The historical fiction of Israel’s “occupation”
Since today is a relatively slow news day (he says, probably to be surprised), it’s a good time for another legal history lesson, from law professor Eugene Kontorovich, who also is affiliated with The Lawfare Project.
We previously featured his lecture, The Legal Case for Israel, which addressed the mythology that Israel illegally occupies the West Bank. In fact, as Prof. Kontorovich explained in great detail, it was Jordan which illegally occupied the West Bank after the armistice of 1949 until 1967. Israel took back what illegally had been taken from it.
But that is not what we are led to believe by the media, politicians and international organizations hostile to Israel. Indeed, the Palestinians just announced they will not even return to negotiations unless Israel accepts the precondition of a return to the 1949 armistice borders.
Kontorovich’s recent interview on Shalom TV (h/t Daled Amos) is worth a listen in its entirety. If you want, jump ahead to 16:30 where he discussed the legality of “settlements” and how Israel has been treated differently than other countries in this regard.
What land Israel chooses to give up as part of an ultimate peace agreement will be a political and military decision.
The notion that Israel illegally occupies places such as the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, however, is just a historical fraud and a powerful weapon in the war on Israel.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
It does not help that Israeli governments are willing to trade land for peace or to halt building settlements or pull Israelis out of some zones. That kind of thing supports the enemy’s view that steal is illegitimate.
Just kick ass and take names. The world can’t say worse than they’ve already said.
Flippin’ iPad. Not ‘steal’ but ‘Israel’
Typical Palestinian negotiation strategy, the return to which would be celebrated by the rest of the world that would then press Israel to make further concessions. “Give us almost all that we want before we sit down and then we’ll see if we want more.”
But I always get a laugh when the Arabs and their supporters talk about the 1949 borders as if they were sacred. At the Rhodes conference, in the actual armistice agreements themselves, and constantly from 1949 until 1967, the Arabs insisted loudly and heatedly that the lines were not borders and never would be regarded as borders.
They were, all the Arabs said unequivocally, merely cease-fire lines, points at which they had agreed to stop fighting for the moment, but would be crossed when the time came to wipe out the Zionist entity. And in fact the Arabs talked a great deal in the spring of 1967 about doing just that. A funny thing happened on the way to liberating Palestine, though.
This typifies one reason why the Palestinians see no reason to negotiate in good faith for a peace acceptable to both sides–the world has taught them that they don’t need to, that they will in fact be rewarded for launching and losing wars.
The other reason is that they don’t want a peace acceptable to both parties.
God bless Eugene Kontorovich. Finally I have heard someone who can articulate all the ‘legal’ issues surrounding Israel.
Ever wonder why there are more “Palestinian refugee camps” in Jordan than any other country?
Ever wonder why it is never talked about?
No. I don’t wonder. I also don’t wonder about where the “Palestinians” came from: Yemen, Sudan, Tunisia, Egypt, blah blah blah.
No. I don’t wonder because it is an open secret. I also don’t wonder about where the “Palestinians” came from: Yemen, Sudan, Tunisia, Egypt, blah blah blah.
My 2008 essay, “Why can’t Israel live in peace?” seems relevant here, too.
As the professor was speaking I was thinking “Wow, here’s a guy who should be in the House or the Senate..” Then he mentions that he’s going to Israel. Our loss.
I hope they get his butt into the Knesset post-haste.