Europeans introduce UN resolution calling for talks based on 1949 armistice lines
The Europeans have introduced a resolution in the United Nations that ignores resolutions
242 and 338 and would have us return to the situation above - the
division of Jerusalem based on the 1949 armistice lines.
A senior European diplomat told Walla! on Thursday that the
resolution proposal includes the removal of the blockade on Gaza,
transferring control of the Hamas stronghold to the Palestinian
Authority (PA), and a return to peace talks based on the 1949 Armistice
lines.
The specific imposition of pre-defined conditions in peace talks
through a UN resolution, namely that they would be on the basis of the
1949 lines, is something that the US has been opposing for years.
On the other hand, the US proposed the 1949 lines as a basis in
framework proposals submitted earlier in the year, before the
nine-month long negotiations with the PA failed in April as the PA
signed a unity treaty with Hamas.
...
According to the European diplomat who spoke on Thursday, the
European proposal would have both sides stop attacking and define
detailed security arrangements for removing the blockade while
preventing an influx of weapons to Hamas.
"As far as Europe is concerned, it's impossible to separate the issue
of Gaza from the general Palestinian issue. Only a sustainable
diplomatic solution will bring a long quiet for the two peoples," said
the European source.
He added that France put pressure on the US through diplomatic
channels to publish US Secretary of State John Kerry's framework plan
after the Israel-PA negotiations collapsed, so as to turn it into a
program for the international community to pursue.
For it's part, Israel reportedly is distancing itself from the
European proposal, primarily due to the call for 1949 Armistice lines as
a basis for talks.
An Israeli diplomatic source said Thursday that Israel has not ruled
out renewed truce talks in Cairo, but expects Hamas to completely end
its rocket barrage first. Hamas has broken numerous ceasefires through
the course of Operation Protective Edge, most recently this Tuesday.
I wouldn't expect any better of the Europeans. The problem is that at the moment, we can't expect any better of the President of the United States either. Labels: European obsession with Israel, UN Security Council Resolution 242, UN Security Council Resolution 338, United Nations Security Council
The New York Times corrects Jodi Rudoren
Recall Jodi Rudoren's column calling stone throwing by 'Palestinians' a '
hobby.' Recall also that as an aside in that column, Jodi asserted that the 'settlements' are currently deemed '
illegal' by the United States, a position that was only taken during the Carter administration over the 46 years since Judea and Samaria were liberated. As
Adam Kredo noted:
The United States considers Israeli settlements illegal, Rudoren stated in her article.
“The United States, along with most of the world, considers these
settlements illegal, and some of them sit in the heart of the area
imagined as a future Palestinian state,” wrote Rudoren.
However, this statement is factually inaccurate, according to Middle East experts and an analysis of official U.S. policy on Israeli settlements since 1949.
“This is not the declared policy of the United States,” Steven Rosen,
a former top official at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC), wrote in a 2012 analysis of U.S. policy.
“Successive U.S. administrations have deplored settlement activity as
an obstacle to peace, but no American president—except Jimmy Carter—has
taken the view that building Jewish homes in Jerusalem constitutes a
violation of the Geneva conventions,” wrote Rosen, currently director of
the Washington Project of the Middle East Forum.
While Carter stated in 1980 that he considered the settlements
illegal, every presidential administration of the last 30 years—as well
as those before Carter’s—has refused to state this as U.S. policy.
President Barack Obama has repeatedly declined to declare settlements illegal despite pressure for him to do so.
The United States in 2011 vetoed a United Nations Security Council Resolution that would have labeled Israeli settlements illegal.
“If an American president were to take the position that all Israeli
construction outside the former 1967 line is illegal, it would have the
effect of criminalizing the Jewish communities of the eastern sector of
Jerusalem, where 40 percent of the Jews in that city live,” Rosen wrote
in his policy analysis.
If you go back to Rudoren's
original New York Times article, you will now find the following paragraph:
The cabinet decision added a number of Jewish settlements in the West
Bank territory that Israel seized in the 1967 war to a “national
priority list” of communities eligible for extra subsidies for
education, housing, infrastructure projects, cultural programs and
sports, along with better mortgage rates and loans for new homeowners.
Most of the world considers these settlements illegal, and some of them
sit in the heart of the area imagined as a future Palestinian state. The
United States has not taken a position on the settlements’ legality for
several decades, saying instead, according to the State Department, “We
do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity.”
And at the bottom you will find the following correction:
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: August 8, 2013
An
article on Monday about a decision by the Israeli cabinet to add
several Jewish settlements in the West Bank territory seized by Israel
in the 1967 war to a list of communities eligible for extra subsidies
and better mortgage rates and loans for new homeowners misstated the
United States’ view of such settlements. While much of the rest of the
world considers them illegal, as the article noted, the United States
has taken no formal position in the last several years on whether they
are legal or illegal. (In a statement on Tuesday, the State Department
said, “We do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement
activity.” )
As usual, the problem is that most of the people who read the original article will never see the correction.
For those who are interested in seeing a fascinating lecture on why 'settlements' are in fact both legal and legitimate, regardless of what the anti-Semites of the world say, please go
here.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, international law, Jodi Rudoren, New York Times, UN Security Council Resolution 242, UN Security Council Resolution 338
Video: Israel's borders in international law
Here's a video of a talk by Professor Eugene Kontorovich of Northwestern University about the international law issues related to Israel's borders.
This is a little bit long (about 46 minutes), but well worth your time.
Let's go to the videotape. I'll have a final comment after the tape.
I am in touch with Professor Kontorovich (I got this video from him and not from a Google search), so if any of you have questions or would like Professor Kontorovich to come speak on your campus or at your synagogue, please drop me a note at israelmatzav@gmail.com and I will be happy to pass it on to him.
UPDATE TUESDAY 10:59 AM
I have contacted Professor Kontorovich regarding one of the comments below, and he responded as follows:
The mandate specifically says that that Palestine shall be "a Jewish
national home." That will be achieved by allowing Jewish immigration
(which the British did not do). While all residents can become
citizens, the Mandate only speaks of a "Jewish national home."
The Partition Plan has no legal effect, it is a GA resolution.
Israel had no definite "borders" when it was born, aside from the
Mandate. The armistice lines were not borders by their very
definition.
Labels: international law, UN Security Council Resolution 242, UN Security Council Resolution 338
The lawyers write a letter
A letter drafted jointly by lawyers of the Legal Forum for Israel and by Amb. Alan Baker, Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs has been signed by lawyers from around the World and sent to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. The letter says that it is
illegal to create a 'Palestinian state' by a unilateral vote in the United Nations General Assembly.
We, the undersigned, attorneys from across the world who are involved in general matters of international law, as well as being closely concerned with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, appeal to you to use your influence and authority among the member states of the UN, with a view to preventing the adoption of the resolution that the Palestinian delegation intends to table at the forthcoming session of the General Assembly, to recognize a Palestinian state "within the 1967 borders."
By all standards and criteria, such a resolution, if adopted, would be in stark violation of all the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as contravening UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and those other resolutions based thereon.
Our reasoning is as follows:
1. The legal basis for the establishment of the State of Israel was the resolution unanimously adopted by the League of Nations in 1922, affirming the establishment of a national home for the Jewish People in the historical area of the Land of Israel. This included the areas of Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem, and close Jewish settlement throughout. This was subsequently affirmed by both houses of the U.S. Congress.
2. Article 80 of the UN Charter determines the continued validity of the rights granted to all states or peoples, or already existing international instruments (including those adopted by the League of Nations). Accordingly, the above-noted League resolution remains valid, and the 650,000 Jews presently resident in the areas of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem reside there legitimately.
3. "The 1967 borders" do not exist, and have never existed. The 1949 Armistice Agreements entered into by Israel and its Arab neighbors, establishing the Armistice Demarcation Lines, clearly stated that these lines "are without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto." Accordingly, they cannot be accepted or declared to be the international boundaries of a Palestinian state.
4. UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) called upon the parties to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and specifically stressed the need to negotiate in order to achieve "secure and recognized boundaries."
5. The Palestinian proposal, in attempting to unilaterally change the status of the territory and determine the "1967 borders" as its recognized borders, in addition to running squarely against Resolutions 242 and 338, would be a fundamental breach of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in which the parties undertook to negotiate the issue of borders and not act to change the status of the territories pending outcome of the permanent status negotiations.
6. The Palestinians entered into the various agreements constituting what is known as the "Oslo Accords" in the full knowledge that Israel's settlements existed in the areas, and that settlements would be one of the issues to be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations. Furthermore, the Oslo Accords impose no limitation on Israel's settlement activity in those areas that the Palestinians agreed would continue to be under Israel's jurisdiction and control pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.
7. While the Interim Agreement was signed by Israel and the PLO, it was witnessed by the UN together with the EU, the Russian Federation, the U.S., Egypt, and Norway. It is thus inconceivable that such witnesses, including first and foremost the UN, would now give license to a measure in the UN aimed at violating this agreement and undermining major resolutions of the Security Council.
8. While the UN has maintained a persistent policy of non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem pending a negotiated solution, despite Israel's historic rights to the city, it is inconceivable that the UN would now recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, the borders of which would include eastern Jerusalem. This would represent the ultimate in hypocrisy, double standards, and discrimination, as well as an utter disregard of the rights of Israel and the Jewish People.
9. Such unilateral action by the Palestinians could give rise to reciprocal initiatives in the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) which could include proposed legislation to declare Israel's sovereignty over extensive parts of Judea and Samaria, if and when the Palestinians carry out their unilateral action.
Of course, the real question is, given the facts in their letter, why should there be a 'Palestinian state' at all?
Labels: Ban Ki-Moon, Oslo accords, UN Security Council Resolution 242, UN Security Council Resolution 338, United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Security Council
