Palestine – Negotiating semantic minefield becomes pressing necessity.

Refusal to describe East Jerusalem as “occupied”: Not the first time Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has broken a bipartisan position on Israel.Two former Australian Foreign Ministers – Bob Carr (2012-2013) and Gareth Evans (1988-1996) – have published an article this past week engaging in a semantic tug of war with Australia’s current Foreign Minister – Julie Bishop – over Australia’s recently declared policy of refusing to describe East Jerusalem as “occupied territory”.

East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria were conquered in 1948 by Transjordan and illegally annexed in 1950 – when Transjordan then changed its name to “Jordan” and the 3000 years old geographic designation of “Judea and Samaria” to the “West Bank”.

East Jerusalem and the West Bank were lost by Jordan to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

In 1980, the Israeli Knesset passed a Basic Law declaring reunified Jerusalem the eternal capital of Israel, while providing for freedom of access to each religion’s holy sites – a decision not sanctioned by the United Nations.

“Occupied territory” carries the clear connotation that such territory indisputably belongs to someone else. Yet East Jerusalem and the West Bank have not been under any internationally recognised sovereignty or control since Great Britain handed back its administration of the Mandate for Palestine to the United Nations in 1948.

Israel refers to the West Bank as “disputed territory”:

“The West Bank and Gaza Strip are disputed territories whose status can only be determined through negotiations. Occupied territories are territories captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. As the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not under the legitimate and recognized sovereignty of any state prior to the Six Day War, they should not be considered occupied territories.

The people of Israel have ancient ties to the territories, as well as a continuous centuries-old presence there. These areas were the cradle of Jewish civilization. Israel has rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, rights that the Palestinians deliberately disregard.”

Australia’s Prime Minister – Tony Abbott – agrees:

“It is important, as far as you can, not to use loaded terms, not to use pejorative terms, not to use terms which suggest that matters have been prejudged and that is a freighted term.

The truth is they’re disputed territories.”

Carr and Evans conveniently overlook mentioning or rebutting Israel’s position – indicating a level of intellectual dishonesty which is disappointing coming from persons with such distinguished backgrounds.

Instead – Carr and Evans ring the alarm bells – attempting to incite a state of international hysteria when claiming:

“If East Jerusalem is not to be referred to as “occupied”, why not Nablus or Bethlehem? If the Australian government can say “occupied East Jerusalem” is fraught with “pejorative implications” what is to stop Ms Bishop applying this to the occupied West Bank as a whole? It is a short step away for the Coalition government to declare that all the West Bank, with its population of more than 2 million Arabs, is no more than a “disputed” territory.

Are they really unaware that 40% of the West Bank – including Nablus and Bethlehem – contains 96% of the West Bank Arab population – and has been under the total administrative control of the Palestine Liberation Organisation since 1995?

Have they forgotten that Israel offered to cede its claims to sovereignty in more than 90% of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority in 2000/2001 and 2008 – and that both offers were rejected.

Carr and Evans aren’t averse in misleading their readership when they assert:

“The International Court of Justice in 2004 declared not only that the West Bank was occupied but that this was illegal.”

It is unseemly that they forget to mention that this decision was an Advisory Opinion only and has no binding legal effect.

What is completely inexcusable is that Carr and Evans relied only on this International Court of Justice decision – whilst apparently failing to consider the following established international law with specific application to the West Bank – namely:

  1. The Mandate for Palestine 1922 – especially article 6 – and article 80 of the United Nations Charter and
  2. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338

These provisions provide the legal basis for Israel using the term “disputed territory” and Australia rejecting the pejorative term “occupied territory” used in countless UN Resolutions – misleadingly suggesting an Arab entitlement to 100% exclusive sovereignty.

The Arab-Jewish conflict has been an ongoing battle of words as much as a series of real live battles fought by the Jews against its Palestinian Arab neighbours, the armies of six Arab States and a myriad number of terrorist groups over the last 130 years.

Notable semantic battles that have influenced the political debate include:

  1. Do the words “in Palestine” as used in the Mandate for Palestine mean “all of Palestine”?
  2. Do the words “Withdraw from territories” used in Security Council Resolution 242 mean “all the territories”?
  3. Are there “1967 borders” or only “1967 armistice lines”?
  4. Did the words “Reconstitute the Jewish National Home” as used in the Mandate for Palestine preclude the creation of a Jewish State?
  5. Does “Palestine” include what is today called “Jordan”?

Whilst one side talks “occupied territory” and the other “disputed territory” – negotiations will continue to go nowhere.

A pathway through this semantic minefield needs to be found which leads to the parties using commonly agreed and understood language.

If not – this minefield could blow up with disastrous consequences for everyone – not just the disputants.

Another Syria or Iraq is the last thing the world needs now.

First published at Canada Free Press

David Singer blogs at Jordan is Palestine

Read on for article


Check Also

The Temple Mount: Whose Is It?

In early May 2021 Israeli authorities had to cope with a high level of unrest …


  1. Leon Poddebsky

    In 1948 Israel was prevented from implementing in its entirety the Act of international law known as The Mandate for Palestine because the British puppet Jordanian army overpowered it; in June 1967 Israel completed the implementation of that Act of international law when it ended Jordan’s illegal occupation of Judea and Samaria.
    Carr and Evans do not like us for reasons other than our adherence to the facts regarding the conflict. This is no excuse, however, for their shameful behaviour.

  2. Leon Poddebsky

    Also, what is so “distinguished” about their backgrounds?
    Are they very different essentially from the background of Ernest Bevin ?

  3. Otto Waldmann

    I apologise if I sound monotonous on a weekly ( Tuesday ) basis by bringing up last night’s Q&A, but I must say that, when Josh Frydenberg is supposed to”represent” the Jewish point of view WE were lucky to have Prof. James Allen DOING IT !!!
    To be clear, I have been voting Liberal for some 12 years or more , ever since I noticed that John Howard ( and his lot ) were by far a more reliable friend of Israel.
    On an issue by issue basis, the intermarriage cum “multicultural harmony” found a defender in “our” Josh only to be clarified so simply by Allen in clear numerical ( and in principle ) terms.
    More to the point of this topic, mechanical sycophantic Frydenberg could not articulate at all the distinction between “occupation” and anything even close to Israel’s AND his own Party positions.
    To mine, Allen was the more reliable Jew on the panel.

    Also interesting that the local palestinian supporters, broken English and all, are organising themselves at all levels of public debate. Some pro Israel attendees and they had the …guts to applaud at times. Ohhhh, such courage !!!!!

  4. The problem is Otto ‘lack of education’ on the issue. I was discussing this on Skype last night with a friend in the US

  5. Otto Waldmann

    It is of no insignificance that the issue of “semantics” is approached by two redundant politicians, indeed from the same political camp. Similarities go further, both ex FA ministers have displayed the same type of para-academic ambitions, the penchant for a profile of sophistication and extention of the intellect into the realm of idealistic, theoretical depth of the political process.
    Brandishing a “select” vernacular, clearly distinct from drudgery of menial political existence, both Evans and Carr are living examples of fundamental vanity, devoid of objective balance and heavily subservient to numerical acclaim, the kind which expresses approval most effusively and let’s be honest, the pro-palestinian mob is much better at effusive ( something we, Jews with hutzpah, can learn a bit from them !!!).
    How does vanity go with mob adulation !!! ( a rhetorical one for yourse )
    Carr is emboldened by each criticism coming from the expected quarters because, when compared with the other side’s cheering squads, the critics are all but drowned. To this , one could be forgiven for being tempted to believe that, somewhere, in the shallow “depths” of his mind , he has something with the Jew and, to my mind, the mere fact that, sometimes in his younger years , he aligned himself with Jewsih matters, be it in a positive way, denotes a kind of “preocupation with the subject matter. Later in life ( as in today ) we do see a different Bob, so polarised to the earlier one. The very fact that Carr ponders so intensely on the Jewish presence, statistically in his last book far more than other topics, gives cause to believe that there is something visceral at play.
    Happily, these days both self-centred protagonists are of striking irrelevance in the real world of realpolitik and one should , actually, look more intently at the way in which the actual Labor Party actively at play is treating the same topic. Compared to Carr and Evans even a known pro-palestinian Tanya Plib. seems less raffled by the play on words and their concrete significance as we see it.

    Listen, just now Amerike scored a second goaaaaaaaal !!!! against Ghana.

    Oh, yeysh Elohim…

    to be continued