Jewish Rights in the Land Today (and Other)

Let us begin today by looking briefly at the historical situation that immediately followed Israel’s Declaration of Independence and the subsequent War of Independence.  At the end of the war, in 1949, armistice lines (ceasefire lines) were established.  They were similar to, but not exactly the same, as the lines within which the Jews had declared a state in 1948: Israel had gained a bit of territory.  Most significantly, Israel had secured the western part of Jerusalem.  (In the original UN proposal, Jerusalem was to be internationalized.

~~~~~~~~~~

These armistice lines – referred to as the Green Line – were the lines within which Israel remained until 1967. Egypt had taken Gaza, and Jordan had taken the remainder of Mandate Palestine – Judea and Samaria, dubbed “the West Bank” by Jordan.  Jordan, I will note, occupied this land illegally, for it was acquired in a war of aggression.

This Green Line, my friends, is the so-called border behind which Mahmoud Abbas of the PA is always insisting Israel must retreat.  He speaks of it as if it had been Israel’s official “border,” and much of the world has adopted this skewed perspective.  But it was NOT a border, it was a temporary armistice line.  Israel had an armistice agreement with Jordan; it specified that the armistice line was temporary and that a final border would be negotiated (something that never happened).

And note this well: not only was that line not Israel’s border, it was Jordan that Israel was going to negotiate with regarding a final border.  There was no mention of Palestinian Arabs; there was no suggestion that a Palestinian state would be on the other side of the border.

~~~~~~~~~~

The situation changed in 1967 during the Six Day War, which Israel fought defensively, in the process acquiring Judea and Samaria.  What Israel acquired then was Mandate land.  Unclaimed Mandate land, to be sure, but according to international law still Mandate land.

There are claims – oi, are there claims! – that Israel is an “occupier” in Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank), that Israel is there illegally, that Israel has no right to build there.

But how can Israel be an “occupier”?  This is land that the Mandate – which has never been superseded – had determined was a Homeland for the Jews.  A people cannot be an “occupier” in its own land.  How can it be “illegal” for Israel to build in this land, when the Mandate called for “close settlement” by the Jews?

I would add here that the fact that the land was acquired in a defensive war gives an added layer of legitimacy to Israel’s acquisition of it.

~~~~~~~~~~

And there is one other point of enormous significance here:  Judea and Samaria – the western part of Mandate Palestine promised to the Jews – was stateless when Israel acquired it.  No legal sovereignty had been applied to it.  That is, Jordan’s presence in the land was illegal.  Israel did not usurp the land from another state that had it legally.

According to international law, “occupation” can only take place when one state has taken control of land over which another state already had sovereignty.  And remember what I wrote yesterday: There has NEVER been a sovereign Arab state (never mind a “Palestinian Arab” state) in Palestine.

Israel did not “take” the land from any state and thus cannot be an “occupier,” no matter what claims are made to the contrary.  Of course, the myth that is promulgated is that Israel “took” the land away from the Palestinian Arabs.

~~~~~~~~~~

Following the Six Day War, Israel did not annex Judea and Samaria – something that many, myself included, deeply regret.  It would have precluded a host of problems, had Israel claimed her full rights to the land once she had control of it.  The thinking at that time was that there might be a trade of that land, or some part of it, for peace – a prospect that turned out to be greatly unrealistic.

And so Judea and Samaria remained unclaimed Mandate land, to which Israel had inarguably, the very best claim.  Certainly the fact that Israel did not annex the land did not deny her the right to build there.

~~~~~~~~~~

I will mention here only very briefly the Oslo Accords – which many, again including myself – have viewed as a huge mistake.  Today the Accords float somewhere in legal limbo, not having been formally renounced by Israel, but – breached repeatedly by the PA – not viable by any meaningful standard.

Two points should be made here with regard to Oslo.

1) The first is that the land of Judea and Samaria was divided by the Accord into three sections. Section C is land over which Israel has both civil and military control.  And in this Area, the Accords do not restrict Israel’s right to build.  (Israel voluntarily restricted her own right to build in Areas A and B, and this would change were Oslo renounced.)  ALL Jewish communities (aka “settlements”) in Judea and Samaria are in Area C.

2) It should also be noted that there is nothing in the Accords about a sovereign Palestinian state. This is an idea that morphed over time.  Even Yitzhak Rabin, who was prime minister at the time of the Accords, made it very clear that he envisioned the “final status” (which is what the Accord refers to) as something in the nature of an autonomy that is less than a full state.