Sunday, June 23, 2013

Salubrius on Judea and Samaria: Occupation or Liberation?



by Wallace Brand


Many in Israel such as Naftali Bennett, head of Israel's Jewish Home party, that were beguiled by the Oslo peace process, after a long detour in chasing a fantasy two state solution, have come to think as I do:   It is time, after these many years,  to determine whether efforts spent by Jews at this "peace process" is better spent in cultivating our garden in all of Palestine west of the Jordan River.  First we must, because of our Jewish ethics, answer these questions: 1. Is it moral? and 2. Is it lawful under International as well as Canon Law?
These are some of the more basic questions we must ask. The very first is:  If you "occupy" your own home, i.e., if you are not in "belligerent occupation" of someone else's lawful home, is that immoral or unlawful?  That's an easy "no" answer.  It is perfectly moral.  I have therefore turned my efforts to examine the question of the lawfulness of Jews in Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem under International Law.    That question is "whose home is all of Palestine west of the Jordan River under International Law?  I have found that question was placed in issue and was resolved many years ago, not by the UN Partition Resolution No. 181 as many believe.  The result is displayed in an article that having reviewed much history and law is too long for your publications. You can find it at http://www.think-israel.org/brand.allegedoccupation.html entitled: Roots of Israel's Sovereignty and Boundaries in International Law: In Defense of the Levy Report. It shows the conclusions of several lawyers as well as my own, each of us, independently,  reaching the same answer on questions of Jewish Sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. (Some of us took slightly different paths along the way.)   First it was recognized, at the end of WWI, by 52 nations as a "Jewish National Home".  These were the 51 Nations who were members of the League of Nations, and the United States that had declined to become a member.   Then, the Jews, having met the tacit standards originally set for statehood, these same nations under Article 80 of the UN Charter, under undisputed history and the legal doctrines of "acquired rights" and "estoppel" must recognize it as a reconstituted Jewish State.

 Basically, I am saying the Arab-Israeli conflict over who shall exercise sovereignty over Palestine was decided long ago in 1920 at San Remo. It is res judicata. Based on credible history and law, you can disregard the canard of the Jews stealing Arab land.   Since 1920, the Arabs have tried to take these political or national rights from the Jews by  threats of violence and actual violence even though Jewish development under Jewish rule brought many economic and political benefits to the Arabs.

If a member of the UN were to use threats of violence and actual violence to take land of another member, that would be outlawed under Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter.   When in this country the Mafia uses threats of violence and actual violence to take tangible or intangible property that does not belong to them it is referred to as extortion.  That seems to be currently the situation in Israel where the Arabs have for many years been claiming the ownership of political or national rights as their "inalienable right" and using threats of violence and actual violence to support their claim.  Curiously, world opinion apparently favors the Arab extortion.

Armed with this obscure history and law, when someone shouts at you the mantra "OCCUPATION!", "OCCUPATION!", "OCCUPATION", as someone did to me not long ago, referring to the Six Day War, you now can reply: "LIBERATION", "LIBERATION", "LIBERATION" as I did.



Wallace Brand (Salubrius)

Source: Middle East and Terrorism

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

No comments:

Post a Comment