| Arabs are not entitled for "1967 borders" by International Law Boris I Aleinikov, 30 June 2002 Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu: It was always a big puzzle for me to see how Israel loses propaganda wars to Arabs time and again. The favorite weapon of their big lie is constant references to the so-called "international law", however much they misuse and distort it. Most recent big lie: Israel's presence on the territories beyond Green Line (i.e. "occupation" accordingly to the habitual parlance invented by ignorant or hostile, or both, newspapermen) is "illegal" from point of view of International Law. How infectious this "logic" can be we had the chance to hear quite recently from pronounce- ments by a no lesser figure than the Secretary General of UN. Mr. Kofy Annan is not an irresponsible journalist who can say whatever he wants. He is the highest ranking international officer. One of two is true, either he is an ignoramus in the field of the international law, i.e unfit for his high office, or he openly took side of Arabs in their unholy war against Israel. In both cases he should be removed from his position ASAP. Meanwhile we did not hear of any official protest by Israeli government (or any other government) against such a blatant and really illegal misuse of an UN office. With such a connivance by the silent world aggressors with mentality of victims gain a score. During my life before age of forty in the now-defunct Soviet Union I read many times in their news papers and political magazines the officially declared point of view on a right of a victim of aggression for territories and other assets of a defeated aggressor. The most prominent proponent of this was professor Tunkin, member of highly prestigious Soviet Academy of Sciences. Citing from my memory I can briefly give the substance of his view: "The international law, how it is practiced now, provides for victim(s) of aggression such a post-conflict arrangement at the expense of defeated aggressor(s) which will insure impossibility of a repetition of new aggression such as: territorial annexations, reparations, limitations on certain industrial and technological activities, and so on." Of course it was not Mr.Tunkin's personal POV but the one of Soviet government's which kept in mind its own annexations of former German and Japanese territories after WWII. And I think this understanding of the International Law should not be thrown out only because its proponents, the Soviets themselves often behaved like "aggressors with mentality of victim". Does anybody remembers today that the so-called Kaliningrad region of Russia is historic Eastern Prussia? Present day city of Kaliningrad before 1945 was called Koenigsberg and was a capital of Prussia since XV century. Such German luminaries as Immanuel Kant, many Prussian kings were buried there. Now it is a Russian territory, as well as all of Western Prussia, Silezia, Pomerania now are Polish territories. And not only territories! All German population, all 100% of it, was expelled from these lands. All 3 million Sudeten- land Germans were expelled to Germany from this region of Czecho- slovakia. The Czechs remembered very well the provocative role this German minority had played in partition and annihilation of their country. To say the truth, I do not have a single drop of tear to shed about this. I think the German people received exactly what they deserved after the enormity of crimes and atrocities committed in the name of "Great Reich" and "adorable Fuhrer". I am quite satisfied with such post-conflict an arrangement, even despite some second thoughts about how Stalin in close cooperation and friendship with Hitler cooked up the WWII. (Comrade Hitler finally cheated comrade Stalin, about the same way as many years later comrade Arafat deceived comrades Rabin and Peres). Why do not Israel's representatives, diplomats, ministers and media figures speak loudly, openly and frequently about this rather recent historic example of ending a war? By not using the precedent we give up the field for the enemy. You, Mr. Netanyahu, were first one, as much as I could remember, who used a similar historic parallel in a case of international terrorism in your Capitol Hill rally speech in Washington, DC on April 15th: "...from Lenin to Stalin, to Hitler ... to Arafat...". I want to congratulate you for that. Concerning Israeli-Arab conflict the regulations of the International Law are even clearer than for the former German territories. Judea, Samaria and Gaza were not legal parts of any modern state, though they were part of the ancient Israeli state. The so-called "1967 border" never was a political border, it was and is, up to this day, the armistice line of 1948, formalized as such in 1949 by Rhodes agreements. And clearly these territories served as starting points for Arab aggressions against Israel not once but several times. What is interesting the Arabs themselves implicitly recognize that they were correctly punished by the loss of at least of part of the territories. Currently they do not demand Israel to step back to "UN borders of 1947" (perhaps they leave this for the future). Why not? The UN lines are the only lines which somehow can be called "international borders" in spite of the fact they never materialized as a result of Israel's repulsion of Arab aggression in the War of Independence 1948-49. Now Arabs and their apologists prefer to keep silence about the aggression of 1948. But they vehemently deny the fact of their aggression in 1967. (Certain Perry of "Palestinian Report" recently on MSNBC quietly and explicitly declared there was not such a thing as Arab aggression in 1967, and the moderator, Chris Matthews unfortu- nately left this big lie unanswered). They try to use a technicality - Israel's air attack on Egypt early morning June 5th 1967. Tell them about expulsion of UN peacekeepers by Nasser from Sinai border; visits to Moscow by Egyptian war minister Shams Badran, where he was received by his Soviet counterpart Marshal Grechko: two allies discussed which share of Israel's cadaver would go to who. The main Soviet Army newspaper "Krasnaya Zvezda" (Red Star) wrote that this despised small Israel can only blame herself for her sure annihilation in a few days. And the youthfully looking king Hussein of Jordan (then 31-year old and not yet having earned the false reputation of peace loving little wise monarch) went to Cairo to sign a 5-year war union with his sworn "friend" Nasser. Add here illegal closing of Tiran strait (international seaway!) for Israeli ships and concentration of enormous Egyptian army on Sinai. But aggressors miscalculated: the sorrow (for them) results of their aggression are well known. Concerning two other Arab members of the unholy troika, Syria and Jordan they were not even subjected to any preventive strike by Israel. They attacked first, in a case of Jordan even against an advice of Israel's PM Levi Eshkol in a letter to Hussein not to start an offensive against Israel in exchange for promise by Israel not to strike Jordan. So East Jerusalem and whole Judea and Samaria were lost by Arabs. Such is a truth about their aggression in 1967. Now let the International Law to work. The Arabs (so-called Palestinians) are not entitled any more for pre-1967 borders which they never recognized and blatantly violated to bring war on Israel. It is up to a political process to establish the new borders which would provide a measure of security for the State of Israel. There is a way to solve the conflict accordingly to International Law and even without subjecting Arab population of Judea and Samaria to the fate of Sudetenland Germans, i.e. without transfer. Who told it must be one and only one Palestinian state? Why not 3, 4 or more of them? Gaza is clearly a first candidate for a separate state. Now take the Northern parts of Samaria: let it be a small independent state of Jenin. Jeriho may be a capital of a state in part of Judea. And so on. Each of these states will be small but not extremely small, not smaller by territory than Liechtenstein or Malta. There is no need for them to be contiguous, so Jewish towns ("settlements") would not be at their sovereign territory. Being small, each one would pose less danger for Israel's security and simply they can be easier managed (for their own benefit). Israel should work hard to find out Arab personalities capable to rule such mini-states, either for the benefit of their people (however unlikely) or to fulfill their own personal ambitions and rivalries. Economic help by U.S., EU, Israel may sweet the deal. Very sincerely yours, Boris I Aleinikov, Arlington, Virginia, USA e-mail address: bialeinikov@msn.com |
The Case Agianst Israel's Enemies by Alan Dershowitz 
Coming from England and particularly from the BBC, MUST BE SEEN VIDEO! ANOTHER MUST SEE VIDEO |