- 1 - CILR wish to thank Rabbi Daniel Green of the Adas Israel - - PDF document

• 1 -

Salomon Benzimra, P. Eng. Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights – CILR CILR wish to thank Rabbi Daniel Green of the Adas Israel Congregation for making this presentation possible. We are also very grateful to all those who organized this event, particularly Steven Scheffer and the whole team of the Never Again Group, as well as Mark Vandermaas of Israel Truth Week. International law is no longer confined to the legal profession. It is now part and parcel of world

• politics. The ramifications of international law extend to all levels of foreign affairs. However, we
• ften witness situations where powerful states and organizations trample, ignore, or disfigure the

principles of international law for political expediency. This is particularly evident in the case of Israel. In the past several decades, we have observed an

• vert disregard of the legal rights of Israel as they have been recognized in international law. This trend

can be seen at the General Assembly of the United Nations, at the UN Human Rights Council, at the European Union and at the International Court of Justice, in what could only be characterized as an “Assault on the Law of Nations,” to borrow the title of Professor Julius Stone’s book of 1980. We shall briefly review how Israel is selectively blamed for supposed wrongdoings in spite of its incontrovertible legal rights, and how the ongoing “peace process” rests on a flawed premise which fuels hostility toward Israel and denigrates its established rights. We shall conclude by suggesting a corrective course of action.

• 2 -

Salomon Benzimra, P. Eng. Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights – CILR There is hardly a statement, declaration, speech or academic debate dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict where the “Occupation of Palestinian Territories” is not regularly brought up by the anti- Israel side. The “OPT” notion is baseless but it is used by the EU and others to sanction Israel and its purportedly “illegal settlements” while other real occupations remain largely unchallenged. Since 1974, the northern part of Cyprus has been occupied by Turkey – illegally, according to the UN Security Council. There are over 100,000 “illegal Turkish settlers” and yet, the European Union (of which the Republic of Cyprus is a member) lavishly funds the development of this area. After Spain withdrew from Western Sahara (earlier called “Rio de Oro”), Morocco organized a massive march of 350,000 people in 1975. Even though the International Court of Justice ruled in favour of the self-determination of the local Sahrawi population, the Moroccans occupied 80% of the territory (red area in map above) and built a 2,500 km “security wall.” The EU now has fishing agreements with Morocco, in the territorial waters of the occupied territory. The annexation of Tibet by China in 1950 and the massive, forcible transfer of ethnic Chinese to the region do not seem to raise any international concerns on violations of the Geneva Conventions. The selective application of international law and the singling out of Israel are quite apparent. This anomaly was rightly mentioned by PM Stephen Harper in his speech at the Knesset last January. It is imperative that the legal rights of Israel under international law be forcefully asserted. To understand the origin of these rights, we must first look at the Ottoman Empire in the early 1900s.

• 3 -

Salomon Benzimra, P. Eng. Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights – CILR The map shows the full extent of the Ottoman Empire. Starting in 1300 in a small portion of western Anatolia, Turkish conquests expanded considerably in the next three centuries to finally include all the colored areas, the different colors reflecting successive periods of conquest. At its apex, the Ottoman Empire spread from central Europe to south-western Arabia and from Algeria to the Persian Gulf. The Ottoman Turks were finally stopped in their advance at the gates of Vienna in 1683. During the 18th and 19th centuries, they gradually lost all their European and North African possessions. In 1914, on the eve of World War One, the Ottoman Empire was reduced to the territories shown within the red line when it joined the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria) against the Allied Powers (mainly France and the British Empire but also Italy and Japan among others). The United States entered the war in Europe in 1917 but did not fight the Turks in the Middle East. By the end of WWI in 1918, Turkey had lost all its possessions in the Middle East. The Ottoman Empire collapsed, together with the German, Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires, the latter through the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. The Allied Powers were then responsible for the drafting of boundaries and the creation of new countries in Europe and the Middle East, among which Palestine.

• 4 -

Salomon Benzimra, P. Eng. Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights – CILR Before the end of WWI, and twenty years after Theodor Herzl launched the Zionist movement, the British Government issued the Balfour Declaration (Nov. 1917) in favor of establishing a Jewish National Home in Palestine. It was an expression of British foreign policy but it was also welcomed by various other governments. Two months later, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson presented his Fourteen Points in Congress (Jan. 1918), where he advocated the creation of an “Assembly of Nations” and the right of peoples to “self-determination” in order to promote world peace. After WWI, the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers (Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the U.S.) convoked the Paris Peace Conference (Jan. 1919). The League of Nations was created, governed by a Covenant which instituted the Mandates System for the benefit of peoples aspiring to sovereignty, thus fulfilling President Wilson’s wishes. The Covenant of the League of Nations was included in Part I of the Treaty of Versailles which, together with other treaties, determined the fate of post-war Europe under international law. In Paris, both the Zionists and the Arabs presented their territorial claims. The final disposition of Turkish territories in the Middle East took place in San Remo, Italy, in April 1920, under the authority of the same Supreme Council (the U.S. acting as an observer). The San Remo Resolution combined Article 22 of the Covenant to the Balfour Declaration, thus making the latter a binding act of international law with regard to the Jewish National Home in Palestine under a British

• Mandate. The San Remo Resolution also allocated Syria (later split into Syria and Lebanon) and

Mesopotamia (Iraq) to French and British mandates, respectively. Two years later, the Mandate for Palestine was confirmed by the Council of the League (July 1922) and approved by its 52 members. By failing to forcefully assert Israel’s internationally recognized rights, successive Israeli governments let the “Palestinians” fill the void with the most outlandish claims.

• 5 -

Salomon Benzimra, P. Eng. Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights – CILR The Palestinian claims listed above are a representative sample of their official position. They are clearly spelled out in their three founding Charters (PLO, Fatah, Hamas); in the UNGA Resolutions supported by Arab/Islamic countries, the Soviet Bloc and the Non Aligned Movement; in statements voiced by historian Nabil Alqam, published in Omar Barghouti‘s book on BDS, and broadcast by the current Mufti Muhammad Hussein; in the declarations of Mahmoud Abbas at the UN and in his Christmas message in Bethlehem in 2013; and in the latest fantasy of Saeb Erekat on Jericho. “Frivolous” would be too charitable a term to characterize these Palestinian claims. Their purpose is clear: to buttress the non-existing national rights of the “Palestinian people” and to substitute Palestine to Israel, with the ultimate goal of eliminating the Jewish State (see Page 10). And yet, most of these fraudulent claims appear in the ongoing peace negotiations, in varying

• iterations. The politics of the so-called “Israeli-Palestinian peace process” have been so deeply

entrenched for the past twenty years that even the most outlandish Palestinian claims – which have no basis in history or law – do not seem to affect the zeal of the negotiators. It is “peace at any cost” – a foreign policy that “becomes a weapon in the hands of the most ruthless, [and] produces moral disarmament,” in the words of Henry Kissinger. No wonder that the pursuit of the peace process has enhanced the status of the Palestinian cause beyond all expectations, to the detriment of Israel. The search for peace in the past twenty years has been a sustained project marked by successive failures. We should realize that projects invariably fail when they are based on faulty foundations.

• 6 -

Salomon Benzimra, P. Eng. Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights – CILR Like most novel projects, early flight attempts had a bumpy start at the end of the 19th century. Designers embraced the theory that man should imitate birds and use flapping wings to take off and fly. After many crashes, that theory was fortunately abandoned. A few years later, the Wright brothers successfully flew a fixed-wing plane in 1903. Sadly, we cannot say the same thing about the “Peace Process.” It started over 20 years ago with a flawed “theory” which has never been questioned. This failed project has been pursued to this day, running on the same basis, and no one should be surprised by the devastating results it produced. There have never been as many civilian casualties prior to the start of the “peace process.” Terror attacks against Israelis were launched as early as 1994 by Palestinian groups that were disingenuously labeled as isolated “enemies of peace” by Israeli leaders who were recklessly pursuing peace at any cost while apparently remaining blind to the ultimate goals of the Palestinians (see Page 10). The range and magnitude of these attacks increased in time, especially after every Israeli concession and territorial withdrawals. Now, hostility against the Jewish State and Jews at large has reached unprecedented levels, fueled by the UN, the EU, the media, academia and ‘human rights” NGOs. The flawed theory underpinning the peace process can be summarized as follows: “The Palestinian people are entitled to self-determination in a land that is held by Israel – the occupying power – which must abandon that land for the sake of peace so that the goal of a two-state solution can be achieved.” We must forcefully debunk the four falsehoods highlighted above before thinking of a lasting peace.

• 7 -

Salomon Benzimra, P. Eng. Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights – CILR The supreme irony of the Palestinian narrative lies in the Arab denial of the very existence of a “Palestinian people” and of a separate Arab national entity called “Palestine.” Since the 1950s – and even during the British Mandate period – prominent Arab leaders have overtly admitted the fictitious national character of the “Palestinians,” which they used as a weapon against the existence of Israel. The examples listed above are just a few among prominent Arab leaders. More recently, in 2009, Azmi Bishara, a former Israeli MK, ridiculed the notion of a “Palestinian people” in Hebrew and in front

• f an Israeli television panel.

A rare voice of truth was heard last month from Jordanian Sheikh Ahmed Adwan. Quoting chapter and verse from the Qur’an, he reminded his coreligionists of the divine rights of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel and excoriated the Palestinians for propagating lies. What is most astounding is that the supporters of the “Palestinian cause” in Europe, in the media and in academia choose to systematically ignore these denials. As far as we can tell, the Palestinians are the

• nly “people” who tried – and succeeded – to earn their pseudo-legitimacy by diplomatic manoeuvres in

spite of reality.

• 8 -

Salomon Benzimra, P. Eng. Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights – CILR Following the formal separation of the “East Bank” from Jewish Palestine in 1922 by the British – a treacherous action deemed contrary to the spirit of the Mandate – Transjordan was greatly expanded to the east in 1925 and gained its independence in 1946. When the British abdicated their Mandate obligations and turned to the UN in 1947, the General Assembly recommended the partition of the remaining part of Palestine (all of it allocated as the Jewish National Home in the Mandate) into a Jewish State and an Arab State. The Arabs rejected the recommendation and in May 1948 – immediately after Israel lawfully proclaimed its independence in the lopsided territory allocated by the UN – the Arabs launched their military aggression against Israel. During the 1948-49 War of Independence, Israel managed to repossess all the land west of the Jordan River, with the exception of the Gaza Strip and Judea-Samaria. In 1950, The Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan annexed Judea and Samaria, and renamed this land the “West Bank” of the new Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. This illegal annexation was not internationally recognized, not even by the members of the Arab League. In June 1967, during the Six Day War, Jordan violated the Armistice Agreement of 1949 by attacking Israel across the “Green Line” (1949 armistice line) and lost the “West Bank” to Israel. Since 1967, the “West Bank” cannot be viewed as “occupied territory” because its prior holder (Jordan) had no “legitimate sovereignty,” as specified in Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907. If Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”) is deemed “occupied territory,” then the whole of Israel – from north to south, including Jerusalem – is occupied, since the provisions of the Mandate do not make such territorial distinctions.

• 9 -

Salomon Benzimra, P. Eng. Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights – CILR In the wake of the Six Day War, the Government of Israel applied the laws of occupation to the acquired lands of the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria (J&S), the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. Granted, Israel had no legitimate claim to the whole of Sinai, which was returned to Egypt in its entirety in 1979-1980, but it certainly had solid rights to J&S as per the Mandate (see Page 4). Israel annexed the Golan in 1981 and abandoned Gaza in 2005. Therefore, it can be argued that UNSC Resolution 242 of November 1967 – which calls for the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” – has fulfilled its purpose since 90% of these territories are no longer under Israeli control. However, this UN Resolution continues to be the (inappropriate) basis of the ongoing “peace process” over J&S, in spite of the widely held belief that withdrawing from this territory would endanger Israel’s security and its “right to live in peace within secure borders.” The main political battleground is now over J&S. The Eshkol Government adopted the misguided legal advice offered by the Military Advocate-General and, by the end of June 1967, Israel decided not to apply Israeli law to these territories – as it was bound to do pursuant to its Basic Law, given that those lands were clearly part of the Mandate for Palestine and are the heart of the Jewish patrimony – and, instead, applied the law of belligerent occupation, as per the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This fateful Israeli decision of 1967 is the source of the “myth of occupation,” which the Palestinian Arabs amplified and exploited masterfully ever since by building up their forged narrative. The continuing use of UN Resolution 242 in peace negotiations perpetuates this myth and wrongly keeps the concept of “land for peace” alive, while it should have ended after the Sinai withdrawal.

• 10 -

Salomon Benzimra, P. Eng. Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights – CILR After the resounding Arab defeats of 1948 (Israel’s War of Independence), 1967 (Six Day War) and 1973 (Yom Kippur War), the Arab countries lost all hope of destroying Israel militarily. They resorted to war by other means and they introduced the “Palestinian cause”, spearheaded by Yasser Arafat, promoted by the Soviet Union, and shamefully embraced by the UN General Assembly. The “Phased Plan” formulated by Arafat in 1974 has been followed closely ever since. The first

• bjective was to acquire any territory from which attacks against Israel could be launched. The Oslo

Accords provided this opportunity with Jericho and Gaza first transferred to Palestinian control, then Hebron and, eventually, about 45% of Judea and Samaria – the so-called “West Bank.” The first “intifada” of 1988 was followed by a bloody succession of suicide bombings and terrorist attacks in the 1990s. The second “intifada” erupted in 2000. It was premeditated and launched in the wake of the Camp David peace proposals which were squarely rejected by Arafat. The third phase of the plan is ongoing, as attested by several looming threats, chief among them the

• minous nuclear capabilities of Iran; the missile arsenal of Hezbollah; the fanatical jihadists of Hamas;

the instability of the neighbouring Arab countries; and the relentless anti-Israel campaigns of Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) coupled with the incessant delegitimation of Israel in campuses. Contrary to the unfettered optimism expressed by the supporters of the ongoing “peace process,” a lasting peace is not the objective pursued by the Palestinians. Their declarations in Arabic – which accurately reflect their thinking – prove that the Phased Plan is very much alive and the destruction of Israel remains the ultimate goal.

• 11 -

Salomon Benzimra, P. Eng. Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights – CILR This Table summarizes the four points discussed earlier. One wonders about the usefulness of pursuing the ongoing “peace process” while the underlying theory is:  divorced from reality,  an assault on International Law,  a serious danger to Israel’s security, and  a possible precursor to the final destruction of the Jewish State. Those who support the present peace negotiations seem to be blind to the false foundations upon which they are built. They warn that “time is running out” and argue that the pursuit of the “two-state solution” is the only game in town by challenging their opponents to “articulate an alternative approach.” These admonitions, coming from the U.S. Administration, remind us of the well known propaganda techniques called “bandwagon” and the “either-or fallacy.” A more sensible course of action would be to observe now a moratorium on the current political frenzy of peace negotiations, to restore the truth and then to work on a lasting peace based on solid foundations, as summarized in the following concluding remarks.

• 12 -

Salomon Benzimra, P. Eng. Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights – CILR The governing principle should be the recognition that no political agreement or peace treaty could stand the test of time as long as it is based on falsehoods. Restoring the truth should primarily be centered on upholding Israel’s Legal Rights, as they have been recognized in International Law through several treaties signed in the 1920s by, among others, most of the present members of the Quartet (UN, EU, U.S. and Russia) – a group specifically created for the promotion of peace between Israel and its Arab neighbours. The signatories should be held accountable to their legal obligations, especially the United States and Britain which are bound by the Anglo-American Convention of 1924 to the provisions of the Mandate. In Israel, the future adoption of the Levy Report is also intended to dispel the false notions of “occupied territories” and “illegal settlements,” which fly in the face of International Law. It behooves the Government of Israel (and major Jewish organizations) to call for a moratorium on the “peace process” and to launch a sustained and well funded campaign of public diplomacy in order to highlight the seminal importance of the San Remo Conference of 1920 and its extraordinary achievement in putting an end to the longest colonization in history – after 1,850 years of occupation and colonization of the Land of Israel, together with the dispersion and oppression of the Jewish people. Finally, the 50 year old myth of the “Palestinian cause” should be actively challenged in all its

• manifestations. A good place to start would be to seek the abrogation of UNGA Resolution 3236, in the

same way as Resolution 3379 (“Zionism = racism”) was effectively repealed in 1991 after 16 years.

,

A lasting peace between Arabs and Israelis would then become an attainable goal.

• 13 -

Salomon Benzimra, P. Eng. Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights – CILR APPENDIX 1 Lord Balfour, British Foreign Secretary during World War One, was a staunch pro-Zionist Christian. His support for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine was also driven by several political considerations. He feared that the German Kaiser Wilhelm II, with whom Britain was at war at the time, would issue a similar declaration to entice Jews in Allied countries. Also, Balfour’s idea was to rally American and Russian Jews to influence their governments in the Allied war effort. The Balfour Declaration, issued in November 1917, received support from U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, French Prime Minister George Clemenceau, and even Arab leader Faisal ibn-Hussein. Ironically, some of the most virulent opponents to the Balfour Declaration were among British Jews, led by Sir Edwin Montagu. The Balfour Declaration consists of one sentence in two propositions: The first ensures exclusive national rights to the Jewish people as a whole; the second guarantees individual civil and religious rights to the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and protects the existing rights of Jews living in any other country (to avoid possible discriminatory measures against Jewish communities in Europe and elsewhere). The key element is that only Jews were entitled to national rights in Palestine.  Return to “Israel’s Legal Rights in International Law”

• 14 -

Salomon Benzimra, P. Eng. Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights – CILR APPENDIX 2 The importance of the San Remo Conference and its resulting Resolution cannot be overstated. For the first time in history, Palestine became a legal entity in 1920, notwithstanding the wishful thinking of the Arabs who now call themselves “Palestinians.” The Jewish people became the national beneficiary (self-determination) of the trust awarded to the British under the Mandate, a “sacred trust of civilization” according to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League. Sovereignty in Palestine (de jure) was vested in the Jewish people but was kept in abeyance for the duration of the Mandate. The acquired legal title in Palestine by the Jewish people cannot be revoked by the League or its successor, the United Nations. These rights are implicitly protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter and Article 70(1-b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. They have also been reaffirmed in the Levy Report, which is still pending adoption since July 2012 (*). San Remo also marks the end of the longest colonization period in history. After 1,850 years of Jewish exile from Palestine since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE – and a concurrent succession of foreign occupiers including Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Crusaders, Mamluks and, finally, the Ottoman Turks – the Jewish nation was reconstituted in San Remo (not “created”) on the basis of its historical connection, and the Jewish State was proclaimed 28 years later, in May 1948. To mark the 90th anniversary of the San Remo Conference, a two-day commemoration was jointly

• rganized by the European Coalition for Israel (ECI), a Christian group based in Brussels, and

Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights (CILR) of Toronto. After a series of lectures, the celebration of the event was held at the site where the San Remo Conference took place, as shown in the pictures above.  Return to “Israel’s Legal Rights in International Law”

__________________________________________

*For details on Israel’s Legal Rights, please refer to: The Jewish People’s Rights to the Land of Israel

• 15 -

Salomon Benzimra, P. Eng. Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights – CILR

S U M M A R Y

International Law plays an important role in diplomacy and foreign affairs. However, it is often used selectively by major powers for political expediency. This selective application of International Law is regularly directed against Israel, particularly when dealing with the notions of “occupied territories” and “illegal settlements.” And yet, the foundations of the modern State of Israel have been firmly entrenched in International Law since 1920, through the provisions of the San Remo Resolution and the universally recognized Mandate for Palestine which guarantee the unshakeable rights of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel west of the Jordan River. Unfortunately, the successive governments of Israel have been remiss in asserting these fundamental rights. The newly minted “Palestinians” filled this void in a sustained propaganda campaign with the most outlandish claims which are used to this day as the basis of the ongoing “peace process.” The “Israeli-Palestinian peace process” is a political pursuit that has mobilized international diplomacy for over twenty years. This project is built on a theory that defies ancient and recent history, common sense, factual evidence and International Law. We believe that no project, no matter how strongly promoted, could come to fruition if its underpinnings are flawed. We must be made fully aware of these falsehoods and denounce them before we reach an irreversible situation which would threaten the security and even the survival of the Jewish State. Most importantly, we must place a moratorium on the ongoing “peace process”; assert Israel’s legal rights under International Law (*); challenge the forged Palestinian narrative; and only then, present a coherent plan for a lasting peace in the region.

_______________________________________________________________

* Please refer to: The Jewish People’s Rights to the Land of Israel