The Edmund Levy Commission

Tuesday, December 27. 2016

Judea and Samaria according to International Law

English - Comments (0) -

What about the Israeli settlements ?

In 2012, the Government of Israel sought the opinion of a Commission of legal experts, chaired by Judge Edmund Levy, a former member of Israel’s Supreme Court, on the issue of Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). The Commission determined that : (a) the League of Nations designated Palestine in 1922 as the National Home of the Jewish Home and opened it to overall Jewish settlement ; (b) the 1922 provisions were still valid regarding Judea and Samaria.

Here are the Levy Commission’s findings on the present status of the Judea and Samaria under international law, as published on June 21, 2012.

//////////

In light of the different approaches in regard to the status of the State of Israel and its activities in Judea and Samaria, any examination of the issue of land and settlement thereon requires, first and foremost, clarification of the issue of the status of the territory according to international law.

Some take the view that the answer to the issue of settlements is a simple one inasmuch as it is prohibited according to international law. That is the view of Peace Now (see the letter from Hagit Ofran from 2 April 2010); B’tselem (see the letter from its Executive Director Jessica Montell from 29 March 2012, and its pamphlet Land Grab: Israel's Settlement Policy in the West Bank, published May 2002); Yesh Din and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) (see the letter from Attorney Tamar Feldman from 19 April 2012); and Adalah (see the letter from attorney Fatma Alaju from 12 June 2012).

The approach taken by these organizations is a reflection of the position taken by the Palestinian leadership and some in the international community, who view Israel’s status as that of a “military occupier,” and the settlement endeavor as an entirely illegal phenomenon. This approach denies any Israeli or Jewish right to these territories. To sum up, they claim that the territories of Judea and Samaria are “occupied territory” as defined by international law in that they were captured from the Kingdom of Jordan in 1967. Consequently, according to this approach, the provisions of international law regarding the matter of occupation apply to Israel as a military occupier, i.e. Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907,1 which govern the relationship between the occupier the occupied territory, and the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August (1949).2

According to the Hague Regulations, the occupying power, while concerning himself with the occupier’s security needs, is required to care for the needs of the civilian population until the occupation is terminated. According to these regulations, it is forbidden in principle to seize personal property, although the occupying power has the right to enjoy all the advantages derivable from the use of the property of the occupied state, and public property that is not privately owned without changing its fixed nature. Moreover, according to this approach, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the transfer of parts of the occupying power’s own civilian population into the territory it occupies.3 Accordingly, in their view, the establishment of settlements carried out by Israel is in violation of this article, even without addressing the type or status of the land upon which they are built.

In this context, we were presented with an approach by some of the abovementioned organizations, whereby they do not accept the premise that the lands that do not constitute personal property are state lands. It was claimed that in the absence of orderly registration of most of the land in Judea and Samaria, and precise registration of the rights of the local inhabitants, it is reasonable to assume that the local population is entitled to benefit from land that is neither defined nor registered as privately owned land. From this it follows that the use of land for the purpose of the establishment of Israeli settlements impinges on the rights of the local population, which is a protected population according to the Convention, and Israel, as an occupying power, is obliged to safeguard these rights and not deny them by exploiting the land for the benefit of its own population.4

If this legal approach were correct, we would, in accordance with our Terms of reference, be required to terminate the work of this Committee, since in such circumstances, we could not recommend regularizing the status of the settlements. On the contrary, we would be required to recommend that the proper authorities remove them.

However, we were also presented with another legal position, inter alia by the Regavim movement (Attorneys Bezalel Smotritz and Amit Fisher) and by the Benjamin Regional Council (the expert legal opinion of Attorneys Daniel Reisner and Harel Arnon). They are of the view that Israel is not an “Occupying Power” as determined by international law inter alia because the territories of Judea and Samaria were never a legitimate part of any Arab state, including the kingdom of Jordan. Consequently, those conventions dealing with the administration of occupied territory and an occupied populations are not applicable to Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria.

According to this approach, even if the Geneva Convention applied, Article 49 was never intended to apply to the circumstances of Israel’s settlements. Article 49 was drafted by the Allies after World War II to prevent the forcible transfer of an occupied population, as was carried out by Nazi Germany, which forcibly transferred people from Germany to Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia with the aim of changing the demographic and cultural makeup of the population. These circumstances do not exist in the case of Israel’s settlement. Other than the fundamental commitment that applies universally by virtue of international humanitarian norms to respect individual personal property rights and uphold the law that applied in the territory prior to the IDF entering it, there is no fundamental restriction to Israel’s right to utilize the land and allow its citizens to settle there, as long as the property rights of the local inhabitants are not harmed and as long as no decision to the contrary is made by the government of Israel in the context of regional peace negotiations.

Is Israel’s status that of a “military occupier” with all that this implies in accordance with international law? In our view, the answer to this question is no.

After having considered all the approaches placed before us, the most reasonable interpretation of those provisions of international law appears to be that the accepted term “occupier” with its attending obligations, is intended to apply to brief periods of the occupation of the territory of a sovereign state pending termination of the conflict between the parties and the return of the territory or any other agreed upon arrangement. However, Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria is fundamentally different: Its control of the territory spans decades and no one can foresee when or if it will end; the territory was captured from a state (the kingdom of Jordan), whose sovereignty over the territory had never been legally and definitively affirmed, and has since renounced its claim of sovereignty; the State of Israel has a claim to sovereign right over the territory.

As for Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, many have offered interpretations, and the predominant view appears to be that that article was indeed intended to address the harsh reality dictated by certain countries during World War II when portions of their populations were forcibly deported and transferred into the territories they seized, a process that was accompanied by a substantial worsening of the status of the occupied population (see HCJ 785/87 Affo et al. v. Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank et al. IsrSC 42(2) 1; and the article by Alan Baker: “The Settlements Issue: Distorting the Geneva Conventions and Oslo Accords, from January 2011.5)

This interpretation is supported by several sources: The authoritative interpretation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (IRCC), the body entrusted with the implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention,6 in which the purpose of Article 49 is stated as follows:

“It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, 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.”

Legal scholars Prof. Eugene Rostow, Dean of Yale Law School in the US, and Prof. Julius Stone have acknowledged that Article 49 was intended to prevent the inhumane atrocities carried out by the Nazis, e.g. the massive transfer of people into conquered territory for the purpose of extermination, slave labor or colonization:7 8

“The Convention prohibits many of the inhumane practices of the Nazis and the Soviet Union during and before the Second World War – the mass transfer of people into and out of occupied territories for purposes of extermination, slave labor or colonization, for example....The Jewish settlers in the West Bank are most emphatically volunteers. They have not been “deported” or “transferred” to the area by the Government of Israel, and their movement involves none of the atrocious purposes or harmful effects on the existing population it is the goal of the Geneva Convention to prevent.” (Rostow)

“Irony would...be pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49(6) designed to prevent repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan territories judenrein, has now come to mean that...the West Bank...must be made judenrein and must be so maintained, if necessary by the use of force by the government of Israel against its own inhabitants. Common sense as well as correct historical and functional context excludes so tyrannical a reading of Article 49(6.).” (Julius Stone)

We are not convinced that an analogy may be drawn between this legal provision and those who sought to settle in Judea and Samaria, who were neither forcibly “deported” nor “transferred,” but who rather chose to live there based on their ideology of settling the Land of Israel.

We have not lost sight of the views of those who believe that the Fourth Geneva Convention should be interpreted so as also to prohibit the occupying state from encouraging or supporting the transfer of parts of its population to the occupied territory, even if it did not initiate it.9 However, even if this interpretation is correct, we would not alter our conclusions that Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria in view of the status of the territory according to international law. On this matter, we offer a brief historical review.

On 2 November 1917 –17 Heshvan 5678, Lord James Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary, published a declaration saying that:

“His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.10 ’’

In this declaration, Britain acknowledged the rights of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel and expressed its willingness to promote a process that would ultimately lead to the establishment of a national home for it in this part of the world. This declaration reappeared in a different form, in the resolution of the Peace Conference in San Remo, Italy, which laid the foundations for the British Mandate over the Land of Israel and recognized the historical bond between the Jewish people and Palestine (see the preamble):

“The principal Allied powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. [...] Recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”11

It should be noted here that the mandatory instrument (like the Balfour Declaration) noted only that “the civil and religious rights” of the inhabitants of Palestine should be protected, and no mention was made of the realization of the national rights of the Arab nation. As for the practical implementation of this declaration, Article 2 of the Mandatory Instrument states:12

“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

And Article 6 of the Palestine Mandate states:

“The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”

In August 1922 the League of Nations approved the mandate given to Britain, thereby recognizing, as a norm enshrined in international law, the right of the Jewish people to determine its home in the Land of Israel, its historic homeland, and establish its state therein.

To complete the picture, we would add that upon the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, Article 80 of its Charter determined the principle of recognition of the continued validity of existing rights of states and nations acquired pursuant to various mandates, including of course the right of the Jews to settle in the Land of Israel, as specified in the abovementioned documents:

‘Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements [...] nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties” (Article 80, Paragraph 1, UN Charter).

In November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the recommendations of the committee it had established regarding the partition of the Land of Israel west of the Jordan into two states.13 However, this plan was never carried out and accordingly did not secure a foothold in international law after the Arab states rejected it and launched a war to prevent both its implementation and the establishment of a Jewish state. The results of that war determined the political reality that followed: The Jewish state was established within the territory that was acquired in the war. On the other hand, the Arab state was not formed, and Egypt and Jordan controlled the territories they captured (Gaza, Judea and Samaria). Later,

the Arab countries, which refused to accept the outcome of the war, insisted that the Armistice Agreement include a declaration that under no circumstances should the armistice demarcation lines be regarded as a political or territorial border.14 Despite this, in April 1950, Jordan annexed the territories of Judea and Samaria,15 unlike Egypt, which did not demand sovereignty over the Gaza Strip. However, Jordan’s annexation did not attain legal standing and was opposed even by the majority of Arab countries, until in 1988, Jordan declared that it no longer considered itself as having any status over that area (on this matter see Supreme Court President Landau’s remarks in HCJ 61/80 Haetzni v. State of Israel, IsrSC 34(3) 595, 597; HCJ 69/81 Bassil Abu Aita et al. v. The Regional Commander of Judea and Samaria et al., IsrSC 37(2) 197, 227).

This restored the legal status of the territory to its original status, i.e. territory designated to serve as the national home of the Jewish people, which retained its “right of possession” during the period of the Jordanian control, but was absent from the area for a number of years due to the war that was forced on it, but has since returned.

Alongside its international commitment to administer the territory and care for the rights of the local population and public order, Israel has had every right to claim sovereignty over these territories, as maintained by all Israeli governments. Despite this, they opted not to annex the territory, but rather to adopt a pragmatic approach in order to enable peace negotiations with the representatives of the Palestinian people and the Arab states. Thus, Israel has never viewed itself as an occupying power in the classic sense of the term, and subsequently, has never taken upon itself to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. At this point, it should be noted that the government of Israel did indeed ratify the Convention in 1951, although it was never made part of Israeli law by way of Knesset legislation (on this matter, see CrimA 131/67 Kamiar v. State of Israel, 22 (2) IsrSC 85, 97; HCJ 393/82 Jam'iat Iscan Al-Ma’almoun v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the Area of Judea and Samaria, IsrSC 37(4) 785).

Israel voluntarily chose to uphold the humanitarian provisions of the Convention (HCJ 337/71, Christian Society for the Holy Places v. Minister of Defense, IsrSC 26(1) 574; HCJ 256/72, Electricity Company for Jerusalem District v. Minister of Defense et al., IsrSC 27(1) 124; HCJ 698/80 Kawasme et al. v. The Minister of Defense et al., IsrSC 35(1) 617; HCJ 1661/05 Hof Aza. Regional Council et al. v. Knesset of Israel et al., IsrSC 59(2) 481).

As a result, Israel pursued a policy that allowed Israelis to voluntarily establish their residence in the territory in accordance with the rules determined by the Israeli government and under the supervision of the Israeli legal system, subject to the fact that their continued presence would be subject to the outcome of the diplomatic negotiations.

In view of the above, we have no doubt that from the perspective of international law, the establishment of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria is not illegal.

© The Edmund Levy Commission, 2012

1.     1 Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

2.     2 http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/380

3.     3 Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons does demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased. The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated. The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place. The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demands. The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

4.     4 The position of Peace Now. See also B’tselem: Under the Guise Of Legality: Israel's Declarations of State Land in the West Bank, February 2012.

5.     5 http://jcpa.org/article/the-settlements-issue-distorting-the-geneva-convention-and-the-oslo-accords/

6.     6 ICRC Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention, edited by Jean S. Pictet ,(1958) at pages 3-9.

7.     7 American Journal of International Law, Vol. 84, 1990, p. 719.

8.     8 Phillips, "The Illegal Settlements Myth," Commentary, 2010.

9.     9 On this matter, see Alan Baker’s article noted above in note 5, regarding the addition of the words “directly or indirectly” to Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.. 10

10.   10http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/The+Balfour+Declaration. htm

11.   11 http://www.cfr.org/israel/san-remo-resolution/p15248 Link doesn’t work 12

12.   12http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/The+Balfour+Declaration.

13.   14 According to Article II (2) of the armistice agreement with Jordan: “...no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights ,claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations. According to Article IV(9) of the agreement: The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.

14.   15 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/jordanresolution.html

Keywords: international law, israel, jordan, judea, league of nations, mandate, palestine, samaria, settlements, united kingdom, united nations

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

No comments

Add Comment

Quicksearch

LANGUAGE

Les Experts

All authors

Les Dossiers

Mots clés

abbas abdallah abdallah II accords d'oslo afghanistan africa ahmadinejad aipac AJC akp al qaeda al qaida al-dura al-qaida algeria algérie alkalai allemagne antisemitism antisémitisme antizionism antonio maria costa apartheid apec arabes arabie saoudite arabs arafat asie asif ali zardari assad atatürk autorité palestinienne baker balkans ban Ban Ki Moon ban ki-moon Bangladesh barak bat yeor begin beijing belarus ben gourion berlin bible blair boko haram bosnia bougrab brazil britain british forces brussels brzezinski buddhism burke burma bush bushehr cairo canada carter castro catholicism centre for islamic pluralism charles gurfinkiel charlie hebdo chavez china chine chirac chrétiens christianity christians cisjordanie civilian casualties clinton cold war colonies communism condoleezza rice conférence de paris confucianism congo congress conseil de sécurité conservateurs conservatives coran coulibaly crif cuba cukierman culture d'orcival daech daesh darfur dati david cameron davutoglu de gaulle démocrates democrats demographics démographie dhimmis dhimmitude dieudonné donna edwards durban ii egypt egypte ehud barak elections erbakan erdogan état états-unis ettinger eu eurabia europe european parliament european union fadela amara failed states fatah fidel castro fillon france g-8 gates gauche gaza gazprom general assembly genocide george w. bush georgia germany global times globalization golan goldstone gordon brown grèce guerre guilad shalit gurfinkiel haiti hamas hamon haniyeh herzl hezbollah hillary clinton histoire hitler hizballah hollande holocaust hong kong houellebecq hu jintao human rights ibrahim idf immigration inde india international law irak iran iraq irgoun iron dome isi ISIS islam islamism islamisme islamistes islamophobia israël istanbul italie italy j street jacqui smith japan japon jean-yves camus jeremy ben-ami jerusalem jews jihad jihadism jihadisme jihadists John Holmes jones jordan jordanie joseph zen josette sheeran judée juifs juppe kabul kadima kalischer karsenty karzai kassam kemp kennedy KGB khalilzad khamenei khomeini kim jong-il king abdullah kosher kosovo kouachi kuran labor laferrere langue lashkar e-taiba laws of war le drian Le Monde le pen lebanon left liban liberia libya lieberman likoud likud livni londres lybia macron madrid MAK marine le pen maroc massachusetts mccain mcluhan medvedev mélanchon merkel michel gurfinkiel mickey marcus middle east minustah missiles mitchell mitterrand montebourg morocco moubarak moutet mubarak mufti mugabe muhammad mumbai muslim brotherhood muslims musulmans myanmar nakba napoleon natanz nation nato netanyahu nethanyahu new emerging powers new york new york times Nigeria nixon noirs north korea nuclear weapons obama occident oci oil olmert OLP onu oren oslo oslo process otan pahlavi pakistan palestine palestinian authority palestinians palestiniens paris peace peace process peres petraeus pétrole plo poland politique pologne présidentielles putin quai d'orsay quebec rabin rachida dati radical islam raul castro reagan refugees réfugiés juifs religion républicains rice roosevelt royaume-uni russia russie saakashvili sadate samarie sarkozy satellite saudi arabia sco settlements shari'a sharia sharon shas shoah sionisme socialists soft power Somalia soudan south africa south korea soviet union Spain staline statism Stephen Harper stratégie subworlds sudan sweden syria syrie taiwan taliban tantawi taubira taylor terror terrorism terrorisme the un the west tibet totalitarisme travaillistes truman Trump tsahal tunisie turkey turks turquie ue uk ukraine un unamid unifil union pour la méditerranée united nations united states UNRWA UNSC 2334 usa usaid valeurs valeurs actuelles valls védrine venezuela vichy vietnam villepin violence von leers war war on terror wastelands wen jiabao west west bank World Food Program wright yushchenko zemmour zia ul-haq zimbabwe

LINKS

INSERT INTO serendipity_config (name,value,authorid) values ('serendipity_plugin_linklist:5ff9537c3589d6b9cc360a309fe36ca3/links', '<link name=\"Al-Monitor\" link=\"http://www.al-monitor.com\" />\n<link name=\"Algemeiner\" link=\"http://www.algemeiner.com\" />\n<link name=\"American Center for Democracy\" link=\"http://www.acdemocracy.org\" />\n<link name=\"American Thinker\" link=\"http://www.americanthinker.com\" />\n<link name=\"Arabes pour Israël\" link=\"http://arabespourisrael.unblog.fr/\" />\n<link name=\"Asia Times Online\" link=\"http://www.atimes.com\" />\n<link name=\"Atlantico\" link=\"http://www.atlantico.fr\" />\n<link name=\"Bulletin d\'Amérique\" link=\"http://www.lebulletindamerique.com\" />\n<link name=\"Caroline Glick\" link=\"http://www.carolineglick.com\" />\n<link name=\"Causeur.fr\" link=\"http://www.causeur.fr\" />\n<link name=\"Center for Islamic Pluralism\" link=\"http://islamicpluralism.org\" />\n<link name=\"Center for Security Policy\" link=\"http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org\" />\n<link name=\"Chrétiens d\'Israël\" link=\"http:///www.un-echo-israel.net\" />\n<link name=\"CifWatch\" link=\"http://www.cifwatch.com\" />\n<link name=\"CIJR\" link=\"http://www.isranet.org\" />\n<link name=\"Commentary\" link=\"http://www.commentarymagazine.com/\" />\n<link name=\"Contentions\" link=\"http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/category/contentions\" />\n<link name=\"Daily Caller\" link=\"http://www.dailycaller.com\" />\n<link name=\"Daniel Pipes\" link=\"http://www.danielpipes.com\" />\n<link name=\"Eurasia Daily Monitor\" link=\"http://jamestown.org/edm/\" />\n<link name=\"Eye On The UN\" link=\"http://www.eyeontheun.org\" />\n<link name=\"First Things\" link=\"http://www.firstthings.com\" />\n<link name=\"Free Europe Institute\" link=\"http://www.europeinstitute.org\" />\n<link name=\"FrontPage Magazine\" link=\"http://www.frontpagemag.com/\" />\n<link name=\"Gatestone Institute\" link=\"http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org\" />\n<link name=\"Hudson Institute\" link=\"http://www.hudson.org\" />\n<link name=\"iCurrent\" link=\"http://www.icurrent.com\" />\n<link name=\"Institut Turgot\" link=\"http://turgot.com\" />\n<link name=\"Investigative Project\" link=\"http://www.investigativeproject.org\" />\n<link name=\"Investor\'s Business Daily\" link=\"http://www.idbeditorials.com\" />\n<link name=\"Islamic Pluralism\" link=\"http://islamicpluralism.eu\" />\n<link name=\"JCPA\" link=\"http:///www.jcpa.org\" />\n<link name=\"Jérusalem &amp; Religions\" link=\"http://www.jerusalem-religions.net\" />\n<link name=\"Jewish Policy Center\" link=\"http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org\" />\n<link name=\"Jewish Review of Books\" link=\"http://www.jewishreviewofbooks.com\" />\n<link name=\"Jewish Statesmanship Center\" link=\"http://www.statesmanship.org.il\" />\n<link name=\"Melanie Phillips\" link=\"http://melaniephillips.com\" />\n<link name=\"Memri\" link=\"http://www.memri.org\" />\n<link name=\"MESI\" link=\"http://mesi.org.uk\" />\n<link name=\"Michel Gurfinkiel\" link=\"http://www.michelgurfinkiel.com\" />\n<link name=\"Nonie Darwish\" link=\"http://arabsforisrael.com/\" />\n<link name=\"NRO\" link=\"http://nationalreview.com\" />\n<link name=\"PJMedia\" link=\"http://pjmedia.com\" />\n<link name=\"PJMediaTV\" link=\"http://pjtv.com\" />\n<link name=\"Policy Exchange\" link=\"http://www.policyexchange.org.uk\" />\n<link name=\"Stratfor\" link=\"http://www.stratfor.com\" />\n<link name=\"Terrorism Information Center\" link=\"http://www.terrorism-info.org.il\" />\n<link name=\"The American Spectator\" link=\"http://www.spectator.org\" />\n<link name=\"The Bruges Group\" link=\"http://www.brugesgroup.com\" />\n<link name=\"The Croissant\" link=\"http://www.thecroissant.com\" />\n<link name=\"The Henry Jackson Society\" link=\"http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org\" />\n<link name=\"The Jerusalem Post\" link=\"http://www.jpost.com/\" />\n<link name=\"The Memri Blog\" link=\"http://thememriblog.org\" />\n<link name=\"The Spectator\" link=\"http://www.spectator.co.uk/\" />\n<link name=\"The Weekly Standard\" link=\"http://weeklystandard.com/\" />\n<link name=\"Valeurs Actuelles\" link=\"http:///www.valeursactuelles.com\" />\n<link name=\"Vicariat Catholique Israélien\" link=\"http://www.catholic.co.il\" />\n<link name=\"Victor David Hanson\" link=\"http://www.victorhanson.com\" />\n', '0')

/ INSERT command denied to user 'jjriihxus9y'@'10.10.20.125' for table 'serendipity_config'