…. herewith is my answer to your question about Article 80 of the UN Charter and how that provision of law affects the UN in deciding on the Arab “Palestinian” bid to be recognized as a new independent state in Judea Samaria and Gaza, with its capital in eastern Jerusalem. I strongly believe that any resolution adopted by the Security Council or General Assembly recognizing “Palestinian” statehood would be blatantly illegal in violation of its own Charter (specifically Article 80) and also beyond the authority of both these UN organs.
Article 80 preserves intact the rights of the Jewish People granted under the Mandate for Palestine , and those rights could not be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the parties concerned. No such agreement was ever made during the three year period from 1945 to 1948 when it was possible to make this kind of agreement and it is now too late to do so. Therefore all Jewish rights under the Mandate remain in full force today, including in particular the right to establish new Jewish settlements in any part of former Mandated Palestine under effective Israeli control.
All UN bodies and agencies are obliged or bound by Article 80 and therefore the UN cannot legally prevent the Jews of Israel from exercising their rights or interfering with them that were recognized under the Mandate, or transfer those rights to a non-Jewish entity such as the “Palestinian” Authority. All of Palestine was reserved or assigned exclusively for the Jewish National Home on April 25, 1920 upon the adoption of the San Remo Resolution even though the boundaries of the country were not delineated on that particular date* and no part of the land was allotted for an Arab National Home or State since Arab self determination was being granted elsewhere in Syria, Iraq, Arabia and North Africa.
Moreover, the UN is not the sovereign of the land we call Eretz-Israel where a new Arab state is to be established contrary to existing international law. I enunciated this very point in my two hour interview with a film crew from the European Council for Israel that took place on May 3, 2011 at my Jerusalem home. Unfortunately this very important point was edited out of the You Tube video “Give Peace a Chance”, now widely shown on the internet. By this fact alone, the UN has no authority or power to divide the land for the purpose of creating this new Arab “Palestinian” state.
Apart from that fact, there is no provision in the UN Charter, which is an international treaty, that gives the UN the power to create a new state, or to allot territory to create such a state especially in the case where the land in question belongs to the Jewish People.
If the UN had such power, then logically it would also have the inverse power to “de-create” or dismember an existing state, a power it certainly does not hold under the UN Charter.
For the foregoing reasons, the bill introduced in Congress by Ileana Ros – Lehtinen to withdraw American funding to the UN if it recognizes Arab “Palestinian” statehood is definitely the proper course of action to follow.
* The borders for the Jewish Homeland were decided on Dec. 23rd. 1920.
Mandate for Palestine, April 24, 1920.
Boundaries of the Land in which the JEWISH National Home was to be reconstituted.
MARCH 29, 2012
POSTED BY TED BELAM
To Mr. Leonello Gabrici
The Head of the Division,
Middle East II: Israel, Occupied Palestinian Territory,
Middle East Peace Process,
European External Action Service
Dear Mr. Gabrici,
I am appalled and dumbstruck by the fact that you are the Head of a Division of the European External Action Service whose jurisdiction explicitly deals with “Middle East II: Israel, Occupied Palestinian Territory, Middle East Peace Process”. This title is an insult to the Jewish People, to Zionism and the valiant struggle that the Jews waged to reclaim their ancient homeland, a struggle that began in earnest with the convocation of the first Zionist Congress at Basel, Switzerland in 1897.
The country of Palestine was created in April 1920 at the San Remo Peace Conference for one purpose only – to be the Jewish National Home, and the term “Occupied Palestinian Territory” is thus an oxymoron since Palestine was never intended to be an Arab land under international law now supposedly “occupied” by Israel, as the title of your office implies, but rather was always intended to be a Jewish land that was to reconstitute the ancient Jewish State of Judea destroyed by Rome in the first century C.E. It takes staggering ignorance or ingrained hostility to the Jewish People and Zionism to believe that the land known to the Jews as Eretz-Israel since the time of Joshua Bin-Nun, long before it was called Palestine, belongs to the local Arab inhabitants who have falsely re-branded themselves as “Palestinians”.
To disabuse yourself of the notion that there is such a thing in international law as “Israel-Occupied Palestinian Territory”, I would highly recommend that you read the pronouncements made by two eminent British statesmen who were instrumental in creating Palestine as the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, namely, Prime Minister David Lloyd George and Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour, as well as those of Balfour’s successor, Lord Curzon, who did not favour the concept of Zionism but nevertheless admitted that Palestine was to become a Jewish country. I would also recommend that you read the statements made at the San Remo Peace Conference at the two sessions of April 24 and April 25, 1920 dealing with Palestine by the French Prime Minister Alexandre Millerand and the Director of the French Foreign Ministry, Philippe Berthelot, who, though vehemently opposed to establishing Palestine as a Jewish State, nevertheless conceded that was the actual purpose of the Balfour Declaration that was adopted in a new format by means of the San Remo Resolution that henceforth became part of international law and the foundation document of the State of Israel.
You condescendingly state that I am “fully entitled to express [my] particular historic and legal interpretations regarding Israel’s territorial rights”, as if I am formulating a non-legal, individualistic argument that is not in accord with the facts or the truth. I have in my correspondence with Mr. Ilkka Uusitalo enumerated all those acts, principles and norms of international law which evidence the fact that an undivided Palestine was to be established as a Jewish State, without the creation of an Arab state in any part of the country. I will thus not repeat these arguments here. What I wrote is not “particular” to myself but is based solidly on the texts of various acts of international law that were approved by all the victorious Allied powers that dismantled the Ottoman Empire, including three prominent states of the European Union today, namely: Britain, France and Italy.
Upon the re-birth of the Jewish State on May 15, 1948, Jewish legal rights to Palestine were devolved upon the State of Israel. Whatever you may think, those rights never lapsed, were never annulled or voided and never validly or legally transferred to an Arab people known as “Palestinians”, as you so wrongly assume. Moreover, subsequent events – such as the 1947 Partition Resolution, Security Council Resolution 242, the Israel-PLO Agreements or the Road Map Peace Plan – have not superseded or curtailed the rights of the Jewish People to former Mandated Palestine, since none of those documents constitute acts of binding international law, despite the impression given to the contrary by advocates of the Arab “Palestinian” cause, including leading officials of the European Union and its bureaucratic apparatus, that includes your own office.
Mr. Gabrici, the acts and provisions of international law as well as the legal principles and norms I cited earlier to Mr. Uusitalo are not my “interpretations” of international law; they were what the law clearly states or connotes, without the necessity for “interpretation”, as you so glibly tell me. An interpretation of a specific law or that of an international agreement or treaty is only required when their plain meaning is unclear or ambiguous. That is certainly not the case for the relevant documents of international law pertaining to the legal status of former Mandated Palestine and Jewish legal rights thereto. It is you, not I, who prefers to “interpret” international law to favour the artificial and fabricated Arab “Palestinian” claim to Palestine. You ought to open your mind to the legal truth that you have never learnt or assimilated and the accompanying legal facts which underpin and confirm the ironclad Jewish case to the Land of Israel. If you do so, you will no longer be associated with a European office that falsely asserts that “Palestine” is “Israel-occupied Palestinian territory”.
I shall follow your advice and desist from any further exchanges with the European External Action Service, in particular with the Division you head. Perhaps you will be so kind as to place this letter in the hands of Lady Catherine Ashton to dispel her ignorance in addition to your own.
Dear Mr. Sherman,
I congratulate you on your excellent column published in The Jerusalem Post on Friday, February 24, 2012 on the misjudgments and detrimental concessions made by Israeli decision-makers dating from the Six-Day War that were also urged on by various prominent Israelis in our relations with Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, the “Palestine Liberation” Organization and its offshoot created by Israel itself, the “Palestinian Authority”.
You rightly stated that the Israeli leadership displayed “moronic myopia” and blindness in proposing a total withdrawal from the Golan Heights and South Lebanon and even earlier from Sinai, and you backed up your appraisal by quoting the exact words of those who fit into this embarrassing category. No doubt you stand on solid ground in reminding ordinary Israeli and their government leaders of the folly of the “land for peace” formula – or as you also aptly call it, the “Nirvana-Now” formula – an unattainable goal with the Arab haters of Israel infused with the tenets of Islam, particularly those found in Islam’s oral tradition known as the Hadith. This tradition defines the whole of the Land of Israel as Muslim or Waqf territory which, as one Islamic scholar, a Moslem himself, Professor Khaleel Mohammad of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, has said is “is to be wrested from the accursed Jews in a brutal and bloody eschatological battle”.
While I salute you for naming those public figures who have made “appallingly inaccurate assessment[s] of Israel’s adversaries”, particularly in regard to negotiating a peace agreement with Syria’s Hafez Assad and, after his death, with his son, Bashar Assad, to wit: former IDF Chief-of-Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, former Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, former Director-General of the Foreign Ministry Dr. Alon Liel and the celebrated but anti-nationalist, extreme left-wing author Amos Oz, what I found lacking in your otherwise astute column was that you failed to mention at all the worst culprits, who recklessly and I may add illegally proposed giving up either all or most of the Golan Heights to Syria as part of a “land-for-peace” agreement, that as we know now would have put Israel in the most precarious position possible requiring no less than a new Six-Day War to recapture it. In this regard, the first Prime Minister to propose withdrawing from the Golan was Yitzhak Rabin in the early to mid-nineties, who told U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher that Israel would be willing to cede the Golan in return for ending the war with Syria, as confirmed by Rabin’s military aide, Danny Yatom, who sat in on the meeting between the two where this subject was discussed.
That proposed cession was in my legal opinion a clear violation of Sections 97 and 100 of the Penal Code dealing with treason. Rabin’s offer to Syria was made without the consent of the Cabinet and at a time when there was no law or procedure that allowed the cession of Israeli territory to another state for any reason whatsoever. Rabin’s alleged act of treason was then pursued by Shimon Peres when he succeeded Rabin as Prime Minister. Even Prime Minister Netanyahu in his first term of office (1996-1999) was reported in the press to have made a similar offer that would have entailed a treasonous withdrawal from most of the Golan. What good then are the laws of treason in our law books if they are not enforced or prosecuted by the Attorney-General against those in positions of power or influence who make offers or devise plans to cede sovereign Israeli territory to another state or entity – that is expressly prohibited by the Penal Code? The Attorney-Generals who did nothing when these offers were made – Michael Ben-Yair and Meni Mazuz – should themselves have been prosecuted for dereliction of duty and failure to uphold the laws of the State they swore under oath to uphold.
As regards Dr. Liel, I take the liberty to mention that several years ago I tried to convince MK Professor Arieh Eldad to file treason charges under the aforementioned Sections 97 and 100 of the Penal Code against Liel for cooking up, without lawful authority to do so, a private or unofficial peace agreement with a Syrian representative who was an American citizen, Ibrahim (Abe) Suleiman, under which Israel would crazily surrender the entire Golan to the young and brutal tyrant, Bashar Assad, as evidenced by a document to that effect, termed a “non-paper”, dated August 29, 2005, thus committing an act to impair Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan according to our law, punishable by the death penalty or life imprisonment. However, I never heard back from MK Eldad though I know he later made use of the legal information I gave him on the treason provisions of the Penal Code to accuse Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of committing treason for his ludicrous offer to the PLO to re-divide Jerusalem and surrender practically all of Yosh, separate and apart from conceding all of the Golan to Syria in a failed bid to satisfy all alleged or imagined Arab grievances against Israel., grievances that can never be satisfied except by the disappearance of the Jewish State.
The Golan Heights, of course, was not the only case where land was relinquished to “buy peace” with our adversaries. We have to go back as you rightly pointed out to Prime Minister Menahem Begin, who, upon winning power after 29 years in the Opposition, decided to surrender Sinai to Egypt even though Sinai had never in the modern period been a recognized sovereign part of Egypt under international law. It is clear today that this cession has caused enormous harm to Israel since Sinai, thanks to Begin’s foolish and illegal “land for peace” treaty with Egypt, is now a terrorist and smuggler’s paradise that threatens Israel’s security and has also become an open door for tens of thousands of African migrants to enter Israel with all the social problems this will cause us in the future.
It should interest you to know that Begin was explicitly forewarned by two of his brightest advisers at the time of the Camp David negotiations not to proceed with his ill-conceived plan to cede Sinai to Egypt, a territory which was really a part of the historical Land of Israel mentioned in our Torah, that was also formerly included in the Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem under Turkish rule before Britain, in a famous incident of gunboat diplomacy against the Ottoman Sultan in 1906 forced him to relinquish direct Turkish rule over this territory and hand it over to British administration, who then appended it to Egypt. That is how Sinai, a non-Egyptian land, became “Egyptian”, contrary to the historical and geographical truth. Those aforesaid prescient advisers were Hebrew University Professor Moshe Sharon and, of course, the late Shmuel Katz. However, Begin, in his desire to be remembered as a great “peacemaker”, listened not to the sage advice proferred by Sharon and Katz, but rather to the injurious advice tendered by Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan, Defense Minister Ezer Weizmann, Agriculture Minister and Chairman of the Ministerial Committee for Settlement, Ariel Sharon, as well as that of Law Professor Aharon Barak, the future President of the Supreme Court and Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S., Meir Rosenne.
Unfortunately, the “moronic myopia” and shallow thinking exhibited by Begin, Rabin and Peres was afterwards manifested to the same degree by their successors: Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and, surprisingly enough, Binyamin Netanyahu, all of whom made tentative offers to Syria to cede all or most of the Golan. Netanyahu who, not content with his concessions under the Wye Plantation Agreement, during his first term of office, has formally adopted the anti-Likud and suicidal Two-State Solution as a cornerstone of his policy. I am aware that Netanyahu’s advisers and supporters pretend it is only a Machiavellian tactical move to fend off relentless pressure on Israel applied by U.S. President Obama and the European Union. What will happen, though, if the next non-Likud Prime Minister of Israel adopts Netanyahu’s course as a firm and unchangeable policy? Netanyahu’s deception will then become reality, though that may truly never have been intended by Netanyahu himself.
I hope your great column will bang some common sense into the minds of those directing Israel’s Government now or in the future as to why we should never cede, under any circumstances, any more of our precious territory to Syria nor, for that matter, to the “Palestinian Authority” for the sake of a mirage “peace”. However, I admit that that is a forlorn hope.
Copies: Rich Frostig
Prof. Moshe Sharon
Dr. Netta Dor-Shav
M,K. Prof. Arieh Eldad
Dr. Alex King