Nadene Goldfoot
By continually calling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip "occupied", the Palestinians have convinced the world that they are, but legally they are not. Palestinians then continue with "resisting occupation"
Before 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip because they had illegally invaded in 1948. Jordan then annexed the West Bank in 1950. This was only recognized by Great Britain and Pakistan, and rejected by most others, including the Arab states.
Then Jordan insisted on the 1949 Armistice Line that was the Israeli-Jordanian boundary until 1967, and this again was not a recognized border but only a line separating armies. With the West Bank and Gaza, there were no internationally recognized sovereign control previously existing, but the stigma of Israel being occupiers is being used.
Stephen Schwebel headed the International Court of Justice in Hague. He wrote in 1970 about Israel. He said, "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.
On July 5, 1967, Israel entered the West Bank after much Jordanian artillery fire and ground movements across previous armistice lines. Jordan attacked Israel at 10am. Israel warned Jordan at 11am. Jordan continued to attack. Then Israel retaliated at 12:45pm. Also Iraq crossed Jordan and were ready to enter the West Bank. The boundaries of 1949 were then null and void. That's how Israel came into the West Bank. It was a defensive war.
This term has never been used with other countries and has been only applied to Israel.
Kashmir is referred to as a disputed area.
Azerbaijan's small patch calimed as an independent republic by Armenian separatistss is the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Morroco is not occupying Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony.
Zubarah, the Persian Gulf island claimed by both Qatar and Bahrain is disputed territory.
Northern Cyprus, Kurile Island, Abu Musa in the Persian Gulf are not occupied territories.
Only we in the whole world are called "occupiers" whereas there have been similar situations in other lands. This language" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history." This is how they change the causes of the conflicts for Westerners. People now think that fighting over the West Bank and even Jerusalem is the result of Israel occupying these areas and covers the truth that the Arab states invaded Israel in 1967 and Israel won by defending itself.
Even describing the territories as "Palestinian" mars the truth. It has prejudged the outcome of future negotiations. Saying that they are "resisting occupation" is a ploy to cover their terrorist activities.
Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright had it right when she said in 1994, "We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 War as occupied Palestinian territory."
Reference: http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm Dore Gold's aricle: FROM OCCUPIED TERRITORIES TO DISPUTED TERRITORIES
By continually calling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip "occupied", the Palestinians have convinced the world that they are, but legally they are not. Palestinians then continue with "resisting occupation"
Before 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip because they had illegally invaded in 1948. Jordan then annexed the West Bank in 1950. This was only recognized by Great Britain and Pakistan, and rejected by most others, including the Arab states.
Then Jordan insisted on the 1949 Armistice Line that was the Israeli-Jordanian boundary until 1967, and this again was not a recognized border but only a line separating armies. With the West Bank and Gaza, there were no internationally recognized sovereign control previously existing, but the stigma of Israel being occupiers is being used.
Stephen Schwebel headed the International Court of Justice in Hague. He wrote in 1970 about Israel. He said, "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.
On July 5, 1967, Israel entered the West Bank after much Jordanian artillery fire and ground movements across previous armistice lines. Jordan attacked Israel at 10am. Israel warned Jordan at 11am. Jordan continued to attack. Then Israel retaliated at 12:45pm. Also Iraq crossed Jordan and were ready to enter the West Bank. The boundaries of 1949 were then null and void. That's how Israel came into the West Bank. It was a defensive war.
This term has never been used with other countries and has been only applied to Israel.
Kashmir is referred to as a disputed area.
Azerbaijan's small patch calimed as an independent republic by Armenian separatistss is the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Morroco is not occupying Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony.
Zubarah, the Persian Gulf island claimed by both Qatar and Bahrain is disputed territory.
Northern Cyprus, Kurile Island, Abu Musa in the Persian Gulf are not occupied territories.
Only we in the whole world are called "occupiers" whereas there have been similar situations in other lands. This language" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history." This is how they change the causes of the conflicts for Westerners. People now think that fighting over the West Bank and even Jerusalem is the result of Israel occupying these areas and covers the truth that the Arab states invaded Israel in 1967 and Israel won by defending itself.
Even describing the territories as "Palestinian" mars the truth. It has prejudged the outcome of future negotiations. Saying that they are "resisting occupation" is a ploy to cover their terrorist activities.
Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright had it right when she said in 1994, "We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 War as occupied Palestinian territory."
Reference: http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm Dore Gold's aricle: FROM OCCUPIED TERRITORIES TO DISPUTED TERRITORIES
No comments:
Post a Comment