Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

Scarlett Johansson isn't naive: She prefers profits to human rights

By stating that the illegality of settlements is ‘very easily debatable’ and that there is no ‘right or wrong side,’ the actress has proven she is not naive at all – but is rather choosing money over humanitarian concerns. By default, she is enabling the occupation.

In her first explicit response since the Sodastream-Oxfam controversy, actress Scarlett Johansson told The Guardian Sunday that she stands by her decision to sign as brand ambassador with the Israeli company that has a factory in a West Bank settlement, stating, “I was aware of that particular factory before I signed it.”

Reiterating her original defense that the Sodastream model is a “fantastic sanctuary of coexistence,” Johansson told the British paper that “I’m coming into this as someone who sees that factory as a model for some sort of movement forward in a seemingly impossible situation.”

Responding to the journalist’s insistence that the international community deems settlements illegal, Johansson says, quite disturbingly, that the issue is “very easily debatable,” adding, “I was literally plunged into a conversation that’s way grander and larger than this one particular issue. And there’s no right side or wrong side leaning on this issue.” That is shirking responsibility and a copout.

Since when is a 47-year military occupation saturated with a discriminatory system, human rights violations and the continued building of settlements on expropriated land slated to become an independent Palestinian state an issue that has “no right side or wrong side?” And how is a factory built as part of this system a “model for some sort of movement forward?” Why aren’t non-violent resistance or various forms of civil disobedience seen as the model for progress? Frankly, I cannot give her the benefit of the doubt that she isn’t aware of such efforts.

In the interview, Johansson also takes a clear stance against the BDS movement and, once again, wrongly implicates Oxfam for being an advocate. ”There’s plenty of evidence that Oxfam does support and has funded a BDS [boycott, divest, sanctions] movement in the past. It’s something that can’t really be denied.”

As I reported in a previous piece, Oxfam is not a proponent of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, as it does not oppose blanket trade with Israel. Rather, the organization specifically opposes trade with settlement entities.

Johansson has therefore proven she is neither naive nor misinformed, but rather consciously prefers her own profits to human rights. Her statements leads me to conclude that she is well aware of the status quo, in which Israel continues to profit from military and economic control over the Palestinian population in the occupied West Bank, and has no problem taking active part in it by being the face of a company directly and indirectly involved with this system.

These days, someone who says the illegality of settlement is debatable or thinks there are “sides” to the tyranny and violence of a protracted occupation cannot be deemed naive, or pro-peace, or pro-Israel. By default, that person is enabling the settlements and the occupation.

Read more:
Scarlett Johansson’s naive SodaStream defense
Scarlett Johansson is new poster girl for ‘pro-Israel’ advocacy
5 things I learned from the Scarlett Johansson/SodaStream affair

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. There is no doubt that Article 49 of the 4th Convention has been systematically violated, unless one asserts some sort of ancient right to the land which would produce significant irredentism if applied throughout the world.

      The question to me devolves to one’s perception of the likelihood of the emergence of Greater Israel. If one thinks that likely irregardless of international sanctions and BDS targeted either to the settlements or Israel entire, then Sodastream is indeed a “as a model for some sort of movement forward in a seemingly impossible situation,” as reports are that employees are treated equally irrespective of ethnicity; moreover, enhanced incomes among prior residents will eventually fuel social protest for civil and labor rights throughout the WB. If one thinks Greater Israel reversible, then one can see Johansson as taking money (of which she likely has plenty) over human rights.

      Although I have no wish to dissuade those thinking otherwise, I see the confluence of religion, nationalism, and perceived security needs as making Greater Israel inevitable. I hope I am wrong; perhaps the Kerry interm announcement will reveal something tangible, but I cannot see what at the moment.

      So my view is that economic and social links must occur among settlements and prior residents for later movement towards civil rights, and Sodastream seems–seems–about the best way to begin that; I have no doubt other enterprises will not treat their Palestinian employees so well. I cannot, then, condemn her; she is just another blip in an inevitable process, one of the better blips, in my current estimation.

      Reply to Comment
      • directrob

        Unless you are a fan of Scarlett I do not think your post makes sense.

        Reply to Comment
      • It is not at all clear that it is being violated. It is not clear that it even applies to the Territories. And if it did, it bans forcible population transfer, which has never happened. The fact that Arabs ethnically cleansed every Jew from the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem in 1948 does not mean that the mere presence of a single Jew in those areas constitutes a violation.

        Reply to Comment
    2. Bar

      I have to say, after reading this article and Johansson’s remarks, it is clear she has a much better handle on reality and the situation. Maybe you can try to get her to write for your publication?

      Reply to Comment
    3. shachalnur

      I’m afraid there’s a bit more to this story that meet the eye.

      1.Ha’aretz and Globes reported 3 febr.2014 that there’s a conflict between Sodastream and Bennett’s Finance Ministry.
      Sodastream CEO Daniel Birnbaum claims Bennett is refusing to release hundreds of millions of Shekels in financing/subsidies for the new Negev factory,and will have to scale down the factory from 3000 to 500 workers.
      The Finance Ministry admits there’s a problem.
      Bennett(pro settler) in conflict with Sodastream?

      2.Arutz Sheva and other pro-settler sites have been less than enthousiastic about the Sodastream -Scarjo psy-op.
      Like they don’t really trust what’s going on.

      3. Scarjo is an actress,and she’s not exactly famous for her acting talent or intelligence.
      Right now her new movie will come out”Under(sic) The Skin”,where the Bubble Bimbo will set her Bubbles free for real.

      And she keeps mentioning BDS when nobody asks,keeping BDS high on the agenda.

      So there might be more going on than Scarjo restarting her stagnating career.

      Conflict between Sodastream and Bennett,Yesha not celebrating and Scarjo playing the role of her life.

      Wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out Sodastream is a Trojan Horse in Yesha,and therefore no support from settlers and Bennett.

      Ever looked at it that way?

      Reply to Comment
      • shachalnur

        Forgot to mention ScarJo gave an interview last month where she called going nude in her new movie “Under The Skin” a “liberating experience”(sic).

        She also said that she much enjoys porn and other woman should do the same.

        Humiliating Palestinians as Fear Porn.

        Is the idea to get “Under Your Skin” and into the underbelly?

        Reply to Comment
        • george smiley

          She probably finds scatological humor amusing; they often do you know.

          Reply to Comment
          • shachalnur

            “They”?

            You already showed you hate Jews and Arabs.

            What else?

            Reply to Comment
      • “Ha’aretz and Globes reported 3 febr.2014 that there’s a conflict between Sodastream and Bennett’s Finance Ministry.
        Sodastream CEO Daniel Birnbaum claims Bennett is refusing to release hundreds of millions of Shekels in financing/subsidies for the new Negev factory,and will have to scale down the factory from 3000 to 500 workers.
        The Finance Ministry admits there’s a problem.
        Bennett(pro settler) in conflict with Sodastream?”

        “Wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out Sodastream is a Trojan Horse in Yesha,and therefore no support from settlers and Bennett.”

        This fits with what I was trying to say, above. Many businesses will not like what Sodastream is doing for its employees, and I would not be surprised if Bennett would like that to stop (although there is no direct evidence).

        Johansson doesn’t interest me. It’s Sodastream’s labor policy that interests me. As Noam said in his editorial a while ago on this, what will these Palestinians do with their money given occupation standards? Eventually, they will see themselves as valued labor not allowed full access to its fruit. They will get angry, maybe eventually act.

        This is not a fairy tale solution by any means. But it is a crack in how Palestinians are viewed and treated. There is going to be a lot of conflict, within Israel and in the territory, before this plays out into some form of real resolution. Decades, I fear. And what do you say to those living it?

        Reply to Comment
        • directrob

          Factories like sodastream make the occupation a self financing business. Pure by being there the factory help to split the West Bank in a north and south enclave. The factory does not compensate the original owners of the land and does not pay taxes to the West Bank. That the factory gives equal pay for low level jobs is hardly any compensation. Although the workers get the local jackpot they do not have real rights because they depend on a permit. The workers right situation at the factory was in 2010 still quite bad.

          In the mean time I guess they are forced to be exemplary. With al negative publicity they cannot risk to be seen as bad. Equal pay for 500 Palestinians is a pittance for a company like SodaStream. It is probably less than Scarlett’s campaign. A 4M$ Superbowl add gives 400 workers 10,000 dollar.

          Reply to Comment
          • You may indeed be right in all these particulars. I don’t think Greater Israel is going away; I don’t think a refusal wall will work. The left has yet to buy back much of its lost ground, and present indications are that the status quo is acceptable to the electorate. The question then is how to proceed. People have to start doing better somewhere. Those on the national right who want a complete socio-economic barrier are right to worry over the alternative. Recall some general’s “we don’t do Gandhi very well.” To do Gandhi, King, much of South Africa, you need economic integration so that the other side can be hurt through economic action (which also hurts the practitioners).

            I find Shachalnur’s conjecture interesting. It may be that Sodastream is getting flack for the small thing it has done. Maybe even small economic benefit is seen as dangerous?

            By the way, I make a distinction between not condemning these Sodastream employed Palestinians (or Sodastream’s employment policy) and buying the product. Although I would never buy one in any case, residence in the WB would turn me away. But many will not feel that way. Strategy cannot be about making everyone thing alike; they won’t. It has to focus on what to do given what most people will do in any case, or, rather, the diversity of choice out there.

            Reply to Comment
    4. Samuel

      Why has my post been supressed? Censorship?

      Reply to Comment
    5. Samuel

      “These days, someone who says the illegality of settlement is debatable or thinks there are “sides” to the tyranny and violence of a protracted occupation cannot be deemed naive, or pro-peace, or pro-Israel. By default, that person is enabling the settlements and the occupation.”

      In 1948, the Arabs rejected the UN partition plan, they attacked the fledgling Israel and the ensuing war ended in an armistice agreement. To this day there are no defined borders. We only have the 1949 armistice lines. At the insistence of the Arabs, the armistice agreement contained the following clause:

      “no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2000_events

      In 1967, the armistice was broken by the Arabs who again tried to obliterate Israel and initiated a war of aggression. After Israel defeated the aggressors, it ended up controlling additional territories. In other words, the cease fire lines shifted.

      So the task ahead is to negotiate secure and recognised borders. To do so, both parties need to compromise, not just Israel. And blaming ONLY Israel for the continued impasse is partisan and dishonest. It’s intent is to badger Israel to make more and more concessions and to absolve the Palestinians of all responsibility for making peace.

      Until final borders are defined and recognised, any building by anyone anywhere is building on disputed land. So either all building stops everywhere by everyone in historic Palestine, clearly a ridiculous idea. Or everyone is allowed to build in places where they live. Including “the settlements”. Particularly since many of “the settlements” are places where Jews lived prior to 1949 and from which Jews were ethnically cleansed by Palestinian irregular forces and the Jordanian army in the 1948 war. In 1967 Israel recaptured those places and Jews had every right to return to places like:

      - East Jerusalem
      - Gush Etzion
      - Hebron

      PS
      Is living in a place like Hebron wise for Jews? I say, not necessarily. But the issue that we are discussing here is the RIGHT of Jews to live in places where Jews lived nearly continuously from ancient to modern times. We are not discussing the wisdom of living there which is a separate debate. And that right should be indisputable for any reasonable person

      Reply to Comment
      • Johnboy

        ” To this day there are no defined borders. ”

        Of course there are; the Partition Plan defines the border between the “Arab state” and the “Jewish state” in great detail.

        Those **are** still the legal, and legally-defined, borders between those two states, and the only reason that they are no longer mentioned in negotiations is that the PLO has **already** given an undertaking that they will accept the lines of June 1967 in any negotiated settlement of this dispute.

        Israel, of course, refuses to accept those June 1967 lines.

        OK, it refuses, but that refusal doesn’t mean there are no defined borders: there are, the borders as defined in the Partition Plan of 1947.

        Honestly, that isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.

        Reply to Comment
        • Kolumn9

          You know and I know that the partition plan was abandoned by the UN shortly after the Jews accepted it and the Arabs rejected it. It is somewhat insane to believe that a plan that was rejected by one side and abandoned officially by the UN designates the border between Israel and the Arab State. The fact that most of the world and the Palestinians themselves have already accepted uncontested Israeli sovereignty over all the land it held after the 1948 armistice is pretty is a pretty stark abrogation of the idea that the partition plan has any ongoing validity. These are not difficult concepts to grasp, nor are they concepts. They are facts. There is no border until one is negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians.

          Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            “You know and I know that the partition plan was abandoned by the UN shortly after the Jews accepted it and the Arabs rejected it.”

            A nonsensical comment. The Partition Plan was never “offered to” the Jews and Arabs of Palestine, ergo, their “acceptance” and/or “rejection” makes not the slightest difference.

            The Mandatary Power had that authority, not Ben Gurion and not the Mufti of Jerusalem.

            Honestly, there is such a pile of nonsense spoken about this topic.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            “The fact that most of the world and the Palestinians themselves have already accepted uncontested Israeli sovereignty over all the land it held after the 1948 armistice is pretty is a pretty stark abrogation of the idea that the partition plan has any ongoing validity.”

            Look, follow the bouncing ball:
            1) The LEGALLY DEFINED borders between the “Jewish state” and the “Arab state” are those that are defined in the Partition Plan.
            2) The universally recognized representative of that “Arab state” (i.e. the PLO) has already stated that it WILL agree to all-new borders based on the ’67 lines in any future peace treaty between the “Arab state” and the “Jewish state”.

            That has two important impacts:
            a) It makes the Partition Lines a “moot point” i.e. they are still the “de jure border” between those two states, but the ’67 lines are the “de facto border”, and that remains true UNTIL that peace treaty is signed.
            b) It makes that PLO offer to accept the ’67 lines into a Very, Very Significant Compromise by the Palestinians.

            Got that? The offer of the ’67 lines is not a “fact”, but an o.f.f.e.r. by the Palestinians, and an exceptionally generous one at that.

            That you can’t see that – that you refuse to even see it as an offer – is symptomatic of the incredible greed, arrogance and insufferable sense of superiority that is so much the hallmark of Zionism.

            Reply to Comment
    6. David

      To be brief:

      (A) Security Council Resolution 446 (22 March 1979) “[Affirms] once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
      “1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;..”

      (B) Security Council Resolution 465 (1 March 1980) “determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity…”

      (C) In accordance with the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified by Israel, and further underscoring the illegality of the settlements, Part 2, Article 8, section B, paragraph viii of the Rome Statue of the International Court (1998) defines “the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” as a War Crime, indictable by the International Criminal Court.
      (
      D) On 24 February 2004, the U.S. State Department reaffirmed its earlier position in a report entitled Israel and the Occupied Territories, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: “Israel occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights after the 1967 War…. The international community does not recognize Israel’s sovereignty over any part of the occupied territories.”

      (E) In its 2004 ruling, the International Court of Justice unanimously ruled that “No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.” The World Court denoted this principle a “corollary” of the U.N. Charter and as such “customary international law” and a “customary rule” binding on all member States of the United Nations.

      Reply to Comment
      • Samuel

        To be brief, why has my post been suppressed?

        UN GA Resolution 181 too was rejected by the Arabs on the basis that it was a political decision by the UN. I think they had a point. And those who question the applicability of the 1949 Geneva conventions to the “borders” (there never were any defined binding recognised borders) of historic Palestine also have a point. They also have a point about questioning how lawful are some of the UN resolutions made by the UN since 1967. Just as the Arabs charged political bias in 1947, we can charge the opposite political bias today, against us in the UN.

        Anyway, if I am wrong, then I am wrong. Why is there a fear here about debating the issue? Why not publish my post?

        Reply to Comment
        • Samuel

          And it seems my earlier post is still being supressed. It details an alternative point of view to David’s above. It too has indisputable facts. And it alludes to two perspectives:

          1. What is or is not legal
          2. What would or would not be wise.

          And perhaps it should have had a third perspective. The moral perspective.

          All of the above perspectives may or may not lead to different conclusions. I happen to think that at least some of them would reach different conclusions.

          One thing I am sure about though is that those are three separate distinctive debates. And the problem is that there is a trend by many in this world to muddle up the three and thereby confuse and mislead people. That is called propaganda, not honest debate.

          And I also suspect that the decision not to publish my first post, not this one, nor my last post but my post before that, is based on a need to suppress information that might get some thinking people to think more about this debate.

          Reply to Comment
          • Samuel, a small post I made in reply to Directrob on this thread hasn’t appeared either, and it was mighty harmless. I don’t think you were intentionally suppressed. Apart from really hateful talk, I see no evidence that 972 filters much of anything intentionally. Occasionally someone is banned, which requires some effort on the part of the author. More likely a glitch of some kind is at work here.

            Reply to Comment
        • Johnboy

          “And those who question the applicability of the 1949 Geneva conventions to the “borders” (there never were any defined binding recognised borders) of historic Palestine also have a point.”

          No, they most definitely do not.

          A belligerent occupation is a state of affairs that related to TERRITORY, it is not something that you can argue one way or the other by pointing to BORDERS.

          The only question with respect to Geneva Conventions IV are therefore these:
          a) Did Geneva Convention IV BECOME applicable to THIS territory in June 1967?
          b) Does Geneva Convention IV CONTINUE to be applicable to THIS territory even after the end of the Six Day War?

          The answer to (a) is clearly “Yes”.

          After all, it is quite indisputable that one of the two conditions listed in Article 2 (which defines when GCIV *becomes* applicable) was met in June 1967.

          The answer to (b) is found in Article 6 (which defines when the Convention *ceases* to be applicable) and the answer is definitely: “Yes”.

          After all, Article 6 clearly says that the Convention remains applicable wherever there is territory that remains under an “occupation”, and there is no dispute that the West Bank is being held by the IDF in a belligerent occupation.

          Reply to Comment
        • Johnboy

          “UN GA Resolution 181 too was rejected by the Arabs on the basis that it was a political decision by the UN. I think they had a point.”

          No, they don’t have any point at all.

          The United Nations is not a world legislature. It is not the World Judiciary.

          It is, by definition, a political body. So there really is no point complaining that a resolution passed by the UN General Assembly is a “political decision”.

          Of course it is.

          All resolutions adopted by either the General Assembly and/or the Security Council is, by definition, a “political decision”.

          The Arabs rejected UNGAR 181, true.
          The Arabs insisted that UNGAR 181 was unfair, true.

          But also irrelevant, precisely because UNGAR 181 was not addressed to them, nor was the Partition Plan ever predicated upon the idea that the “agreement” of the Arabs was a requirement of Partition.

          Read the Resolution: it explicitly addressed its “recommendation” to THE MANDATORY POWER.

          Not to “the inhabitants of Palestine”, much less to “the Arabs of Palestine”.

          Their opinion was not sought, nor was their approval a requirement.

          That they disapproved of it makes no LEGAL difference whatsoever, precisely because it was a plan that was *imposed* *upon* *them* by someone (the Mandatory Power, in this case) who did have the authority to make that decision, and by the one body (the General Assembly) whose “consent” was required.

          Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            “The United Nations is not a world legislature. It is not the World Judiciary.

            It is, by definition, a political body. So there really is no point complaining that a resolution passed by the UN General Assembly is a “political decision”.

            Of course it is.”

            Thank you Johnboy. That takes care of most of David’s post above.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            That leaves only the question: are the Geneva conventions applicable?

            With regards to treating the Arab population that came under it’s control, Israel voluntarily agreed to apply the Geneva conventions.

            However, this did not include an agreement not to build “settlements” for security reasons or to repopulate “settlements” from which Jews were ethnically cleansed by the Arabs in the 1948 war.

            Those who criticize Israel for the above, need to remember that the Geneva convention was written as a code of conduct for two warring sovereign nations with defined borders. The code prohibits the victorious side from populating the territory of the vanquished side with it’s own citizens.

            The war in Palestine between Jews and Arabs however was never a war between two sovereign nations. It was a civil war in which Jews and Arabs (both inhabitants of Palestine) were jockeying to divvy up the territory (Palestine) between each other. The Arabs want/ed 100% of the land for themselves the Jews wanted to carve out a state for themselves in part of Palestine. The Arabs launched a series of battles to achieve THEIR aim. The first one in 1949 ended in a cease fire and with a temporary armistice line (which became known as the 1967 boundary). That ceasefire line further shifted after the 1967 battle. So to claim that suddenly Jews have no right to live even in places that a mere 19 years before, they were living in for millenia, is asinine.

            Such a claim would be equivalent to prohibiting French citizens from building settlements in parts of France if one faction of French citizens would be involved in a civil war (in order to secede from each other) with another faction. If anyone would try to stop them from building on territories that would come under their control, they would be laughed at. Why is the territory that used to be known as Palestine different? Before 1948, both Jews and Arabs were known as Palestinians. Only since the 1960s did the Arabs (at the advise of the Soviet KGB) usurp the name exclusively for themselves. And that was made easier for them because perhaps foolishly (in hindsight) Jewish Palestinians dropped the name Palestine and adopted the name Israel for their state. They could have just as easily named their new country in 1948 as Jewish Palestine.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            “With regards to treating the Arab population that came under it’s control, Israel voluntarily agreed to apply the Geneva conventions.”

            “Voluntarily agreeing” to apply only the “humanitarian” provisions of GCIV can not absolve the occupying power from its legal obligations under the laws of belligerent occupation.

            All it does (and all that it is intended to do) is to act as a fig-leaf for the Israel High Court of Justice, which can then hand-wave away the issue by saying that BECAUSE of the Israeli govt’s declaration then “the question is not before us”.

            But remind me again: which articles of Geneva Convention IV are “humanitarian”, and which articles are “not humanitarian”?

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            Remind yourself Johnboy.

            Read my above post again. The war in Palestine was a civil war so the law of population transfer does not apply. I repeat, particularily since 19 years before 1967, Jews lived in many of those parts and they were kicked out by Arabs.
            Read East Jerusalem and Gush Etzion.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            “However, this did not include an agreement not to build ‘settlements’ for security reasons or to repopulate ‘settlements’ from which Jews were ethnically cleansed by the Arabs in the 1948 war.”

            That statement requires us to accept that Article 49 of GCIV is not to be counted amongst the “humanitarian provisions” of that convention.

            Axiomatically true, since the Israeli govt insists that it is “voluntarily” applying the “humanitarian provisions” of GCIV.

            So do you really want to go there?
            Do you really want to claim that Article 49 is not a “humanitarian provision” of a convention that is entitled “Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”?

            Really?

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            “So do you really want to go there?
            Do you really want to claim that Article 49 is not a “humanitarian provision” of a convention that is entitled “Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”?”

            Yes. As I explained before, in a civil war, both sides have a right to lay claim to the same lands.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            “Those who criticize Israel for the above, need to remember that the Geneva convention was written as a code of conduct for two warring sovereign nations with defined borders.”

            No, sorry, the bit at the end (…”with defined borders.”) is something that you just plucked out of thin air.

            Article 2 is very clear regarding the applicability of this convention i.e. it applies where the armies of two signatories to the convention are fighting (i.e. Jordan and Israel) and ALSO applies where the armies of one signatory occupies the territory of another signatory.

            The word “ALSO” give the lie to your claim.

            “The code prohibits the victorious side from populating the territory of the vanquished side with it’s own citizens.”

            Noooo, it says nothing of the sort.

            It says only that the convention ceases to apply at the end of conflict EXCEPT where there is “occupation”.

            And rightly so, because your interpretation is manifestly absurd i.e. it supposes that a Convention “relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War” deliberately intended to leave A Whole Lot Of Civilian Persons entirely at the mercy of an occupier merely because that occupier “disputes” the sovereignty of the territory that is under its belligerent occupation.

            As I said: manifestly absurd.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            “As I said: manifestly absurd.”

            The only thing that is absurd is your pretence that in a civil war one side owns the land more than the other.

            And what is even more absurd is your claim that while one side, the Arab side, had the right to kick out the other side, Jews from East Jerusalem and Gush Etzion 19 years before. But in 1967 after the Jews retook the lands, suddenly by magic lawfare they no longer have the right to live where they lived since ancient times.

            You want absurd? That is absurd.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            “Article 2 is very clear regarding the applicability of this convention i.e. it applies where the armies of two signatories to the convention are fighting (i.e. Jordan and Israel) and ALSO applies where the armies of one signatory occupies the territory of another signatory.

            The word “ALSO” give the lie to your claim.”

            “The territory of the other” the problem is with this sentence. Palestine was the territory of BOTH Arabs and Jews who lived there. End of story.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            “Thank you Johnboy. That takes care of most of David’s post above.”

            No, it doesn’t. Only the first two of his points refer to statements by the UN Security Council.

            And even there his first two points are very pertinent i.e. in both cases the Security Council is making a statement about what the existing International Law **is** on this subject, it is not attempting to “make” International Law.

            As a political body the Council is perfectly entitled to voice such an opinion, particularly as there is no equivalent body claiming anything to the contrary.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            “And even there his first two points are very pertinent i.e. in both cases the Security Council is making a statement …”

            Yes, a political statement reflecting the current geopolitical interests (read self interests) of various players in the UN.

            Truth? Legality? No it has nothing to do with either.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            “Read the Resolution: it explicitly addressed its “recommendation” to THE MANDATORY POWER.”

            A recommendation is just that, a recommendation. It is non binding.

            Moreover, the mandatory power was the servant of the UN, not it’s master.

            Moreover, the UN GA has no power to create states. It can only recommend and it’s resolutions are non binding. In fact, even UN SC resolutions are non binding, unless they are chapter 7 resolutions.

            So, under the circumstances, the idea that a set of recommended borders which neither party to the conflict agree to at the same time (ie the borders have not been accepted to this day), is ludicrous.

            And what is even more ludicrous is the idea that the aggressor party (the Arabs) have the sole right to decide what the legitimate borders are. After all, Johnboy, You and I and everybody else knows that had the Arabs defeated the Jews in the 1948 battle, there would be no Israel today and Palestine would be all Arab.

            So, having been defeated in the battlefield, the Arabs cannot come back and say, hold on there Jews, what about the UN recommended borders that WE (the Arabs) rejected? You are obliged to withdraw to those borders. The whole idea would be laughable if it weren’t about politicised propaganda and spin that we all have been subjected to.

            What you guys seem to support is to reward Agression by Arabs. At this rate, they have nothing to lose by starting wars. If they win the war, they would keep all the land. If they lose, they kick, scream and spew till they are given back the land that could have been theirs had they agreed to the recommended borders peacefully.

            You can’t have things BOTH WAYS Johnboy. If you win, to the victors the spoils go but if you lose, give it all back to me. Only little 3 year old kids behave think like that and behave like that.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            “A recommendation is just that, a recommendation. It is non binding.”

            I see the point flew way over your head.

            Let me make it again: the authority to make a legally-binding decision to partition a mandated territory lay with the MANDATORY.

            That was its decision – and its decision alone – to make.

            But that authority is not boundless: a decision of the Mandatory required a legal hurdle to be jumped, which is that it requires the “consent” of the UNGA for any such decision i.e. the General Assembly can’t **make** a decision, but it must **consent** to such a decision.

            Which it did, by a vote of 33-13.

            “Moreover, the mandatory power was the servant of the UN, not it’s master.”

            Oh, quite untrue.

            Read the League of Nations Covenant. Read the text of the Mandate for Palestine.

            Authority over the ex-Ottoman territories resided with the Principal Allied Powers, and it was **that** body that chose a Mandatory Power from amongst its members, it was not the League that chose it.

            On matters of Mandates it was the Mandatory who was the boss, and the role of the LoN (and later the UN) was purely supervisory i.e. it could tell a Mandatory when it had exceeded its authority, but it could not tell a Mandatory what to do.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            “Let me make it again: the authority to make a legally-binding decision to partition a mandated territory lay with the MANDATORY.”

            BS. Please put your mind into gear before making baseless assertions.

            If it were true that the MANDATORY had the right to make the decision (as you so ineptly put it) then:

            1. The MANDATORY (which was Britain, let’s stop beating around the bush) would not have gone back to the UN with it’s tail between it’s leg to tell them that they are quitting Palestine and that they were handing back their mandate.

            2. They, the MANDATORY (Britain) would have actually voted one way or the other in the 1947 vote to partition (or not to) of Palestine. But do you know what they did? They ABSTAINED. Some decision. A very decisive decision. Of course not!

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            “Moreover, the UN GA has no power to create states”

            Again, the point flies over your head.

            The “power” to create states out of Mandated Territories always rested with the Mandatory Power.

            Indeed, that was the principal job description of a Mandatory Power.

            But (did I mention this before? I think I did) any decision made by that Mandatory that required a change to the terms of Mandate required the “consent” of the UN General Assembly.

            That’s what UNGAR 181 actually was i.e. the Mandatory Power wanted to partition this territory into two successor states, and that required the “consent” of the UN.

            That “consent” was The One And Only legal hurdle that a Mandatory Power had to surmount.

            And bound over it the Mandatory did, by the margin of 33-13.

            You. Are. Wrong.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            “You. Are. Wrong.”

            I am wrong? Keep on repeating that to yourself and eventually you might even convince yourself.

            But right now, you sound a bit plaintive and forlorn.

            Reply to Comment
          • Samuel

            “The “power” to create states out of Mandated Territories always rested with the Mandatory Power.”

            See my previous response to that

            Reply to Comment
    7. Samuel

      I hear what you say Greg. There was no hate talk in my post and I posted it more than once.

      I do agree that normally there is very little censorship here but for some reason occasionally some of the bloggers do seem to supress posts which go against their dogma. This seems to be such an occasion.

      Reply to Comment
      • If you posted more than once, your inference seems sound.

        Reply to Comment
        • Samuel

          Ok my first post has now been published. Thank you.

          Reply to Comment
    8. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel