Israel's in her ancestral land - SOVEREIGNTY IN THE ADMINISTERED TERRITORIES
Israel's
in her ancestral land - SOVEREIGNTY IN THE ADMINISTERED TERRITORIES
The principle ex iniuria non oritur ius operates in
international law to the effect that no legal claim to territory can rise out
of an illegal aggression. Professor Stone examines the application of this rule
to the competing claims of Israel and Jordan in the administered territories. In his conclusion,
he draws upon the writings of Professor Stephen Schwebel, now an eminent judge
of the International Court of Justice
The Self-Defense Principle
The basic precept of international law concerning the rights of a state victim
of aggression, which has lawfully occupied the attacking state’s territory in
the course of self-defense, is clear. And it is still international law after
the Charter, which gave to the UN General Assembly no power to amend this law.
This precept is that a lawful occupant such as Israel is entitled to remain in control of the
territory involved pending negotiation of a treaty of peace.
Both Resolution 242 (1967) and Resolution 338 (1973), adopted by the Security
Council after respective wars of those years, expressed this requirement for
settlement by negotiations between the parties, the latter in those words.
Conversely both the Security Council and the General Assembly in 1967 resisted
heavy Soviet and Arab pressures demanding automatic Israeli withdrawal to the
pre-1997 frontiers. Through the decade 1966-67, Egypt and her Arab allies compounded the
illegality of their continued hostilities by proclaiming the slogan “No
recognition! No Peace! No negotiation!” thus blocking the regular process of
international law for post-war pacification and settlement…
Israel's territorial rights after 1967 are best seen by contrasting them with
Jordan's lack of such rights in Jerusalem and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria)
after the Arab invasion of Palestine in 1948. The presence of Jordan in Jerusalem and elsewhere in cis-Jordan[1] from 1948
to 1967 was only by virtue of her illegal entry in 1948. Under the
international law principle ex iniuria non oritur ius she acquired no legal
title there. Egypt itself denied Jordanian Sovereignty; and Egypt never tried to claim Gaza as Egyptian territory
By contrast, Israel's presence in all these areas pending
negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
International law forbids acquisition by unlawful force, but not where, as in
the case of Israel's self-defense in 1967, the entry on the
territory was lawful. It does not so forbid it, in particular, when the force
is used to stop an aggressor, for the effect of such prohibition would be to
guarantee to all potential aggressors that, even if their aggression failed,
all territory lost in the attempt would be automatically returned to them. Such
a rule would be absurd to the point of lunacy. There is no such rule….
International law, therefore, gives a triple underpinning to Israel's claim
that she is under no obligation to hand back automatically the West Bank (Judea
and Samaria) and Gaza and the Golan Heights to Jordan or anyone else. In the
first place, these lands never legally belonged to Jordan. Second, even if they had, Israel's own present control is lawful, and she
is entitled to negotiate the extent and the terms of her withdrawal. Third,
international law would not in such circumstances require the automatic handing
back of territory even to an aggressor who was the former sovereign. It
requires the extent and conditions of the handing back to be negotiated between
the parties.
See the rest on the link below:
http://www.mefacts.com/cached.asp?x_id=10359
International Law and The Arab-Israel Conflict - MEfacts.com
www.mefacts.com/cached.asp?x_id=10359
Julius Stone. INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ARAB-ISRAEL
CONFLICT. Extracts from "Israel and Palestine - Assault on the Law of Nations" by Julius Stone.
We are fighting a "war" against Islamic terrorism is nonsense.
ReplyDeleteA war aims to take the heart out of the enemy, by striking his strategic assets, his leaders, high-tech control networks, and any major weapons systems. Wiping out his cities and populations has long been a strategy that takes the fight out of enemies, endangers leaders and keeps them looking back over their shoulders. Our blood and treasure has been directed against their ignorant foot-soldiers and relatively small arms caches. We spend $millions to wipe out penny ante soldier-leaders and their cheap weapons, and we do this because our leaders fear losing power in a "system" they have learned to master, so the military action they chose is just enough to show they are "trying". That is what's behind "politically correct", maintaining the status quo and your position in the Big Government that allows little people large compensation, benefits, and privileges. Those leaders need to be dumped for some who know how to totally destroy an enemy.
Fear and greed are the two greatest emotions that control man who is driven by survival genes that brought him thru long hardships on the planet. Terrorists are following the ages-old techniques of earliest "primitives". By being viciously cruel and savage, they inspire disabling fear in any surviving competitor. The little terrorist's greed for power and privilege is easily directed back to his savage nature. Fear is removed in him by religious leader-driven conviction that there is honor and reward in dying for Islam.
Since there are few strategic physical assets or major control networks, we have to attack what's left, the terror driving leadership. We attack the secular leaders, but fear that attacking the source of religious terror, in the mosques, will paint our leaders as savages, not the elite image they want. They "fear" to fight positively.
The easiest and most effective strategy would be to induce great fear in their religious leaders; few are that religious that they won't fear losing their power and lives.
If a force of unknown origin focused on the quiet disappearance of the most vocal and incendiary clerics that incite terrorism, perhaps after a particularly inspiring sermon, fear and wonder might slowly displace their hate and religious zeal. Just think about a better target and let us know.
P.S. The best of the snakes you must crush its head
The U.N. is an antis emetic organization
ReplyDeleteThe U.N. Anti-Semitism agenda.
This is all smoke and mirrors.
The history of the U.N. in relationship to Israel which affects anti-Semitism worldwide, has been shameful and catastrophic.
When you have an organization where a substantial part of its members are adamantly anti Israel and promote her destruction.
Members who spew hate and violence.
Members who consistently vote against Israel without justification or humane logic.
An organization that finances terrorism and helps Hamas and its ilk to hide weapons and launch missiles from U.N. facilities against innocent civilians, men, women and children.
Look at the history of U.N. resolutions against Israel and the resolutions against the terrorists organization confronting Israel.
The U.N. an organization that is extremely biased against Israel.
When you put members of states that violate human rights on a daily basis on the Human rights commission, that speaks volumes.
I can go on and on.
Need I say more.
YJ Draiman