I AM A JEW (PART XVII - A Return to a Defense of Israel’s Policies & a Rebuttal Continued - Pt. 2)

As the title shows this is the 16th part (actually the 17^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on the parts.

Part I, Part II, Part III, Special Bulletin, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, Part X, Part XI, Part XII, Part XIII, Part XIV, Part XV and Part XVI.

This is a continuation to a Defense of Israel’s Policies & a Rebuttal but it no longer rebuts the article entitled “Israel’s Borders,” but rather moves on to the article referenced in "Israel’s Borders," namely a Eugene W. Rostow article that appeared in The New Republic on October 21, 1991, some 23 years ago. It appears that time stood still. The same articles are being cited. In any case the article can be found here.

To a limited extent it brings to my consciousness a portion of United Nations Security Resolution 242 that I paid too little attention to. 242’s preamble says:

which should include the application of both the following principles: (emphasis added)

and the second principle set forth is:

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

So I was wrong to essentially ignore this second principle of an inseparable resolution.

And it could be argued that Israel under this resolution did not have to withdraw its armed forces from occupied territory until “acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

But exactly how this resolution justifies the settlement of an ever-increasing Jewish hostile, permanent occupying force, is beyond me.

The state of belligerency in effect ended when the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist within the 1967 borders as long ago as 1993. That is more than 20 years ago.

On September 9, 1993 the P.L.O. chairman, Yasser Arafat exchanged letters with then (soon to be assassinated) Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin.

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

If there was ever any justification for the continued presence of the occupation and the continued expansion of settlements on Israeli territory, it ended on this date. As a matter of fact even Hamas has now recognized Israel’s Right to exist. As I pointed out in my post "I AM A JEW (PART VIII - Hamas & Likud)," the British newspaper The Global Mail reported days ago:

Hamas is endorsing Mr. Abbas’s plan for establishing a state within the so-called “1967 borders” that delineated the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In effect, Hamas now accepts Israel’s existence and the previous agreements arrived at between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel. See here.

But none of this matters. When a state is bound and determined at conquest, facts don’t matter. Its objective remains the same, as it has always been, at least in the eyes of Likud, and its leader, Netanyahu.

But allow me to return to Rostow’s presentation.

Mr. Rostow writes:

The United States has remained firmly opposed to the creation of a third Palestinian state on the territory of the Palestine Mandate.

But Rostow gives no source or citation for this bald statement. Any examination of American policy under numerous Presidents, including Reagan, shows that the US has consistently opposed Israeli settlement policies in the West Bank of Palestine.

And then Rostow makes the most incredible statement of all. One that shows his contempt for Human Rights. He urges:

Provisions for a shift of populations… are a possible solution for those West Bank Arabs who would prefer to live elsewhere.

In other words, Mr. Rostow sees nothing wrong with ethnic cleansing. If they don’t like living under a foreign oppressive state, they can pack up and become refugees, like so many already have. In Rostow’s view Palestinians, have no right to self-determination. In fact they have no rights at all.

And so I will deal with only one other article that deals with the Palestinian People (and here I must stress people, for in the end all the juridical arguments that can be made aside, what we are dealing with is people, and people are entitled to govern themselves and not be driven from their homes, or be invited to leave their homes and become refugees if they do not like to live under foreign domination.

Finally, Rostow makes this incredibly deceptive allegation:

The Bush administration seems to consider the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to be "foreign" territory to which Israel has no claim. Yet the Jews have the same right to settle there, as they have to settle in Haifa.

This is sophistry at its worst. Jews, as individuals, may have the right to settle in occupied territory, though that it is far from established, but clearly an occupying power does not have the right to annex the territory, and indeed the private property of people in an occupied land, in order to change the ethnic character of that land. The building of settlement compounds with state funds is not the same as the right of individuals.

And so we come to Maurice Ostroff’s article of June 11, 2011

He finds a simple way out of the conundrum of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. He tells us the West bank is not occupied. It is disputed territory.

But for all these years the world has recognized the West Bank as occupied territory, not part of the territory assigned to Israel by the UN resolution and the only, I stress the only basis for Israel’s existence and the only basis for the territory that Israel is to occupy. Any territory beyond that is occupied, as a result of military action. That even includes the territory that Israel occupied between 1948 and 1967. Why nobody has challenged that annexation is difficult to understand. That is the recognized term for occupied territory. The canard about defensive wars allowing for captured territory to be annexed has no basis in law or in fact, and would have made Germany’s annexation of France legal, for it was France that declared war on Germany, not the other way around. In fact had Germany invaded Britain, according to this reasoning, Germany’s annexation of Britain would have been legal. Surely no one would want to stand by such absurd reasoning, and it should be noted that except for its constant repetition, no convincing legal citation has been produced. In fact, as he himself points out, even Sharon used that term.

But regardless of the outrages committed in the “disputed” territory of Kashmir, the proper way to settle such a dispute is to immediately have a plebiscite, and to allow the people of the “disputed territory “to decide their own fate. But that is clearly not what Mr. Ostrov champions, nor does Netanyahu, at least not until after Israel, through its policies, moves enough settler into the occupied territory so as to have a majority, or drives enough Palestinians out of the territory so as to accomplish the same end.

It has become clear that Israel is no longer interested, if it ever was, in negotiating a peace treaty with the Palestinians. It is only interested in annexation driven by a religious fervor based on nothing more than to re-establish a biblical nation.

This messianic drive has become the raison d'être of modern Israel. Unfortunately, it leaves no room for other ethnic groups, except as a despised and oppressed minority within the body politic.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete.