|
Despite the common misconception, God did not create Heaven and Earth during the 6 days of the 1967 war, and starting that late in history distorts one’s understanding of the Middle East conflict. Thus, let’s start from the beginning.
We’ve all heard the Biblical story about the origin of the Hebrew nation: Egyptian enslavement, God’s punishment of the Pharaoh, 40 years in the desert, conquest of Jericho and other Canaanite lands by Joshua, etc. There is just a small problem with the story: there is no evidence of Jewish presence in Egypt or in the Sinai desert.
|
One would think that after hundreds of years in Egypt and 40 years in Sinai, Hebrews would’ve left traces of their culture – but they did not. Furthermore, we now have evidence that by the time Joshua came to Jericho, its walls were already destroyed by an earthquake, so they were not magically destroyed by the noise from the Hebrew’s horns. And most importantly, Land of Canaan was occupied by Egypt at it’s height of power. To suggest that Hebrews were able to defeat the Egyptians and establish a state in part of Egypt is like suggesting that a group of gypsy migrants could attack the United States, conquer Florida and establish a state there. Such a claim is ridiculous! The Bible is wrong. So what happened?
During the Egyptian rule of Canaan, it re-organized the community. As a result, many peasants were left homeless and had to live in their caravans. Egyptians began calling them “caravan people.” The ancient Egyptian word for caravan people was Hebrew (pronounced Hapiru by ancient Egyptians). [1]
Hebrews were not a separate nation – they were merely peasant Canaanites who were left homeless. [Id.] They made their residence in the Judean desert, which was part of the Egyptian empire at the time. According to “Ancient Evidence: Joshua and the Walls of Jericho” [2]: “Joshua and the Hebrews were not conquerors of Canaanites. They were Canaanites.” What separated Hebrews from Canaanites was theology, not genetics: the peasant Canaanite caravan people did not eat pork, they believed in a single God, etc. Other than theology and poverty, Hebrews did not differ from any other Canaanite people. [3] Originally, Hebrews even referred to their God by the word “Baal” which was the name of one of the Canaanite Gods. [4]
Around the time when the Caravan People revolted against the Pharaoh, a series of natural disasters, including massive earthquakes swept through the land. This was interpreted by them as punishment of Egyptians by God. After a few years, Egyptians no longer wanted to hang on to the land that was constantly rocked by huge earthquakes and withdrew. The earthquakes continued on very regular basis for a total of about half a century, which explains why the Hebrews had to wonder around the (Judean) desert for 40 years and could not settle down. At the end of the series of earthquakes, the Caravan People revolted against the urban Canaanites who used to be wealthy before the earthquakes, but were now poor and not as well organized as the peasants. The peasants quickly defeated the urbanites, took over their cities and declared themselves to be “God’s princes.” The word for “God’s Prince” is “Israelite.” [5]
One of Israel’s main rivals in ancient times were the various Greek nations. One of the Greek people were called “Philistines” which means Sea Migrants. The most famous Philistine was Goliath (from the story of David v. Goliath). Philistines were Greeks from Cyprus and Crete who traveled around the Mediterranean Sea. [6] Philistine pottery, architecture, military and their similarities with Homer's Greek heroes together point to Mycenaean Greece as their homeland. [7] Philistines were not Arabs or even Semites. They were Greeks. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs. [8] Around 3,000 years ago, people stopped referring to these Sea Migrants as “Philistines.” The name “Philistine” would lie dead for a thousand years.
In 922 BC, the Kingdom of Israel divides. Judah, the southern Kingdom, has Jerusalem as its capital and is led by Rehoboam. It is populated by the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon (and some of Levi). [9]
Israel (the northern kingdom) fell to the Assyrians in 722 BC and the tribes were expelled. [10] Nobody knows what happened to them. Meanwhile, Benjamin and Simeon merged with the larger Judah tribe and lost their separate identity [11] The word Jew comes from Judah (as in “Juda-ism”). The importance of these events is that the Judah Kingdom was located mostly in the West Bank, so almost all of the Jewish holy places are located there (Rachael’s Tomb in Bethlehem, Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus, Abraham’s Tomb in Hebron, etc.).
In 323 BC, Alexander the Great conquered the Kingdom of Judah. In 135 AD, after putting down the second major Jewish revolt, Romans expelled the Jews and re-named the land. They called it Philistina, to spite the Jews by symbolically making it look like the ancient Philistines finally conquered the Israelites.
It is commonly argued by Palestinians and their supporters that Palestine belongs to them because it is called Palestine and they are called Palestinians. Such argument is preposterous as Arabs did not appear in the land for hundreds of years after the land was called Palestine. Arabs are a people from southern Middle East who came to Palestine between the 7th and the 20th centuries. No independent country called Palestine ever existed. Furthermore, they did not even begin to call themselves Palestinians until the 20th century. This fact can be forgotten by those who believe that history began in 1967.
ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE WEST
Some of the Jews returned to Palestine during the centuries after their expulsion by the Romans. By 1830 the majority of Jerusalem’s population was Jewish, at first merely a relative majority, but subsequently an absolute one. (12) At the same time, Jews were harshly persecuted by the “international community,” including scores of genocides, ethnic cleansings, pogroms, expulsions, etc.
In 1881, Russian Czar Alexander II was murdered at the hands of anti-Semitic communist “Narodnaya Volya” (Russian for “People’s Will”). Naturally, Jews were blamed. A violent wave of anti-Semitic violence swept through Russia and Poland for two years, leading to mass migration of Jews out of Russia and Poland. [13] In 1903, a new wave of anti-Semitic riots swept through Russia, also leading to emigration out of the country. Most Jews went to the United States. Some decided to go back to Palestine.
Meanwhile in France in 1894, Capitan Alfred Dreyfus, the only Jew on the French General Staff was falsely convicted on spying for Germany, despite the government’s knowledge of his innocence. The Dreyfus Affair sparked a wave of anti-Semitism in France. [14]
The affair was followed all over the world. Theodor Herzl, an assimilated, secular Jewish journalist from Vienna who covered the trial. He concluded that assimilation is no protection against anti-Semitism and that even a Jew as well integrated as an officer on the French general staff is not safe from persecution. He comes to believe that Jews will remain strangers in their countries of residence and need a country of their own. His book The Jewish State: A Modern Solution to the Jewish Question is published in 1896 and leads to the founding of the Zionist Organization one year later.
THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS MANDATE
Palestine was ruled by the Ottoman Empire for 400 years. At the end of World War I, the Ottoman Empire and other imperial powers agreed to surrender their colonies. In 1917, Great Britain issued the Belfour Declaration supporting the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people . . . .” [The Belfour Declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”] The original reaction of the Arabs was surprisingly positive. In 1919, Emir Faisal, the son of Sherif Hussein who led the Arab revolt against Turkey, signed a declaration in support of the Belfour Declaration, even supporting all necessary measures “...to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil.” [Faisal’s acceptance of the Balfour Declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”] However, Arabs revolted under the leadership of an open and proud fascist Haj-Amin Al-Husseini [15] from 1920 and 1922, and Great Britain issued the White Paper of 1922, agreeing to give Arabs almost 80% of Palestine, which was severed from the rest of the colony and called Transjordan (later re-named Jordan). [16] All of the land given to Arabs was to the east of the River Jordan.
The League of Nations was entrusted to deal with the future of colonies. The League then issued Mandates to established countries mandating to them how they should help colonies become independent. In 1922, the League issued a Mandate for Palestine. [Attached hereto as Exhibit “C”]
According to the United Nations web site, “the Mandate [for Palestine] had as a primary objective the implementation of the ‘Balfour Declaration’ issued by the British Government in 1917, expressing support for ‘the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people’.” [http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html]
The Mandate supported the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” recognized the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and entrusted Great Britain with establishing a “Zionist organization” that shall be recognized as a “public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home . . . .” [Article 4 of the Mandate]
Article 6 mandated that Britain “facilitate Jewish immigration” and “close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”
Article 5, mandated 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.” This means that Britain and others had no right to divide the territory west of the Jordan River and all must be part of the Jewish National Home, including the West Bank and Gaza.
The Arab people are never mentioned in the Mandate. The Mandate does mention that “civil and religious” of “non-Jewish communities” in Palestine shall be protected. However, no mention of political rights is mentioned.
BRITISH MANDATE PERIOD
The British did not want to put Arabs of Palestine under the leadership of a murderer and a fascist, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who used terror against Jews and Arabs to become the top Moslem cleric in Palestine, despite having absolutely no religious training. [17]
He was a Fascist and the British could not allow him to take power in Transjordan. For ex., in 1933, when fascists came to power in Germany, al-Husseini chose to closely align himself with Nazi Germany. He also organized a short-lived Fascist revolution in Iraq in 1941, thus becoming the man Most Wanted by Great Britain in the Middle East during World War II. [18] He also organized the 13th all-Moslem division of the Nazi SS, which slaughtered over 90% of Bosnian Jewry, as well as hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Croats and Albanian/Kosovo Moslems. [19] [Pictures of the Mufti with Nazis is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”]
Thus, the English brought Abdullah, an Arab from Hejaz (now called Saudi Arabia), and installed him as the King of Transjordan. King Abdullah I was subsequently shot and killed in 1951 by Haj Amin al-Husseini’s people on the Temple Mount while visiting the famous al-Aqsa Mosque. His grandson, Hussein Ibn Talal (King Hussein) was also shot, but survived the assassination attempt. [20] In 1970, Haj Amin al-Husseini’s nephew Yassir Arafat (whose real name is Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa al-Husseini [21]) led a revolution against Jordan’s King Hussein, which was violently crushed in September of 1970. As recently as August 2, 2002, Yassir Arafat called his uncle a “hero.” [22]
While Britain did not support Haj Amin al-Husseini, it did change its official position and became extraordinarily supportive of Arabs in Palestine. In 1938, the Peel Commission offered a plan that gave Jews only a tiny, 1-3 mile strip of land that could not possibly become the Jewish National Home because it was far too small and included only one major city – Haifa, but not Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, etc. [The 1938 Peel Commission Map is attached hereto as Exhibit “E”] Such actions went totally against Article 5 of the Mandate which explicitly state that the British shall not divide the land.
In 1939, it issued the White Paper of 1939, which went completely against the League of Nations Mandate, even though it was explicitely forbidden to changes under Article 27 of the Palestine Mandate. [The White Paper of 1939 is attached hereto as Exhibit “F”] The White Paper stated that Palestine shall not become a Jewish National Home and instead should be converted into an Arab state. While the Mandate order Great Britain to “facilitate Jewish immigration” and “close Jewish settlement,” Britain instead sharply restricted Jewish immigration and ability of Jews to buy land. As a result, many Jews who could’ve found refuge in Palestine had Britain followed the Mandate, wound up in dead in Nazi gas chambers.
UNITED NATIONS PARTITION PLAN (G.A. RESOLUTION 181)
With the United Kingdom breaking all the international legal norms by blatantly violating the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, Zionist leadership decided to put political pressure on Great Britain by getting support for a Jewish state in Palestine. No United Nations resolutions were needed to establish a Jewish state in Palestine because such state could be legally based on the League’s Mandate. However, given UK’s open disregard for the resolution, politically and practically, Zionists needed more. Thus, they began lobbying the United Nations. On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly passed resolution 181 recommending dividion of the land given to Jews under the Mandate. [text and map of the resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit “G”]. Great Britain did not support the resolution. From the legal point of view, the resolution was nothing more than a non-binding recommendation. From a political and practical point of view, the 1947 U.N. partition plan served as reason for Zionists to declare a Jewish State.
The partition plan calls for temporary internationalization of Jerusalem from 1948 to 1958, whereupon a referendum was to be held. (38) As already noted, during the aforementioned decade, the Jewish state fought two wars with its neighbors, and Jerusalem was occupied and divided by Israel and Jordan. Hostilities precluded cooperation between states that was necessary to hold a referendum. No other action acceptable under the partition plan was undertaken during, before or after 1958. Therefore, some argue that in the absence of the referendum, we must look at intent of the partition plan.
Because the resolution calls for a referendum, it is not hard to understand that the intent partition plan was to put Jerusalem under the sovereignty of whatever jurisdiction most Jerusalemites preferred. Indeed, there is no other reasonable explanation of the resolution's intent to hold a referendum. Jerusalem had a Jewish majority in 1948, 1958 and has a Jewish majority today. (39)
Furthermore, in providing for a referendum, resolution 181 followed the same reasoning as UN GA resolution 1514(XV), which stated that "all people have the right to self determination; by virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development." (40) The resolution allows the following method, among others, of self determination: "A non self governing territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self government by ... integration with an independent State." (41)
Palestine was not a self governing territory, as it was either under Ottoman colonization, temporary British rule, temporary international jurisdiction or belligerent occupation. Therefore, Jerusalemites had the right to express their right to self determination.
Few people, including Arabs, would argue that there is a significant number of Jewish Jerusalemites who would vote to place the whole city under Arab sovereignty. This alone would give Israel the required majority in a referendum. Additionally, because Israel has a better track record in human rights and social services than the Palestinian Authority (or any other Arab state), even many Arabs in the holy city prefer that it stay in Israeli hands (42). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the intent of most Jerusalemites is to live under Israeli sovereignty.
However, many oppose looking at the intent of the resolution and instead prefer to look at plain meaning of it. They do not believe that we should make assumptions based on anecdotal evidence, regardless how likely it is to be the truth. Certainly the Palestinian Authority would not foreswear its ambitions on Jerusalem just because in a potential referendum the city would probably remain in Israel's hands.
Furthermore, there above reasoning only applies to the period after 1958. Under the partition plan, until 1958 the legal sovereignty of Jerusalem vested in the international community and no vacuum existed. Because Israel had no right to Jerusalem in 1948, its occupation of west Jerusalem was at least initially illegal. When in 1958 a referendum was not held, either a vacuum or Israeli sovereignty resulted. If we assume that the majority preferred Israel and the intent of the United Nations was to follow the will of the majority, then the occupation of west Jerusalem and then east Jerusalem becomes legal under 181. However, if we assume that a vacuum resulted because a referendum was never held, then the status of Jerusalem is undecided and should be resolved through negotiations or in a legitimate international body. This would make Israel's current occupation of the holy city illegal.
On the other hand, using resolution 181, Palestinians have a hard time arguing that Jerusalem, east or west, is "occupied Palestinian land." Instead, it is at best disputed. If we look to the intent of 181, the holy city is Israeli. If we look at the plain meaning, the city's status is disputed.
Yet even the legitimacy of resolution 181 is disputed. Many argue that it has no legal effect. For one, the United Nations may not have inherited the jurisdiction and powers of the League of Nations vis э vis the mandated territories. Attorney Omar al Taher discussed the issue:
The clear cut answer came from the League of Nations itself which declared at the end of its last session held on April 18, 1946, that "on the termination of the League's existence, its functions with respect to the mandated territories will come to an end."
Duncan Hall, in his book published less than a year after the passage of the partition resolution stated: "In the case of mandates, the League died without a testament . . . . There was no transfer of sovereignty to the United Nations.... Sovereignty, wherever it might lie, certainly did not lie in the United Nations." (43)
Ian Brownlie, a legal expert, argues: "It is doubtful if the UN has a capacity to convey title because it cannot assume the role of a territorial sovereign . . . . Thus the resolution of 1947 containing a Partition plan for Palestine was ultra vires, and, if it was not, was not binding on member states in any case." (44)
Since the partition plan is disputed, certainly any land discussed in it is disputed in the absence of other international law.
On December 5, 1947, a week after Resolution 181 was passed, the U.S. imposed an arms embargo on Israel and its enemies. [23]
On May 15, 1948 the United Kingdom pulled out of Palestine and Zionist leader David Ben Gurion declared an independent Jewish State called Israel.
Immediately after the establishment of the State, the armies of five Arab States invaded Israel. The armies of Jordan (or Transjordan as it then was called) and Egypt operated in the Jerusalem region. The battle for Jerusalem was fierce, partly because, for a time, the Jewish areas were cut off from the coastal plain. The battle for the Old City ended with the surrender of the Jewish Quarter to the forces of the Jordanian Arab Legion.
Even before the fighting abated, Jordan and Israel reached a special agreement under the auspices of the United Nations regarding the Jewish enclave on Mount Scopus. The parties agreed to neutralize this area as well as the adjoining area of the Augusta Victoria hospital which was under Jordanian control, and to assign these areas to United Nations protection.
When the fighting ended, Jordanian forces were in control of the eastern parts of the City, whereas the western sector was under Israeli control. In November 1948, a truce came into force throughout the City, and at the beginning of 1949 Jordan and Israel signed an armistice agreement. This agreement gave rise to various practical as well as legal questions. (24)
In that war, Israel significantly increased in size compared to the 1947 partition plan, but lost over 20% of the land promised to it under the League of Nations Mandate. Arabs successfully occupied the eastern half of Jerusalem, including the Old City. Israel annexed what became known as west Jerusalem, while Jordan annexed what became known as east Jerusalem. (25) While neither annexation was internationally recognized, the occupation has served to change many things. For one, Jordan turned east Jerusalem into an exclusively Arab city by committing ethnic cleansing of the city's Jewry, blowing up 58 synagogues and paving roads with stones from Jewish cemeteries. (26) Additionally, while the world didn't officially recognize the halves as Jewish and Arab, there was a de facto international recognition that the borders that were created as a result of the 1948 war will serve as future borders all countries involved in the conflict.
1956 SUEZ CANAL WAR
In 1955, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser began to import arms from the Soviet Bloc to build his arsenal for the confrontation with Israel. In the short-term, however, he employed a new tactic to prosecute Egypt's war with Israel. He announced it on August 31, 1955:
Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of Pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the land of Palestine....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death.” [28]
These "heroes" were Arab terrorists, or fedayeen, trained and equipped by Egyptian Intelligence to engage in hostile action on the border and infiltrate Israel to commit acts of sabotage and murder.
During the next year, Egypt crossed Israel's border 435 times, killing and injured hundreds of Israelis. [29]
The escalation continued with the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran, and Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956. [30]
In October of 1956, Israel attacked and quickly destroyed the Egyptian army and captured the Sinai. On November 5, 1956 U.K. and France also invaded Egypt because the property nationalized by Gamal Abdel Nasser belonged to French and British citizens. [Id.]
On October 30, 1956, the United States sponsored a resolution calling on Israel to withdraw from Sinai, but France, which was then Israel's closest ally, vetoed the resolution. [Id.] The United States then joined forces with the USSR to get Israel to withdraw from Sinai.
THE 1967 6-DAY WAR
November 7, 1967 was the 50th anniversary of the Communist Revolution in Russia. Soviet leadership decided that the approaching anniversary of the revolution merits a dramatic deed to mark the event, such as a blow on "imperialist forces." Yevgeni Pyrlin, who in 1967 was a senior official at the USSR Foreign Ministry, stated that destruction or at least reduction in size of Israel, would constitute “a serious blow to the prestige of the USA, Israel's main ally which was at that period getting bogged deeper and deeper in the Vietnam war.” [32] This was would also be an embarrassment to West Germany, another one of Israel’s allies.
The Soviet Union purposely agitated Egypt and other Arab states to convince them that Israel will attack. For example, on one occasion the USSR told Syria that Israel has 11-13 division on the Syrian border – which is more than the total number of divisions Israel’s standing army had. [33]
Egypt's force buildup in the Sinai was accompanied by other serious steps: the United Nations Emergency Force stationed on the border between Egypt and Israel and Sharm el-Sheikh in 1957 and which had provided an actual separation between the countries was evacuated on May 19 upon the demands of the Egyptian president at the time, Gamal Abdel-Nasser; the Egyptian navy blocked the Straits of Tiran, located at the end of the Gulf of Eilat, on the night of May 22-23, 1967, preventing the passage of any Israeli vessels; and on May 30, 1967, Jordan joined the Egyptian-Syrian military alliance of 1966 and placed its army on both sides of the Jordan river under Egyptian command. Iraq followed suit. It agreed to send reinforcement and issued a warning order to two brigades: Contingents arrived from other Arab countries including Algeria and Kuwait. Israel was confronted by an Arab force of some 465,000 troops, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft. (34)
A few days before the outbreak of hostilities, Ambassador Chuvakhin, while proclaiming to Israel’s Prime Minister Levy Eshkol declared to the leader of Israel's Communist party (MaKI), Dr. Moshe Sneh: "The war will last 24 hours only and no trace of the State of Israel will be left." [35]
Israel struck first and within 6 days conquered Golan Heights, Gaza, Sinai, West Bank and east Jerusalem. (36) Israel’s territories now included all the land promised by the Mandate, as well as Sinai.
LAW ON ISRAEL’S TAKE-OVER OF 1967 LANDS
1. UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242
On November 22, 1967, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 242, establishing the principles that have internationally been accepted as the guide the negotiations for an Arab Israeli peace settlement. (45) [Attached hereto as Exhibit “H”] While the UN Security Council can make law (whereas the General Assembly can only make recommendations), this particular resolution (and all other United Nations resolutions dealing with land-division in the holy land) was article 6 recommendation (only article 7 resolutions count as law). Despite being only a recommendation, it is considered the most authoritative UN resolution on the land dispute, and was later confirmed by resolution 338 of the Security Council.
This resolution was the product of long negotiations and competing proposals. (46) To understand the intent of the resolution, we must look at the language that appears in the resolution and the language that was discarded.
Among the issues addressed by the Security Council is the "inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war." (47) Some contend that the case for requiring a total Israeli withdrawal from the territories is, therefore, proven.
Such reasoning is false. The goal of resolution 242, as expressed in paragraph 3, is the achievement of a "peaceful and accepted settlement." (48) This, according to Arthur Goldberg the American ambassador who led the delegation to the UN in 1967 and a former U.S. Supreme Court Justice means a negotiated agreement based on the resolution's principles rather than one imposed upon the parties. (49)
Additionally, the clause applies to Arabs just as much as it applies to Israel, meaning that their illegal occupation of 1948 cannot be ratified. Furthermore, Israel did not acquire the territory by war, but merely got possession of it, since it the legal right of the Jewish People to the land was inherent in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
Withdrawal from the occupied territories, the most debated part of the resolution, was stated in the following fashion: "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." This is linked to "termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and the recognition that "every State in the area" has the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." (50) The resolution does not make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisite for Arab action, nor does it specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. (51)
It is important to understand that the Security Council did not call on Israel to withdraw from "all the" territories occupied during the 1967 war. This was deliberate. (52) The Soviet representative wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant "that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands." (84) The Arab states pushed for the word "all" to be included, but this too was rejected. (53) On October 29, 1969, two years after the passage of the resolution, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories." (54) When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon, the British U.N. ambassador in 1967 who drafted resolution 242, said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial." (55)
Similarly, Amb. Goldberg explained: "The notable omissions which were not accidental in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines' . . . the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal." (56) Indeed, Amb. Goldberg said that Israel's return of all territories is "incompatible" with 242. (57)
Resolution 242 clearly calls on the Arab states to make peace with Israel. Since return of land is linked to peace, in the absence of a reasonable effort to make peace with the Jewish state by its Arab neighbors, srael may hold on (at least temporarily) to the territories for the same reason it was legal for the Allies to occupy Germany during World War II – a nation has the right to defend itself, including by means of occupation.
It is important to understand that not only does 242 make the territories disputed, but it also gives Israel the right to part of them. A clause calling for "secure and recognized boundaries" means "territorial adjustments in their peace settlement encompassing less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure," according to Amb. Goldberg. (58)
Similarly, Soviet representative Mr. Vasily Kuznetsov said in discussions that preceded the adoption of Resolution 242 that the current draft of the resolution: “retain for Israel the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far as the lines which it judges convenient." [59]
Likewise, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs wrote, "the UN Security Council recognized that Israel was entitled to part of these territories for new defensible borders. Taken together with UN Security Council Resolution 338, it became clear that only negotiations would determine which portion of these territories would eventually become "Israeli territories" or territories to be retained by Israel's Arab counterpart." (60)
Since the resolution calls for the return of only some of the occupied land, it is possible that Israel has already fulfilled its part by withdrawing from 91% of the territories by surrendering Sinai as part of the Camp David Peace Agreement with Egypt. (61) That is not necessarily the case, but since 242 does not define how much land Israel should withdraw from, it may be as little as 0.01% or 99.99% or anything in between. This too makes the territories disputed, rather than occupied.
Judging from the statements made by Soviet, American and British delegates, as well as from the fact that the resolution calling for a withdrawal from "all the territories" was rejected, we can state with confidence that Israel is not necessarily required to withdraw from east Jerusalem or any other specific piece of land. The resolution's intent is for east Jerusalem's fate to be negotiated (and the same is true for all the other territory occupied in 1967).
We must also pay attention to the clause of 242 calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the recent conflict." [emphasis by D.S.] We can see that the resolution does not seek for Israel to return the territories it occupied in 1948, which includes west Jerusalem. Neither the General Assembly nor the Security Council protested Israel's 1950 declaration of western Jerusalem as its capital. The silence on the issue of west Jerusalem in 242 and in during the 1950 declaration shows international acquiescence to give to Israel's actions some implied measure of legal authority. Indeed, that 242 explicitly calls only for the return of some of the territories occupied in 1967, but not 1948 lands provides legal justification for Israel's sovereignty over west Jerusalem and other 1948 lands, especially considering that there are no U.N. Security Council resolutions calling on Israel to withdraw from 1948 lands.
Furthermore, if Resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from all the lands, it would’ve been null and void in the wake of the League’s Mandate. Since Israel already got the right to establish a state on the land, the U.N. cannot take Israel’s land away anymore than it can take Florida away from the United States by passing a resolution.
2. ACQUISITION OF NON SOVEREIGN LAND IN A DEFENSIVE WAR
There is a dispute as to whether land that was not legally occupied by a nation may be acquired by another state in a defensive war.
The Government of Israel and its supporters rejected defining 1967 lands as occupied territories on basis of legal admissibility of acquisition of territory in a defensive war where there is no legal sovereign, thus rejecting any effort to bring Israel control of the territories under the Fourth Geneva Convention and other international treaties dealing with military occupation. Former Chief Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote that the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to the West Bank and Gaza because it "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign." (62)
As already noted, Jordan's occupation of the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, was unlawful. Jordan's 1950 annexation was recognized only by Great Britain and Pakistan. (63)
Some world renowned jurists also see a distinction between aggressive conquest and acquisition of territories as an act of self defense. Former head of the International Court of Justice in Hague, who was also U.S. State Department Legal Advisor, Stephen Schwebel wrote regarding Israel's acquisition of land: "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." (64)
Israel invaded east Jerusalem after it repeated Jordanian artillery fire and ground movements across the previous armistice lines; additionally, Iraqi forces joined the Jordanian army on the soil of the Hashemite Kingdom and was set to invade Israel. (65) As a result, even the United Nation refused to brand Israel as the aggressor in the Six Day War. Even if Israel was the aggressor against Egypt – it wasn’t because it had the right to defend itself after being surrounded on all sides and told openly that an attack is coming – Jordan still had no right to attack to support Egypt.
Israel won the land legally, coming into possession of land that was owned by nobody as an act of lawful self defense.
However, there is a conflicting theory that disputes admissibility of acquisition of land under such circumstances. Judge Antonio Cassese listed requirements that he believes need to be fulfilled for a state to acquire territory by force.
First, prior to the use of force, sovereignty over the territory must have belonged to the same state, which used force to expel the unlawful occupant. Second, all peaceful remedies, including recourse to the appropriate United Nations bodies, must have been exhausted and must have failed to expel the unlawful occupant. Third, the use of force must not have exceeded the limited goal of reacquiring the territory. (66) In applying these principles, we see that Israel was not sovereign in Jerusalem prior to the Jordanian invasion in 1948 and 1967.
The first requirement was probably fulfilled when it comes to the West Bank and Gaza (but not Sinai) because Israel got these lands under the League’s Mandate, and Arab occupation of 1948 was not based in law.
As for the second requirement, in the wake of Arab unwillingness to negotiate with Israel, what could and should the Jewish state have done that may have been effective? Should it have gone through the motions of trying to act through the United Nations, knowing that no Arab regime would withdraw from the land?
And even if that requirement is fulfilled as well, the third requirement is also difficult. Exactly what is the proper force needed to re acquire force, especially in a defensive war, against multiple enemies with far greater military forces, is subject to much debate. There is no international law or UN resolution that deals with the issue, thus leaving it open. This again makes the status of the territories disputed.
3. PALESTINIAN SELF-DETERMINATION: SHOULD ISRAEL WITHDRAW?
The right to self-determination does not mean that a group automatically has the right to independence in the land where they are a majority. Do Chechens have the right to self-determination? Yes. Do they have the right to independence? No. What about Kurds in Kurdistan? White Afrikaners in North Cape province of South Africa? Indeed, while the right to self-determination is universal, the vast majority of nations of the world cannot get independence. There are various types of self-determination, which may be a mere right to vote or a right to an autonomy. The nations that got independence were nations that already had sovereignty on the land. Palestinians never had legal sovereignty in West Bank and Gaza. As such, they have no right to independence.
4. Is the law biased against Palestinians by evil Westerners who are to blame for all the evils of the world?
The law is the same for Palestinians as for all others. Basques, who never had sovereignty, also cannot get independence in part of Spain despite being a Western people. Same for the Flemish, who are the majority in northern Belgium.
But let’s say the law is biased. Let’s say that it’s all ineffective. Let’s say there is no law. Then what? That just means there are two good-faith claims to the land – one based on history and another on demographics – and there is no law to resolve the dispute. That makes the territories disputed and not occupied.
Thus, under no circumstances can one legally argue that the land is disputed. For this reason, in March 1994, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright stated: "We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 War as occupied Palestinian territory." (67)
1973 YOM KIPPUR WAR
In October of 1973, on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, Syria and Egypt invaded Israel. After a small success early in the conflict, the invading forces were repealed by Israel. This marked the first time that the United States provided military aid to Israel during a war. The Soviet Union also pumped tens of billions of dollars worth of weaponry and expertise into Arab armies. Israel gained some territory at the end of the war, but immediately withdrew. UN SC Resolution 338, affirming UN SC Resolution 242, was passed in the wake of the Yom Kippur war.
THE UNITED NATIONS: 1970’S AND BEYOND
A UN Watch report found that Israel’s treatment was “truly scandalous” and that the Jewish state was “abused,” “mercilessly attacked” and treated like a “second-class citizen” [69].
Furthermore, “UN Member States routinely single Israel out for unwarranted attention and criticism.” [70] The report went on to say, “A similarly troubling double standard toward Israel is also the rule and not the exception at the Security Council and the Commission on Human Rights.” [us-israel] Indeed, even Kofi Annan himself admitted, “The intense focus given to some of Israel's actions, while other situations sometimes fail to elicit the similar outragehave given a regrettable impression of bias and one-sidedness." [71]
Israel’s UN ambassador called the world organization “the second most anti-Semitic body in the world after the Palestinian National Council" [72]. American ambassadors to the UN also criticized the body. Bill Richardson called the General Assembly’s attitude towards Israel “hostile” [73]. What takes place in the Security Council “more closely resembles a mugging than either a political debate or an effort at problem-solving,” declared former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick [74].
The General Assembly passes 19 annual resolutions against Israel every year, in addition to any “new” resolutions they can come up with. It dedicates more items on the agenda to Israel than to any other state and has set up more pro-Palestinian bodies than could be imagined by a reasonable person, with more rights given to these sub-organizations than to other such UN entities. Of all the condemnations issued by the Commission, 26 percent refer to Israel alone, while “great democracies” states such as Syria, Iran and Yemen are never criticized [75].
Additionally, blood libel accusations have been repeated again and again in the General Assembly, Security Council and the Human Rights Commission [76].
While every form of discrimination, including xenophobia has been condemned in the United Nations, the organization refused to condemn antisemitism for more than half a century. It was only on 24 November 1998 that the word "anti-Semitism" was first mentioned in a UN resolution (77).
In what may be the greatest travesty of all, the resolution equating Zionism with racism was passed on the anniversary of Kristalnacht. Why couldn’t the UN reschedule the vote after being notified of the significance of the date by the Israeli ambassador (Foreign Ministry site)? Indeed, it was not the only resolution against Israel passed on the anniversary of Kristalnacht.
It is worth noting at the at the time Zionism is racism resolution was passed, the UN Secretary-General was a former World War II Austrian Nazi named Kurt Waldheim. If the UN can elect a Nazi as its head, there is no reason to doubt that it may elect similar people as judges and prosecutors for the ICC.
Professor Anne Bayefsky of New York University Law School wrote in reference to the UN Human Rights system: "It is the tool of those who would make Israel the archetypal human rights violator in the world today. It is a breeding ground for anti Semitism. It is a sanctuary for moral relativists. In short, it is a scandal." [78].
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former US Ambassador to the UN warned, "the UN is a dangerous place.” [79] The ICC will similarly be a dangerous place. The UN appointed tyranny of the majority judges and prosecutors will abuse their powers to persecute the little Jewish democracy, just as the United Nations and Durban conference has done.
The fact that this persecution takes place under the UN banner, gives credence to antisemitism and fascism. During the Durban conference, for example, an observer stated, "nobody's supporting Israel except for the Jewish group. I'm just wondering how come Jews aren't questioning themselves." [80]
"The attempt to bring Israel to its knees through sanctions and boycotts at the Security Council faces a US veto. However, these Emergency Special Sessions of the UN General Assembly . . . show the possibility of a slow but sure de legitimization of Israel and the hope of some for its eventual strangulation." [81]
Moreover, the United Nations elected a WWII Nazi, Kurt Waldheim, as it’s Secretary-General on two occasions.
For these reasons, no law came out of the United Nations since the 1970’s and no treaty was signed under the auspices of the organization.
PEACE ACCORDS
On March 26, 1979, Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt agreeing to withdraw from all of the Sinai peninsula and to dismantle all the Jewish settlements therein. Peace between Egypt and Israel has been relatively stable since. [82] The Egypt-Israel peace treaty was signed under the auspices of the United States.
On September 13, 1993, Israel signed a peace agreement with the Palestine Liberation Organization. It was negotiated with the help of Norwegian government. The Oslo Accords did not guarantee Palestinians independence, nor promised to stop settlement-building. Progress between the sides was supposed to be incremental. In 2000, Israel made a series of offers to the Palestinian Authority – the final one offer 100% of Gaza, over 95% of West Bank, Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, and parts of pre-67 Israel in exchange for annexation of large Jewish settlement blocs. [Map of the Israeli offer is attached hereto as Exhibit “G”] The PA rejected this offer in part because it also wanted Israel to grant to 5 million Arabs the right to immigrate to Israel, and because it refused to sign an “end of conflict” clause. In the end of September 2000, Arabs revolted against Israel and continue to do so to this day. Neither the United Nations, nor any major powers have been able to stop the war.
REFERENCES
1. http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/hapiru.html
2. Discovery Channel, 11/13/2003 at 1 a.m. Also available on DVD and VHS at http://shopping.discovery.com
3. Id.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal
5. http://www.baby-names-world.com/profile.php?name=Israel
6. Dutch Foundation for Biblical Archaeology,
http://www.bga.nl/en/articles/filist1.html
7. Id.
8. Palestine Facts, http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php
9. http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. The Future of Jerusalem: a Symposium: Jerusalem Some Jurisprudential Aspects, 45 Cath. U.L. Rev. 661 (Spring, 1996)
13. http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/beyond-the-pale/english/33.html
14. http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/beyond-the-pale/english/25.html
15. http://notendur.centrum.is/~snorrigb/mufti1.htm
16. http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_ww1_british_mandate_jordan.php
17. http://notendur.centrum.is/~snorrigb/mufti1.htm
18. Christian Action for Israel, http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/arabnazi.html
19. Id.
20. http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_abdulla.php
21. http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_during_ww2.php
22. http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/isreport/aug02/husseini.html
23. Virtual Jewish Library, http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf4.html
24. Encyclopedia Judaica
25. Israel Palestinian Declaration of Principles, September 13, 1993
26. Jerusalem Post, April 1, 2001. Janine Zacharia, "US says intifada was premeditated.”
27. Personal Judgment
28. Jewish Virtual Library, http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Suez_War.html
29. Id.
30. Id.
31. Middle East Review of International Affairs, Isabella Ginor, "The Cold War's Longest Cover-Up: How and Why the USSR Instigated the 1967 War," http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2003/issue3/jv7n3a3.html
32. Id.
33. Id.
34. Muslim World, vol. 86, July/Oct 1996. p. 229 236. Ghada Talhami, "Jerusalem in the Muslim Consciousness."
35. Id.
36. http://www.ourtimelines.com/zsixdaywar.html
37. CIA Factbook on Jordan (www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html)
38. U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 (Partition Plan) November 29, 1947 at http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ps0 (Official Web site of Israel's Foreign Ministry)
39. Jewish Virtual Library at www.us israel.org/jsource/History/Jerusalem.html
40. Baron, Charles Bryan, Esq., "The International Legal Status of Jerusalem," 8 Touro Int'l L. Rev. 1 (Spring, 1998)
41. Id.
42. Hockstader, Lee, "Some Arabs Prefer an Israeli Run Jerusalem," Washington Post, July 25, 2000; Page A01
43. Al Taher, Omar, "Partition of Palestine: was it legal or just?" Jordan Times, November 30, 2001.
44. Id.
45. Jewish Virtual Library at http://www.us israel.org/jsource/UN/meaning_of_242.html
46. Id.
47. Id.
48. Id.
49. Id.
50. Id.
51. Id.
52. Id.
53. Id.
54. Id.
55. Id.
56. Id.
57. See Id.
58. Israel National Radio, November 20, 2001.
59. Israel Foreign Ministry, http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0cyv0
60. Jewish Virtual Library at http://www.us israel.org/jsource/UN/meaning_of_242.html
61. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2 September 2001. "Occupied Territories or Disputed Territories?"
62. Jewish Virtual Library at http://www.us israel.org/jsource/UN/meaning_of_242.html
63. Baron, Charles Bryan, Esq., "The International Legal Status of Jerusalem," 8 Touro Int'l L. Rev. 1 (Spring, 1998)
64. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2 September 2001. "Occupied Territories or Disputed Territories?"
65. See Id.
66. Id.
67. Id.
68. Baron, Charles Bryan, Esq., "The International Legal Status of Jerusalem," 8 Touro Int'l L. Rev. 1 (Spring, 1998)
69. Morris Abram, Litmus Test, Un Watch Web Site Available at Www.unwatch.org
70. Id.
71. The Forward Web Site Available at Www.forward.com, January 14, 2000.
72. Yoram Aridor, a Former Israeli Ambassador to Un in the Early 90's, Israel National Radio, July 7, 2001.
73. Hannity and Colmes, Foxnews Channel, October 5, 2001
74. New York Times, March 31, 1983
75. Web Site for Israel's Mission to the Un Available at Www.israel un.org
76. Morris Abram, Antisemitism in Un, Un Watch Web Site Available at Www.unwatch.org. Also Noted on Israel Mission to the Un Web Site.
77. Israel Mission to the Un Web Site.
78. Morris Abram, Antisemitism in Un, Un Watch Web Site Available at Www.unwatch.org. Also Noted on Israel Mission to the Un Web Site.
79. Id.
80. Jewish Telegraphic Agency Web Site Available at Http://jta.org/story.asp?story=8500
81. Morris Abram, Antisemitism in Un, Un Watch Web Site Available at Www.unwatch.org. Also Noted on Israel Mission to the Un Web Site.
82. Israel Foreign Ministry, http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00if0
83. http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00q00
1. Discovery Channel
2. Wikipedia
3. Baby Names World.com
4. Dutch Foundation for Biblical Archaeology
5. Palestine Facts
6. http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/beyond-the-pale/english/33.html
7. The Future of Jerusalem: a Symposium: Jerusalem Some Jurisprudential Aspects, 45 Cath. U.L. Rev. 661 (Spring, 1996)
8. http://www.friends-partners.org
9. http://notendur.centrum.is/~snorrigb/mufti1.htm
10. Web site of Christian Action for Israel, http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca
11. Israel Foreign Ministry Web Site
12. Virtual Jewish Library
13. http://www.ourtimelines.com/zsixdaywar.html
14. Al Taher, Omar, "Partition of Palestine: was it legal or just?" Jordan Times, November 30, 2001.
15. Hockstader, Lee, "Some Arabs Prefer an Israeli Run Jerusalem," Washington Post, July 25, 2000; Page A01
16. Baron, Charles Bryan, Esq., "The International Legal Status of Jerusalem," 8 Touro Int'l L. Rev. 1 (Spring, 1998)
17. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2 September 2001. "Occupied Territories or Disputed Territories?"
18. Morris Abram, Antisemitism in Un, Un Watch
19. Hannity and Colmes, Foxnews Channel, October 5, 2001
20. Morris Abram, Litmus Test, Un Watch
|
David Storobin is a New York lawyer who received Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Rutgers University School of Law. His Master's Thesis (M.A. - Comparative Politics) deals with the historical causes for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. He's been interviewed on radio and cited in books as a political expert. Mr. Storobin is also a practicing Criminal Defense and Family Law attorney.
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
|
‘As the horror of the Mumbai bombings sinks in, we witness once more the...
