March 8, 2011 at 6:26 am 2 comments

Continued from Biased wording – 1:

How did Israel get to be

in Judea and Samaria?


Excerpts from his book “How to avoid Armageddon”

Available through Amazon
Click:  type: how to avoid armageddon

The war in 1967, known as the Six-Day War, resulted in another oft-mentioned document – U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 passed on November 22, 1967. In its preamble, Resolution 242 emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security.” It also called for the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” This has been interpreted by many people to mean the complete withdrawal of Israel from all the territories and is frequently invoked when pointing out Israel’s supposed intransigence.

However, this salient point was clarified by Eugene Rostow, Dean of Yale Law School, and U.S. Under-secretary of State for Political Affairs, one of the three people who formulated Resolution 242. Prof. Rostow explained that the clause allows Israel to administer these territories until a just and lasting peace in the Middle East is achieved. Till now this has remained unfulfilled. Rostow also pointed out that when there is peace, according to the resolution, Israel will be required to withdraw its armed forces “from territories” it occupied during the Six-Day War. Not “the territories,” nor “all the territories,” as had been demanded by the Arab states and the Soviet Union during the formulation of the Resolution. Prof. Rostow said that over five months of intensive debate made it perfectly clear that the missing definite article (“the”) in Resolution 242 (submitted to the voting body in English) makes it explicit that Israel was not expected to return to the vulnerable Armistice Demarcation Lines that existed when the Arab countries prepared to launch their invasion.

Commenting on the statement in the preamble regarding “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war,” co-author of the Resolution, Arthur Goldberg, said this clause was not based on international law. If it were, “the U.S. ought to give up Texas and New Orleans. The Russians ought to give up the Kurile Islands and part of Poland, and Poland ought to give up part of Germany. International law recognizes that to the victor belongs the spoils.”

Judge Stephen Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice in the Hague, has written that a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Talking about the Six Day War, he said that Israel had a strong legal case in capturing land in the war because Egypt and Jordan had belligerently and unlawfully conquered territory in 1948: the Gaza Strip (by Egypt) and the West Bank and east Jerusalem (by Jordan). Schwebel wrote that, “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 the prior holder, better title.”

Furthermore, returning to the lines from which invasions of Israel were initiated, would mean that armed aggression against a neighboring state carries no penalties and that the Arab nations could invade Israel time and again without losing any land, thus setting a precedent in the annals of history.

Calling Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria “illegal” becomes even less valid when one remembers that Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria was mandated by the League of Nations in 1922, which was ratified by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, as mentioned earlier.

Also, the fact that Judea and Samaria is the region where the Jewish nation got started 3,500 years ago, where Jews have always lived, often as the majority people, which was ruled by the Jews for hundreds of years, and where the Bible was written, are yet additional factors that strengthen Israel’s claim.

Significantly, these territories had never at any time throughout history, been under the rule of any political, national or ethnic entity known as Palestinian. Although this could have been implemented with full international sanction in 1948, but didn’t materialize because the Arabs of Palestine endeavored to destroy the neighboring independent Jewish entity that had been set up simultaneously with them. This was the first time they lost an opportunity to set up their own independent state. They have kept losing the opportunity – always through their rejection of Israel’s right to exist, often expressed through military attack that is repulsed.

Continued at Biased Wording – 3:

To order “How to Avoid Armageddon” click:  type: how to avoid Armageddon


Entry filed under: Blogroll, dangeous lies and halftruths, How to avoid Armageddon, In order to survive, Solutions for Palestine, Things not mentioned in the press, United Nations. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .


2 Comments Add your own

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


%d bloggers like this: