Doc's Talk: Derecho de Israel (Israel's Right)

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Derecho de Israel (Israel's Right)

Aggie R. Hoffman, Los Ángeles, CA. |2011-02-22 | La Opinión

Su editorial del 20 de febrero afirma correctamente que el fracaso de los árabes palestinos en reconocer el derecho de Israel a existir constituye un obstáculo para la paz, pero omite mencionar el derecho de constituirse en un estado judío. El mundo tiene 57 países musulmanes, muchas naciones católicas y otras de diversas denominaciones cristianas. En Alemania aun existe el partido Demócrata Cristiano.

El editorial está basado en datos históricos incorrectos, falsos principios de la ley internacional y el uso inexacto de la terminología, como detallado abajo. 1. No existen "fronteras tradicionales" entre Israel y Jordania. Parece que La Opinión se refiere a la "Línea Verde", que es nada mas que línea de armisticio donde Jordania e Israel cesaron la guerra en 1948, que nunca reconocida como frontera legal.

2. El incorrecto referir a comunidades judías como colonias. La colonización es la ocupación por invasión, de un estado soberano con el propósito de explotar a sus residentes y sus recursos naturales. Israel se encuentra en Judea y Samaria (el nombre bíblico de ese territorio) como resultado de la guerra de los Seis Días de 1967, lanzada por Jordania y países árabes vecinos con la meta de exterminar a los judíos. Israel no invadió a Jordania sin provocación ni para explotar a su población.

3. Entre 1947 y 1967, Jordania ocupó ilegalmente Judea y Samaria cuando declaró con otros países árabes la guerra contra Israel, negando la partición por las Naciones Unidas del territorio entre judíos y árabes .

4. Israel no obtuvo Judea y Samaria "a la fuerza" sino por defenderse contra la guerra inciada por Jordania.

5. Las poblaciones y ciudades de Israel en Judea y Samaria jamás estuvieron en territorio "palestino"; se encuentran en el territorio que Jordania perdió a Israel en 1967.

6. Las poblaciones judías en Judea y Samaria están en las elevaciones por razones defensivas y no políticas. Sirven para impedir el acceso a la línea de la costa de Israel y a su aeropuerto internacional por sus enemigos. http://tinyurl.com/36rlxjc

7. Quejarse de tener que remover a medio millón de judíos de Judea y Samaria hace claro que ningún judío deberá vivir en un futuro estado palestino, aunque 1.2 millones de árabes vivan en Israel. Eso no es más que un punto de vista racista y de apartheid.

8. El resultado de la historia de batallas, aclara que el territorio en disputa fue adquirido por reglas legítimas de la guerra y la ley internacional. En consecuencia, ni la ocupación ni las poblaciones judías son ilegales. Como la resolución 242 del Consejo de Seguridad declara que solamente las negociaciones ntre la partes podrán determinar el futuro del territorio, Estados Unidos correctamente vetó el intento de condena de las Naciones Unidas declarar las comunidades judías "ilegales."

ORIGINAL ENGLISH:

The editorial of 2/20/11 correctly states that the failure by the Palestinian Arabs to recognize the right of Israel to exist is an obstacle to peace, but fails to mention the right to be a Jewish State. The world has 57 Muslim, countries, many Catholic nations, and still others of multiple Christian denominations. Germany even has the Christian Democratic Party.

The editorial is based on inocrrect historical data, inaccurate vocabulary and false principles of international law, as detailed below.
1.No "traditional borders" exist between Israel and Jordan. The borders referred to by La Opinion (the "Green Line") are simply armistice lines where Jordan and Israel stopped fighting in 1948; the lines were never recognized by any treaty as legal borders.
2. Colonization is occupation through an invasion of a sovereign country for the purpose of exploiting its people and natural resources. Israel is in Judea and Samaria (Biblical name of the territory) as a result of the 1967 Six Day War unleashed by Jordan and neighboring Arab countries with the goal of annihilating the Jews. Israel did not invade Jordan without provocation, nor to exploit its population.
3. From 1947 to 1967 Jordan illegally occupied Judea and Samaria when it and other Arab countries declared war on Israel, defying the UN partition of the territory between the Jews and Arabs.

4. Israel did not obtain Judea and Samaria "by force," but by repelling Jordan's act of war.
5. Israel's towns and cities in Judea and Samaria were never within "Palestinian" territory; they are within territory that Jordan lost to Israel in 1967.
6. The location of the Jewish towns and cities in Judea & Samaria are on hilltops for defensive & not political reasons. They serve to repel access of attacker on Israle's coastline and international airport. See, http://tinyurl.com/36rlxjc

7. Complaining of having to move 500,000 Jews from Judea and Samaria makes clear that no Jew may live in a future Palestinian State, despite the fact that 1.2 Arabs live in Israel. This is nothing short of an apartheid and racist view.

8. Based on the hisory of battles, it is clear that the disputed territory was acquired through the legitimate rules of war, and international law. Consequently neither its occupation nor its Jewish towns and cities are illegal. The US correclty vetoed the recent attemtped UN codemnation, as it was contrary to UN Resolution 242 which provides that only negotiations of the parties may determine the outcome of the territory.

________________________________________________
http://www.impre.com/laopinion/opinion/editorial/2011/2/20/defending-the-unacceptable-240380-1.html#commentsBlock

Defending the unacceptable

|2011-02-20 | La Opinión

The United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements placed the United States in the uncomfortable position of defending what is considered an obstacle to a peace accord.

We must be clear: it is not the only impediment to reaching an agreement. Nothing can be done without recognition of Israel’s right to exist. One party cannot negotiate with another that is planning its destruction, period.

Nonetheless, the fundamental right to exist does not include carte blanche for Israel to colonize territories outside its traditional borders and inside the Palestinian territory.

From the outset, the Obama administration has recognized the adverse impact of these settlements on the peace process between the two parties. Even so, it failed in its attempt to get Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government to extend the ten-month freeze on their construction.

As a result, the United Nations Security Council condemned the settlement policy, with the United States standing alone in opposition. Unfortunately, the U.S. veto, in practice, signifies support for a policy it really does not share.

Israel is an ally in the region, its only democracy. And, Israel does have ancestral roots in the region.But all this does not entitle it to place a half million people and counting in territories won by force.

We are concerned that the settlements, as one of the obstacles to peace, have major domestic support in Israel, making it practically impossible for a government to dismantle them and bring the population back inside Israeli borders. The withdrawal from the Gaza Strip provided just a sample of the settlers’ resistance to an action of this type and its political impact.

The settlements in the West Bank are the result of a policy that has been implemented over many years and by several gov ernments. That doesn’t make it any more acceptable. Nor does it make the United States’ U.N. veto any more right, which while protecting an ally, is also defending an unacceptable policy.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk