If not for his mention of his father's activism as a member of Betar in the United States, I would not have thought to reply to Yonatan Gher's "Nobody should buy this occupation" (February 9).Gher coyly named his column "The Fifth Column" and the editor has provided him space to exhibit his opinions, which is his right. It's his "facts" that bother me.He compares in his piece Israel's post-1967 administration of Judea and Samaria and Russia's treatment of its Jewish Prisoners of Zion to justify a boycott of Israel in some form. He goes further, claiming "Israeli settlements...are illegal, clear and simple". It is as if all his mental capacity to discern between the two instances dissolved and his comprehension of law dissipated.
He misrepresents international law. Not only can he not quote correctly - the 1949 Geneva Convention's IV Article 49 stipulates that "forcible transfers" are prohibited - but he avoids dealing with what is permitted, under certain circumstances, in that same sentence (which Israel has not done): "the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area...". Here is the exact wording:
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 so demand.And he obfuscates between the essence of Judea and Samaria, portions of the territory the League of Nations guaranteed the Jews the right of "close settlement on the land" ( Of course, Gher ignores the international legal foundations for Israel's claim to Judea and Samaria (and Gaza, by the way), at the least if we have mentioned Betar and its "Two Banks Has The Jordan" ideology, during 1917-1922 of the Balfour Declaration, Versailles Peace Conference, San Remo Conference and the League of Nations Mandate decision as well as the self-defensive nature of Israel's behavior in 1967. Article 6 of its 1922 Mandate decision), and the totalitarian character of the Communist regime in an immoral presentation.
This is an example of poor command of facts and a faulty control over logical thought processes.
Who will provide us amnesty from the process of his thinking and of his views?