Belligerent acts by the Arab state justified Israel's resort to arms in self-defense in accordance with the Law of Nations
October 17, 2012
re-post Mar. 23, 2014
In
June 1967, the combined armies of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan attacked
Israel with the clear purpose expressed by Egypt's President:
"Destruction of Israel." At the end of what is now known as the 1967
Six-Day War, Israel, against all odds, was victorious and in possession
of the territories of the West Bank, Sinai and the Golan Heights.
International
law makes a clear distinction between defensive wars and wars of
aggression. Egypt's blockade of the waterway known as the Strait of
Tiran, which prevented access to Israel's southern port of Eilat, was an
act of aggression that led to the Six-Day War in 1967. More than six
decades after the 1948 War and more than four decades since the 1967
Six-Day War, it is hard to imagine the dire circumstances Israel faced
and the price it paid to fend off its neighbors' attacks.
Israel,
faced with the imminent threat of obliteration, was forced to invoke
its right of self-defense, a basic tenet of international law, enshrined
in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Israel's wars with her
neighbors are zero-sum games. The Arab objective in the 1967 Six-Day War
was to overrun and eradicate the Jewish state.
Arabs
would like the world to believe that in 1967, Israel simply woke-up one
morning and invaded them, and therefore Israel's control of the Golan
Heights, West Bank and Sinai is the illicit fruit of an illegal act -
like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991.
Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) states the following facts:
"The facts of the June 1967 'Six Day War' demonstrate that Israel
reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by
her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded
to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a
blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the
UAR's use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled
with its ejection of UNEF. It is indicated by the fact that, upon
Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities
against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the
most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the
Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an
aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts
were decisively defeated. The conclusion to which these facts lead is
that the Israeli conquest of Arab and A
rab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest."
The
answer can be found on the official website of the Jordanian Government
under the heading "The Disaster of 1967." It describes the events of
the days prior to June 5, 1967 and clearly indicates that Jordan, at
least, expected Egypt to launch the offensive war against Israel. Israel
did not enter the West Bank until it was first attacked by Jordan:
"On
May 16, Nasser shocked the world by asking the United Nations to
withdraw its forces from Sinai. To the surprise of many, his request was
honored two days later. Moreover, the Egyptian president closed the
Straits of Tiran on May 22. Sensing that war was now likely, [And] � in
response to the Israeli attack [on the Egyptian Air Force], Jordanian
forces launched an offensive into Israel, but were soon driven
back as the Israeli forces counterattacked into the West Bank and Arab
East Jerusalem." [Italic by author]
In
fact, Jordan was an illegal occupier of the West Bank from 1948 to
1967, and the undisputable aggressor in the Six-Day War of 1967. Thus,
Israel acted lawfully by exercising its right of self-defense when it
redeemed and legally occupied Judea and Samaria, known also as the West
Bank.
Israel had clarified to Jordan through UN diplomatic channels that it
should stay out of the war. It stated simply: "We shall not attack any
country unless it opens war on us." King Hussein of Jordan sent a reply
via the UN envoy that "since Israel had attacked Egypt, [Israel] would
receive his reply by air" - a 'message' that came in the form of
Jordanian air raids on civilian and military targets, shelling Jerusalem
with mortars and long-range artillery on Ben-Gurion Airport, then
extending the front to shelling Israel's 'narrow hips' under the
mistaken belief that the Arabs were winning. Had Jordan heeded Israel's
message of peace instead of Egypt's lies that the Arabs were winning the
war, the Hashemite Kingdom could have remained neutral in the conflict,
and Eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank would have remained in Jordan's
possession. Jordan was far from a 'minor player' in the Arabs' war of
aggression as their narrative implies.
Israel lost 183 soldiers in battle with Jordanian forces.
Judge Sir Elihu Lauterpacht wrote in 1968, just one year after the 1967 Six-Day War:
"On 5th June, 1967, Jordan deliberately overthrew the Armistice
Agreement by attacking the Israeli-held part of Jerusalem. There was no
question of this Jordanian action being a reaction to any Israeli
attack. It took place notwithstanding explicit Israeli assurances,
conveyed to King Hussein through the U.N. Commander, that if Jordan did
not attack Israel, Israel would not attack Jordan. Although the charge
of aggression is freely made against Israel in relation to the Six-Days
War the fact remains that the two attempts made in the General Assembly
in June-July 1967 to secure the condemnation of Israel as an aggressor
failed. A clear and striking majority of the members of the U.N. voted
against the proposition that Israel was an aggressor."
Professor, Judge Schwebel, wrote in What Weight to Conquest:
"(a)
a state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense
may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and
occupation are necessary to its self-defense;
"(b)
as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may
require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to
ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or
use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of
self-defense;
"(c)
where the prior holder of territory [Jordan] had seized that territory
unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the
lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better
title.
"As
between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand,
and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the
other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was
Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem ..."
No comments:
Post a Comment