Sunday, October 06, 2013

A Guide to Resolution 242 and the “Green Line” Part 1

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. It was adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. The resolution was sponsored by British ambassador Lord Caradon and was one of five drafts under consideration - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242
----

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-guide-to-resolution-242-and-the-green-line/

A Guide to Resolution 242 and the “Green Line” Part 1

Charles Abelsohn

Peace Talks and the Terms of Reference

Part 1(i): Withdrawal from territories occupied in the recent conflict.

The Palestinians are demanding terms of reference before returning to negotiations. Further, the Palestinians demand that reference to the agreed final lines, which the Palestinians incorrectly interpret as the pre-1967 lines, is required as the starting point for negotiations. The Palestinians are correct in demanding terms of reference. What the Palestinians overlook, however, is that the terms of reference, accepted by the international community through the United Nations and by the Palestinians themselves through their subsequent signature of the Declaration of Principles in September 1993 already exist. The terms of reference are called, simply, Security Council Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967 and the subsequent Oslo Agreements.

It is important to note that resolution 242 was adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter which deals with peaceful settlement of disputes and not under Chapter VII under which the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.
Thus Resolution 242 both recognizes the Arab aggression and intent to destroy Israel in 1967 (as stated by Egypt`s President Nasser in the period immediately prior to the outbreak of hostilities) and provides the roadmap to a negotiated settlement of the dispute between Israel and the Arab States as well as the Palestinians.
Professor Rostow, then U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, has stated that the intent of Resolution 242 as set out in the Preamble is for the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until ‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’ is achieved. It is timely to record that prior to the Arabs intent to destroy Israel in June 1967 there were no so-called illegal occupation or settlements and that Jerusalem was unlawfully held by the Jordanians who denied access to Jews to visit the Jewish Holy Places.
Resolution 242 contains within its principles the totality for the peaceful resolution of the Arab/Israel conflict. It is worthwhile to set out these principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
The obligation for Israel is to withdraw from “territories” as set out in (i) above, and not “the territories”, against compliance with certain conditions as set out in (ii) above. Thus the reference to secure boundaries is not as the Palestinians (or the EU) have interpreted Resolution 242. Resolution 242 was introduced to the Security Council by Lord Caradon of Great Britain. He made the interpretation of Resolution 242 clear: “It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1948, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary…” “We didn’t say there should be a withdrawal to the ’67 line; we did not put the ‘the’ in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately. We all knew – that the boundaries of ’67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier… We did not say that the ’67 boundaries must be forever; it would be insanity.”
Lord Caradon`s understanding of Resolution 242 is supported by the British Foreign Secretary George Brown who stated: “The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied’, and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories”.
The US understanding of Resolution 242 is identical to and supportive of the British understanding. Arthur J. Goldberg, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN in 1967 and a key draftee of Resolution 242, stated: “The notable omissions in language used to refer to withdrawal are the words the, all, and the June 5, 1967 lines…. In other words, there is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from the (or all the) territories occupied by it on and after June 5, 1967.”
It is clear that under Resolution 242, the 1967 “night time cease fire lines” were never intended to form the basis of future international boundaries and that the Palestinian themselves have already accepted this principle. The Declaration of Principles of September 1993 state specifically: “It is understood that the interim arrangements are an integral part of the whole peace process and that the negotiations on the permanent status will lead to the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.” It is apparent that the Palestinians with their demand for pre-conditions and the EU with their illegal but constant demand for the 1967 lines are attempting to undermine or override the applicability of Resolution 242 and specifically the extent of any Israeli withdrawal and the reciprocal obligations set out in (ii) above. There is no reason for Israel, or for that matter, any permanent member of the UN Security Council who is a signatory to Resolution 242, to agree.
The Oslo Accords required Israel to redeploy to designated areas which are referred to as Areas A, B (both under the civil authority of the Palestinian Authority) and C (under Israeli civil authority). Israel complied with its obligations as provided in the Oslo Accords only after the mutual obligations of both Palestinians and Israel had been agreed. There is no good reason for Israel now to agree to any “pre-conditions” prior to negotiations. On the contrary, the precedent of Oslo clearly requires the negotiation of an agreement without pre-conditions and as important, without prior partial implementation (“gestures”). It is submitted that the demand for pre-conditions and gestures are in themselves unlawful and a violation of the express stipulations of Resolution 242. “Gestures”, if agreed, would need to be both the subject of negotiations and reciprocal. Part 1(ii), ignored by the Palestinians and the EU, specifies the conditions governing any further Israeli redeployment.
Following World War I, the victorious powers, including the USA, the UK and France, allocated territory which previously formed part of the Ottoman Empire at a conference referred to as San Remo. Until such time as another deployment is agreed, Israel presence in the area C of the territories is by right. Title to all that area (specifically including Jerusalem) west of the Jordan river, which formerly formed part of the Ottoman Empire, was assigned, by way of a mandate to Britain which terminated on May 14, 1948 as the national home of the Jewish people under the San Remo Convention and granted first under Article 22 of the League of Nations and subsequently confirmed under Article 80 of the United Nations Charter. It is noteworthy that at San Remo the Arabs also made substantial claims to Ottoman territory, but not to Jerusalem or indeed to Palestine to which it appears the Arabs at that time had no interest. The Arab claims at San Remo resulted in the establishment of Iraq and Syria. The illegal occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem by Jordanian forces in 1948 was never recognized internationally nor did such illegal occupation result in a change of title to the West Bank or Jerusalem which remained with Israel. Further, Israel`s presence in Area C is lawful under the Oslo Accords, an agreement recognized internationally. For the European Union, individual countries and groups such as the Elders to refer to Israel`s presence as illegal or to call for Israel`s unilateral withdrawal in the light of Israel`s clear legal title under San Remo and its right to be present in Area C under the Oslo Accords and further in the absence of an agreement as contemplated by Resolution 242 is not only counter-productive but a deliberate disregard of the provisions of international law, Resolution 242 and the Oslo Accords, thus belittling the authority of United Nations resolutions and the requirement for negotiated settlements of disputes. It is time for Israel to insist that the dispute with the Palestinians be settled in accordance with the principles carefully formulated, mutually accepted and internationally ratified as set out in Resolution 242.
The next article will discuss the almost totally overlooked and ignored provisions of Resolution 242 intended to parallel if not precede any Israeli withdrawal namely Part 1(ii) of Resolution 242 requiring termination of all claims, acknowledgment of sovereignty and the right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.
***
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-guide-to-resolution-242-and-the-green-line-part-2/
Guide to Resolution 242 and the “Green Line” Part 2

Charles Abelsohn August 26, 2013

A Guide to Resolution 242 and the “Green Line” Part 2

Part 1(ii): Termination of all claims, acknowledgment of sovereignty and the right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.

Currently, it appears from reports in the media, that discussions relating to the resumption of peace talks overlook, perhaps completely, the equally applicable requirements of Part 1(ii) of Resolution 242 calling for the termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. In a sense, it is submitted that these requirements are in fact the pre-conditions to be agreed prior to any further Israeli redeployment.
The Palestinian areas are currently divided into two separate and hostile areas: the West Bank and Gaza. At this time, the Palestinian Authority does not exercise any authority in and over Gaza which is ruled by Hamas nor does Hamas recognize the authority of the Palestinian Authority. (It may be that the West Bank and Gaza today constitute two separate juridical areas since it is doubtful that they can be regarded as one governing authority under the Montevideo Convention.). The Hamas charter states it has joined its hands with those of all Jihad fighters for the purpose of liberating Palestine. The charter states that the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. The charter goes further and calls for the killing of Jews (article 7): “The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!” It cannot be said that that the Hamas charter constitutes an acknowledgement of Israel`s sovereignty or territorial integrity. Clearly, the basic principles of Resolution 242 cannot be implemented. Under such circumstances, the Palestinians are unable to deliver “peace” as defined by Part 1(ii). Certainly, any demand for the acknowledgement of pre-1967 lines to constitute the future boundary when the Palestinian Authority is unable to comply with the principles of resolution 242 and the possibility of a Hamas takeover of the West Bank always on the horizon, needs to be rejected out of hand.
Part 1(ii) provides further that each State has the right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. It should be noted that by not referring to the 1967 lines as borders, this carefully drafted wording, too, evidences that “1967 lines” and “secure borders” (which explicitly means less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied) are mutually exclusive and further strengthens the argument (set out in full in part 1) that the international community has ruled out the 1967 lines as being the secure border of Israel. The secure border is to be negotiated, and once agreed, recognized. Hamas through their charter, violence and attacks on Israel for an extended period of time and speeches of their leaders have made it clear that it will never recognize Israel or its boundaries. In fact, although Gaza`s borders are those of the 1967 lines and as such Hamas has no territorial claim, Hamas has continued its policy of violence and aggression primarily against Israel`s civilian population. Its charter constitutes an ongoing threat to Israel in blatant contravention of Resolution 242. Hamas conducts annually summer camps for children, teaching them to shoot rifles and engage in hand-to-hand-combat. Hamas, by word and deed, has made it clear that it will not permit Israel the right to live in peace. Through its charter and aggression, Hamas has in fact rejected Resolution 242. Factually Hamas was initially democratically elected and a Hamas electoral victory following an Israeli agreement with Mahmoud Abbas (whose mandate expired in 2009) cannot be excluded. Additionally, Israel needs to bear in mind that Hamas took over Gaza through a coup d` etat and that a similar violent Hamas occupation of the West Bank cannot be ruled out.
Senior officials of Fatah, too, deny the right of Israel to exist. Thus the PLO Ambassador to India, Adli Sadeq, wrote in the official Palestinian Authority daily: “They have a common mistake, or misconception by which they fool themselves, assuming that Fatah accepts them and recognizes the right of their state to exist. Senior Fatah Central Committee member Jibril Rajoub, has said: “All of Israel is in occupied Palestinian territory — from the river to the sea.” Manuel Hassassian, the head of a Palestinian delegation to London, has buried the idea of a two-state solution. He told an audience of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign “There is no two-state solution.” PA official Al-Einein, the adviser to Abbass: “I don’t recognize Israel. The Fatah movement does not recognize Israel.” Mahmoud Abbas himself in 2009: “The Palestinian people will never accept the right of the Jewish people to their own state. Not for 1000 years”. Contrary to the PA’s moderate statements in English to the West, according to media reports, which have not been denied, its statements to its people in Arabic continue to delegitimize Israel’s existence, deny Israel’s right to exist, define the conflict with Israel as a religious war for Allah, promote hatred through demonization and promote terror and violence. On official PA TV, Israel is referred to as Palestine; maps of the area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan in PA offices, schoolbooks and TV display the whole area as Palestinian; and its educational policies resulted in then-Senator Hillary Clinton commenting on PA schoolbooks: “These textbooks do not give Palestinian children an education; they give them an indoctrination.”
Neither the Palestinian Authority nor Hamas have displayed any interest in complying with the principles of Part 1(ii) providing for termination of claims, recognition of Israel and the right to live in peace. Until they do so, Israel legally is not required to make any commitments with regard to the extent of any redeployment.
Part 2 of Resolution 242 affirms the necessity of termination of all claims. Three such claims are specified: (a) Freedom of navigation (irrelevant to discussions between Israel and the Palestinians), (b) just settlement of the refugee problem and (c) the guaranteeing of the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones.
The words “Palestine” or “Palestinian refugees” do not appear in Resolution 242 nor does the international community or the Palestinians themselves, by their acceptance of Resolution 242 through the Declaration of Principles, call for any Palestinian right of return. The legal requirement is a “just settlement”. There appear to have been between 500,000 and 700,000 (this article does not relate to the actual number) Palestinian refugees and about 850,000 Jewish refugees. The use of the word “the” (refugee problem) without distinguishing between Palestinian and Jewish refugees clearly indicate an internationally recognized requirement to settle the refugee problem (both Palestinian and Jewish) before or simultaneously with any additional redeployment of Israeli forces. It is submitted that the issue of the Jewish refugees needs to be addressed before Israel would be able to give undertakings regarding redeployment.
Part 2 contains a third element to underpin the principles of Part 1 of Resolution 242, namely agreement of measures to guarantee Israel`s territorial inviolability including the establishment of demilitarized zones. Clearly, the nature, locality and size of demilitarized zones are a function of agreement on the other principles set out in Resolution 242. The demand, as a pre-condition to negotiations, that Israel agree to the 1967 lines (which, as been shown, is not a prerequisite under Resolution 242) without finalizing demilitarized zones clearly indicates a Palestinian intent to obtain benefits without in turn having to agree to a negotiated settlement in general or to the establishment of demilitarized zones in particular.
In summary, neither the PA nor Hamas, both openly and blatantly, have met with even the minimum requirements set out in Part 1 (ii) and Part 2(c) to warrant any Israeli consideration for a pre-condition undertaking for even a modest withdrawal, let alone to the 1967 lines; certainly no party to Resolution 242, which includes the USA and the UK, should exercise pressure on Israel to provide undertakings relating to withdrawal or to final lines in the light of the near total non-compliance by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas with the provisions of Resolution 242. The EU is not a signatory to Resolution 242 but should carefully consider their views and weigh the consequences of pressurizing only Israel to withdraw while overlooking the Palestinian non-compliance with Part 1 (ii) and Part 2(c) of Resolution 242.
It is submitted that it is the international pressure on Israel to withdraw while ignoring the continued delegitimization, demonization and physical attacks on Israel and Israelis from the Palestinians and without establishing the conditions governing such withdrawal that is in fact preventing progress to a solution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The roadmap to successful negotiations, finalization of all disputes and termination of all claims lies through the application of all parts of Resolution 242. Implementing Resolution 242 in its entirety constitutes the essential pre-condition for successful negotiations and eventual solution of the Israel-Palestinian dispute. This must be the demand of the international community, including the EU.
Thanks Nurit G.

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

Sunday, October 06, 2013