|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2010-03-27
© 2010 Peter Belmont
| |
Israelis and its apologists often describe the occupied territories as “administered” or as “disputed”. Use of these terms constitutes deliberate obfuscation and, as such, lying.
I explain why, relying in part on G&S’s Mikado.
|
|
The truth is supposed to make us free. Misrepresentations, including significant omissions, tend to make us slaves. This essay offers advice to media people on how (and why) to avoid certain misrepresentations. This essay’s not for all of media types—some, sadly, are clearly not interested.
It is Vitally Important that the Territories are “Occupied”
Why is it important that the territories Israel captured in 1967 and still controls today are “occupied”? The reason is that—under international law—an occupier (here Israel) is not free to confiscate property within occupied territory (for instance, to build settlements or a wall) unless such confiscation is required by military necessity; and is not permitted to settle its own citizens in the occupied territory (as settlers) under any circumstances. See the section
International Law and Security Council Pronouncements below.
It is a misrepresentation, and a serious one, to refer to the territories Israel captured and “occupied” in 1967 as “administered” or “disputed.” They should be referred to, always, as “occupied”.[1] Thus, if when quoting actual speakers a reporter must utter the words “administered” or “disputed” in this context, the better practice is, as soon as practicable, to mention that the territory referred to is, in fact, “occupied.”
Territories are not “administered” but “occupied.”
Why is it a misrepresentation to refer to “occupied” territories as “administered”? The error, basically, is in suggesting that the territory is not “occupied.” But let’s look a bit closer.
The word “administered” as applied to an inhabited territory in a news story is deucedly odd, when you come to think of it. There is hardly anywhere on earth that is not “administered.” The phrase tells you nothing factual which is in any way novel. It is not news. It is less newsworthy than “the sky is blue” (which is sometimes newsworthy).
No-one speaks of “administered” Washington, DC, or “administered” Bei-Jing or “administered Navaho Tribal lands or “administered” Tel-Aviv. Thus the use of the phrase “administered” tells the audience that the place being described is somehow special and suggests that the nature of that specialness is revealed by the word “administered”. But, of course, the audience knows that every inhabited space on earth is “administered” one way or another, so the audience knows that this word “administered” is in rhetorical reality a “code word” for something else. And what it is “code” for is the denial that the territory is “occupied” in the sense of international law’s concept of “belligerent occupation.”
In other words, to say that the West Bank is “administered” is to omit saying and thereby, in effect, to deny that it is “occupied” and, by so omitting and so denying, to tell, in effect, a deliberate lie.
The lie represented by the use of “administered” is part of a cover-up made by or on behalf of Israel. Israel occupies the West Bank and, as occupier, does not, in contemplation of international law, have sovereignty over the territory or “own” it. As occupier, Israel is restricted as to what it can do there. Therefore, in particular, it does not “own” the very large part of the West Bank which Israel has renamed as “Jerusalem” and claims to have “annexed”.
So, if Israel does not own the West Bank, how does it justify building all that housing for Jewish Israelis there, the housing called “settlements” and the Jewish Israelis who live there called “settlers”?
The answer is that Israel claims or implies that, surely, it will one day “own” the parts of the West Bank upon which the settlements have been built, and since it will one day own them, it as good as owns them already, and if it as good as owns them already, then it does no harm to act as if it owns them already, and it is therefore proper to refer to these lands as “administered” (i.e., no longer merely and restrictively “occupied”) and to build settlements on them. “Administered” suggests that Israel has the right, for instance, to grant or withhold building permits and thus to grant such permits to Israeli settlers.
The argument rehearsed above is an old one, notably tendered (humorously, of course) in Gilbert and Sullivan’s operetta “The Mikado” [2]
One wonders what had been going on in Parliament at the time to make G&S’s joke so wonderfully funny at the time. Certainly, it is not at all funny when Israel uses the same twisted reasoning to claim a “right” to confiscate territory within occupied territory without a shred of military necessity and to settle its citizens in that territory, both illegal under international law—nor is it funny when the USA knowingly permits this trashing of international law.
Territories are not “disputed” but “occupied.”
Similarly, to say that the West Bank or part of it is “disputed” is to omit saying and thereby, in effect, to deny that it is “occupied” and, by so omitting and so denying, to tell a deliberate lie.
After all, we’re talking here about the Middle East and about an instance of belligerent occupation which has by now lasted for 43 years and shows no signs of terminating any time soon.
Are there disputes about the occupation? Of course. Nothing new there. It is not news. The words “disputed” in a purely factual sense is correct but its rhetorical use is—in a purely factual sense—meaningless because everybody already knows that the territory, and almost everything else about the occupation, is disputed.
However, the rhetorical use of the term “disputed” is a distraction and to the extent that that distraction is effective it is a lie. It is used to make the audience forget that the territory in question is “occupied”. It says, “Hey, this territory is not ‘occupied,’ it is merely ‘disputed.’ Don’t get your knickers in a twist.” It is used as a lie, intended as a lie, and effective as a lie when used by news media and bloggers in place of the appropriate term, “occupied.”
If there is a dispute, it is about the legal consequences of Israel’s purported “annexation” of greatly expanded “Jerusalem”, and not a dispute between Israel and the Palestinians about ownership or sovereignty. There is no agreement between Israel and the Palestinians as to who should ultimately own the “occupied” territory or various parts of it. Far from it.
But the USA, EU, UN, Israel, and Palestinians are agreed on one point regarding ownership and sovereignty: they are agreed that the ownership and sovereignty of and over Jerusalem and the West Bank more generally is yet to be determined and will be determined if and when a peace treaty is signed and in no other way. In this narrow sense, there is no “dispute” about the ownership of the territories “occupied” by Israel in 1967.
International Law and Security Council Pronouncements
News media and bloggers may (and should) be interested to know that there are about 20 UN Security Council resolutions, not vetoed by the USA, which recite that the territories captured by Israel in the 1967 war are “occupied” and that Israel’s claimed “annexation” of (greatly expanded) “Jerusalem” is null and void. See: here.
The International Court of Justice, in its July 9, 2004, advisory opinion, ruled that the separation wall was illegal and must be removed and that the settlements in all occupied territories were in violation of international law. See here. The pages of this PDF file alternate between French and English. For the illegality of the settlements, see the court’s conclusion in paragraph 120, pp. 99 and 101 of the PDF file: The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.
The ICJ quoted the security Council on this issue: The Council reaffirnned its position in resolutions 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980. Indeed, in the latter case it described “Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in [the occupied] territories” as a “flagrant violation” of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
-----------
[1] I use quotes around certain key words to make them prominent, not to cast doubt on them or to scare anyone.
-----------
[2] KO. Your Majesty, it’s like this: It is true that I stated that I had killed Nanki-Poo—--
MIK. Yes, with most affecting particulars.
POOH. Merely corroborative detail intended to give artistic
verisimilitude to a bald and—--
KO. Will you refrain from putting in your oar? (To
Mikado.) It’s like this: When your Majesty says, “Let a thing be
done,” it’s as good as done--practically, it is done—because
your Majesty’s will is law. Your Majesty says, “Kill a
gentleman,” and a gentleman is told off to be killed.
Consequently, that gentleman is as good as dead—practically, he
is dead—and if he is dead, why not say so?
MIK. I see. Nothing could possibly be more satisfactory!
(Mikado Text)
|
