The Truth about the so-called Palestine
I did some research. The question about the cost of the negotiations initiated by Kerry or by the Obama Administration is erroneous, because there is no legal base for the premises Kerry wants to use. Many presidents have tried before, but in the absence of legal and historical facts that would justify the claim of the Palestinians, the whole effort is a waste of taxpayers’ funds. Please see the transcript below. If Mr. Obama wants to offer a territory to the Palestinians he might as well send them all green cards.
The Truth about the West Bank
Often in the news we hear the terms, “occupied territories”, “67 borders,” and “illegal settlements,” and the story we usually hear sound very simple.
During the six-day war, Israel captured the West Bank from the Palestinians, refused the United Nations demand to retreat and illegally built settlements.
But is this really the case?
Let’s try to understand the situation a little bit better.
We start with a simple, but extremely important question, “From whom did the Israelis capture the West Bank? From the Palestinians?” No. In 1967 there was no Arab nation or state by the name of Palestine. Actually, was there ever?
Israel took over the West Bank from Jordan, in an act of self-defense, after Jordan joined a war launched by Egypt and Syria, to destroy Israel. By the way, destroying countries is rather illegal. The United nations, back in 1967 rejected repeated Arab and Soviet attempts to declare Israel as the aggressor. Security Council Resolution 242 did not demand a unilateral Israeli withdrawal, rather the United Nations called for negotiating a solutionwhich would leave Israel with secure and recognized boundaries, in effect – defensible borders.
But, wait a second, what was Jordan doing in the West Bank in the first place? What was its legal justification? Well Jordan had the . . ., you know what, it had no legal justification; Jordan simply occupied it during its previous attempt to destroy the newly established State of Israel in 1948, changing the commonly accepted name of Judean & Samaria to the “West Bank”. But this did not really convince anybody, and almost no one recognized the legality of Jordan’s occupation, not even any of the other Arab states. So if Jordan had no legal claim to the land, and Palestine did not exist, whose territory is it?
Let’s go a little further back in time. Don’t worry, not to the days of the Bible, only about 100 years. Until 1917, the Ottoman Empire occupied the whole region. After losing World War I, the Ottomans relinquished their 500-year control to the Allied Forces, which decided to divide the old empire into countries. Britain’s Foreign Minister Lord Balfour recognized the Jewish people’s historical right to their homeland. A small area, equivalent to about half of one percent of the Middle East, was designated for this purpose. Britain received a mandate from the League of Nations to promote the establishment of a Jewish homeland, but wait a second! Do you realize what happened?
The original Jewish homeland included not only the West Bank, but also the East Bank of the Jordan River. I guess you could not say that the Jewish people have not accepted some painful compromises, already. Anyway, the League of Nations’ recognition of a Jewish homeland, which included the West Bank, was reaffirmed by the United Nations after the end of the 2nd World War.
With the British Mandate’s ending, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 recommended the establishment of two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The Jews accepted it and went on to create the State of Israel, while the Arabs refused the compromise and launched a war to destroy the newly established Jewish state. Resolution 181, which was only a recommendation in the first place, remained with no legal standing. At the end of the war, a ceasefire line was formed, where the Israeli and Arab forces stopped fighting.
At the insistence of Arab leaders, this line was defined as having no legal significance. So, although this line is commonly referred to as the 1967 border, it is not from 1967, and it was never an international border. This is why, a more exact, legal definition for the West Bank, according to international law is really the same as in so many other areas, where there are or were territorial disputes, but which are not defined as “occupied”. For example, Zubarah, Thumbs Island, the Western Sahara, Abu Musa Island, Kashmir, and many others. They are not considered “occupied”, but rather “disputed territories”.
So, let’s return for a moment to our illustration and examine the complete chain of events. Israel’s presence in the West Bank is the result of a war of self defense. The West Bank should not be considered occupied, because there was no previous legal sovereignty in the area, and therefore, the real definition should be “disputed territory”.
The 1947 partition plan has no current legal standing, while Israel’s claim to the land was clearly recognized by the international community during the 20th century. That is why, the presence and construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank should not be considered illegal.
These are not just my own opinions; they are based on conclusions made by world renowned jurists, like Prof. Eugene Rostow, Arthur Goldberg, and Stephen Schwebel, who was Head of the International Court of Justice.
So, what’s the solution for the dispute over the West Bank? Unfortunately there is no solution, but the only way a solution will ever be reached is if we base our negotiations on legal and historical facts. So please, let’s stop using the terms “Occupied territories” and “67 borders”. They are simply not politically correct.
Copyright Emile Tubiana
Those who have never visited Israel just don’t know what it is all about. It is the only democracy in the Middle East, the only peaceful country in the Middle East, and the most creative country per capita. Can someone tell me what the Arabs created, or the so-called Palestinians? Only terrorism.
Love ya!
Jane
Ron