Breaking the Law

In 2004 I had a telephone interview for a job with the Arab American University in Jenin and rather naively I asked the lady on the other end of the phone if I were to get the job, could I get into a car and drive freely from Jenin to Ramallah or to East Jerusalem or to wherever I wanted to go? The interview was then more or less interrupted for about five minutes with her telling me all about the IDF checkpoints and the obstacles I would have to overcome during my little drive. These obstacles are likely to remain during the "Übergangslösung" a la 'Bantustan' before a final solution can be reached and every day there are new roads being constructed that connect the illegal settlements to the the State of Israel, not to mention the construction of the Wall in the West Bank, which, like the occupation itself, is illegal under international law. Both the Wall and the roads will, of course, really make sure there can be no viable Palestinian State on the West Bank.
It is the situation in East Jerusalem, however, that I would like to look at and in doing so I won't be paying too much attention to that other wall, the Wailing Wall, and to the Al-Aqsa mosque. It is "gobbly gook" like this that gives the State of Israel its legitimacy with their, "we have waited more than 2,000 years to come home". The reality is that East Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and Security Council Resolution 242 applies here just as it does to the West Bank, to Gaza and to the Golan Heights. Despite Israel putting its own absurd interpretation on the fact that the definite article is missing from the English version of the resolution and arguing that they do not have to withdraw from all of the occupied territories but only from "occupied territories", this is poppycock but when it comes from politicians who call little boys who throw stones, "terrorists" we have another wonderful example of how language can be manipulated in the Middle East. There are no "Jewish neighbourhoods" in the West Bank, there are settlements, most of those who oppose the occupation are not "terrorists", they are exercising their right to resist that occupation and article 242 is quite clear in its wording. Israel, the UN Security Council has told you to get out of all of the land that you occupied in 1967.1 Still, if that doesn't sink in we can turn to the Security Council Resolution 478 from 1980, which was passed shortly after the Israeli government illegally annexed East Jerusalem. It states unequivocally, "that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and, in particular, the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith."2 That means no more building houses on Arab land, no more changing the demographic nature of area, no more withdrawing Arabs right of residence in East Jerusalem etc. etc.
Finally, I would like to turn my attention to Benjamin Netanyahu who says in today's 'Haaretz', "Israeli blood wasn't spilt so Hamas could move into Jerusalem".3Now, you might imagine that I am not exactly Benjamin's number one fan, and you would be right, but we won't be getting into that. Nevertheless, I would like to say to Mr Netanyahu, who has had a number of run ins with the law and has already been the subject of various enquiries relating to fraud and breach of trust,4 "forget Hamas, they have got fuck all to do with it, the law, Mr Netanyahu, is quite clear. There is no legal case for the occupation of East Jerusalem, just as there is no legal case for Israel's presence in the other occupied territories."
1 http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement
2 http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/2411.htm
3 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1024098.html
4 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E1DF143EF932A15757C0A961958260