Ten basic assumptions regarding Israel and the peace process

Israel and the Jewish People have very well-based and long-standing inalienable, indigenous, historic, legal and international rights in the area including Judea and Samaria.

March 3, 2014 22:02
2 minute read.

West Bank settlement city of Ariel. (photo credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/THE JERUSALEM POST)

1. There is no such thing as the “Palestinian Territories.”

They have never been determined as such in any binding international document, agreement or resolution; the final status is still an agreed-upon negotiating issue and should not be prejudged by any political declaration or statement.

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.

2. The territories are disputed, not occupied.

International law relates to occupation of foreign territory from a prior legitimate sovereign. The West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria are not foreign, and have, from time immemorial, since at least 1500 BC, been part of the indigenous Jewish presence in the area, which has been internationally acknowledged historically and recognized in international documents.

3. Any believer cannot deny the fact the Jesus was a Jew who lived as part of the historic Jewish existence in the area, a presence which is borne out by historic and archeological evidence.

4. Israel and the Jewish People have very well-based and long-standing inalienable, indigenous, historic, legal and international rights in the area including Judea and Samaria. These rights are being denied and overlooked by the international community. Israel has agreed to negotiate the final status of this area. The outcome of these negotiations should not be prejudged.

5. Claims by Palestinian spokesmen to indigenous or historic status or presence are patently false and misleading.

The Arab presence in geographic Palestine commenced in 630 AD and comprises Beduin tribes and families that generated from the Arabian Peninsula to the area of geographic Palestine in search of employment and economic benefit.

6. The allegation that Israel’s settlements are “illegitimate” is a misreading of international law and in itself prejudges an agreed-upon negotiating issue.

The prohibition of forced transfer of population into “occupied territory” was drafted into the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention to prevent a repeat of the mass, forced population transfers carried out by the Nazis. It was not intended, and cannot be interpreted to apply to Israel’s communities in Judea and Samaria.

7. In accordance with international norms regarding administration of territory, construction of, and within communities is strictly on land that is not privately owned, and is under the legal supervision of Israel’s Supreme Court.

8. Reliance on the term “1967 borders, or lines” has no basis in law or fact and cannot and should not constitute any point of reference in the negotiations.

The 1949 Armistice Demarcation Line was distinctly determined not to constitute a border. The term 1967 borders or lines was not referred to in the Oslo Accords.

All parties have accepted the call by the UN Security Council in resolution 242 (1967) for “secure and recognized boundaries.” This resolution makes no reference to 1967 lines.

9. The ongoing Palestinian incitement against Israel, sponsorship and support of the campaign to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel, threats to prosecute Israeli leaders in international tribunals and threats to appeal to UN and international bodies are all totally incompatible with any bona fide negotiation for peace in the area.

These phenomena violate Palestinian commitments. Clear and definitive action must be taken by the Palestinian leadership to bring these phenomena to an immediate end.

10. Any attempt to prohibit or deny the presence of Jews in any area is anathema to all accepted civilized and humanitarian norms and should be totally and utterly rejected.

The writer is a former ambassador to Canada and current director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs, at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Related Content

June 22, 2018
Editor's Notes | Moving the goalpost: The much-anticipated U.S. peace plan