Zionists reject the notion that the proscription is against  only forced transfers and argue that the FGC proscribes inducement to  move as well. But how can there be a crime of inducement when the person  committing the act, the settler, has done nothing wrong. How can you be  guilty of a crime by inducing someone to do something which is not a  crime? Furthermore, this inducement would be a War Crime on an equal  footing with Genocide. The equation is ludicrous. And if the settlers  settle on their own volition and not due to inducements, what then?   Also it is impossible to prosecute an occupying power.  So what  individuals would be held responsible?

Even if someone in Israel was convicted of offering inducements to  settle, the settlers would not be affected and could remain in the  settlements if they wished.

Matas opines, “The interpretation defies the ordinary understanding  of criminal responsibility where the person committing the act is the  primary wrongdoer and the person inducing the act is only an accessory.”

Matas concludes. “There is all the difference in the world between  forcible transfer, the offence of the Geneva Convention, and voluntary  settlement, even where the settlement is encouraged” (by are merely  providing inducements).  “Transfer is something that is done to  people. Settlement is something people do.”

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court made it an  offence to ”directly or indirectly” transfer populations.  The ICRC has  attempted to interpret “indirect transfers” as “inducements” thereby  making them a crime. But the GC certainly does not and that currently is  the prevailing opinion.

But that didn’t prevent the ICJ, in its advisory opinion above noted,  from finding that the settlements violated international law. No  reasons were given and no authority cited. But elsewhere it expressed  the opinion that the combination of the settlements and the fence  amounted to de facto annexation. It ignored the fact that Israel took  the position that the fence was not intended to be the border but was  merely a security measure. While actual annexation may be a violation of  the FGC, the settlements and the fence certainly were annexation  or a violation of the FGC.  What a legal stretch! And what about the  settlements on the west side of the fence? Are they an annexation too?

Thus the ICJ did not conclude that someone in Israel was guilty of  inducing settlements or in any other way of transferring populations

Matas expands on his dim view of the advisory opinion. He considers  it an attempt to discredit Israel.  In the end it discredited the ICJ.  He prays that the ICC will be more judicious.  The ICJ, after all, is an  organ of the UN who requested it to provide the opinion. Similarly the  UN requested Goldstone to investigate Cast Lead and produce a report.  This report, like the advisory opinion, was just what the UN ”ordered”.

But keep in mind that the opinion of the ICJ was just that, an opinion, and is not legally binding on anyone.

The US has traditionally, with the Carter administration being the  only exception, refrained from describing the settlements as illegal and  instead called them obstacles to peace.  In September 2009, Obama went  before the United Nations and declared <> “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli  settlements.” This is closer to Carter’s position but falls short of  declaring them illegal. Nevertheless, it prompted John Bolton <;posts=2> to say “This is the most radical anti-Israel speech I can recall any president making.”

All this ignores the fact that the Palestine Mandate encouraged close  settlement of the land by Jews. This right has never been rescinded and  the UN has no right to rescind it. . So Jews from anywhere have the  right to settle on the West Bank and the PA and the UN has no right to  say otherwise.

To demand that the future Palestinian state be Judenrein, free of  Jews, is reprehensible and discriminatory. The West should not condone  it, but it does.

Ted Belman
Jerusalem, Israel
972 (0)54 441 3252

7 thoughts on “Israel”

  1. * Palestinian Authority Minister of Religious Affairs threatens war over Jerusalem

    God will bring it on in His own time. Meanwhile, islam’s end draws nearer:

    The EXACT REPLICA of the 3rd Temple is being BUILT to begin training Priest / Rabbi’s in Jerusalem

  2. There is not now and never has been a Country or State called Palestine you therefore cannot be a Citizen of it nor a Refugee from it and it cant be OCCUPIED. So according to Mohammedans and moonbats HISTORY starts with Mohammad and his ARAB Mohammedan INVADERS in the 8th Century and ONLY Mohammedans have the “Right of Conquest’ hey. Now you know why Muslims never amount to a hill of beans no EDUCATION no morals and no justice.

  3. Haifa? I may be wrong… But I believe I saw pictures of Haifa from 1948 and it was a barren place without any dwellings. But then Islam creates nothing and destroyes everything it touches. Also all the “science” that Islam “produced” was stolen from the libraries of Alexandria, Constanople, and the Persian empire. As the Pope quoted, nothing new is in Islam, but the sword. And even that’s not real new Attila te Hun used the sword too, he just didn’t form a religion around it.

  4. its called Temple Mount, so why doesn’t Israel just bulldoze that arab dump and build their Temple on Temple Mount. If there was no mosk it would be pointless the arabs being there and the world would be a happier place!

Comments are closed.