While I am pleased that Alan Dershowitz wants the veto and says that the settlements are legal until otherwise determined but I would argue against his assertion that Resolution 242 is “the foundation for a two-state solution”. No one contemplated at that time that a new state would be created. It was all about drawing borders between Israel and Jordan. He acknowledges that some of the land “rightfully belongs to Israel” because Jordan illegally took these lands from Israel. He offers that Jordan did so “to undo the U.N.’s decision (Res 181) to divide the area into Jewish and Arab homelands.”
This really bothers me. This decision was a recommendation only. Israel’s right flow from San Remo Resolution and the Mandate. Israel acquired no addtional territorial rights from the Armistice Agreement. Nor did it lose any of its rights by virtue of declaring a state on only part of the promised land. Dershowitz seems to be saying that Res 181 has some legal efficacy. But even it recognized a different treatment of Jerusalem. Ted Belman
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, WSJ
Although I have opposed Israel’s civilian settlements in the West Bank since 1973, I strongly believe that the United States should veto a resolution currently before the U.N. Security Council that would declare illegal “all Israeli settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” This condemnatory resolution is being supported by all members of the Security Council other than the U.S. So it will pass unless the U.S. exercises its veto power.
There is a big difference between a government action being unwise, which the Israeli policy is, and being illegal, which it is not. Indeed, the very Security Council resolution on which proponents of the condemnation rely makes it clear that the legal status of Israel’s continued occupation isn’t settled.
Passed in 1967, Resolution 242 (which I played a very small role assisting then-U.N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg in drafting) calls for Israel to return “territories” captured during its defensive war of 1967. The words “all” and “the” were proposed by those who advocated a complete return, but the U.S. and Great Britain, which opposed that view, prevailed.
Even partial return of captured territories is conditioned on “termination
of all claims of belligerency” and “acknowledgment of the sovereignty . . . of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”
Resolution 242 does not mention the rights of nonstates, such as the Palestinian Authority, Hamas or Hezbollah, the latter two of which do not accept the conditions of the resolution. (Nor do Iran and several other states in the region.) It would be wrong for the Security Council retroactively to rewrite Resolution 242, which is the foundation for a two-state solution—Israel and Palestine—44 years after it was enacted.
But the real reason the U.S. should veto this ill-conceived resolution is that it is inconsistent with U.S. policy, which has long advocated a negotiated resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has put it: “We continue to believe strongly that New York is not the place to resolve the longstanding conflict.”
A negotiated resolution will require the Palestinian Authority to acknowledge that some of the land captured by Israel from Jordan, after Jordan attacked Israel, rightfully belongs to Israel. These areas include the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and the Western Wall—which were illegally captured by Jordan in its aggressive and unlawful 1948 war calculated to undo the U.N.’s decision to divide the area into Jewish and Arab homelands.
Additionally, there will have to be land swaps that recognize the realities on the ground. Areas such as Ma’ale Adumim and Gilo, for example, have become integral parts of Jewish Jerusalem.
Finally, Resolution 242 explicitly requires that Israel have “secure and recognized boundaries,” an implicit recognition that its pre-1967 boundaries were neither secure nor recognized. Some territorial adjustments will be essential if Israel is to remain more secure than it was in the lead-up to the 1967 war.
The Palestinian Authority seems to understand at least some of these
realities, as reflected in the recent disclosure of 1,600 internal documents by Al Jazeera. In one 2008 document, Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qurie is quoted proposing that Israel annex all settlements in Jerusalem, with the exception of the Jewish areas of Har Homa and part of the Old City of Jerusalem. Some on the Security Council, however, clearly don’t understand.
The current draft of the proposed resolution condemns “all Israeli settlement activities.” Read literally, this condemnation would extend to the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, the Western Wall, and those areas that even the Palestinian Authority concedes must remain under Israeli control. Israel will not, and should not, return “all” such territories. The U.S. does not believe it should, nor do reasonable Palestinians.
So what then is the purpose of the utterly unrealistic resolution now under consideration? It simply gives cover to those Palestinians who do not want to sit down and negotiate directly with Israel. It is also a stalking horse for the Palestinian effort to secure a further U.N. resolution unilaterally declaring Palestinian statehood—a result that neither Israel nor the U.S. would recognize.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has offered to negotiate without any preconditions. He promises generous proposals, which could lead to Palestinian statehood relatively quickly. The Palestinian Authority, however, has set preconditions to any negotiations, most specifically a second freeze on all West Bank and East Jerusalem construction. While I favor such a freeze, I do not believe that it should be a precondition to negotiations.
Let serious discussions begin immediately about the borders of the two
states. As soon as the borders are decided, Israel will stop building in all areas beyond them. This is the only way toward peace. A Security Council resolution unilaterally deciding the central issue of the negotiations will only make matters worse.
*Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest novel is “The Trials of Zion” (Grand Central Publishing, 2010).*
I sent my commentts to Dershowitz and wrote
I didn’t realize I was addressing you personally? I may be a zealot but you are still a Jew hater but like Dershowitz a conditional supporter of Israel. From the likes of you I can understand the conditional support but not from the likes of the Dershowitzes.
Betray Israel? Not betrayal, just being consistent with American policy towards Israel since 1967. Why should the Dershowitzes and other Jews enjoy the privilege of supporting Israels enemies and still be considered to be a pro Israel supporter; when at best that support is qualified and quantified. I’ve seen recently Dershowitz debate Huckabee on an issue of theology and beat Huckabee using classic Jewish positions. So he knows his stuff yet, when it comes to Israel he backs off from Jewish positions and supports anti Jewish positions.
Why do you say “into the Med”? Since when is appeasing those who would see us destroyed a positive unless he that uses such a metaphor also supports the position of the United States and the other lovers of Zion on the UN Security Council? Anyone who says that Jewish building in any part of the Land of Israel is illegal or supports for any reason those who do maintain that settlements are illegal is my enemy whether they be Jew or Gentile.
I like the Nero metaphor better!
I submit the opposite is correct. Most of those Jewish fence sitters sat while 6 million were murdered, when Israel was invaded by six Arab Armies, they did nothing to oppose Eisenhower in 56, put no pressure on Johnson in 67 or Nixon in 73. But the basked with pride over our victories in 67. The last time there seemed to have been near unity of support for Israel. Everybody loves a winner. Israel needs the psychological shock that we cannot count on American protection when it counts and to formulate our geopolitical positions accordingly. That in my opinion will save lives treasure and maybe even ourselves in the near future. Diaspora Jewry will also need to make choices not for us but for themselves.
Just a simple Jew who lives in the land of Israel,in the settlement of Dimona. No enigma. 😉
And while this is taking place, the world clamors for the creation of another unstable islamic state.
Ted, did you hire Yamit as your “bad cop”? The man, at times, talks like a Zealot lunatic.
No, Yamit, I don’t believe Obama should betray Israel so that Dershowitz and all other Jews can jump “off the fence” and into the Mediterranean. If I had suggested something like that, I’m sure everyone on Israpundit would have called me an antisemite; but coming from you, it is treated as God’s wisdom by some here. The Jewish people are on a fence, yes. They are “fiddlers on a roof”, as it were. But they are ALIVE on that fence, which is preferable to being dead off of it.
Ted, I agree with you here for the most part. I am not a lawyer, but I would question your assertion that UN Resolution 141 is completely non-binding on the Jews. True, it was only a resolution, and none of the Arab states accepted it. On the other hand, Prime Minister Ben Gurion accepted it and, I presume, relied heavily upon it in gaining recognition for the State of Israel. I thank God that I am not a lawyer — thinking of them conjures up visions of Mr. Talkinghorn of “Bleak House” and, of course, of the Grim Reaper. Like Death, lawyers are necessary; but only a fool could feel comfortable around them.
Yamit, I know Ted is a lawyer, and I’m sorry I have to say such disparaging things against his profession. What about you? Are you a lawyer? A Mossad provacateur? A geek on disability? A shell-shocked veteran? An Arab? You post more often than I do, and I’m retired. You are something of an enigma.
With friends like Dershowitz who needs enemies.
Let them pass a resolution. I think he is more concerned with his untenable support for Hussein O, than Israel or such a resolution. America against Israel would put him in a box and off the fence. Being against settlement and for two states already makes him an enemy of Israel and Jewry. He has always tried to dance at two weddings and maybe now he will be asked to leave one of them.
Israel should declare the PA, an enemy of the State issue directives accordingly the the IDF and tell them to finish it. The build like there is no tomorrow
So much for agreement!!!
Mubarak’s Wife and Son Flee to London amid Protests