海角大神

In the聽Feb. 20聽海角大神 Science Monitor Weekly UpFront column, 鈥�What decides a claim on land?鈥澛燾olumnist John Yemma negatively portrays Israel鈥檚 West Bank settlement policies. However, his basic points are faulty: (1) He mischaracterizes a key Geneva Convention provision and (2) plays down the significance of the Jewish ancestral connection to the land by falsely arguing that it is no stronger a claim than that of a supposed ancestral connection for the Palestinian Arabs.聽

Accusing Israel of violating international law by virtue of its settlement enterprise, Mr. Yemma writes, 鈥淯nder the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed, an occupying power cannot transfer its population onto occupied territory.鈥� In fact, the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention in Article 49, Paragraph 6 to which Yemma presumably refers does include this provision: 鈥淭he Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.鈥� But Israeli government policy has not compelled any Israeli citizens to move into the territory. Israelis themselves have relocated to the West Bank generally for religious reasons or for a lower cost of living. The distinction is, of course, important. Additionally, arguably the provision is not聽applicable to the West Bank because it was not the legally held territory of any party to the Geneva Conventions at the time that Israel captured it in the 1967 defensive Six-Day War.聽

The International Committee of the Red Cross clarifies the 49(6) statement in its Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention, edited by Jean S. Pictet (1958), pages 3-9, which says about 49(6): 鈥淚t is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers [mainly Nazis and the Soviet Union], which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.鈥� But there is nothing to link such circumstances to Israel鈥檚 settlement policy.聽

Moreover, even if 49(6) is prejudicially interpreted to encompass individual voluntary actions of Israeli civilians, another legal hurdle exists. The prior document that legally enabled the settlement enterprise would have to be unjustifiably deemed null and void. That document is the 1922 League of Nations Palestine Mandate, Article 6. This document, which laid down the Jewish legal rights in Palestine, encourages 鈥渃lose settlement by Jews on the land鈥� west of the Jordan River [the heartland of ancient Israel]. This covered not only what was to become Israel in 1948 but also the West Bank (and Gaza Strip, though Israel chose to withdraw from that area in 2005). The mandate, including Article 6, is upheld by the 1945 United Nations Charter, Chapter XII (International Trusteeship System), Article 80 (sometimes called 鈥渢he Palestine article鈥�). Article 80 states, among other things, that nothing in it shall 鈥渁lter in any manner whatsoever the rights of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international agreements鈥� to which UN members may be parties.聽

Second, Yemma falsely equates both sides as to rights by ancestry. He writes, "Israelis have a historical right to live in the territory both because of biblical ties to Judea and Samaria and because Jewish communities lived in the region for hundreds of years. Palestinians have ancient ties to the Holy Land as well. The biblical Philistines, among other peoples, were contemporaneous with the biblical Israelites. While it is not certain that today鈥檚 Palestinians are their direct descendants, it is not certain either that most of today鈥檚 Israelis are direct descendants of Israelites. Most modern Israelis migrated from Europe, Russia, and North Africa. Most modern Palestinians are a mixture of ethnicities that have ebbed and flowed through the Middle East for thousands of years. In any case, Palestinian families were well established throughout the Holy Land when the Zionist settlement movement began in the late 19th century.鈥澛�

But the idea that today's Palestinian Arabs could have descended from the ancient Philistines 鈥渁mong other peoples鈥� is historical fantasy. The Philistines were not Middle Eastern but rather an Aegean Sea people 鈥� they were certainly not Arabs. Moreover, they were destroyed by the Babylonians at the end of the 7th century BC and accordingly disappeared from history. The 鈥渙ther peoples鈥� claimed as ancestors in the Palestinian narrative are the ancient non-Arab Canaanites, who likewise disappeared from history thousands of years ago. Furthermore, there exists no evidence that any Philistine or Canaanite descendants survived.

Yemma鈥檚 claim that 鈥淧alestinian families were well established throughout the Holy Land when the Zionist settlement movement began in the late 19th century鈥� is conjecture. A mainly recent origin for the Palestinian Arabs is more likely. This proposition is advanced by scholars including Joan Peters (1984 book 鈥淔rom Time Immemorial鈥�) and Efraim Karsh (1997 book 鈥淔abricating Israeli history鈥�), King's College London historian and founding director of its Middle East and Mediterranean studies program. Peters cited historical documents (including Ottoman records) showing that Arab settlers had flocked to Palestine beginning only in the late 1800s, drawn there by economic opportunities created by Jewish settlers.聽

On the other hand, the ancient Israelites certainly did not disappear from history as did the Philistines and Canaanites. There is a continuous Jewish diaspora history, from the Roman expulsions to the rebirth of Israel as a Jewish state, and there is ample archeological evidence in the Holy Land connecting the Jewish people to the land. Furthermore, there鈥檚 the biological evidence. Modern DNA testing (for example, the findings of geneticist Doron Behar and colleagues) indicates a likelihood for both Jewish genealogical continuity and Middle Eastern origins for the vast majority of the world鈥檚 Jews including Israelis. Finally, consider that while Israeli Jews speak the same language (Hebrew) and worship the same God (of the Bible) as the ancient Israelis, it cannot be shown that Palestinian Arabs either speak the language or worship the gods of the ancient Philistines or Canaanites.

Myron Kaplan

Senior Analyst

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA)

Mr. Yemma responds:

Regarding Myron聽Kaplan's letter聽in response to my聽Feb. 20聽column in 海角大神:

I cited the Geneva Conventions because UN members base their resolutions on it. But I noted that while that "seems like an open-and-shut case,鈥� Israel "argues that the clock didn't start in 1967, that the occupied territory was never a part of a sovereign state before it was annexed by Jordan after 1948, and that Israelis have a historical right to live in the territory both because of biblical ties to Judea and Samaria and because Jewish communities lived in the region for hundreds of years." I was thus making the point that Mr. Kaplan suggests I overlooked: that the Geneva Conventions cannot be seen as definitive.

I mentioned the unclear origin of the Palestinian people and the uncertain relationship between ancient Philistines and today's Palestinians (for more, see "Why Are Palestinians Called Palestinians?,鈥� Haaretz,聽Oct. 29, 2015) and between ancient Israelites and most of today's Israelis (see 鈥淏lood Brothers: Palestinians and Jews Share Genetic Roots,鈥� Haaretz, Oct. 20, 2015). My point was that Israelites lived among other peoples, as do Israelis. Thus, I concluded, coexistence is imperative.

I don't think I missed the mark on accuracy or fairness.

厂颈苍肠别谤别濒测,听

John Yemma

Columnist, 海角大神