Now that we've established the legal framework in place before the creation of the State of Israel, we can discuss the agreements, rights and obligations which followed it, particularly UN Security Council Resolution 242.
(If you haven't read Part 1 yet, I highly recommend it, it's good for your health)
Is Israel always in the UN's cross hairs?
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 does not call for the return to 1967 borders
I assume most of you were already familiar with this concept. Still, it never hurts to be reminded of the context around this resolution. There are many points of discussion in regards to this resolution:
Does every single word matter?
Which version actually counts, the English or the French version?
With all this media frenzy about the Palestinian unilateral state bid at the UN this coming week, does anyone ever stop to think whether this move will have any legal ramifications? What's more, does anyone even care what previous commitments state and what they oblige their parties to uphold?
Well, the Mainstream Media (MSM) sure doesn't. Furthermore, President Abbas knows very well that the MSM has a selective amnesia when it comes to these subjects, and he exploits that to the max.
Why yes, contracts are legally binding. Unless you signed a contract with Israel obviously.
Points to keep in mind which we'll be developing in this post:
United Nations General Assembly Resolutions are not legally binding.
Rights in regards to Jews and Arabs in Palestine were created in International law during the British Mandate of Palestine (in other words, a long time ago)
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 does not call for the return to 1967 borders
Israel and the Palestinian Authority signed legal agreements, or contracts, which give both parties not only rights but also obligations.
United Nations General Assembly Resolutions are NOT legally binding.
This article talks about the Arab League sending envoys to Israel to discuss an Arab "Peace initiative" which I think is flawed in its very core.
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said the foreign ministers would lead an Arab League mission to Israel to discuss the Arab peace plan, which would trade full Arab recognition of Israel for an Israeli withdrawal from all lands captured in the 1967 Mideast war and the creation of a Palestinian state.
This is wrong. It is flawed to exchange something real and physical like land for something non tangible and vague like recognition. What does recognition even really mean? How can you say you don't recognize us if you're willing to talk to us about recognition? We exist, whether they like it or not. This is not a matter of discussion. In my opinion, giving weight to their non-recognition of us gives them the power to play with us. It's a negotiation chip. They'll trade us recognition for something, but through that negotiation we will have actually gotten nothing.
The very act of party A negotiating with party B for recognition of party B implies the acknowledged existence of party B by party A, therefore the whole negotiation is futile.
The whole concept of land for peace is ridiculous. These disputed lands, we got them because THEY broke the peace. Had they not decided to wage war against us (I realize this is a very general THEY) then these lands would have never been in our hands. So we should reward both their war initiation and their losing the war by giving them land? If we had lost the Six-Day War, would we even have the option of negotiating anything? We would have been dead.
The concept of land for peace is flawed at the root. This is because in exchange of land, a physical tangible thing, we get back a concept, an idea, a warm fuzzy-wuzzy feeling which we hope is shared with our counterparts, but have no way of ever really knowing. By this Israel pays for something which was rightfully hers from the beginning, the notion of peace. Peace is not something which can be achieved in a day, there is no "On/Off" button for peace. It is achieved over time, with a respective cooperation of some sort (One which, I would imagine, would be ensured in a fair peace negotiation). Land can be given in one day, it does have that immediate property which can change in an instant from "ours" to "theirs". On the other hand, if one day peace is achieved, it can disappear in a moment. The concept of peace can be erased with one movement. But the land given for this peace would then remain in their hands. At this point, Israel will have lost everything and gained nothing.
"This is the first time the Arab League is coming to Israel," Regev said. "From its inception the Arab League has been hostile to Israel. It will be the first time we'll be flying the Arab League flag."
So they already won something. We're flying their flag. Are they flying ours?
And then the article talks of another part of the peace proposal, which in and of itself proves that this "peace proposal" is nothing more than a Trojan horse.
Israel has welcomed aspects of the plan, while rejecting its call for a return of all of the West Bank and an implied demand to resettle within Israeli borders the Palestinian families who became refugees from the 1948 war that followed Israel's creation.
The refugees issue has always angered me. Not only the issue itself, but the world's blindness to what it means. First the issue itself:
Even though about 680,000 people of Arab descent became refugees at the time of Israel's creation, most of them did so without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. Had they decided to stay, they would have been part of today's Israeli Arab population. These people have become refugees in their respective host countries, and have remained so for almost sixty years. We are now three or four generations later. At about the same time, about 1,5 million Jews were forced or threatened out of Arab countries throughout the Middle East. About 600,000 were resettled in the newly established Israel (the others fled to Europe or the United States).
These "Palestinian" refugees have lived in squalor ever since becoming refugees. One of the distinguishing marks of poverty is having many children per family. They excelled at that. Oddly enough descendants are also refugees, making them the only population on earth whose refugee status seems to be hereditary. If you would compare to other situations, this would mean that I, as a descendant of four European Jews displaced during WWII, would still be qualified as a Polish refugee, just as my grandparents were for a few years after WWII. I am sorry, but children, grandchildren, and whatever the ensuing family tree might be, they ARE NOT refugees. Of the original 680,000 refugees, how many are left? This is the only number that should be considered.
Obviously, having 8 kids per family or what not has increased their population to 3 or 4 million (I lost count). They are asking to relocate these 3-4 million refugees back in Israel. Since Israel is a democracy, a sudden increase of its Muslim population will make sure that the only Jewish country in the world will de facto no longer be Jewish. Why would they propose such a thing under the guise of a "peace proposal"? It's a sure death of Israel as we know it, and that is what they really want to achieve.
But the point that really angers me, and that no one seems to talk about, is the absurdity of this claim.
This claim, to return 4 million Palestinian "refugees" in Israel, is claimed and repeated in parallel with the claim for a Palestinian country. What do they need a Palestinian country for if the plan is for them all to be relocated in Israel? Why do they need to return to Israel if they have a Palestinian country? Isn't this an obvious attempt to erase Israel? Either from the outside, by creating a terrorist state as a neighbor, or from the inside, by eliminating the unique Jewish identity of the country through demographics.
I hate the BBC. I hate them for refusing to use the word terrorist. (except for when it comes to describing the perpetrators of the bombs in front of the BBC buildings in London in March 2001).
Richard Sambrook, director of BBC News, said security had been stepped up, and the need for further precautions was being reviewed. ... Terrorist attacks on the media were rare and so the bomb marked a significant change, he said.
I hate them for the way in their headlines Palestinians always get killed by Israeli soldiers (active use of a verb), but Israelis just simply die (passive use of the verb, even if they were brutally killed by a suicide bomber). I hate them for failing to see that Gilad Shalit's family is suffering the same pain as Alan Johnston's. (Though this isn't true either... Alan's family got proof that he's alive... We're still waiting for a peep from Gilad).
The BBC apologized this week for referring to Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and promised not to repeat "the mistake," following a complaint by four British organizations.
Arab Media Watch, Muslim Public Affairs Committee, Friends of Al-Aksa and the Institute of Islamic Political Thought sent a joint complaint to the BBC after a presenter on its Football Focus program on March 24 mentioned that Jerusalem was Israel's capital and "historic soul."
I'm sorry, but am I missing a piece of history here? Was Jerusalem ever any other country's capital?
Steel added: "I'd like to add my apologies for this most regrettable, but I'm sure accidental, factual mistake. I appreciate that the status of Jerusalem is of particular concern to Palestinians, and it is important that it is not misrepresented. I am confident that lessons have already been learned, and they will be emphasized as a result of my decision."
Again, I'm thrilled that you realize the status of Jerusalem is of particular concern to Palestinians, but then again so is the status of suicide bombers and Kassam rockets. Just because it's a particular concern of theirs doesn't make it right. On the other hand, while before 1967 Jews were forbidden to enter the old city of Jerusalem (which belonged to Jordan, and we didn't hear any "Palestinians" complain about that), ever since Jerusalem is entirely in the hands of Israel, it is open to all religions of the world. Does the Beeb care that the status of Jerusalem is also of particular concern to Israelis?
By the way, I truly "admire" the IQ level any organization with the name 'Al-Aqsa'. I went to their website, I guess it's http://www.aqsa.org.uk/. (No, they're not getting a direct link from me, even if I only have two and a half readers) (Hi Mom). They, like every other organization with the name 'Al-Aqsa' proudly show images of what they believe to be Al-Aqsa, that big mosque in Jerusalem with the shiny golden dome.
Well they're wrong.
The golden mosque is the Dome of the Rock. Masjid Qubbat As-Sakhrah. The Al-Aqsa mosque is the southern congregational mosque that is part of the complex of religious buildings Al-Haram al-Qudsi al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary). It's the small one with the Black/Dark Grey dome. On the picture, number 1 is Al-Aqsa, number 5 is the Dome of the Rock. I wonder how many of the "cool kids wearing the Arafat-Dishrag" know this.
There's so much I want to write about that when I do start writing about something, it goes all over the place and doesn't make much sense to anyone but me. I will try to stay focused on one subject at a time. Though you'll have to admit, it's complicated. Everything has an implication on everything else. For example, I still haven't gotten around to writing about the 1967 Six Day War. It's not *that* important right now, especially since you have all the other blogs talking about it, what with the 40 year anniversary and all. (And they're all doing such a good job of it, anything I'd write would really be horse manure in comparison, but I've got so much I've always wanted to say about that subject...)
But there is something important about the Six Day War which strikes me as important today. Depending on where you learned your history, your version of the Six Day War might be different. People like to think that because I am Israeli, I have the subjective "Israeli" version. I tend to think that this is not so true. Though I grew up in Israel until my early teens, I later moved to Europe, and had a very non-Israeli, non-Jewish education. I never had a history lesson in Israel or in an Israeli school. My mother often wondered how I turned so pro-Israeli despite the fact that nothing in my education was ever in that direction. My education taught me to think rationally and to question everything and to base everything on facts.
The Six Day War is largely considered a war imposed on Israel by a few Arab countries (depends on whether you count just the countries that really participated, or the countries which helped the participating countries, but at that point in time it was quite clear, Israel had no Arab friends). Even though the first shot came from Israel, it is justified as a defensive attack because of a few "minor" details, to name a few: Egyptian naval blockade of the Straits of Tiran, military buildup in the Sinai Peninsula and expulsion of the United Nations Emergency Force from there, as well as Syrian support for Fedayeen incursions into Israel.
All these, as well as clear statements and intelligence documents, pointed to a clear danger for Israel and her citizens. And danger to Israel from Arab countries doesn't mean slight loss of territory or an economic embargo or something "survivable" like this. Nonono. Just like Hamas, Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah make it crystal clear today, Arab countries were very open with their intentions back then as well. The intention always was, and still is, total annihilation of the State of Israel. Push the Jews to the sea. Israel will not survive. Israel will be wiped off the map. What would any country responsible for her citizens do in such a situation? What did Israel do in the face of this threat? Israel made a preemptive attack against a threatened Arab invasion.
And the world applauded this. Israel was the underdog back then. Arab countries all around showed hostile intentions, and Israel took action. The world could only speak well of this tiny young country which managed to ground the Egyptian Air Force before it even started flying. They congratulated Israel for making a preemptive attack and a short war and in this way saving countless lives, rather then waiting until the Arabs started a full fledged war which would have brought on a much longer battling period.
Now 40 years later, I am astounded by the headlines I see all around me. While the 1967 Time's article about the war is full of awe for the swift Israeli victory, today's articles have a distorted vision of the past and seem to ignore the facts. Israel was threatened. It had every right to defend herself. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.
Now the parallel with today. It started already last summer. On one side of the border, Israel withdrew from the disputed territories in Gaza and hoped that calm would ensue. It didn't. Kassam rockets were fired regularly into israel, and on June 25th, terrorists abducted Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier from inside the State of Israel. What where they protesting? What more is Israel supposed to give to them so that they stay calm? More land? But I thought all they wanted was the "occupied territories", not Israel itself? Anyway, drifting off. So Kassam rockets and Israeli soldier abduction on that side. Ceasefirese have been made since, but I'm not quite sure what they mean by ceasefire, seen as they haven't ceased to fire Kassam rockets, but have intensified instead.
On the northern border, where every last Israeli soldier left the area in May 2000 (Ehud Barak's decision), Hezbollah had been rearming itself for the previous six years. This included creating Katyusha launching pads inside civilian homes and creating an arsenal of hundreds of thousands of Katyusha rockets to be launched indiscriminately on the Israeli civilian population. On July 12th, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, two Israeli reservist soldiers, were abducted by Hezbollah under the nose of the UN (again), because Katyusha rockets were fired as a diversion elsewhere.
Israel was under attack and needed to defend herself. For once the world wasn't completely against Israel. Nations were disagreeing on the disproportionate force (that's a whooooole other story...), were quite wimpy about their support for Israel, and towards the end of the war they were getting quite impatient (as were we all), but generally the world agreed that Israel was attacked for "no real reason". It was quite a flying pig moment. Then came resolution 1701.
The Resolution demands:
Full cessation of hostilities
Israel to withdraw all of its forces from Lebanon in parallel with Lebanese and UNIFIL soldiers deploying throughout the South
Hezbollah to be disarmed
Full control of Lebanon by the government of Lebanon
No paramilitary forces, including (and implying) Hezbollah, will be south of the Litani River
The Resolution at the same time also emphasizes:
The need to address urgently the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers, that have given rise to the current crisis.
Now let's go over the list bulletpoint by bulletpoint.
Full cessation of hostilities? Well Katyushas have stopped raining on the north, that's true. But have you ever heard of the Muslim concept of a Hudna? "if Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud" It is not a ceasefire, but a pause in battle so that one side can re-organize itself.
Israel withdrawal? Done. (Again.)
UNIFIL deployment? In theory, yeah. They don't patrol at night because of the danger involved. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at this. They spend time building a giant Sauna for the Finnish delegation. They accept Muslim countries which don't recognize Israel to watch over Israel's border. I can't stress this enough times, the UN is a bunch of Useless Nobodies.
Hezbollah disarmed? Not yet, not ever.
Full control of Lebanon by the Lebanese government? Uhhh, nonono, south of Lebanon is still Hezbollah territory.
No paramilitary (koffkoff Hezbollah) south of the Litani? Well, what have we learned from the last three bulletpoints? This is an obviously useless resolution point.
Now the last point is emphasized. Bring our boys back home. Not only are they nowhere near home, but we haven't gotten any signs of life from them. International law (you know, Geneva conventions and things like that which you always keep waving at Israel) requires that prisoners of war be given contact with the Red Cross. Unless the prisoners are Israeli of course. Amnesty moves heaven and earth in order to ensure the fair treatment of prisoners. Unless the prisoners are Israeli of course.
So you see, all these points mean that were Israel to attack now, it would be justified. It was justified 40 years ago, even if now people don't agree anymore. But if Israel were to attack now, you wouldn't have to wait 40 years for the condemnations.
And you see, I'm talking all over the place. Too many thoughts in my head and I'm too angry at this world to make sense.
I love it when people I admire get recognized for their intelligence and their integrity.
While the representatives of Arab nations got ready for their periodic whine (this time's excuse is "waaaaah, Israel didn't let us defeat and annihilate her 40 years ago, we've been miserable ever since, waah waaaaah"), others got recognition for the values they defend.
NEW YORK — In a resplendent dinner ceremony the night after Memorial Day, the Respect for Law Alliance (RFLA) honored a dozen individuals who have sworn to defend, protect and uphold justice.
...
Ambassador Dan Gillerman, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, accepted the Diplomat Leader Award. He is the first Israeli representative to serve as vice president of the General Assembly in 53 years, since Abba Eban held the position in 1952. Gillerman previously served as CEO of several Israeli companies and is the first person from the private sector that Israel has appointed as ambassador to the U.N.
"We respect your freedom, your bravery, your values — we feel that we have a lot in common," Gillerman said.
Mazal Tov Danny. May this be just the beginning of a long path of defending Israel and Justice.
