ws
Researcher Ze'ev Jabotinsky says international law gives Jews right over entire Land of Israel, not just part of it.
Shimon Cohen, 29/11/17
iStock
Today, November 29, marks the anniversary of the non-binding United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, which endorsed the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state in the Land of Israel.
Today, November 29, marks the anniversary of the non-binding United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, which endorsed the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state in the Land of Israel.
Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the grandson of the father of Revisionist Zionism who bore the same name, is a scholar who has probed the issue of Israel's rights under international law.
In an interview with Arutz Sheva, Jabotinsky asserted that the Partition Plan pushed by UN General Assembly Resolution 181 was, in fact, not in accordance with international law.
"The decision is contrary to international law, it’s very simple. We are commemorating the wrong event. The November 29 decision was made in contravention of the UN Charter. It was passed by the General Assembly, which sent a committee to examine the situation in Palestine and make recommendations, and the recommendations that were submitted were not adopted by those who were supposed to accept them: The British Mandate, and not the Arabs, as many think. The Mandate did not accept and did not fulfill the recommendations."
"Why recommendations? Because any resolution adopted at the United Nations Assembly is considered a recommendation rather than an operative decision. An operative decision is only made under Article 7 of the UN Charter and the Security Council."
"The recommendation was not accepted, and there are those who might think that as a result, the legal basis for our rights to the Land of Israel had been dropped, but this is not the case. The international legal basis was established on another date, which we do not celebrate and do not mention at school. This is when the League of Nations adopted the British Mandate in a vote in which all the League members unanimously accepted the Mandate and thus the Mandate became international law, and in this Mandate the rights of the Jewish people to establish a national home in the Land of Israel are recognized."
"The recommendation was not accepted, and there are those who might think that as a result, the legal basis for our rights to the Land of Israel had been dropped, but this is not the case. The international legal basis was established on another date, which we do not celebrate and do not mention at school. This is when the League of Nations adopted the British Mandate in a vote in which all the League members unanimously accepted the Mandate and thus the Mandate became international law, and in this Mandate the rights of the Jewish people to establish a national home in the Land of Israel are recognized."
"It was part of the process that began with the Balfour Declaration, which was a declaration of intentions by the British government and a kind of commitment, but it was not yet part of international law. It was passed through the Paris Peace Conference, where an international hearing was held on who would be the sovereign nation in the Land of Israel. King Faisal, who was at that time considered king of all the Arabs, was invited there. He received from the British a promise of control over the whole of the Middle East. The British could not fulfill this promise because part of his kingdom was supposed to be Syria, and the French had been promised Syria and Lebanon. A clash ensued and the British crowned him over Iraq and his brother over what today is called Jordan.
"The British Mandate obliged the British to grant the Jewish people via the Zionist movement sovereignty over the Land of Israel if the Jews became the majority in the Land of Israel, and that is essentially the source of our right in international law. When Ben Gurion declared the state, he did it eight hours before the end of the British Mandate, in order to step into the shoes of those rights. Therefore, according to international law, only the Jewish people has the right to sovereignty by means of the Zionist movement over the western Land of Israel - at first it also included the eastern side of the Land of Israel, but we gave up the eastern part."
In Jabotinsky's view, the Jewish people marks the wrong date when it celebrates November 29, while it is really worth marking the day when the international legal right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel began: July 24, 1922, the day of the ratification of the British Mandate, in which the decision to grant the Jewish people the right to reestablish their national home in the Land of Israel appears.
"The word 'reestablish' is important because it recognizes the historical right of the Jewish people to the land."
Jabotinsky added that "the only body that could have been authorized to relinquish rights granted to the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an elected body of the Zionist movement. This body made no decision to relinquish rights. What actually happened is that the Arab countries tried to completely erase the Zionist enterprise, failed in this, but succeeded in conquering parts of the western Land of Israel - but that does not mean that we agreed to it."
Jabotinsky added that "the only body that could have been authorized to relinquish rights granted to the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an elected body of the Zionist movement. This body made no decision to relinquish rights. What actually happened is that the Arab countries tried to completely erase the Zionist enterprise, failed in this, but succeeded in conquering parts of the western Land of Israel - but that does not mean that we agreed to it."
"The only body that can give up [our right to the land] today is the Knesset because it is the sovereign and representative of the Zionist movement that brought about the establishment of the Knesset. Not the Prime Minister, and not the government, but the Knesset is the sovereign representative - or the people in a referendum.”
As for the Oslo Accords, which may include recognition of another sovereign in Judea and Samaria, namely, the Palestinian entity, Jabotinsky said that even in these agreements it was decided to postpone the discussion of sovereignty to the permanent discussions between the parties. Jabotinsky mentioned that the Oslo accords were supposed to have been concluded within five years, and that after this period ended, they are no longer relevant according to international law.
As for the Oslo Accords, which may include recognition of another sovereign in Judea and Samaria, namely, the Palestinian entity, Jabotinsky said that even in these agreements it was decided to postpone the discussion of sovereignty to the permanent discussions between the parties. Jabotinsky mentioned that the Oslo accords were supposed to have been concluded within five years, and that after this period ended, they are no longer relevant according to international law.
=================
There is no such thing as Israel's "pre-1967 borders" - Israel National News
The "pre-1967 borders" do not exist and never did. They are simply 1949 ceasefire lines and post Six Day War UN Resolution 242 made it clear that Israel was not expected to move back to those 1949 armistice lines. Read the truth here.
Jeff Dunetz, 26/12/16
The editor/publisher of the blog "The Lid," Jeff is also a contributing reporter to TruthRevolt.org and MRCTV.org. He is also the political columnist for The Jewish Star, and co-host of the weekly radio show, The Hump Day News Report on the 405 Radio Network.
With Friday’s UN Vote, the international body and Barack Obama were basically saying that any Jewish community outside the “pre-1967 borders” is in "occupied Palestinian territory."
What they won’t admit because of their anti-Israel bias is that there is no such thing as pre-1967 borders. That “green line” running through the West Bank is the 1949 Armistice Line.
The armistice line was created solely because that’s Israeli and Arab forces stopped fighting at the end of the War of Independence (with some added adjustments in certain sectors).Therefore that 1949 line, that people call 1967 border is really only a military line.In fact, 1949 Armistice Agreement with the Jordanians explicitly specified that the line that was designated did not compromise any future territorial claims of the two parties, since it had been “dictated by exclusively by military considerations.” Of course the Jordanian rationale for that clause was to allow them to claim territory inside the armistice line for their very own.
Even if the Palestinians were to change their minds about wiping the Jewish State off the map (they never have), there would remain another major barrier to Israel reverting to the pre-June 1967 borders….they do not exist!
Even “famous” UN Resolution 242 which was passed by the UN Security Council five months after the Six-Day War recognized that the 1949 Armistice line was not supposed to designate final Israeli borders.
Anti-Israel forces changed the meaning of 242 by adding one simple article to the resolution: “the.” They claim that 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from “the” territories taken during the Six-Day War. The resolution actually says that “Israel should withdraw from territories” taken during the war (no article). Adding the article changes the meaning from withdrawing from some territories to all territories.
It was no accident “the” was left out. Diplomats are very exact in their language. During the negotiations to create resolution 242, Arab governments tried three times to have “the” inserted in the resolution and their request was rejected. But, by repeating what they wanted the resolution to say all these years, the Arabs succeed in convincing many people to accept their distorted interpretation of 242.
Statements made by the drafters of 242 prove there is no ambiguity about what they meant.
- Lord Caradon, sponsor of the draft that was eventually adopted, stated, before the vote in the Security Council on Resolution 242:
“… the draft Resolution is a balanced whole. To add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole as it stands. I suggest that we have reached the stage when most, if not all, of us want the draft Resolution, the whole draft Resolution and nothing but the draft Resolution.”
- Michael Stewart, (Great Britain) Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969:
“Question: “What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the late war?”
Mr. Stewart: “No, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read concurrently with the statement on withdrawal.”
- George Brown, was the British Foreign Secretary in 1967, said three year’s later:
“I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. 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 Jerusalem Post, January 3 1970)
- Arthur Goldberg, US representative, in the Security Council in the course of the discussions which preceded the adoption of Resolution 242 said:
“To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries … would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries without withdrawal. Historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description… such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. An agreement on that point is an absolute essential to a just and lasting peace just as withdrawal is…
- Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, said on Meet The Press on July 12th 1970:
“That Resolution did not say ‘withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines’. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties.”
- Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law and Public Affairs, Yale University, he was the US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs in 1967. Rostow wrote:
“… Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces ‘from territories occupied in the recent conflict’, and not ‘from the territories occupied in the recent conflict’. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word ‘the’ failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines.” (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69)
When it comes to Israel, the world has a very short memory. Not only were there no pre-1967 borders, but there was never an intention for Israel to move back to the 1949 armistice lines. That’s why the Obama/UN call for Israel to stop building communities outside the 1949 armistice lines is so absurd. It is also why the UN is being disingenuous every time they call for Israel to retreat to the 1967 borders, since it was the UN who first declared that there were no such thing as 1967 borders.
Reposted with permission from The Lid.
=================
No comments:
Post a Comment