When it comes to Israel: "World Leaders Ignore International Law".(MythsandFacts).By 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.
The Jewish People's Right to the
Land of Israel
The "Mandate for Palestine"
& the Law of War
United
Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, United States President Barack
Obama, 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.
International
Law - The "Mandate for
Palestine"
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]
Law
of War - Arab Unlawful Acts of Aggression in 1948
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 ..."
Arab Unlawful Acts of Aggression
in 1967
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.
Who Starts Wars Does
Matter
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."
Israel Has the Better Title to the Territory
of Palestine, Including the Whole of Jerusalem
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."
"(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."
"No legal Right Shall Spring from a
Wrong"
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.
Legalities aside, before 1967 there were no Jewish settlements
in the West Bank, and for the first ten years of so-called occupation
there were almost no Jewish settlers in the West Bank. And still there was no
peace with the Palestinians. 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.
Guest Comment:
This is a history lesson that must be repeated over and over
again so the "pundits" and the media finally GET IT! These facts
have been conveniently forgotten – by Jews and non-Jews alike - in order to
delegitimize Israel.
Why would Jews
rather see Israel as a vassal of the Arab world than as an independent Jewish
State is beyond all comprehension.
Before 1967,
the year Israel redeemed the land of Judea and Samaria (to which many who are up
to delegitimize Israel call "West Bank"), an ancient Jewish land that by modern
international law belongs to the Jewish nation, there were no Jewish settlements
in what Jordan named West Bank, and for the first ten years of the so-called
occupation, following the Six Day War, there were almost no Jewish settlers in
the West Bank. Yet, there was no peace with the Arab-Palestinians.
The notion that Jewish communities built in Judea and Samaria pose an
obstacle to peace is a red herring designed to blame Israel for lack of progress
in the 'Peace Process' and enable Arab- Palestinian leadership to continue to
reject any form of compromise and reconciliation with Israel as a Jewish
state.
Nurit G.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment