Here’s the Washington Post on the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem, emphasis added:
Ever since the administration was blindsided by Israel’s March 9 announcement that it intends to build 1,600 housing units in a disputed area of Jerusalem, U.S. officials have pressed Israel to take actions to encourage Palestinians to attend indirect talks, including canceling the project, making concrete gestures such as a prisoner release and adding substantive rather than procedural issues to the agenda for talks. Some U.S. requests have not been made public.
“Disputed”? This description implies that Israel and the Arabs both have some kind of legal claim over Jerusalem. But the fact of the matter is that Jerusalem is not by any means “disputed”. This is simply false. It is a simple and uncontroversial point of fact under international law that Israel has no legal claim to Jerusalem, that Jerusalem is rather undisputed Palestinian territory, and that Israel’s occupation of the city is illegal, in violation of both the Fourth Geneva Convention and numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions.
Israel today controls Jerusalem because it invaded and occupied the West Bank in 1967. Subsequently, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 242, which emphasized “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, emphasized that member states have a commitment to abide by the U.N. Charter, and called for the “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied” during the June 1967 war.
In May 1968, the Security Council passed resolution 252, which declared Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem “invalid” and called upon Israel “to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem”.
In July 1969, the Security Council passed resolution 267, noting that Israel had since “taken further measures tending to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”. It reaffirmed “the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible” and deplored Israel’s further violations of U.N. resolutions, censured “in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the City of Jerusalem”, and confirmed “that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status”, and urgently called on Israel to rescind the measures taken to annex Jerusalem.
Security Council 271 of September 1969 again reaffirmed the principle of the inadmissibility under international law of the acquisition of territory by war, describing Jerusalem as being under “military occupation” by Israel and condemning Israel’s continued violation of previous resolutions.
Resolution 298 of September 1971 again reaffirmed the principle, deplored Israel’s continued violation of U.N. resolutions, and confirmed that Israel’s attempts to annex Jerusalem “are totally invalid”.
Resolution 446 of March 1979 affirmed “once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention … is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel, including Jerusalem“, determined “that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity” (emphasis added).
Resolution 452 of July 1979 again deplored Israel’s continued violation of Security Council resolutions and again emphasized that Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem “has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”. It again also noted that Jerusalem is included in “the occupied Arab territories”.
Resolution 465 of March 1980 again condemned Israel’s settlement policy, which violates the Fourth Geneva Convention and U.N. Security Council resolutions, and again reaffirmed that Israel’s annexation attempts “have no legal validity” and constitutes “a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.
Resolution 471 of June 1980 once again reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention “to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem“, and once again called upon Israel to end its illegal occupation of those territories, including Jerusalem.
Resolution 476 of June 1980 again deplored Israel’s continued violation of international law and reaffirmed “the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”, and reaffirmed Israel’s annexation measures “have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention” and were “null and void”.
Resolution 478 of August 1980 again censured Israel’s continued violation of international law and again reaffirmed that its annexation attempts were “null and void”.
Resolutions 592 of December 1986, 605 of December 1987, 607 of January 1988, 636 of July 1989, 694 of May 1991, 726 of January 1992, 799 of December 1992 all again reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to occupied Arab territory, including Jerusalem.
In July 2004, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s decision to build a wall in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, which concluded that “all these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and that Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power”, that the construction of the wall in those territories is “illegal”, and that Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, similarly “have been established in breach of international law.”
So what, exactly, is it the Washington Post would have its readers believe there is a “dispute” over? There is absolutely no dispute whatsoever, and it remains an uncontroversial point of fact under international law that Jerusalem is occupied Arab territory from which Israel must withdraw.
The closest the Post comes to acknowledging this fact, in this particular example, is (emphasis added):
Reports from Israel differed on the significance of the new approval, and U.S. officials said they were seeking “clarification” from the Israeli government. Netanyahu has defended Israel’s right to build in East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed in 1967 in an act not recognized internationally, but the Obama administration has urged him to ensure that housing projects there do not spoil the atmosphere for talks.
See, the description of Jerusalem as “disputed” could perhaps be sustainable so long as Israel’s annexation is “not recognized internationally”, which is no doubt why the Post declines to impart upon its readers the fact that — far from merely not being recognized — there is an international consensus that Jerusalem is occupied Arab land.
Were the Post and the rest of the mainstream media to actually disclose such facts to its readers, it could no longer use such descriptions as “disputed” to describe land illegally occupied by Israel. And that would just cause problems for U.S. policy, so it’s best just to stick to the formula and not rock the both with things like facts and principled adherence honesty and accuracy in reporting.
Jeremy R. Hammond: Dept of Homeland Security Suggests Defending Yourself Against Crazed Shooters with Scissors
Khan Azam,: Dept of Homeland Security Suggests Defending Yourself Against Crazed Shooters with Scissors
Buckling to Bigotry: The Newseum Dishonors Murdered Palestinian Journalists: The Washington Post’s Iran WarmongeringForbidden News » Buckling to Bigotry: The Newseum Dishonors Murdered Palestinian Journalists: The Washington Post’s Iran WarmongeringBuckling to Bigotry: The Newseum Dishonors Murdered Palestinian Journalists | Intifada Palestine: The Washington Post’s Iran Warmongering
Jeremy R. Hammond is an independent political analyst and a recipient of the Project Censored Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism. He is the founding editor of Foreign Policy Journal (www.foreignpolicyjournal.com) and can also be found on the web at JeremyRHammond.com. His is the author of "Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman: Austrian vs. Keynesian economics in the financial crisis" and "The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination: The Struggle for Palestine and the Roots of the Israeli-Arab Conflict".
Jeremy R. Hammond
November 10, 2010 at 10:53 pm
The facts are precisely as I’ve stated them. East Jerusalem is uncontroversially “occupied Palestinian territory”. Israel’s annexation is illegal, and rejected by the international community and U.N. Security Council. The settlements are illegal.
It’s hilarious you assert I’m “ignorant of UN history”, and then roll out the lie as that the UN Security Council “canceled all condemnations of Israeli ‘occupation’ and passed a new resolution stating Jerusalem is disputed”.
Spare me your delusions of grandeur.
fogpatch
November 23, 2010 at 1:10 pm
this answer is pure bluster. No evidence is provided.
connie
November 26, 2010 at 8:06 am
There is no such thing as a “settlement” in international law. What are you babbling about?
Jeremy R. Hammond
November 26, 2010 at 11:25 pm
I didn’t say there was. What are you babbling about?
Jerusalemite
November 11, 2010 at 1:45 am
Hammond, old boy
You are totally offbase, mouthing laughable assertions without any foundation in fact. UN Security Council resolutions in the last 17 years have not said a word about Israeli “annexation.” Israeli settlements are in fact legal under international law. You should read the Geneva Conventions.
Jeremy R. Hammond
November 11, 2010 at 8:40 am
Jerusalemite, why do you limit your references to UNSC resolutions to “the last 17 years”? The fact is the UNSC has repeatedly declared Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem illegal under international law, and null and void. As the ICJ has noted, all settlements are also illegal, a fact which stems in part from Geneva Convention IV, which explicitly forbids the Occupying Power from transferring parts of its population into the occupied territory (as the ICJ also observed). You know, before telling others to read something, you might want to try reading it yourself, so as not to so embarrass yourself with such idiocy.
fogpatch
November 23, 2010 at 1:13 pm
UNSC resolutions cited are ancient history. There are brand new ones from 2002 to 2008 attacking the Palestinians for committing terrorism and refusing to negotiate.
Jeremy R. Hammond
November 25, 2010 at 8:31 am
All UNSC resolutions quoted remain in effect.
connie
November 26, 2010 at 8:10 am
Israel is not an “Occupying Power” under Geneva Convention (IV). and, it has not “transferred” anybody.
On the other hand, the Palestinian Arabs were transferred to the Holy Land by the Ottoman Turks, the real Occupying Power, and by Egypt.
Jeremy R. Hammond
November 26, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Israel is an Occupying Power under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbids Israel from building settlements in the occupied territory (“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”). You can look up “transfer” in any dictionary, if you really don’t know what that means.
jerusalemitess
November 30, 2010 at 2:57 am
Israel is not an Occupying Power as defined under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Secondly, it has not transferred anyone. My friends live there and they were not transferred. Your insinuation is baseless.
Jeremy R. Hammond
December 1, 2010 at 10:19 am
Israel is an Occupying Power under the Fourth Geneva Convention, as the ICJ has observed, and thus all settlements are illegal.
jerusalemitess
November 12, 2010 at 1:20 am
There is an error in your reading of Geneva Convention (IV). The type of settlements referred to do not apply to Israeli neighborhoods since they are different. Also, the UNSC resolutions you referred to are ancient history. There are new UNSC resolutions that eliminate the negative wording about Jerusalem.
Jeremy R. Hammond
November 12, 2010 at 10:18 am
The facts are as I stated them. As the ICJ has affirmed, the settlements are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This is absolutely non-controversial. The UNSC resolutions I cited remain in effect. Israel’s annexation is not recognized by the international community, as it is illegal and, as the UNSC has declared repeatedly, null and void.
connie
November 26, 2010 at 8:12 am
The ICJ affirmation about “settlements” has not been accepted by the international comity of nations.
Jeremy R. Hammond
November 26, 2010 at 11:29 pm
It most certainly has been accepted by the international community, which requested it in the first place.
jerusalemitess
November 30, 2010 at 2:59 am
Don’t be disingenuous. U posted the rejections of the ICJ opinion by all the democracies of the world .
Jeremy R. Hammond
December 1, 2010 at 10:20 am
Absolute nonsense.
yael shichror
December 5, 2010 at 9:21 am
so how come the US, Canada, and the EU threw the ICJ report in the trash bin?
Jeremy R. Hammond
December 5, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Not sure what that is supposed to mean.
Marxian Marxist
November 13, 2010 at 1:21 am
I find your latest comment rather bizarre and doctrinaire.
Only a left-wing deviationist would deny that Jerusalem is the holiest city in Judaism and the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism.
If as you say Jerusalem is an illegal settlement and Palestinian territory, then how come the international community consensus is that The Road Map Negotiations for the Two-state Solution requires Jerusalem to be shared between the Palestinians and Israelis?
Second question: How come the Palestinians have agreed to such negotiations?
You know, there are several United Nations Security Council resolutions
that demand the Palestinians negotiate a deal on Jerusalem. You deliberately falsify the record of international law by failing to incorporate them in your screed.
Maybe Jeremy Hammond’s rants are null and void?
Jeremy R. Hammond
November 13, 2010 at 10:10 am
I find your comment rather bizarre and doctrinaire, Marxian, and only a liar would suggest I ever denied “that Jerusalem is the holiest city in Judaism and the Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism”, because I never did so, as anyone can plainly see.
If you say East Jerusalem is Israeli territory, then how come the international consensus is that under international law, East Jerusalem is “occupied Palestinian territory”, and how come under the Road Map, Jerusalem is to be shared?
I welcome you to produce any UNSC resolution you think invalidates nullifies the numerous resolutions I cited that declared Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem to be illegal under international law, and null and void. I’ve produced the resolutions that prove my argument. Now produce yours, if you are able.
marxian marxist
November 20, 2010 at 12:57 am
Have confirmed with UN Secretariat that the UN Sec. Co. resolutions of the last ten years have rendered the previous resolutions you mentioned in your piece inoperative — what they call “in deep freeze” i.e. shelved permanently. Only 242 and 338 calling for Arab countries to end their illegal wars against Israel still stand. They also confirm there is no “international consensus” that East Jerusalem is “occupied Palestinian territory.” This derogatory term emanates from the racist apartheid Arab world which has bludgeoned the bloated UN bureaucracy into using this terminology on pain of blackmail (this information is to be kept strictly confidential).
In response to your query regarding producing the new resolutions that prove my irreproachable commentary, they are as follows:
UNSCR 1392, March 12, 2010 — demanding that the Palestinians cease their terrorism and get back to the negotiating table
UNSCR 1402 — ditto
UNSCR 1505, November 19, 2003, “endorsing the Roadmap
for Negotiations on a Two-State Solution” and “negotiations shall be based on UNSCR 242, 338, and 1397… taking into account the political and religious concerns of both sides and protecting the interests of Jews, Christians and Muslims worldwide.”
UNSCR 1850, December 16, 2008, “declares its commitment to the irreversibility of the bilateral negotiations” designed “to resolve all core issues.” (East Jerusalem is a core issue)
UN Secretariat emphasizes that nowhere in these resolutions does the United Nations Security Council prejudice the status of East Jerusalem by pre-determining it is “occupied Palestinian territory.”
As for the ICJ “opinion”, UN Secretariat states that it is an embarrassing piece of juristic propaganda which every single free world delegation to the UNGA has condemned. Thus, the ICJ opinion has been “trashed” as an obstacle to peace in the Middle East.
If you have any other questions regarding the United Nations, I would be most pleased to assist you. For, it is vitally important that the false consciousness that has alienated you from the truth be speedily jettisoned.
Jeremy R. Hammond
November 20, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Liar. The facts are as I’ve stated them. That East Jerusalem is “occupied Palestinian territory” is non-controversial, as reflected in the advisory opinion of the ICJ issued upon request of the UN General Assembly. None of the resolutions you cite render the resolutions I cited “inoperative”.
fogpatch
November 23, 2010 at 1:16 pm
why do you call people
“liar?” you asked for the UN resolutions from marxian marxist and he gave them to you verbatim. What is the matter with you?
Jeremy R. Hammond
November 25, 2010 at 8:32 am
The UN Secretariat did not confirm that the UNSC resolutions I cited are “inoperative”. The Marxist is a liar.
connie
November 26, 2010 at 8:14 am
Thomas Buergenthal, the American judge on the ICJ, has made it clear that the ICJ violated international law by accepting the UN General Assembly request for an opinion.
Jeremy R. Hammond
November 26, 2010 at 11:39 pm
Buergenthal in his dissenting opinion expressed his agreement that East Jerusalem is “Occupied Palestinian Territory”, actually.
jerusalemitess
November 30, 2010 at 3:02 am
You lie. Buergenthal said no such thing.
Jeremy R. Hammond
December 1, 2010 at 10:17 am
Yes, he did. “My negative votes … should not be seen as reflecting my view that the construction of the wall by Israel on the Occupied Palestinian Territory does not raise serious questions as a matter of international law. I believe it does, and there is much in the Opinion with which I agree…. I share the Court’s conclusion that international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, and international human rights law are applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and must there be faithfully complied with by Israel.” Making clear which territory he was referring to by “Occupied Palestinian Territory”, Buergenthal said “the Green Line is accepted by the Court as delimiting the dividing line between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. Thus, “Occupied Palestinian Territory” includes East Jerusalem, according Buergenthal.
marxian marxist
November 20, 2010 at 1:14 am
whoops…please correct typo above — should read UNSCR 1397, March 12, 2002
fogpatch
November 21, 2010 at 12:19 pm
You continue with ad hominem slurs, Mr. Hammond. Obviously, you are the Liar. Virtually every single commentator on your blog has proven you made a false claim that Jerusalem is Palestinian territory under international law. You were challenged to provide evidence by way of stating the name of this law or laws. You have backpedalled, squirmed, stonewalled and called intelligent international law experts “liars”. The only weak reed you fall back on is the discredited ICJ report. This proves that your case has been destroyed. Jerusalem is the incontrovertible and indisputable eternal capital of the Jewish people and its homeland, Israel.
Jeremy R. Hammond
November 21, 2010 at 5:20 pm
It’s not an ad hominem. That you are a liar is a demonstrable fact. As the ICJ has observed, under international law, all of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is “occupied Palestinian territory”.
connie
November 26, 2010 at 7:42 am
hi,
There is a small mistake in this reply. The ICJ observation about Jerusalem was not accepted by the international community.
Jeremy R. Hammond
December 1, 2010 at 10:21 am
It was the international community who requested the ICJ advisory opinion.
fogpatch
November 21, 2010 at 11:59 pm
If what you say is true, it shouldn’t be a problem for you to tell us what international law the ICJ pulled out of its drawer to prove that Jerusalem is “Palestinian.”
Jeremy R. Hammond
November 23, 2010 at 9:48 am
Fallacy. What international law proves that the U.S. is “American” or that Switzerland is “Swiss”? If you want proper answers, you have to ask proper questions.
fogpatch
November 23, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Answer the point. If you have no answer, be honest and say so. Diversionary flippancy simply will not do. The UN Charter proves the US is American. The Covenant of the League of Nations proves Switzerland is Swiss.
Jeremy R. Hammond
November 25, 2010 at 8:33 am
Do you still beat your wife? Answer the point. If you have no answer, be honest and say so.
I told you already, your question is founded in a fallacy. If you think otherwise, you’re welcome to show us what international law proves Switzerland is “Swiss”.
fogpatch
November 25, 2010 at 12:18 pm
I do not beat my wife. I am a Muslim Zionist of the Sufi school and have four wives. Your article is founded not only in a fallacy but also on a void premise. The Washington Post is right. Jerusalem is not Palestinian in international law. Go back to school.
Jeremy R. Hammond
November 25, 2010 at 5:20 pm
So, let’s be clear: You deny that you still beat your wife?
Do I really need to explain the fallacy that seems to have passed right over your head, while you tell me to “Go back to school”? Seriously?
connie
November 26, 2010 at 7:48 am
The international convention setting up the Red Cross proves that switzerland is “Swiss.”
Jeremy R. Hammond
November 26, 2010 at 11:30 pm
Quote it.
connie
November 26, 2010 at 7:50 am
The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, inter alia, proves the US is “American.”
Jeremy R. Hammond
November 26, 2010 at 11:32 pm
Let’s see a quote.
jerusalemitess
November 30, 2010 at 3:04 am
The treaty signature line states “the United States of America.”
Jeremy R. Hammond
December 1, 2010 at 10:23 am
That doesn’t prove the US is “American”. Prove Switzerland is “Swiss”. Prove Norway is “Norwegian”. The fact that you are taking this request seriously says it all.
muzica house
December 23, 2010 at 11:12 pm
Daca Dumnezeu nu ar fi dorit ca noi sa ne masturbam, ne-ar fi facut bratele mai scurte. George Carlin
karen macRae
December 24, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Why are pro Israel fanatics so incredibly dim with respect to the factual record? It’s astonishing how I seem to come across this phenomenon nearly every time I read an article that even hints at some sort of perceived criticism of Israel ie the facts. Great job Jeremy. Thanks.
Jeremy R. Hammond
December 25, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Thanks, Karen.
Duke Goekler
December 28, 2010 at 1:25 am
Instead of ad hominem attacks, you should tell us all what factual record is being disrespected.
Jeremy, you should not encourage Karen in her personalized attacks. It is unbecoming of you to do so. After all, foreign policy analysts are of a higher breed.
Jeremy R. Hammond
January 3, 2011 at 12:28 am
Ad hominem attacks?
Pingback: AMERICA’S SILENCE AS AN ART « Desertpeace
Pingback: AMERICA’S SILENCE IS GOLDEN « Desertpeace
sam
January 29, 2011 at 3:02 am
wonderful… great job… israel is an illegitimate child of the west..:)
Pingback: British double standard on recognizing Palestine lets Israel off the hook | Mondoweiss
Pingback: Standard Mainstream Media Lies About Israeli Occupation | Jeremy R. Hammond