Israel’s fair weather allies took depictions of famine in Gaza as their longed-for window to recognize “Palestine.” The blockbuster will be staged at a September sitting of the UN General Assembly, that forum of duplicitous diplomats, fickle and treacherous, inveterate feudists, liars, and extortionists.
It would be a storm in a teacup if the catchphrase was a mere misnomer. To the contrary, it grew into a monster.
The pretext for leaders of Canada, Australia, Britain and France to preen their virtue feathers couldn’t be more persuasive. The consensus condemns Israel as a child-killing juggernaut. Small wonder that the four handed down a penal sentence chockfull of spite, ready to declare a state of Palestine knowing that Hamas remains a force to be reckoned with. As a minister in the Australian government put the grimy excuse for diplomacy
“Both Syria and Iraq had a long period where parts of those countries were being occupied and realistically controlled by ISIS. It didn’t stop us from recognizing and having diplomatic relations with those countries.”
The long and short of it is that a kamikaze neighbor dumped on the doorstep of Israelis will have de facto license to infiltrate their metropolises, towns, and settlements.
Only the UN could pull off a gimmick of this magnitude.
Of course ‘Palestine’ won’t exactly be real. It won’t however be a trick of the imagination. Call it a contrivance. Some dignitary will cut a ribbon and salute the colors tottering up a Ramallah flagpole. The ceremonials done with, Israel having decimated one Gaza, will be lured into committing “genocide” in a second arena.
“This reflects a commitment to international law and support for the Palestinian people’s rights to self-determination,” said a Palestinian diplomat, speaking in UN mother tongue. He meant a commitment to the game of International Law. The object is to displace Star of David counters on the game board with keffiyeh counters while you mimic, “Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
Can such buffoonery amount to much?
Israel may find itself skating on thin ice. For international law it involves relegation to a fun amateur league. Dreamers of the Two-State Solution will take the recognition of Palestine as a consolation prize. To nine-tenths of UN members it means a step closer to axing Israel’s right to exist. Washington and Brussels will relish a new arm-twister for making Israel do their bidding. To every participant it amounts to a global “Game of Thrones.”
Giving the Pals a state is all well and good. But where shall it be fitted? On who’s land? To what extent between the river and the sea?
The gift of the givers may not be theirs to give — the Pals are not the only people with skin in the game.
Make-believing that Israel’s hot and cold allies are bona fide “critics,” from the get-go they fixated on two criticisms:
- Israel violates international law.
- Israel occupies “Palestinian Territory.”
The government’s new plan for Gaza rejuvenated the claims which, it is not difficult to prove, are nothing but clumsy calumnies. For instance:
- Norway’s Foreign Minister declared, “Israel’s takeover of the entire Gaza Strip is an unacceptable violation of international law.”
- Holland’s Foreign Minister declared, “We have always been clear: Gaza belongs to the Palestinians.”
- Foreign ministers of the UK, Germany, Italy, New Zealand and Australia issued a joint warning that, “Any attempts at annexation or of settlement extension, violate international law.”
You don’t have to be a professor of international law or make a futile Wiki search to hit on the makeshift trick. Indelible records of binding Jewish rights go back to the British Mandate. Cactus thorns to actors who make no bones that Jews have no right to claim any rights, the play book is to not acknowledge that records exist. Referencing instead the ICJ — that go-to kangaroo court for the pro-Hamas in human garb — they quote “thunderous intonations about international law.”
Who needs adversaries when the four powers count themselves among allies of Israel?
It all begs the question: why did successive Israeli governments, led mostly by Netanyahu, never challenge libels which helped to make Israel a global pariah? What stopped him from demanding to be told the laws of war it violates? And while at it, why not insist on a disclosure of the event by which Israel came to occupy the Pals precious territory. Normally forthright to a fault, Bibi ought to be a safe bet for telling the four powers to stop with their publicity stunt “violations” and “occupation.” To call their bluff.
Alas. Even the brilliant orator delivered a risible lesson: “Appeasement towards jihadist terrorists always fails,” said Netanyahu. “Palestine will not happen.” Sadly the firepower of Israel pundits was no less deficient. The general complaint was that recognizing Palestine will reward Oct. 7 and be a slap in the face for victims and hostages.
It took a group of British lawyers to attack the incoming missile. Looking to explode the menace in midair, it warned Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s law advisor that recognition of Palestine risked breaking international law. What possible difference could that make?
It depends on a catchphrase and its power. Every cause must have one. And since demonizing Israel is the mother of all causes, nothing but the Coca-Cola of catchphrases will suffice. It is demonstrably true that if not for the manic misnomer “Occupied Palestinian Territory,” Israel could declare victory in the propaganda war instead of lamenting its victimhood.
“Occupation” thus saddled Israel with a nemesis from hell. Skittish governments, fearing to step onto a diplomatic minefield, stumbled onto the mother of all minefields. The catchphrase is anti-Zionism’s Hail Mary. On platforms from Harvard Yard to Piers Morgan Uncensored, Occupation abetted by #GazaHolocaust, excused Oct 7. To believe the narrative there is a beginning to everything, and Oct.7 was not it. Occupation was the beginning.
Truth be told, a dereliction of duty by Israeli governments also had a beginning. After more than a decade Netanyahu clutches the key to combat lawfare against the Jewish state.
As a younger, more tepid and timid Prime Minister he kicked-started in 2012 an offensive. A commission under retired Chief Justice Edmund Levy was tasked to “Examine the Status of Building in Judea and Samaria.” Netanyahu’s objective was to “regularize” unauthorized settlements on the West Bank. It confirmed his worst fears: Jewish settlements are perfectly in keeping with international law. The panel of three concluded that the West Bank was not occupied territory, and that no legal impediment stood in the way of settlement-building. He got cold feet, and archived the now abandoned arsenal in a document.
But there’s a real beginning, and the Levy Report was not it. By winning the 1967 war in six days, and capturing territories from aggressors who intended a second Holocaust — one they would not have denied but proclaimed — the Jews’ military committed a grievous sin.
Anticipating diplomatic toil and trouble, the High Court bound Israel to the Geneva Conventions. Its ruling on June 30, 2004 underlies lawfare to this day. It both initiated and perpetuated the international community’s insistence that Israel’s occupation violated international law.
Leaving no room for doubt, the High Court wrapped up Israel’s guilt “to go” by using the red flag word, “belligerent”: “The military commander of territory held in belligerent occupation must balance between the needs of the army on one hand, and the needs of local inhabitants on the other.”
The ruling willfully ignored the opinion of Judge Stephen M Schwebel, alias U.S. Supreme Court justice, alias Professor of International Law at John Hopkins University, alias member of the UN Law Commission, alias twice elected President of the once proud International Court of Justice. In 1994 he wrote the seminal “Self-Defense” principle, beginning: “A state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense.”
To be fair Israel’s High Court tried to ring-fence its ruling. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibiting mass transfer of population into occupied territory, as practiced by the 3rd Reich in World War II, was not meant to apply to Israelis who chose to live in Judea and Samaria.
“Not meant to apply”… A jeweler who decorates his window with all that glitters never meant to be burgled. The High Court chose to attract global condemnation of Israeli occupation. It only goes to prove that honorable intentions, when Jews have them, are marked down as a demerit. And so it happened that “Occupation of Palestinian Territories” (OPT) became the bane of Israel’s disputed existence.
It would be a storm in a teacup if the catchphrase was a mere misnomer. To the contrary, it grew into a monster which created facts on the ground. For one thing, the international community adopted OPT. For another, a vocal section of the Diaspora, and even Israelis, nailed their colors to that mast. Third, an economic bubble developed around OPT. Monthly pay slips of untold hundreds of thousands of UN employees depend on the unreal real estate. Thousands of human rights entities owe their business to it.
But for the big hoax the world would be a different, if quieter, place. And the Zionist enterprise would not be under pressure to capitulate to Hamas, declare a unilateral ceasefire, and consign the few live hostages to the living dead.
READ MORE from Steve Apfel:
The UN Wants a New State Bent on the West’s Destruction