An international group of some 60 attorneys, including former Foreign Ministry
legal adviser Alan Baker, has appealed to United Nations Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon to prevent a General Assembly resolution on unilateral Palestinian
statehood, based on the pre-1967 lines.
In a letter dated Wednesday, the
attorneys noted that such a resolution would be a violation of all past
agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. They added that it would also
contravene UN resolutions 242 and 338.
RELATED:Israeli leftists urge Europe to recognize Palestinian stateIsrael hopes EU will back other parts of Obama visionSha'ath: Unity deal will allow us to 'liberate Palestine'
According to the attorneys, the
legal basis for the establishment of the state by the League of Nations in 1922
affirmed its presence on territories that included Judea, Samaria, and what is
now east Jerusalem.
“This was subsequently affirmed by both houses of US
Congress,” the attorneys stated.
According to Article 80 of the UN
Charter, the attorneys said, rights granted to all states or people by already
existing international instruments – including those adopted by the League of
Nations – remain valid.
As a result, the attorneys said, the “650,000
Jews [who] presently reside in the areas of Judea and Samaria and eastern
Jerusalem, reside there legitimately.”
The 1949 Armistice Agreement
stated that these lines “are without prejudice to future territorial settlements
or boundary lines, or to claims of either Party relating thereto,” the attorneys
said. Therefore, they said, “the 1967 borders” do not exist, and have never
Past resolutions have called for a negotiated solution to the
conflict, the attorneys affirmed.
Additionally, attempts to unilaterally
change the status of the territory would be a breach of the 1995
Israeli-Palestinian agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the attorneys
When the Palestinians agreed to the Oslo Accords, they knew that
the settlements existed and would be one of the issues that would be negotiated
during talks for a permanent-status arrangement, the attorneys said.
Olso Accords did not limit settlement activity, they added.
Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin
Think others should know about this? Please share