Daily Alert Archives

In Defense of "Settlements"

[Los Angeles Times] Yisrael Medad - No one, including a president of the United States of America, can presume to tell me, a Jew, that I cannot live in the area of my national homeland. That's one of the main reasons my wife and I chose in 1981 to move to Shiloh. After Shiloh was founded in 1978, then-President Carter demanded of Prime Minister Menachem Begin that the village be removed. Begin said: "You, Mr. President, have in the United States a number of places with names like Bethlehem, Shiloh and Hebron, and you haven't the right to tell prospective residents in those places that they are forbidden to live there. Just like you, I have no such right in my country. Every Jew is entitled to reside wherever he pleases." Suppose someone suggested that, to achieve a true peace, Arabs in Israel should be removed from their homes. Of course, transfer of Arabs is intolerable. But why is it quite acceptable to demand that Jews be ethnically cleansed? There can be nothing illegal about a Jew living where Judaism was born and we have returned under a clear fulfillment of international law. The Supreme Council of the League of Nations adopted principles following the 1920 San Remo Conference aimed at bringing about the "reconstitution" of a Jewish National Home. Article 6 of those principles reads: "The administration of Palestine...shall encourage...close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands." The Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria. Jewish historical rights that the Mandate had recognized were not canceled, and no new sovereign ever took over in Judea and Samaria. The writer is head of information resources at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem.
2009-06-29 06:00:00
Full Article