Doc's Talk

Monday, June 04, 2007

UN Resolution 242-the facts and the intentional lies

From a colleague who attended a most important conference today in Jerusalem-once and for all it is time to set the record clear: the following represents facts, not propaganda or lies or revisionist history-this must be shared over and over again-stand up against those who purposefully misrepresent this resolution and use it as a justification for statehood by our enemy:

June 4, 2007

"Res 242"

Today I attended a conference -- "Israel's Right to Secure Boundaries: 40 Years for UN Security Council Resolution 242," sponsored by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, headed by Dore Gold, and the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

This was an opportunity to hear international lawyers and diplomats -- some associated directly with the historical time period or the drafting of 242 -- share solid information and background.

The issue of what 242 says is critically important today because its intent has been radically distorted by the Arabs. I will be writing extensively on this in weeks ahead, but here wanted to share some highlights. You may find this information useful in clarifying your own thinking on the matter and in refuting distortions where you find them.

~~~~~~~~~~

In brief, Resolution 242 provides a preamble which 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 then affirms the need for a just and lasting peace which should include "the application of both principles: withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict, and termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement 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."

It further affirms the need to guarantee freedom of navigation of international waters in the area, and to achieve a just settlement of the refugee problem.

~~~~~~~~~~

What 242 does NOT mention:

-- Palestinian people or a Palestinian state. This document addresses relations between states: Israel and
surrounding Arab states.
-- Jerusalem.
-- "Right of return." Allusion to a just settlement of the refugee problem is vague and does not even refer specifically
to Palestinian Arab refugees, for there were Jewish refugees from Arab lands as well.
-- Direct negotiations. This was anathema to the Arab states. The Arab states met in Khartoum after this passed and
declared the three "no's": no recognition of Israel, no peace, no negotiations.
-- Peace treaties. It dealt with de facto peace, not de jure. Termination of belligerency.

~~~~~~~~~~

The Arabs use Resolution 242 like a mantra, stating over and over that it requires Israel to return to the pre-'67 lines and that Israel is in non-compliance with the resolution until it does so.

This is simply not the case. First, the resolution speaks of withdrawal from "territories" and not from "the territories" or "all territories." This was intentional on the part of the framers of the resolution. It was never intended that Israel would return to the pre-'67 lines (known as the Green Line), which was just an armistice line and not a final border. We heard Alan Dershowitz speak today; he was working with Arthur Goldberg, US ambassador to the UN and one of the drafters of the resolution. Dershowitz addressed this matter of intent clearly.

Second, and very significantly, the intent of the resolution must be taken as a whole: withdrawal from whatever territories would not, in any event, take place until Israel was also provided with respect for her sovereignty and territorial integrity, and her right to live in peace within secure borders was acknowledged. This was all to be accomplished concurrently. Under no conditions was Israeli withdrawal conceived of as a precondition, something to be done absent the other stipulations of the resolution.

Israel is absolutely not in non-compliance with the resolution because she hasn't withdrawn from territories. It was not expected that Israel would move from one inch until secure boundaries for Israel were accepted by all belligerents.

The issue of secure borders for Israel is critical, and was uppermost in the minds of the drafters. Lyndon Johnson, who was president during the drafting of this resolution, was quoted as saying, "We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines for greatest security."

~~~~~~~~~~

As to the issue of military occupation, there are several significant factors:

There are substantial legal opinions that say military conquest does not confer sovereignty, but that Israel is not a military occupier in the normative sense of this term. That is because of the Mandate for Palestine, which has never been superseded by other international law. Israel was the only country that was to be established within the borders of Palestine according to the Mandate. (Israel is the only nation that could reach Judea and Samaria without crossing an international border and Israel would be able to institute civil law in Judea and Samaria without formal annexation.) There is solid opinion that Israel is maintaining a legitimate military occupation, and that Israel has a right to remain in Judea and Samaria until negotiations (and as determined thereafter).

Richard Holbroooke, former US ambassador to the UN, who spoke, made a further comment with regard to this. Resolution 242 has no enforcement mechanism -- in legal terms it was set up under chapter 6 and not chapter 7. There is no enforcement because Israel was not seen as an aggressor. (Enforcement would mean sanctioning of force to make Israel withdraw.)

Dershowitz quoted Goldberg with regard to the expectation of Israeli withdrawal, saying that Goldberg saw it as unprecedented for a victor to return all lands acquired in a war. Routinely at the end of wars land is retained by victors in order to ensure that there is no recurrence of an original belligerency, and that this happens without international objection.

Put simply, were Israel to return to pre-'67 lines (called Auschwitz borders by Abba Eban) she would be vulnerable to attack from Arab states again -- retention of land is necessary to provide Israel with security. There is the issue of strategic depth, so that an enemy cannot move to population centers too quickly, and the issue of retention of heights, in Judea and Samaria, as well as the Golan.

Binyamin Netanyahu, who also spoke, made the specific point in this context that we are not occupying Palestinian population centers -- we move in for operations necessary for security, but they control their own infrastructure, schools, press, etc. Nor does he envision a situation in which we would occupy them in that sense again.

~~~~~~~~~~

The Arab League (Saudi) initiative distorts resolution 242 and reverses its intent. It cites the resolution but claims that it requires that Israel to withdraw from all lands acquired in 1967. Further, it sets up a sequence that contradicts 242 -- demanding Israeli compliance first and making this a pre-condition.

~~~~~~~~~~

It is time for representatives of Israel and all who support her to speak out forcefully about Israeli rights. We cannot afford to be on the defensive, always accused of being required to do more. There is vast legal ammunition for us to draw on with regard to resolution 242 in order to protect our rights. As Netanyahu reminded us today, if we don't claim our rights they will dissipate.

~~~~~~~~~~

This overview addresses the issue of secure borders, the subject of the conference, and says nothing about our rights with regard to our heritage and ancient presence in the land.

~~~~~~~~~~

see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

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.