The True Diplomatic Legacy of 1967

T. Belman. Res 242 asserts two things.
1) Israel can remain in occupation until it has an agreement for defensible borders,
2) Israel does not have to withdraw from ALL the occupied territories,
Both of these tenants are independent of each other and are not meant to be synonymous.

This does not equate with the ’67 lines with swaps as Obama demanded nor with Bush’s formula:

In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities. of recognizing realities on the ground

Thus the starting point of all past presidents is full withdrawal except for identified exceptions. There is no justification for this slant. That’s not what R 242 said. The starting point should be the Jordan river as the border. The former implies that Judea and Samaria are Arab and the latter implies that Judea and Samaria are Jewish lands. Big difference.

The Arabs have absolutely no right to Judea and Samaria. This has been so ever since the San Remo resolution was passed in 1919. This resolution awarded the land to the Jews and the Mandate for Palestine affirmed the same thing.

June 28, 2017 | 1 Comment » | 340 views

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

1 Comment / 1 Comment

  1. Doesn’t current legal theory hold that the intent of the crafters of a law is not necessarily relevant? That current “consensus” is more important. This makes all promises and conventions subject to the caprice of the moment? It essentially nullifies the validity of the law itself and makes binding international conventions too dangerous to enter into since their application and enforcement will be entirely arbitary, unpredictable, and subject to the prevailing political winds at any given moment. It makes law a joke, an excuse, a pretext, nothing more. It’s a recipe for anarchy or thinly veiled totalitarianism. That’s the kind of law Communist countries have always practiced. That’s why the Soviet Constitution was never more than a piece of paper, its rights mere rhetoric.

Comments are closed.