Thursday, May 21, 2015

Selected Writings of Stephen M. Schwebel, Judge of International Court of Justice - Israel Liberated territory is legal


Selected Writings of Stephen M. Schwebel, Judge of International Court of Justice


07/06/09  
 Judge Schwebel has served on the Court since 15 January 1981. He was Vice-President of the Court from 1994 to 1997 and has been President since 6 February1997. A former Deputy Legal Adviser of the United States Department of State and Burling Professor of International Law at the School of Advanced International Studies of The John Hopkins University (Washington), Judge Schwebel is the author of three books and some 150 articles on problems of international law and organization.
  
What Weight to Conquest?

AGGRESSION, COMPLIANCE, AND DEVELOPMENT

Pages 521-526
  
In his admirable address of December 9, 1969, on the situation in the Middle East, Secretary of State William P. Rogers took two positions of particular international legal interest, one implicit and the other explicit. (1) Secretary Rogers called upon the Arab States and Israel to establish "a state of peace ... instead of the state of belligerency, which has characterized relations for over 20 years." Applying this and other elements of the American approach to the United Arab Republic andIsrael, the Secretary of State suggested that, "in the context of peace and agreement [between the UAR and Israel] on specific security safeguards, withdrawal of Israeli forces from Egyptian territory would be required." (2)

Secretary Rogers accordingly inferred that, in the absence of such peace and agreement, withdrawal of Israeli forces from Egyptian territory would not be required. That is to say, he appeared to uphold the legality of continued Israeli occupation of Arab territory pending "the establishment of a state of peace between the parties instead of the state of belligerency." (3) In this Secretary Rogers is on sound ground. That ground may well be based on appreciation of the fact thatIsrael's action in 1967 was defensive, and on the theory that, since the danger in response to which defensive action was taken remains, occupation - though not annexation - is justified, pending a peace settlement. But Mr. Rogers's conclusion may be simply a pragmatic judg­ment (indeed, certain other Permanent Members of the Security Council, which are not likely to share the foregoing legal perception, are not now pressing for Israeli withdrawal except as an element of a settlement).

More questionable, however, is the Secretary of State's explicit conclusion on a key question of the law and politics of the Middle East dispute: that "any changes in the pre-existing [1949 armistice] lines should not reflect the weight of conquest and should be confined to insubstantial alterations required for mutual security. We do not support expansionism." Secretary Rogers refer­red approvingly in this regard to the Security Council's resolution of November 1967, which,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war (4) and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle Eastwhich should include the application of both the following principles:

(i)   Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (5)

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and 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; ..." (6)

It is submitted that the Secretary's conclusion is open to question on two grounds: first, that it fails to distinguish between aggressive conquest and defensive conquest; second, that it fails to distinguish between the taking of territory which the prior holder held lawfully and that which it held unlawfully. These contentions share common ground.

As a general principle of international law, as that law has been reformed since the League, particularly by the Charter, it is both vital and correct to say that there shall be no weight to conquest, that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible. (7) But that principle must be read in particular cases together with other general principles, among them the still more general principle of which it is an application, namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. So read, the distinctions between aggressive conquest and defensive conquest, between the taking of territory legally held and the taking of territory illegally held, become no less vital and correct than the central principle itself.

Those distinctions may be summarized as follows: (a) a State acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self ­defense; (b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense; (c) where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the State which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.

The facts of the June 1967 "Six Day War" demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR's use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF. It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation ofIsrael as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated. The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest.

The facts of the 1948 hostilities between the Arab invaders of Palestine and the nascent State of Israel further demonstrate that Egypt's seizure of the Gaza Strip, andJordan's seizure and subsequent annexation of the West Bank and the old city of Jerusalem, were unlawful. Israelwas proclaimed to be an independent State within the boundaries allotted to her by the General Assembly's partition resolution. The Arabs of Palestine and of neighboring Arab States rejected that resolution. But that rejection was no warrant for the invasion by those Arab States of Palestine, whether of territory allotted to Israel, to the projected, stillborn Arab State or to the projected, international­ized city ofJerusalem. It was no warrant for attack by the armed forces of neighboring Arab States upon the Jews of Palestine, whether they resided within or without Israel. But that attack did justify Israeli defensive measures, both within and, as necessary, without the boundaries allotted her by the partition plan (as in the new city of Jerusalem). It follows that the Egyptian occupation of Gaza, and the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank andJerusalem, could not vest in Egypt andJordan lawful, indefinite control, whether as occupying Power or sovereign: ex injuria jus non oritur.

If the foregoing conclusions that (a) Israeli action in 1967 was defensive and (b) Arab action in 1948, being aggressive, was inadequate to legalize Egyptian and Jordanian taking of Palestinian territory, are correct, what follows?

It follows that the application of the doctrine of according no weight to conquest requires modification in double measure. In the first place, having regard to the consideration that, as between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt (the UAR indeed has, unlike Jordan, not asserted sovereign title), it follows that modifications of the 1949 armistice lines among those States within former Palestinian territory are lawful (if not necessarily desirable), whether those modifications are, in Secretary Rogers's words, "insubstantial alterations required for mutual security" or more substantial alterations - such as recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem. (8) In the second place, as regards territory bordering Palestine, and under unquestioned Arab sovereignty in 1949 and thereafter, such as Sinai and the Golan Heights, it follows not that no weight shall be given to conquest, but that such weight shall be given to defensive action as is reasonably required to ensure that such Arab territory will not again be used for aggressive purposes against Israel. For example - and this appears to be envisaged both by the Secretary of State's address and the resolution of the Security Council - free navigation through the Straits of Tiran shall be effectively guaranteed and demilitarized zones shall be established.

The foregoing analysis accords not only with the terms of the United Nations Charter, notably Article 2, paragraph 4, and Article 51, but law and practice as they have developed since the Charter's conclusion. In point of practice, it is instructive to recall that the Republic of Korea and indeed the United Nations itself have given considerable weight to conquest in Korea, to the extent of that substantial territory north of the 38th parallel from which the aggressor was driven and remains excluded - a territory which, if the full will of the United Nations had prevailed, would have been much larger (indeed, perhaps the whole of North Korea). In point of law, pro­visions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties are pertinent. Article 52 provides that: "A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations" - a provision which clearly does not debar conclusion of a treaty where force has been applied, as in self-defense, in accordance with the Charter. And Article 75 provides that: "The provisions of the present Convention are without prejudice to any obligation in relation to a treaty which may arise for anaggressor State in consequence of measures taken in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations with reference to that State's aggression."

The state of the law has been correctly summarized by Elihu Lauterpacht, who points out that

territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the unlawful use of force. But to omit the word "unlawful" is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor's charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This cannot be regarded as reasonable or correct. (9)

.....................................................................

© Judge Stephen Myron Schwebel *
 --------------------------
 Notes

First published in American Journal of International Law (1970), 64

(1) The text is published in full in New York Times, December 11, 1969, p. 16.

(2) Ibid.

(3) Ibid

(4) The resolution's use of the word "war" is of interest. The June 1967 hostilities were not marked by a declaration of war. Certain Arab States have regarded themselves at war with Israel - or, at any rate, in a state of belligerency - since 1948, a questionable position under the law of the Charter. In view of the defeat in the United Nations organs of resolutions holding Israel to have been the aggressor in 1967, presumably the use of the word "war" was not meant to indicate thatIsrael's action was not in exercise of self-defense. It may be added that territory would not in any event be acquired by war, but, if at all, by the force of treaties of peace.

(5) It should be noted that the resolution does not specify "all territories" or "the territories" but "territories." The subparagraph immediately following is, by way of contrast, more comprehensively cast, specifying "all claims or states of belligerency."

(6) Resolution 242 (1967) of November 22, 1967; 62 AJIL 482 (1968). President Johnson, in an address of September 10, 1968, declared:

We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw the 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 secure and there must be recognized borders ...

At the same time, it should be equally clear that boundaries cannot and should not reflect the weight of conquest. Each change must have a reason which each side, in honest negotiation, can accept as part of a just compromise. (59 Department of State Bulletin 348 [1968])

(7) See, however, Kelsen (2nd ed. by Tucker), Principles of International Law (1967), pp. 420-433.

(8) It should be added that the armistice agreements of 1949 expressly preserved the territorial claims of all parties and did not purport to establish definitive boundaries between them.

(9) Elihu Lauterpacht, Jerusalem and the Holy Places, Anglo-Israel Association, Pamphlet No. 19 (1968), p. 52.
 --------------------------
  
* Since 1947 Stephen M. Schwebel has written more than 100 articles, commentaries and book reviews in legal and other periodicals and in the press. This volume republishes 36 of his legal articles and commentaries of continuing interest. The first Part treats aspects of the capacity and performance of the International Court of Justice. The second addresses aspects of international arbitration. The third examines problems of the United Nations, especially of the authority of the Secretary-General, the character of the Secretariat, and financial apportionment. The fourth deals with questions of international contracts and taking of foreign property interests. The fifth discusses diverse aspects of the development of international law and particularly considers the central problem of international law, the unlawful use of force. This collection does not include Judge Schwebel's judicial opinions, nor (with one exception) papers written in his former official capacities as a legal officer of the US Department of State or as a special rapporteur of the International Law Commission of the United Nations. Together with his unofficial writings, his judicial opinions as of July 1993 are cataloged in the list of publications with which this volume concludes.





Justice in international law: selected writings of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel

Par Stephen Myron Schwebel

Édition: illustrée

Publié par Cambridge University Press, 1994

ISBN 0521462843, 9780521462846

630 pages


EXTRACTS
 
That ground may well be based on appreciation of the fact that Israel's action in 1967 was defensive, and on the theory that, since the danger in response to which defensive action was taken remains, occupation - though not annexation - is justified, pending a peace settlement
 
Those distinctions may be summarized as follows:
 (a) a State acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense;
(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense;
(c) where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the State which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.The facts of the June 1967 "Six Day War" demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR's use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF. It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated. The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest.
 
...it follows that modifications of the 1949 armistice lines among those States within former Palestinian territory are lawful (if not necessarily desirable), whether those modifications are, in Secretary Rogers's words, "insubstantial alterations required for mutual security" or more substantial alterations - such as recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem.[8].....
 
In point of practice, it is instructive to recall that the Republic of Korea and indeed the United Nations itself have given considerable weight to conquest in Korea, to the extent of that substantial territory north of the 38th parallel from which the aggressor was driven and remains excluded - a territory which, if the full will of the United Nations had prevailed, would have been much larger (indeed, perhaps the whole of North Korea)..
 
..The state of the law has been correctly summarized by Elihu Lauterpacht, who points out that

..if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This cannot be regarded as reasonable or correct.[9]

NOTE re the 1949 armistice lines
Secretary of State Rogers, December 9, 1969
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israels+Foreign+Relations+since+1947/1947-1974/9+Statement+by+Secretary+of+State+Rogers-+9+Decemb.htm?DisplayMode=print
The boundaries from which the 1967 war began were established in the 1949 Armistice Agreements and have defined the areas of national jurisdiction in the Middle East for 20 years. Those boundaries were armistice lines, not final political borders. The rights, claims and positions of the parties in an ultimate peaceful settlement were reserved by the Armistice Agreements.

5 comments:

  1. INTERNATIONAL LAW
    Iranian leaders must be punished in terms of UN resolution 260 (III) A

    The occupation, settlements and the Arab-Israel conflict

    INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT by Ian Lacey, B.A., LL.B
    Extracts from “Israel and Palestine – Assault on the Law of Nations” by Professor Julius Stone
    Inrernational Law and the settlements – an overviewThe Legalities in a nutshell – Including extracts from the above “INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT” by Ian Lacey, B.A., LL.B.
    Articles by Eugene RostowExtracts from the writings of Justice SchwebelYitxchak Rabin on Israel’s future borders. Remarks in his last speech
    President Obama, Rabin’s Legacy and the words we use
    International law relating to occupation and settlementsThe occupation in perspectiveOccupied territories around the worldDisputed territories around the worldDealing with post-disengagement pressures
    International law and warfare

    International Law and the Fighting in Gaza by WEINER AND BELL © 2008 Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

    INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE SETTLEMENTS

    ReplyDelete
  2. Contrary to the intellectually honest approach of seeking credible information from a wide variety of sources and following the facts wherever they may lead, Israel’s attackers regularly quote only sources that support their belief that Israel is an illegal occupier, and exclude others of equal or possibly better authority that conflict with what they wish to believe.

    Authoritative experts who have declared Israel’s presence in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan to be legal, include inter alia

    Judge Schwebel, a former President of the ICJ, who pronounced “As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem.” (See Appendix A and http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id248.html )
    Professor Julius Stone, one of the twentieth century’s leading authorities on the Law of Nations. See http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id160.html
    Eugene W. Rostow, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969 who played a leading role in producing the famous Resolution 242.
    See http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id45.html
    Jacques Gauthier, a non-Jewish Canadian lawyer who spent 20 years researching the legal status of Jerusalem leading to the conclusion on purely legal grounds, ignoring religious claims that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, by international law. Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28qwcVPNy3E andhttp://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125049#.TkAg4mGuySo
    William M. Brinton, who appealed against a US district court’s withholding of State Department documents concerning US policy on issues involving Israel and the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip. He showed that none of these areas fall within the definition of “occupied territories” and that any claim that the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, or both, is a Palestinian homeland to which the Palestinians have a ‘legitimate right’ lacks substance and does not survive legal analysis. According to Mr. Brinton no state, other than Israel, can show a better title to the West Bank
    Sir Elihu Lauterpacht CBE QC., the British specialist in international law, who concludes inter alia that sovereignty over Jerusalem already vested in Israel when the 1947 partition proposals were rejected and aborted by Arab armed aggression
    Simon H. Rifkind, Judge of the United States District Court, New York who wrote an in depth analysis “The basic equities of the Palestine problem” (Ayer Publishing, 1977) that was signed by Jerome N. Frank, Judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals Second Circuit; Stanley H. Fuld, Judge of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York; Abrahan Tulin, member of the New York Bar; Milton Handler, Professor of law, Columbia University; Murray L. Gurfein, member of the New York Bar; Abe Fortas, former Undersecretary of Interior of the United States and Lawrence R. Eno, member of the New York Bar. They jointly stated that justice and equity are on the side of the Jews in this document that they described as set out in the form of a lawyer’s brief.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The world needs to know:
    1. Judea/Samaria part of Kingdom of Israel from David to Roman Destruction and Expulsion. 1,100 Years.
    2. If doubt this, read: Joshua, Kings I and II, all the prophets.
    3. Even after forcible expulsion by Roman legions, Jews lived there. 3,000 years continuous Jewish presence.
    4. Hebron, Gush Etzion, Nablus, many areas Jewish communities in 1920’s and 1930’s, many years before State of Israel.
    5. Arabs offered State in November of 1947. They said no.
    6. 1967. Israel told Jordan: Do not attack. We will not fire on you. Jordan attacked. Israel RE-TOOK areas lost in 1948 in a DEFENSIVE war against Jordan.
    7. The areas settled in 1969-1970 were by those who RETURNED to their childhood homes. Chanan Porat and his friends were children who grew up there and their fathers were killed by Arabs in 1948 defending their homes.
    8. In late 70’s and early 80’s, Menachem Begin educated people by teaching history: Judea means land of the Jews. It is our the heart and soul of our homeland.
    9. ISIS is in Sinai, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza. To allow a “Palestinian state” in Judea is to create a terrorist state. Logical to committ suicide by leaving Judea?
    10. To say in United States: Blacks or Hispanics cannot live in this neighborhood is illegal, discriminatory, and racist. To say to Jews you can’t live in Judea is same. But that is U.S. State Department policy: Jews can’t live there because…they are Jews. The U.S. State Department is definitely discriminatory and racist.
    11. 1,900 years Jews longed to return. Every holiday “Next Year in Jerusalem.” Including Judea which Jerusalem is a part of! Passover. Yom Kippur. Under wedding canopy. 3 Times a day in Prayer. Get up at night to mourn the loss. Next Year in Jerusalem and Judea. To say Judea is not the heart of Israel, and has been the heart of Israel since David, 3,000 Years is to say: New York not part of U.S. London not part of England. The world needs to know. Enough with the leftist garbage already that Judea is Palestinian!, a name created by the Romans to try to erase the memory of 1,000 year old Sovereign Judea.

    REPLY

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wallace Edward Brand

    I hope the document will include a reference to a book, now out of print, that was published in 1947 and reprinted by Hadassah, NY, in 1977. It contains the legal opinion of eight very distinguished American jurists who have concluded as I have that “ . . .the historical purpose of the Balfour Declaration was clearly to give Jews the right to immigrate into Palestine, create a majority there, and ultimately reconstitute their ancient commonwealth. The administrative framework of the Mandate was designed for the achievement of that purpose.” The Basic Equities of the Palestine Problem p. 29-30. Arno Press reprint (1977) It consists of a legal opinion written by Simon H. Rifkind, Chairman, Judge of the United States District Court, New York; Jerome N. Frank, Judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit; Stanley GH. Fuld, Judge of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York; Abraham Tulin, member of the New York Bar, Milton Handler, Professor of Law, Columbia University; Murray I. Gurfein, member of the New York Bar; Abe Fortas, former Undersecretary of the Interior of the United States (and later Justice of the US Supreme Court) Lawrence R. Eno, member of the New York Bar. It parallels my own opinion SSRN.com/abstract=2679399

    REPLY

    ReplyDelete
  5. Face it - No Arab-Palestinian state west of the Jordan River
    If you read the 1917 Balfour Declaration (Which emulated Napoleons 1799 letter to the Jewish community in Palestine promising that The National Home for The Jewish people will be reestablished in Palestine, as the Jews are the rightful owners). Nowhere does it state an Arab entity west of The Jordan River. The San Remo Conference of April 1920 which incorporated The Balfour Declaration into International Law with no boundary restrictions it does not state an Arab entity west of The Jordan River, confirmed by Article 95 in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne. The Mandate for Palestine terms does not state an Arab entity west of the Jordan River. It specifically states a Jewish National Home in Palestine without limiting or restricting the Jewish territory in Palestine. It also states that the British should work with the Jewish Agency as the official representative of the Jews in Palestine to implement the National Home of the Jewish people in Palestine. I stress again; nowhere does it state that an Arab entity should be implemented west of the Jordan River.
    As a matter of historical record, The British reallocated illegally over 77% of Jewish Palestine to the Arab-Palestinians in 1922 with specific borders and Jordan took over additional territory like the Gulf of Aqaba which was not part of the allocation to Jordan. The United Nations resolutions are non binding with no legal standing it does not create an Arab Palestinian state and it has no authority to change the April 1920 San Remo treaty or modify the terms of the Mandate for Palestine which has the force of international law in perpetuity.

    No where in any of the above stated agreements does it provides for an Arab entity west of the Jordan River. The U.N. and General Assembly resolutions are non-binding with no legal standing, same applies to the ICJ. The Oslo Accords are null and void as state by Mahmmoud Abbas at the U.N.

    Israel must disband the Arab-PA and take back full control and sovereignty of all the territory west of the Jordan River – All of Judea and Samaria without delay. Time for talk is over. Now is the time for action to restore our Jewish sovereignty in all the Land of Israel and stop terror and violence.

    It is time to relocate the Arabs in Israel to Jordan and to the homes and the 120,000 sq. km. of Jewish land the Arab countries confiscated from the over a million Jewish families that they terrorized and expelled and those expelled Jews were resettled in Israel. They can use the trillions of dollars in reparations for the Jewish assets to finance the relocation of the Arabs and help set-up an economy and industry instead of living on the world charity. The Arab countries were allocated over 13 million sq. km. with a wealth of oil reserves.
    YJ Draiman

    P.S. Possession is nine tenths of the law – Israel has it.
    Political Rights in Palestine aka The Land of Israel were granted only and exclusively to the Jews in all of Palestine and the right to settle in all of Palestine with no exclusions.

    The Jewish people’s war of survival was not won when Hitler lost. It continues to this day, against enemies with more effective tools of mass murder at their disposal.
    Plus we are easy to find now.

    ReplyDelete