Eli. E. Hertz
The U.S. Administration, the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia’s decision to rewrite history by labeling the Territories ‘Occupied Territories,’ the Settlements as an ‘Obstacle to Peace’ and ‘Not Legitimate,’ thus endowing them with an aura of bogus statehood and a false history. The use of these dishonest loaded terms, empowers terrorism and incites Palestinian Arabs with the right to use all measures to expel Israel.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the European Union Foreign Affairs Chief Catherine Ashton became victims to the ‘Occupation’ mantra their own organization has repeated over and over in their propaganda campaign to legitimize the Arab position.
Continuous pressure by the “Quartet” (U.S., the European Union, the UN and Russia) to surrender parts of the Land of Israel are contrary to international law as stated in the “Mandate for Palestine” document, that in article 6 firmly call to “encourage … close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.” It also requires, under Article 5 of the Mandate to “seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the government of any foreign power.”
Any attempt by the World Leaders to negate the Jewish people’s right to Palestine – Eretz-Israel, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations, is a serious infringement of international law, and as such – illegitimate.
The “Mandate for Palestine” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right under international law to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law. Fifty-one member countries – the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:
“Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine”:
“Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.” [italics in the original]
Six months before the War of Independence in 1948, Palestinian Arabs launched a series of riots, pillaging, and bloodletting. Then came the invasion of seven Arab armies from neighboring states attempting to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in accordance with the UN’s 1947 recommendation to Partition Palestine, a plan the Arabs rejected.
The Jewish state not only survived, it came into possession of territories – land from which its adversaries launched their first attempt to destroy the newly created State of Israel.
Israel’s citizens understood that defeat meant the end of their Jewish state before it could even get off the ground. In the first critical weeks of battle, and against all odds, Israel prevailed on several fronts.
The metaphor of Israel having her back to the sea reflected the image crafted by Arab political and religious leaders’ rhetoric and incitement. Already in 1948 several car bombs had killed Jews, and massacres of Jewish civilians underscored Arab determination to wipe out the Jews and their state.
6,000 Israelis died as a result of that war, in a population of 600,000. One percent of the Jewish population was gone. In American terms, the equivalent is 3 million American civilians and soldiers killed over an 18-month period.
Israel’s War of Independence in 1948 was considered lawful and in self-defence as may be reflected in UN resolutions naming Israel a “peace loving State” when it applied for membership at the United Nations. Both the Security Council (4 March, 1949, S/RES/69) and the UN General Assembly (11 May, 1949, (A/RES/273 (III)) declared:
“[Security Council] Decides in its judgment that Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter …”
In June 1967, the combined armies of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan attacked Israel with the clear purpose expressed by Egypt’s President: “Destruction of Israel.” At the end of what is now known as the Six-Day War, Israel, against all odds, was victorious and in possession of the territories of Judea and Samaria [E.H., The West Bank], Sinai and the Golan Heights.
International law makes a clear distinction between defensive wars and wars of aggression. More than half a century after the 1948 War, and more than four decades since the 1967 Six-Day War, it is hard to imagine the dire circumstances Israel faced and the price it paid to fend off its neighbors’ attacks.
Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) states the following facts:
“The facts of the June 1967 ‘Six Day War’ demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt’s prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR’s [The state formed by the union of the republics of Egypt and Syria in 1958] use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF.
“It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated.
“The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest.”
Judge Sir Elihu Lauterpacht wrote in 1968, one year after the 1967 Six-Day War:
“On 5th June, 1967, Jordan deliberately overthrew the Armistice Agreement by attacking the Israeli-held part of Jerusalem. There was no question of this Jordanian action being a reaction to any Israeli attack. It took place notwithstanding explicit Israeli assurances, conveyed to King Hussein through the U.N. Commander, that if Jordan did not attack Israel, Israel would not attack Jordan.
“Although the charge of aggression is freely made against Israel in relation to the Six-Days War the fact remains that the two attempts made in the General Assembly in June-July 1967 to secure the condemnation of Israel as an aggressor failed. A clear and striking majority of the members of the U.N. voted against the proposition that Israel was an aggressor.”
International law makes it clear: All of Israel’s wars with its Arab neighbors were in self-defence.
Professor, Judge Schwebel, wrote in What Weight to Conquest:
“(a) a state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense;
“(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense;
“(c) Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.
“… as between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt.”
Professor Schwebel explains that the principle of “acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible” must be read together with other principles:
“… namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.”
Simply stated: Arab illegal aggression against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel, cannot and should not be rewarded.
Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on the Law of Nations, stated:
“Territorial Rights Under International Law…. By their [Arab countries] armed attacks against the State of Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, and by various acts of belligerency throughout this period, these Arab states flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members to refrain from threat or use of force against Israel’s territorial integrity and political independence. These acts were in flagrant violation inter alia of Article 2(4) and paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the same article.”
Thus, under international law Israel acted lawfully by exercising its right to self-defence when it redeemed and legally reoccupied Judea and Samaria, known also as the West Bank.
How does “plugging away” turn the land where the settlements are built into Israeli land unless Israel annexes the land? When successive Israeli governments have agreed that the West Bank is “negotiable”, how do you then unilaterally build legally on land that may not be yours?
A major obstacle in spreading the brutal truth about the fact that the Palestinians have no intentions of any peace agreement that includes Israel are liberal American Jews, who have considerable influence in the mainstream media, and the Obama Democrats. These are the “useful idiots” for the radical Palestinians.
Having seen what was there before the settlements – nothing save a barren wilderness – I know what a hollow and false claim it is that these “settlements” (more like townships) are “illegal”. They break no law. They are mostly built on state land – and who is the state if not Israel? Some like Har Homa are built on land bought by the Jews.
All we can do is keep plugging away at the point that our settlements are perfectly lawful – and a considerable improvement on what was there before!
The ink on the Balfour declaration document had not dried up yet, that the British Orientalists of the Foreign Office were already feverishly undermining all its recommendations. This has been going since then and is still going on as I write this comment. She carries well her name, this Perfidious Albion.
England, however, is not the only one behaving in this fashion.
THANK YOU ISRAPUNDIT “Blog Archive” World Leaders Ignore International Law! We are grateful that our friend Gerald Honigman forwarded your latest issue above. We are in complete agreement with its content: We agree that “Any attempt by those “World Leaders” [such as Obama/Hilary Clinton, the infamous UN’s Ban Ki Moon, and the EUs Foreign Affairs Chief Catherine Ashton]to negate the Jewish people’s RIGHT TO PALESTINE- ERETZ-Israel, and to deny them access + control in the area designated for the Jewish People by the League of Nations, is a SERIOUS INFRINGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW and as such illegitimate”:
1. “WHO STARTS WAR DOES MATTER”.
2. “Israel has the better title to the territory of what WAS Palestine, INCLUDING THE WHOLE OF JERUSALEM. INTERNATIONAL LAW MAKES IT CLEAR: ALL THE ISRAEL’S WARS WITH TS NEIGHBORS WERE IN SELF DEFENSE”.
3. “NO LEGAL RIGHT SHALL SPRING FROM A WRONG”.
4. “UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW ISRAEL ACTED LAWFULLY BY EXERCISING ITS RIGHTS TO SELF-DEFENSE WHEN IT REDEEMED & LEGALLY REOCCUPIED JUDEA AND SAMARIa, known as the West Bank”.
We agree with Ted Belman that “The notion that Jewish communities pose an obstacle to peace is a RED HERRING designed to blame Israel for lack of progress in the “Peace Process” and enable Palestinian leadership to continue to reject any form of compromise and reconciliation with Israel as a Jewish state”.
We add that Israel, which is the ONLY TRUE DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST, IS THE ENVY OF THE REST OF THE MUSLIM WORLD: instead of acquiring general education and common sense (which their “religion” does not allow), they choose murder and aggression to steal land that never was theirs according to the Bible and proven historical FACTS. It is easier to ignore the truth, especially when other nations in the world are as greedy and lying as they are. Obama and Ban Ki Moon are a case in point.
Protecting the evil empire of Islam, which adheres to sharia law, killing in the name of Allah and abusing innocent girls, women and other people, has been contagious to the non-muslim peoples, who covet oil, as they cower to Islam. They need to recognize the courage and the achievements of Israel, who gave so much to the world as the first monotheist religion in the world, and has endured and SURVIVED THE HOLOCOST. Israel will survive its ennemies. Given the chaos caused by Islam, which covets ownership of the entire world in the name of Allah, it is up to the people of the world, who respect truth, honesty, and fairness, to stand up and support Israel, as so many are already doing: Facebook is the proof that some peole are honest, and they do not include the mesmerized democrats of the United States of America, or the United Nations…
CARMEN WAGGONER, PH.d. and TERRY WAGGONER, Ph.D.
American Eagle,
I agree with you. Israel was in a sound position after defeating Nassar in 1967. It’s ironic that the “hero” of that war, Moshe Dayan, ended up being Israel’s greatest traitor when he turned over the Temple Mount to the Arabs. That was the impetus for the de-legitimization process that continues to this day. Israel did not exercise common sense then, and has not done so since; so it is a small wonder that even Israel’s enemies are confused about how to deal with her.
You said you wondered why Israel has not annexed Judea and Samaria. A better question might be, why the US hasn’t simply annexed Israel. They are a US dependency, and most Israelis seem to WANT to be a US dependency. If Israel were our 51st state, at least they wouldn’t have to worry about whether or not we would veto resolutions against her. They would also quickly become the leaders of the US economy — both civilian and military. Ironically, this would be bad for American Jewish aliyah to Israel, as more Israeli Jews would be likely to move to the old 50 states than the other way around. If that’s the condition of the Jewish heart, though, what does aliyah matter anyway?
The Jewish people don’t know what they want: That’s the problem, in a nutshell.
….and here in CANADA some of the diologue from so called experts is alarming. On CBC there was a discussion as to how Israel would react if……….and they gave different scenarios painting Israelis like cold blooded wannabe killers……….good-bye CBC……you can kiss my royal derrier goodbye!These idiots don’t know the difference between being STRONGER in your convictions than the Islamic KILLERS who are willing to die for their cause. What cause? What ACTUAL cause have they ever presented that sane and rational people could possible agree to? You can’t reason with unreasoning animals but you CAN stand up and fight regardless of what Ms Clinton and the rest of the obviously irrational people expect from Israel. Hey Ms Clinton PRACTICE what you preach – you HYPOCRITE!!
I don’t remember the San Remo conference in 1920 saying anything about “western Palestine”–the resolution simply called for the [re]establishment of the Jewish national home in Palestine.
The League of Nations then charged Britain with implementing the Palestine Mandate (which basically echoed the San Remo Resolution).
But in 1921 the Brits turned around and “gave” 3/4 of the Palestine Mandate area to Abdullah, a Hashemite Arabian emir who was kicked out of the Arabian peninsula by the Sauds. (The Brits had previously installed Abdullah’s brother Faisal as king of Iraq.) This area east of the Jordan River was called TransJordan, and later, simply Jordan.
There was no restriction in the original League mandate that the Jews could only settle west of the Jordan River! But of course it soon developed that the Arabs (with British collusion) wanted to restrict the Jews to even smaller areas.
And now? Yes, great pressure for Jews to restrict themselves to a sliver of the land west of the Jordan River…
TOOOOOO BAD BAD BAD… that ISRAEL has not a single TRUE ZIONIST diplomat.
ALL Israeli diplomats worth a stinky toilet paper.
It’s amazing how TheLeft has managed to destroy the LEGACY of the BEST EVER Zionist Diplomat ISRAEL has ever had —- The Legendary ABA EBAN(1949-1959).
The following brilliant Zionist Diplomats with a capital ‘D’…. Michael Comay(1960-67), Gideon Rafael(1967-1968), Yoseph Tekoa(1968-1975),Chaim Herzog(1975-1978) were the Pride of Israel.
And what’s today ? Like I said, Israel has no diplomats, only less than ordinary Civil Servants installed in the foreign service thru family connections in the Leftist establishment.
ISRAEL SHOULD NEVER AGREE TO THE SO CALLED 2 STATE SOULOTION THERE IS NO SUCH SOLATION THE ARAB REAL GOAL TO EILEMNATE ISRAEL AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE THE EU AND CLINTON PRETEND THEY LOVE ISRAEL IN MY OPINON THEYRE NOTHING BUT ANTI SEMITES
From Meet the Press:
Steven L:
Oil is important, but it does not play as decisive a role as many assume.
The Arab and Moslem oil producers don’t produce much of anything else that the world wants. That is why any who don’t have oil are economic basket cases (e.g., Egypt, Jordan, Syria). That is why Israel’s economy is larger than all of her immediate neighbors combined.
Point being: The Arabs have to sell the oil anyway, or they go broke. The ’73 embargo wound up hurting them more than it hurt us. We can stand up to them. The oil weapon really isn’t so fearsome. The only real fearsome aspect is not an embargo – again, their economies can’t sustain that any better than ours can, if not even less – but terrorism or radical Moslem regimes that might ignore economics and attack oil chokepoints anyway. That is when we act militarily to crush them, or, when we develop the resources we have such that we don’t need them any more. Unfortunately, we may not have the military capability on hand at present to do the former promptly, and it will take years for us to do the latter. That we are so unprepared in either case, that we lack the will and common sense to be able to do either, is our fault, and we need to move to correct this. The present leadership in the U.S. certainly will do neither. Their solution to everything: beat up on Israel! Kiss Moslem booty! If these don’t work….keep doing them anyway!
The Arab governments know their “oil weapon” is a paper tiger. Recently – I forget the precise point of contention – there was some row between the UK and Saudi Arabia over something. The Saudis didn’t brandish the oil weapon. Instead, they told the British that they would make it easier for Islamic terrorists to travel to Britain. And the British backed down!!!
That is what they – the Arabs – threaten nowadays. ‘Don’t give us what we want, and we send you more terrorists’. It is the height of cowardice that we do not respond to this in the most forceful way. Britain should have told Saudia: “You do that, and we will treat that as the act of war that it is. And we will respond accordingly.”
We should have invaded Saudi Arabia in the wake of 9-11. That was what OBL wanted us to do, thinking that he would “defeat” us there the same way he believes that “he” defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan. We should have obliged him. Because he didn’t defeat the Soviets. Without our money, guns, Stinger missiles, etc., the Soviets would have crushed the mujahadeen and probably waxed Osama in the process. I often wonder how history might have turned out differently if we had just let the Soviets win in Afghanistan, if we weren’t so determined to “pay them back” for Vietnam, which really is what motivated us to help the Afghans.
The oil issue is mostly an excuse used by various actors for not standing up to the towel-heads. It is really a combination of fear of terrorism, liberal left bullshit ideology that casts Israel as the ‘imperialist’ bad guy in the region as part of the general anti-Western narrative of the left (who now run the executive branch of the U.S.), personal greed (i.e., an appetite for petrodollars in Swiss bank accounts, passed under the table), and good old fashioned anti-Jewish bigotry expressed as “anti-Zionism”, that are the drivers of this insane anti-Israel behavior on the part of world leaders.
AE:
Point taken that the behavior of Israeli leaders has to some degree confused the issue in the minds of world public opinion. But this is a minor factor compared with the fact of the billions spent – the Saudis themselves reportedly spend $2 billion EVERY YEAR, just in the U.S. alone, on efforts to obscure the nature of their society, to promote Islam, and to demonize Israel. The Saudis endow no less than three chairs at Harvard alone.
The aggressive PR/media campaign against Israel, that has been going on for decades, that dominates the major media outlets and academic communities throughout the Western world, has a lot more to do with the extent to which the public is “confused” as to the true nature of the conflict, than any mistakes made by Israeli leaders.
The Israelis might do a better job of making their case in the public sphere, but there is only so much they can do by themselves. This is particularly true when the media won’t report on what they say accurately in any event.
Consider the recognition issue. You know – we all know here in this forum – that the fundamental issue preventing any real progress on peace between Israel and the PA is the fact that the PA refuses to recognize Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state. This is not a sufficient condition for peace, but it is a fundamentally necessary condition. I would say it is the MOST fundamental issue. Without this, nothing else matters.
Israeli leaders going back to Rabin have publicly discussed this issue. Rabin would not have signed Oslo if Arafat hadn’t promised to amend the PNC accordingly. Olmert nearly walked out of the ’07 talks over this, and only stayed under extreme pressure from Bush. Netanyahu has repeatedly raised this issue in speech after speech, and even offered to reinstate the freeze in exchange for recognition. By all rights, Palestinian intransigence over recognition should be the issue that is front and center in the court of world opinion as THE obstacle to peace, yet the media barely covers this or mentions it at all. Where is the UNSCR requiring the PA to recognize Israel as a Jewish state? Why aren’t the leaders displayed above talking about this?
The Israeli leaders can’t tackle this alone. It is up to her supporters abroad, working at the grassroots level, to bring this issue to people’s attention. It would be helpful if the larger, mainstream Israel advocacy organizations, such as AIPAC, made more of an effort this way, but they have become stupid and complacent. All they seem to know how to do anymore is raise money to pay their own fat salaries.
The entire world economy depends on the free flow of oil. Oil will always matter until the US unleashes its own oil reserves which exceed that of the entire middle-east combined but are being held hostage by the extreme environmentalists.
The release of the Libyan criminal (downing of Pan Am 103) is one more evidence that oil is what matters.
How many evidences do we need?
Israel is inconveniently at the right place at the wrong time.
As a non-Jewish supporter of Israel I can tell you that the settlements issue confuses non-Israelis and makes no sense to them, whereas Israelis seem to be self-righteously blind to the issue.
The problem arises because Israel has overtly or tacitly conceded that the West Bank is a disputed territory subject to “negotiations” at some point. It was the same in Gaza. To make matters worse, when Israel withdrew from Gaza it destroyed its settlements before leaving.
No one outside Israelis believe that the Palestine Mandate or Law of War apply any more because they have been superceded by several other precedents which unfortunately, successive Israeli governments have agreed to.
The obvious question becomes, how can Israel be building and expanding settlements as and when they like in territories that they have agreed are subject to negotiations, i.e. may not be rightfully theirs, and doing so without consulting those they would be negotiating with over how to divide these territories.
It would have been much better if Israel had simply annexed the West Bank and Gaza after acquiring these areas in self-defense, and deported any radical Arabs who did not want to live in peace in an Israeli territory – similar to the Arabs who live in Israel proper. That would have been a better status quo than the muddy and confusing one that persists right now.
The fact is that there is unlikely to be any change in the status quo because the radical Palestinians who control events on their side have no intentions of accepting any agreement that includes Israel. They have made that clear in their founding charters.
So, what is there to “negotiate”????
Unfortunately, the Israeli government has been unwilling or unable to convince very many people that the Palestinians have no intentions of accepting any peace agreement that includes Israel. Thus the underlying assumption in their attitude is that the Palestinians are interested in a negotiated settlement, the Israelis are intransigent, but there will be a mutually negotiated peace some day.
Israelis who do not understand this basic fact will never understand where anyone else is coming from.
They are no victims. Oil is the issue and nothing else. And they care less about humans and Jews in particular.
By the way, I seem to have lost the privilege of proofreading my posts. Sorry for the errors.
So much for who started the 1967 war. Egypt blockaded the straits of Tiran, thereby starting a war with Israel. Israel’s blockade of Gaza is also an act of war, in response to numerous acts of war by the Gazans against Israel. Turkey’s attempt to forcibly break that blockade was also an act of war against Israel. As the Bible says,
“Why do the [United] Nations Why rage, And the peoples meditate a vain thing? The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together, against Hashem and against his anointed.” — Psalm 2