Time to Annex Judea and Samaria?


Pages: 1 2

Some will say that such annexation would violate international law. But, except for certain limited areas where nations have agreed to cooperate to advance specific mutual interests, there is no international law. When has international law ever protected Israel from its enemies? Never.

When Arab states attacked Israel three times, did that violate international law? Certainly. When Palestinians launch rockets into Israel from Gaza, does that violate international law? Of course. When Iran and other countries ship munitions into Gaza and the West Bank for use in terrorist attacks against Israel, does that violate international law? Sure. When Arab terrorists blow up buses and restaurants and slaughter Jewish families in their sleep in an effort to destroy the state of Israel and kill as many Jews as possible, does that violate international law? It certainly violates any law, national or international, that may apply. Has the world ever cared about these countless violations of international and domestic law by Middle Eastern Arabs? Not much–with the single, honorable exception of American Christians.

Before every boxing match, the referee meets in the center of the ring with the boxers. He goes over the rules of the match–the three knockdown rule does not apply, you can’t be saved by the bell, and so on. The referee always concludes by telling the boxers to “defend yourselves at all times.” That instruction is really rather profound: boxing has rules, more so than most human activities, but at some level you can’t rely on them. The bell may ring; the referee may break up a clinch or pause the action to instruct the boxers or communicate with the judges. But in the ring you are never safe, and there is really only one line of defense: you. The boxer never puts down his guard.

Israel has always understood this. International law, the United Nations, and world opinion are all more or less useless. Israel’s own resources and determination and the force of arms have alone preserved the country’s existence. So I say: if annexing the West Bank is “illegal,” then, having ignored the Arabs’ violation of every known rule of law for more than 60 years, the world will just have to ignore an illegal act by Israel, too.

What would become of the Arabs now living on the West Bank? The answer depends in part on demographic analysis, but I would propose a Right of Return: all Arabs now living in Judea and Samaria would be allowed, or if necessary required, to return to their compatriots in Jordan, Gaza, Egypt and Lebanon.

In my view, Israel should have reclaimed Judea and Samaria long ago. Most think it is now too late for such decisive action; but some will say, better late than never.

Pages: 1 2

  • suzanne

    Great article. This is common sense.

    • greg2020

      This is backward sense!

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    Better late than never! The entire Judea and Samaria must be annexed. All MOSLEMS now living in Judea and Samaria must be allowed, or if necessary required, to return to their compatriots in Jordan, Gaza, Egypt and Lebanon!
    http://www.resonoelusono.com/DeclarationForIsrael

    • PhillipGaley

      To my mind, Israel should have reclaimed Judea and Samaria, long ago. My own inclination would be to aim higher–annex the whole of the West Bank; and in the same moment, get rid of that mosque in Jerusalem. And it may be that, we're not late, rather, truth be known, we're right on time.

  • crackerjack

    The author is ill informed.
    Israel has never officially annexed East Jerusalem, nor The Golan. Israel has only "..extended its jurisdiction and administration.." into these regions by the "Golan Hights Law" and the "East Jerusalem Law". Soveringty was never assumed.

    The reasons? Apart from the incalculable risk of incorporating millions of Arabs into a Jewish homeland, the international and legal implications would be devastating.

    Israel's Golan Hights and East Jerusalem Laws were carpet slammed by all UN members in a non binding Security Council Chapter 5 resolution as "…..null and void..". An annexation would have led to a binding Chapter 7 Security Council resolution, de facto placing Israel under international quarantine.

    • stern

      crackerjack, seems to me that this is what the "single state" folks are calling for. They want one state where everyone has equal rights – and if Israel annexes Judea and Samaria, that's exactly what would happen.

      • crackerjack

        The author has a more realistic vision of what would happen, didn't you read the article?

        "……Arabs now living in Judea and Samaria would be allowed, or if necessary required, to return to their compatriots in Jordan, Gaza, Egypt and Lebanon….."

        The author is realistic here. Annexation leaves two options. Expulsion of millions of Arabs or a system of Apardheid to deny millions of Arabs participation in the administration.

    • MixMChess

      You can't even get your basic facts right crackerjack. In 1980 the Knesset voted to formally annexed all of Jerusalem (including E. Jerusalem) to Israel.

      Of course, the 1993 Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles, "deferred the settlement of the permanent status of Jerusalem to the final stages of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians." Basically, although all of Jerusalem was annexed, Israel is willing to negotiate parts of its sovereign territory in a final settlement with the Palestinians.

      As for the UN resolutions, they are meaningless considering they have no binding effect under International law. Not even Resolution 242 controls the status of Jerusalem. The resolution (which is the only international law controlling the rest of the territories) does NOT even refer to Jerusalem, and this omission was DELIBERATE. The U.S. Ambassador to the UN noted that "Jerusalem was a discrete matter, not linked to the West Bank.” In fact he repeatedly stated that "the armistice lines of 1948 were intended to be temporary. This, of course, was particularly true of Jerusalem." At no time was East Jerusalem ever referred to as an "occupied territory.”

      As Steven Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice, notes, because Israel was defending itself from aggression in the 1948 and 1967 wars, it may claim sovereignty over ALL of Jerusalem.

      Julius Stone, has argued that Israel has sovereignty over East Jerusalem under international law, "since Jordan did not have legal sovereignty over the territory, and thus Israel was entitled in an act of self-defense during the Six Day War to 'fill the vacuum'".

      international Legal expert Howard Grief argued that Israel obtained de jure sovereignty over Jerusalem under the San Remo Agreement which transformed the Balfour Declaration into International Law: "Under the International law doctrine of acquired rights, codified in the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties, when England abandoned its League of Nations 'mandate' or trusteeship as the arrangement is now referred to by the UN, Israel, the beneficiary of the political rights over Palestine kept the sovereignty promised under the agreement when the Jews were able to exercise it. Under Article 80 of the UN Charter, the rights awarded by the San Remo Agreement and the League of Nations Mandate, were preserved in full."

      Subsequent resolutions by the U.S. Senate and declarations by U.S. presidents, all brokers for peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, have formally acknowledged that all of Jerusalem is Israel's capital.

      • Carol

        Great posts MixMChess. I have never seen anyone refer to Howard Grief's work before. He has so much out there as do others. Have you been to http://www.justicenow4israel.com/ lots of great information there.

        Also check for a complete listing of ACPR Policy Papers on http://www.acpr.org.il/English/new-e.htm

        And as I mentioned below in a reply work done Dr. Jacques Gautier’s Who Owns Jerusalem, it is a series of videos based on his 20+ years of research for his PHD. He is Canadian Lawyer and is well versed in international law. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28qwcVPNy3E

      • crackerjack

        The words "annex" and "sovereignty" appeared neither in Israel's " Golan Hights Law", nor in Israel's "Jerusalem Law".
        Israel could have put a claim to annexation and sovereignty before the UN , but it refrained. from doing so.
        International dealing concerning Golan are abitrated through the UN. US dealings with Israel are conducted through Tel Aviv. All US presidents and their administrations have refrained from accepting Israel's claim to Jerusalem Proper through moving consulate affairs to Jerusalem.

        • MixMChess

          "The words "annex" and "sovereignty" appeared neither in Israel's " Golan Hights Law", nor in Israel's "Jerusalem Law"."

          You are ignorant of the law. Those words are not necessary for Israel to legally annex both areas. Both the Golan Heights Law and Jerusalem Law extends Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration, to the respective areas. The extension of Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration is the SAME as annexation under Israeli law. Even anti-Israel political scientist Ian Lustick notes that the absence of the terms "annexation" and sovereignty," didn't change the fact that Israel legally annexed those areas.

          "Israel could have put a claim to annexation and sovereignty before the UN , but it refrained. from doing so."

          Israel doesn't have to put a claim to annexation and sovereignty before the UN. Israel can legally annex territory under its own laws and based on international jus cogens. Just the same, in the US, Congress and the President have final say on international affairs, NOT the UN. I do have to give you credit for trying to create international law that doesn't exist.

          "International dealing concerning Golan are abitrated through the UN."

          Not quite, only Resolution 242 governs the Golan territory. Resolution 242 does not require the involvement of the UN. Seriously stop pretending you're an international lawyer, you're just going to get schooled son.

          "US dealings with Israel are conducted through Tel Aviv. All US presidents and their administrations have refrained from accepting Israel's claim to Jerusalem Proper through moving consulate affairs to Jerusalem."

          Huh? In 1990, Congress passed a resolution declaring that "Jerusalem is and should remain the capital of the State of Israel" and "must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected."

          Congress overwhelmingly passed The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which declared that, "as a statement of official U.S. policy, Jerusalem should be recognized as the undivided, eternal capital of Israel and required that the U.S. embassy in Israel be established in Jerusalem."

    • MixMChess

      As for the Golan Heights, I already embarrassed you once crackerjack, do you really want to be embarrassed again?

      Recall, on December 14, 1981, the Knesset voted to LEGALLY ANNEX the Golan Heights. The statute "extended Israeli civilian law and administration to the residents of the Golan, replacing the military authority that had ruled the area since 1967."

      As Julius Stone points out: “There is no rule of international law which requires a lawful military occupant, in this situation, to wait forever before [making] control and government of the territory permanent….Many international lawyers have wondered, indeed, at the patience which led Israel to wait as long as she did."

      UN Resolution 242 is the ONLY UN resolution that legally governs the territory of the Golan, which established the "principles that were to guide the negotiations for an Arab-Israeli peace settlement." Under 242, Israel may retain territory (here the Golan) as a "safe and RECOGNIZED BOUNDARY" to be "free from threats or acts of force." Thus, even under 242 this is considered ISRAELI TERRITORY (even pending any final negotiated settlement). Under 242, Israel is not required to withdraw from the Golan and may continue to occupy, administer and even legally annex the territory. Golan is ISRAELI TERRITORY.

      • crackerjack

        Let's make a long story short MixMChess before we go around in circles again.

        Where and when and by which law did Israel officially annex Golan and East Jerusalem to extend full und undivided Israeli sovereignty to these areas?

        Where and when did Israel call on the UN to endorse and ratify a claim to annexation and sovereingty of Golan and East Jerusalem?

        Which nation or international institution recognizes and support an Israeli sovereingty over Golan and East Jerusalem?

        • MixMChess

          "Where and when and by which law did Israel officially annex Golan and East Jerusalem to extend full und undivided Israeli sovereignty to these areas?"

          Um, the Golan Heights Law ratified by the Knesset on December 14, 1981 and the Jerusalem Law passed by the Knesset on July 30, 1980. Additionally, the San Remo Agreement which transformed the Balfour Declaration provide the Jerusalem is Israeli territory. Similary, Resolution 242 provides that the Golan is Israeli territory, that is unless Golan is traded in any final negotiated settlement with the Syrians or Palestinians. Further, international legal principals of jus cogens provides that a state may legally acquire territory (annex and claim sovereignty) in a defensive war as Israel did in 1967.

          "Where and when did Israel call on the UN to endorse and ratify a claim to annexation and sovereingty of Golan and East Jerusalem?"

          International law doesn't require Israel go to the UN to endorse or ratify any annexation of territory. Nice try though. :-(

          "Which nation or international institution recognizes and support an Israeli sovereingty over Golan and East Jerusalem?"

          You are confusing recognition and consensus with black letter law. They are two different concepts. Nations and international institutions can chose to disapprove of an Israeli action, that doesn't mean it was illegal under international law. Besides international legal scholars such as Julius Stone, Stephen Schwebel and Howard Grief among countless others all recognize Israel's annexation and sovereignty over Jerusalem and Golan.

  • stern

    Sorry – lost half my comment. Continues below:

    Big surprise for everyone though, will be when they discover that the so-called "demographic time bomb" is a myth. Jews outnumber Arabs in Israel and the West Bank by something like 68%. Currently, the Arab birth rate is declining, while the Jewish birth rate is increasing. So all in all, seems like not such a bad idea to me.

  • Ben Masterson

    Were Israel's government to annex Judea and Samaria the perpetual international uproar over Israel would come to a crescendo; the Middle East's — yea, the world's — "Jewish problem" would be brought to a head. It's difficult to predict what would result from that. Yet, as a Jew and an Israeli, I would support such an action if it was so decided. We'd need nerves of steel, of course, and good timing would be essential to the success of such a move.

  • Zena

    I propose that all us baby boomers that have the (albeit rare) common sense to see how important Israel is, to start planning for our final retirement. Instead of going softly into that good night, we go out fighting for Israel, and take back Judea, Sumaria, and a 50 mile area around it for good measure. There are quite a lot of us and despite stories to the contrary, very fit mentally and physically. In 10 years our numbers will have swelled to army size. Human survival depends on protecting Israel (don't ask me how I know, I just do), so in the bigger picture, we are doing the greatest thing possible. Yes, true.

    • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

      Thank you, Zena: what a great post! Count me in and email me (following my link in Declaration above).

  • Alfonz Shmedlap

    W., 07/06/11 common era

    Annex Now, Israel! Don't be afraid any longer about Gentile world opinion. Rashi says that the Torah begins with the account of the Creation to show that G-d could have given that Land to any nation that He wanted. However, he chose the Jews because we chose Him. Sure, the U.N., Kremlin, State Department, Vatican, and E.U., and The Moslem Brotherhood will get their collective panties in a bunch, but who cares!?

    • greg2020

      I understand, Annex Israel Now. Palestinians need their Land and shall annex everything back!

  • nossonkohn

    Can someone take the initiative and send this to all members of congress, and lobby for them to pass a resolution urging Israel to annex the territories? It is obvious to all that the only reason Israel has not done so until now, and will not do so in the future, is simply because it is afraid of world opinion/ reaction. So until Israel gets the world's green light, nothing will change

  • 11bravo

    If the rest of western civilization (code for UN members) and the barbarians freak out over annexation; Isreal should withdrawl from the UN "F"-em!!! We know isreal has nukes, and can probably deliver them more accurately than the US.

    The world will sqwuak-but DO NOTHING!! Just like they do nothing about a totalitarian backward ideology that is quickly advancing on all their societies.

    Is their a man-enough-leader left in the world to do what Truman and IKE had to do? I doubt it.

    Lets get this over with in the next 5-10 years so my grandkids won't have to do it.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    I would include Israel annexing Hamastan and expelling Hamas as well, especially since the border with Egypt is now open. Nonetheless, annexing Judea, Samaria, and Gaza and expelling the Muslims would strategically definitely make Israel far more secure. It would not mean, however, the end of the permanent genocidal jihad of conquest being waged perpetually against the Jewish unbelievers in Israel, as that jihad of conquest will continue to be waged perpetually for as long as Israel continues to exist and regardless of any and all fake peace processes used to weaken Israel and to dupe gullible useful idiots.

  • Dumphy

    According to international law, the West Bank is Palestinian land and therefore not Israel's to annex. Ironic how what Israel is doing to the Palestinians now is like what the Germans did to the Jews in the 30s and 40s. Ethnic cleansing is never a moral option, whether it's practiced by Muslims, Christians or Jews.

    • MixMChess

      WRONG Dumphy. According to International law, since Israel captured Jerusalem while defending itself from aggression in the 1948 and 1967 wars, Israel may claim sovereignty over the city.

      Interestingly enough, Resolution 242 does not even refer to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate… The U.S. Ambassador to the UN noted that "Jerusalem was a discrete matter, not linked to the West Bank.” In fact he repeatedly stated that "the armistice lines of 1948 were intended to be temporary. This, of course, was particularly true of Jerusalem." At no time was East Jerusalem ever referred to as an "occupied territory.”

    • MixMChess

      As for your ethnic cleansing charge, that is complete nonsense considering the Palestinian population has actually increased by over 84% from 1993-2004 ALONE.

    • Carol

      Dumphy the UN was in violation of international law when they partitioned Israel into a Palestinian area. They had no right to supersede the League of Nations which had been ratified by the majority of the world. You will find a lot of the info here http://www.think-israel.org/grief.legalrights.htm… Wish I had time to look for more. Also check You Tube for Who Owns Jerusalem by Dr. Jaques Gautier it is a series of videos based on his 20+ years of research for his PHD. He is Canadian Lawyer and is well versed in international law. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28qwcVPNy3E

      The US is definitely in violation of their laws, see http://www.justicenow4israel.com/mitchell_letter2

    • greg2020

      Dumphy, the only language that Zionists understand is backward FORCE. This guy who is posting such an article, shall know that the annexed parts of Germany in France, Czech republic, and Poland are today more German than ever before. Besides, It is now all Europe. Whereas, Israel is a foreign part in the Middle East and will stay like that. There is no hope for israeli integration. People are out-immigrating from Israel today. People are using israel as stop station to re-immigrate to America or Canada. Only fanatics are immigrating and staying in Kibbuzes.

      Anyways, Annexing idea will hit back and the author might write in the future how Arabs are annexing back their Palestinian country that was once called Israel for 70 years :), he might witness this as well!

    • xrystu

      Dumphy, go read Howard Greef treaty. You're talking lies.

  • sharpsrifle

    I've been saying Israel should have annexed Judea and Samaria since 1982…nice to see I'm not alone.

  • Indioviejo

    I support Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria, but comparison to our Southwest expansion just does not fit. Remember, in 1523 there were Aztecs, Mayas, Tlaxcalans and plenty of folks who did not know they were “Mexicans”. By Sept 21, 1821, (Independence Day) Mexico was an instable Spanish Colony far from being a nation. How could they be disposed of territory they could not control? Why were the mestizos in Mexico City, Lords of the Apache, Navajo, and the rest of the natives in the southwest, which we had to conquer? Didn’t we learn anything from John Wayne? OMG.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    The MSM and leftist government droids and Islamist colonists are a small percentage
    of America but have big mouths that need to be shut. As far as opinion is concerned
    ever what Israel decides to annex is just fine with me and as I know more than
    half of the people I know agree with me and maybe it's three quarters who do so,
    I recommend go for it. Myself and every right thinking individual in the World is
    sick to death of these leftist, Islamist, anti-American, anti-Israeli throwbacks
    to the Dark Ages………….For Israel to annex is to give freedom to millions and
    return light to much of the World. Yesterday would have been better, today is
    just fine, tomorrow is good but let the light come soon before the World of evil
    grows stronger. My crew says we stand with the Jewish people, our friends.
    William

  • nina

    It is a nice thought that Israel annex Judea and Samaria. It would make her borders more secure and of course, the Jews would at last have back their historical land. It is also legal to annex land from an enemy who attacked your country like Poland did with Silesia and France with Strassburg. There are two problems: One is the total disapproval from the European nations and all kinds of sanctions which would be a terrible burden for such a tuny country to bear. One is not an island. Especially a country without natural resources, etc. But the second problem would be that as Israel would never forcibly deport the Arabs, and being a democracy, the Arabs would become Israeli citizens with all the rights. In a shoert time, they, and the Israeli leftists would constitute the majority, and goodby Jewish Israel. Hello the one country solution. Too bad that Irael is such a moral country, but it's a fact, and therefore this dream is only that; just a dream. Sorry…

  • greg2020

    Perhaps Arabs should annex back their Palestinian country; 10 years from now we can all celebrate the SECOND DUBAI in the middle east: the state of Palestine that consists of the provinces of Gaza, the West Bank, the occupied rest of the country which is today called Israel! upon Announcing the State of Palestine, the world will celebrate the birth of the largest boost to WORLD ECONOMY; the rebirth of Palestine will constitute the establishment of Dubai Like State in the middle east. Cheers to Palestine and to back Annexing the country of Zionist Israeli occupiers