Monday, June 17, 2013

Bennett: Two-state Solution is over; Time to Annex and Build

by Israel Hayom Staff

Habayit Hayehudi leader: Israel should annex settlements, establish facts on the ground to dispel the notion that a two-state solution is still viable • Deputy Foreign Minister Elkin: Most European diplomats are wedded to the idea of Palestinian state.

Economy and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett
Photo credit: Moshe Shai

Israel Hayom Staff


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

1 comment:

salubrius said...

Naftali Bennett is head of Israel's Jewish Home party. Its members were beguiled by the Oslo peace process. After a long detour in chasing a fantasy two state solution, they apparently have come to think as I do. It is time to determine whether efforts spent by Jews at this "peace process"can better be spent in cultivating our garden in all of Palestine west of the Jordan River. We have learned that the peace process is a charade just as Major-General Ion Pacepa, a defector from the Soviet bloc reported to us many years ago. See: "Soviet Russia, the Creators of the PLO and the Palestinian People"

First we must, because of our Jewish ethics, answer two 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? Thodor Meron, a government lawyer under the Labor Party, assumed we were in "belligerent occupation" of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. But that would be the case only if they had previously been occupied by a legitimate sovereign. Military belligerent occupation occurs when a belligerent state invades the territory of another sovereign state with the intention of holding the territory at least temporarily. That legal doctrine is based on Article 43 of the 4th Hague Convention of 1907 that assumes that land being occupied has a legitimate sovereign. They were illegally occupied by Jordan in after an aggressive war in 1948. No Arab country recognized Jordan's sovereignty on territories in the West Bank. Only two countries in the world recognized it -- Britain and Pakistan.
So the answer to that question is an easy "no" answer. It is perfectly moral for Israel to occupy this area. I have been occupying my own home for 46 years. Israel's occupation is just as moral as my own.

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 following WWI and not by the UN Partition Resolution No. 181 in 1947 as many believe. The result is displayed in an article that having reviewed much history and law is far too long for this comment. You can find it at 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, by 1950 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.

Post a Comment