(an
open letter to President Bush)
by Boris Shusteff (FREEMAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES)
War is peace.
Ignorance is strength.
George Orwell, 1984
Dear Mr. President, it is now the year 2002, but according
to the world's attitude to Israel it is the 1984 of
George Orwell. "War is peace," the world
community tries to convince the Jews. It does
not matter that, since the fall of 1993, more than 700
Jews have been killed, and an additional 2,500 injured,
maimed and crippled. Nobody notices these Jews
because these numbers are overshadowed by the thousands
more dead and injured Arabs. And all of this together
is labeled the "Oslo Peace Process."
"Ignorance is strength." The ignorance
of the world is the strength of the Arabs. "Egypt
decides to freeze relations with Israel," announces
the media. Israeli MK Michael Kleiner rightfully
wonders, "How can one freeze ice?" The
world does not notice the rabid anti-Semitism of the
Egyptian press, does not see the morass of weapons that
Egypt is preparing for its final assault on the Jewish
state.
As in Orwell's 1984, truth is supplanted by lies. These
lies are repeated so often that people accept them as
truths. Nobody remembers any longer the original
meaning of the word "Palestinian." Jews
who live in Judea, a primordial Jewish land, are labeled
the "occupiers" of this land. UN Resolutions
which pertain to the conflict, among which are Resolutions
242 and 338, are so distorted that almost no one notices
that nowadays they are used as a fig leaf for efforts
directed towards the eradication of the only Jewish
state in the world, under the pretenses of false peace,
equality and justice.
Mr. President, in your statement in the Rose Garden,
which dealt with the situation in the Middle East, you
said that "Israeli settlement activity in occupied
territories must stop, the occupation must end through
withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent
with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338." Perhaps
you are not aware that this proclamation contains three
huge inaccuracies that can only exacerbate the current
situation. The term "occupied territories"
is incorrect. One may call them "disputed"
territories, but certainly not "occupied".
Two American Secretaries of State - James Baker
and Madeline Albright - have both unequivocally confirmed
that this is "disputed" land. While
it is possible to argue that one of the two packaged
principles of Resolution 242 calls for the "withdrawal
of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in
the recent conflict," the word "occupied"
in this particular context does not contradict the fact
that the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza are disputed
lands. Thus, while it is correct to call Israel the
"occupying power," it does
not change the fact that some of the lands that she
occupies are "disputed lands".
The second principle of Resolution 242 speaks of the
"acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial
integrity and political independence of every State
in the area and their right to live in peace within
secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or
acts of force." The only "Palestinian"
state that existed at the moment when the Resolutions
were written was Jordan. There were four other
states covered by these Resolutions - Israel,
Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. It simply does not make
sense and goes against any and all international laws
to make the Resolutions retroactive, by creating a second
Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and then
demanding that Israel withdraw from its territory, based
on the provisions of resolutions that were drafted 30-40
years prior to the creation of this state.
Moreover,
Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law, who was the
Chairman of the Interdepartmental Control Group responsible
for preparing, proposing, and supervising the execution
of the U. S. Government's plans for dealing with the
Middle East crisis at that period, explains that, "until
the states concerned in the dispute make peace in accordance
with Resolution 242, the Security Council decided, Israel
could remain in the territories it held after the Six
Day War as occupying power. The legality and legitimacy
of its presence as occupying power is thus certified
by the Security Council" (1).
This means that Resolutions 242 and 338 have been turned
upside down. In reality, according to these Resolutions,
Israel must FIRST achieve peace and is only THEN called
upon to withdraw from some, but not all, of this territory.
Rostow likewise explains that "one of the
things the international community said clearly in Resolution
242 was that this time Israel would not be required
to withdraw without a prior agreement of peace"
(1).
Rostow quotes from Ambassador Goldberg who explained
that, when on June 7, the second day of the Six Day
War, the U.N. Security Council unanimously voted for
a cease-fire, it was not conditioned upon the withdrawal
of Israeli armed forces.
"They
were, in effect, to stand in place, pending further
development. In U.N. history, this type of cease-fire
is virtually unique. Generally when a conflict
brakes out, it is almost a 'boiler plate' for the United
Nations to adopt a cease-fire resolution embracing withdrawal
of the contending forces to the positions they occupied
before the conflict" (1).
Secretary of State Rogers, on January 29, 1970, confirmed
that the withdrawal of the Israeli forces was not intended
prior to the achievement of the peace agreement. He
stated,
"We have never suggested any withdrawal until there
was a final, binding, written agreement that satisfied
all aspects of the Security Council Resolution. In
other words we have never suggested that a withdrawal
occur before there was a contractual agreement entered
into by the parties, signed by the parties in each other's
presence, an agreement that would provide full assurances
to Israel that the Arabs would admit that Israel had
a right to exist in peace" (1).
Mr. President, Israel has tried in many ways to relax
the conditions set by Resolutions 242 and 338. She
withdrew her armed forces from huge portions of Judea.
Samaria and Gaza prior to getting "full assurance"
from the Arabs. The result is well known. We
may call it the Oslo War Process. More than 700
dead Israelis cannot fall into the category of life
in "peace free from threats or acts of force."
Israel's decision to reoccupy the lands of Judea, Samaria
and Gaza was absolutely legitimate and falls completely
in line with Resolutions 242 and 338. The goal
of these Resolutions was to achieve peace. By
prematurely withdrawing from Judea, Samaria and Gaza,
Israel in effect violated the Resolutions, since as
a result the mere threat of war has been transformed
into actual war.
Resolutions 242 and 338 do not require Israel to part
with the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza at all. They
do not belong to any state. Jordan and Egypt, which
ruled over them from 1948 until 1967, voluntarily surrendered
their rights to this territory. Israel has peace
treaties with both Egypt and Jordan. She has "recognized
boundaries" with these states. Neither
Egypt nor Jordan have any claims to Judea, Samaria and
Gaza. Thus Israel remains the only state that
participated in the 1967 and 1973 wars, which still
has claims to this land. That means that she can
legitimately keep them.
After the Arabs attacked Israel in 1948, trying to eliminate
her, the U.N. Security Council ruled that the Arab countries
committed aggression against the Jewish state. The
armistice lines, which gave the Jews more territory
than was recommended in 1947 by the General Assembly,
are clear proof of this. Rostow writes that by
this action the Arab countries "were being punished
for their 1948-1949 aggression, and their refusal to
make peace" (1).
Since "no system of law fails to provide penalties
for its violation" (1) it is a must for Israel
and for the world to punish the Arab aggression of 1967
and 1973 as well. This punishment is implicitly
included in the text of Resolutions 242 and 338, which
speaks of secure borders. As President Lyndon
Johnson said on September 10, 1968, "We are not
the ones to say where the other nations should draw
lines between them that will assure each the greatest
security. It is clear, however, that a return
to the situation of June 4, 1967, will not bring peace.
There must be secureŠ borders" (1).
Mr. President, you are absolutely right in demanding
secure borders for the Jewish state. It is a mandatory
requirement of Resolutions 242 and 338. You must
also be aware of the fact that on June 29, 1967, then
US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara asked the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to submit a position paper outlining
the MINIMAL TERRITORY Israel would need to protect herself
"without the regard of political factors."
The Pentagon recommended,
"that Israel retain four-fifths of the territories
(not counting the Sinai). This includes most of the
West Bank and all of the Golan Heights. The only
area that the Pentagon thought Israel could afford NOT
to annex was the eastern slope of Samaria facing the
Jordan River." (2).
This point of view was forcefully elaborated on in November
1991 by Lt.-Gen. Thomas Kelly, the Director of Operations
for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. He
was quoted in The Jerusalem Post on November 7, 1991,
saying, "I do not know about politics, but if you
want me to defend this country, and you want me to defend
Jerusalem, I've got to hold that ground" (2).
Mr. President, you said in your statement, "Progress
is impossible when nations emphasize their grievances
and ignore their opportunities. The storms of
violence cannot go on. Enough is enough." These
are brilliant words. It only remains to derive
the correct conclusions from them.
The storms of violence cannot go on, but it is secure
borders, and not empty words, or useless pieces of paper
called "peace accords" that can stop the violence.
These are the secure borders indicated on the map drawn
by the Pentagon in 1967. Israel does not have
to ignore the opportunity given to her by the Security
Council in Resolutions 242 and 338. She has the
right and she must annex the lands of Judea, Samaria
and Gaza, guaranteeing for herself "the MINIMAL
TERRITORY Israel would need to protect herself."
The Arabs must stop inflaming and using the grievances
of the Palestinian Arabs to strengthen their hatred
for Israel, and must absorb these mistreated people
among themselves. It is time to reject the automatic
approach that the world takes to the Arab-Israeli conflict
in pushing Israel to relinquish primordial Jewish lands.
The only correct solution was recently offered
by the English journalist Peter Hitchens, who wrote,
"If
peace is what the Arab world wants, America is now in
a unique position to arrange it. Her military
and diplomatic power is at its zenith. Instead of asking
Israel to give land for peace, why do we not ask the
Arabs who have so much more land to give some of theirs,
so that Israel's borders are no longer an invitation
to invasion" (3).
Mr. President, former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba
Eban had a very graphic name for the armistice
lines of 1948-1949 that are commonly known as Israel's
pre-1967 borders. He called them the "Auschwitz
borders." It is time for world leaders to
stop playing dirty politics and show real statesmanship.
In your response to the barbaric terrorist attack
on America of September 11 you demonstrated that you
can do this.
Enough
is enough. Israel is the most devoted ally that
America has. It is time for America to support Israel
in her quest for the primordial Jewish lands. As
senator Jim Inhofe said on March 4 speaking in the Senate,
"I believe very strongly that we ought to
support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This
is the most important reason: Because God said so."
It is your God Mr. President. You should
listen to Him.
1. Eugene
V. Rostow. The Illegality of the Arab Attack on Israel
of October 6, 1973. American Journal of International
Law, Volume 69, Issue 2 (Apr., 1975).
2. Benjamin Netanyahu. A Place Among the Nations. Bantam
Books. 1993.
3. Peter Hitchens. The Only Way to Peace. Mail on Sunday
(UK). 03/10/2002.
04/07/02
Boris Shusteff is an engineer. He is also a research
associate with the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies.
|
