|
Wall Street Journal
original article
DECEMBER 30, 2009, 6:11 A.M. ET
Israel's Right in the 'Disputed' Territories
By DANNY AYALON
The recent statements by the European Union's new foreign relations chief
Catherine Ashton criticizing Israel have once again brought international
attention to Jerusalem and the settlements. However, little appears to be
truly understood about Israel's rights to what are generally called the
"occupied territories" but what really are "disputed territories."
What he calls settlements the rest of the world calls squattertowns. As to
their being disputed, Israel is the only country in the world which
considers there to be a dispute over the land. Futher he is not expressing
the official, legal position of the government of Israel. In short, he is
lying.
That's because the land now known as the West Bank cannot be considered
"occupied" in the legal sense of the word as it had not attained recognized
sovereignty before Israel's conquest. Contrary to some beliefs there has
never been a Palestinian state, and no other nation has ever established
Jerusalem as its capital despite it being under Islamic control for hundreds
of years.
If it cannot be considered occupied in the legal sense of the term why is it
the Attorney General and Supreme Court of Israel consider the land occupied?
Why does he think he can get away with this lie?
If it is not considered occupied by what right does Israel act in these territories?
The name "West Bank" was first used in 1950 by the Jordanians when they
annexed the land to differentiate it from the rest of the country, which is
on the east bank of the river Jordan. The boundaries of this territory were
set only one year before during the armistice agreement between Israel and
Jordan that ended the war that began in 1948 when five Arab armies invaded
the nascent Jewish State. It was at Jordan's insistence that the 1949
armistice line became not a recognized international border but only a line
separating armies. The Armistice Agreement specifically stated: "No
provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims,
and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the
Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated
exclusively by military considerations." (Italics added.) This boundary
became the famous "Green Line," so named because the military officials
during the armistice talks used a green pen to draw the line on the map.
After the Six Day War, when once again Arab armies sought to destroy Israel
and the Jewish state subsequently captured the West Bank and other
territory, the United Nations sought to create an enduring solution to the
conflict.
It has been established over and over that Israel started the 1967 war and
in 1967 Israel was publicly proud of it although defended it as a necessity.
Just a few years ago it was revealed that Syria wanted no part of that war
but was in fact attacked by Israel. Far from being at risk of destruction,
the 1967 war was an israeli war of expansion.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 is probably one of the most
misunderstood documents in the international arena. While many, especially
the Palestinians, push the idea that the document demands that Israel return
everything captured over the Green Line, nothing could be further from the
truth. The resolution calls for "peace within secure and recognized
boundaries," but nowhere does it mention where those boundaries should be.
That is true as far as it goes. It is also true no place does it say
Israel's borders should be greater than they are. There is no implication
save in the fevered Israeli imagination that its borders should increase
rather than remain the same or decrease. As for secure, the green line has
been secure for 43 years meaning there is no cause to change them.
In consideration of the 1967 war being an attack by ISrael upon its
neighbors it appears most reasonable the neighbors are in need of secure
borders to aid defense against another Israeli attack.
It is best to understand the intentions of the drafters of the resolution
before considering other interpretations. Eugene V. Rostow, U.S.
Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in 1967 and a drafter of the
resolution, stated in 1990: "Security Council Resolution 242 and (subsequent
U.N. Security Council Resolution) 338... rest on two principles, Israel may
administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace
is made, Israel should withdraw to "secure and recognized borders," which
need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 194."
Lord Caradon, the British U.N. Ambassador at the time and the resolution's
main drafter who introduced it to the Council, said in 1974 unequivocally
that, "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its
positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and
artificial."
But time has shown they are sufficient regardless of his opinion 36 years
ago.
The U.S. ambassador to the U.N. at the time, former Supreme Court Justice
Arthur Goldberg, made the issue even clearer when he stated in 1973 that,
"the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without
defining the extent of withdrawal." This would encompass "less than a
complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as
Israel's prior frontiers had proven to be notably insecure."
Again, overtaken by events. They have proven to be secure. There is a reason
for this. Warfare today is tanks and helicopters. Lines on the ground have
little meaning these days.
Even the Soviet delegate to the U.N., Vasily Kuznetsov, who fought against
the final text, conceded that the resolution gave Israel the right to
"withdraw its forces only to those lines it considers appropriate."
This sounds so much in Israel's favor. How to lie with the truth is the job
of an ambassador. So what is wrong with it?
Where does it say any other country is bound by the same considerations?
Where does it say Israel must become larger as a consequence?
But wait! There's more!
These provisions are in regard to matters between Jordan and Israel. Shortly
after the first Gulf War Jordan renounced all territorial claims to the West
Bank. Jordan did not renounce its claims in favor of any Palestinian
political entity.
This entire resolution is null and void so why bring it up? It makes for a
superficially legitimate lies.
There is even more!
If this provision governs then ALL the refugees, all the Palestinians driven
out by Isael, have a right to return to their homes and reclaim their
personal property or compensation at THEIR choice. Izzies, at least
the murderous thieving Zionists, want it all their way. It is insurance that
should they some day develop consciences there will be something to fall
back upon.
After the war in 1967, when Jews started returning to their historic
heartland in the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, as the territory had been
known around the world for 2,000 years until the Jordanians renamed it, the
issue of settlements arose.
Fact is, should anyone care to review the history of the region, the land
was known as Palestine at least 2500 years ago and reported by Herodotus.
The name Judea only appears in history after the Roman Pompey arrives in the
region in the early-mid 1st c. BC roughly four centuries after Herodotus.
One can also review the gospel story of the Good Samaritan and without much
deep thought learn the Samaritan's got their name from their land, Samaria.
They were not followers of the Judean Yahweh cult and thus despised by the
Judeans. They had their own Yahweh cult and still do to this day although
their numbers are dwindling to the point of extinction. This was not always
the case. Pilate was required to put down a revolt by them before the
Judeans got their revolting act together.
Also Jordan did not rename it. Reference to the East Bank is simply
descriptive as is the West Bank of the Seine in Paris or the East Side in
New York City. One would expect a Deputy foreign minister to know such
things.
However, Rostow found no legal impediment to Jewish settlement in these
territories. He maintained that the original British Mandate of Palestine
still applies to the West Bank. He said "the Jewish right of settlement in
Palestine west of the Jordan River, that is, in Israel, the West Bank,
Jerusalem, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and
cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its
neighbors." There is no internationally binding document pertaining to this
territory that has nullified this right of Jewish settlement since.
It is unclear where this comes from. Britain sought and received the
termination of the League of Nations mandate in 1948. That is why they left
in 1948. Britain has never claimed rights under that mandate since then.
Perhaps if this jewish Rostow were still alive he could inform Britain of
the fact the mandate is still in force. At the same time he can inform the
government of Israel that Britain is still the ultimate authority in
bibleland.
And yet, there is this perception that Israel is occupying stolen land and
that the Palestinians are the only party with national, legal and historic
rights to it.
One has to ask how a late 19th c. jewish political movement obtained legal
rights to the land of the Palestinians. As for historic rights there is no
such thing in international law. If there were America would have historical
territorial rights to Europe as most of its population came from Europe.
Not only is this morally and factually incorrect, but the more this
narrative is being accepted, the less likely the Palestinians feel the need
to come to the negotiating table. Statements like those of Lady Ashton's are
not only incorrect; they push a negotiated solution further away.
In the world of diplomacy of which this man is a member there are no morals
because everyone is acting morally and god is on both sides of every war.
This is a propaganda appeal to religion. As to the facts, he has lied using
the facts by saying just enough about them to give a false impression.
Mr. Ayalon is the deputy foreign minister of Israel.
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
|