By Ted Belman
Israel is the legal owner of all lands west of the Jordan River, as the San Remo Resolution of 1920, The Palestine Mandate of 1922 and Section 80 of the United Nations Charter prove.
After the Six Day War in 1967, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) weighed in with Resolution 242 to set the parameters for the achievement of peace among the Arab states in the area. The Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs published Understanding UN Security Council Resolution 242 which is the most definitive analysis of this resolution anywhere.
In it, the UNSC allowed Israel to remain in occupation of the acquired land until she had agreements with all the Arab states in the area for “secure and recognized boundaries.” But even then, she need not withdraw from all territories. Thus, Israel’s “occupation” cannot be considered as illegal as she has the permission of the Security Council to remain there.
It also called for “a just settlement of the refugee issue,” but did not make mention of a Palestinian people nor require a peace agreement with them, nor call for the creation of a Palestinian state.
Finally, it included one noteworthy recital: “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.…”
But there is no such principle in law. To the contrary, in a defensive war, which this undeniably was, the defender gets to keep the lands acquired. In any event, a recital is not an operative clause.
Recitals are meant as background only. Normally, one would expect that Israel’s legal rights would have been noted in a recital but they weren’t. Particularly so when this war, which was commenced in 1948, was all about terminating Israel’s existence. Surely, Israel’s legal rights should have been recited.
All subsequent peace efforts, including the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap to Peace 2005, were merely pathways to ending the Arab/Israel conflict according to Resolution 242.
Yet the international discourse today is all about Israel’s “illegal occupation” and the need to create a Palestinian state. No mention is made of Israel’s regal rights or the right to have “secure and recognized boundaries”. It’s all about the “oppressed Palestinians” and the “brutal Israelis”.
In my article, Since when did the Palestinians become entitled to a state?, I traced this development. It started in the Rogers Plan (1969) and was furthered in the Reagan Plan (1982) and the Oslo Accords. The Rogers Plan actually referred to these lands as “Arab territory occupied in the 1967 war.” which it wasn’t and isn’t.
Essentially the US State Department, egged on by Saudi Arabia, ignored the true meaning of Resolution 242 and called for the creation of a Palestinian State and Israel’s full withdrawal. The State Department never mentions Israel’s legal rights but is quick to mention Israel’s so called “illegal settlements” and “illegal occupation”.
Even the Abraham Accords and the peace agreements signed in accordance with them made no mention of either Israel’s legal rights or her right to insist on “secure boundaries”.
President Trump supported “secure boundaries” for Israel and so recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights as legitimate and warranted and went so far as to allow Israel to annex the Jordan Valley. Even so, he still allowed, for a Palestinian state.
Robert L Meyer recently wrote 25 Years After Oslo: The Elephant in the Room. The elephant in the room is the Koran:
“The Koran, chapter 2, verse 191 states: “Drive them out from where they drove you out.”
“Islamic scholars universally have interpreted this verse to mean that once land becomes Islamic, by conquest or otherwise, it stays Islamic forever and that Muslims must drive out any non-Muslim government that takes power in a land once ruled under Islamic law.
“For these reasons, the exchange of Muslim “Land for Peace” with Israel simply is impossible under Islam.”
It is for this reason the Anwar Sadat demanded the return of “every square inch” of the Sinai in the Camp David Accords and Arafat turned down PM Barak’s offer made in 2000 of 97% of the land.
Going forward, Israel has announced its intention to annex the Jordan Valley, thereby achieving secure boundaries. The international hue and cry will be enormous.
The international community is quick to condemn Israel’s alleged violation of non-existing international laws while at the same time it ignores recognized international law cited in the first paragraph above.
The rule of law has become the misrule of law.
Thank you so much for citing the Koran which every Moslems considers to be the literal word of his god, Allah. There is also Koran 9:29 which commands Moslems to make war on the Jews (and Christians, too) and subjugate them to Islamic rule. The verse you cited, and this one, together, constitute the main reason for the conflict over Israel and the reason why there has never been peace and never will be.
There iS so much more I could have said but I was constrained by the word limit at Newsmax.
I am going to add an addendum to cover the so-called illegal settlements.
You are so very right. The problem today is that it is now worldwide and like that in all nations. America is a mess.
BRAVO, Ted!
Excellent history lesson for anyone being indoctrinated with revisionist history. It is not true that a lie told often enough becomes the truth. A lie is a lie no matter how often it is repeated. All that happens is that people start believing the lie. Revisionist history is a lie no matter how often it is repeated, or by whom. Israel has done an extraordinary job protecting itself militarily. It is not so successful protecting itself from the liars. I have never understood why the Israeli government and her diplomats do not tell the world over and over and over again, exactly what you say in this article – every day, in every meeting, at every world conference. The truth is its own defense, and silence always protects the liar and his lies. Why not repeat the truth often enough so that people start believing the truth??
@Ted
An excellent exposition of the folly which has placed Israel in a supporting role of her own dismemberment.
Recall what Locke says in “The Two Treatises of Civil Government”:
The consequence of this understanding is that any action taken beyond the rule of law requires that it be exposed as extra judicial and opposed for this very reason. Failing to do so implicates even the victim of such legal charades as being complicit in their own subjugation.
Hence, Israel needs to retake the authority surrounding her own sovereignty, thus demanding that the international community return to the implementation of the rule of law rather than the highway banditry which they have for too long employed as the standard by which their will is exercised in its place.
There is no need for Israel to annex itself. The territory in question was in fact annexed to Israel both when it was liberated from foreign occupation in 1967 and when this annexation was internationally recognized in the peace- and border treaty with Jordan in 1994. It is somewhat unfortunate that it has become a common practice to pretend that the territory has a status as “disputed,” which is a consequence of the acceptance of a possibly legitimate “Palestinian” claim to sovereignty over it. This claim has no basis in international law, as has neither a need by Israel to annex it again. It is up to Israel to decide on the application of law to the territory, whether civil or military. The fact that the Israeli Government has abstained from applying Israeli law in full, pending a possible agreement with the PA, does not in itself create a need for any further act of annexation. (Cf. Brownlie and Black)
This is why Israel has no reason to seek recourse in any so-called international Court. By appearing before such a court, Israel accepts the verdict handed down but there is no option of justice. Even a nice compromise is a lost case.