Occupied territories

Once more: Occupied territories, to whom do they belong?

Many people and organizations treat the disputed areas that are not formally a part of any country (Samaria, Judea - AKA "the Westbank" - and Gaza) as defacto Arab-Palestinian land, and a future sovereign state.

The basis for this idea lies in the proposed partition plan of 1947 by the UN. The British Palestinian mandate originally encompassed all of what is now Jordan, Israel and the disputed territories. This entire mandate was once promised to the Jews, but the British later decided otherwise, and the Jews agreed to settle for the remaining 22%, after the bulk of the land was given to the great-grandfather of the current king of Jordan (nice eh, to inherit a country like that?.

In 1947, the UN proposed a further partition of this remaining 22%. A little more than half was reserved for the Jews, a little less than half for the Arabs that chose not to become Jordanians like most of their neighbours had. This part would become a defacto "second Jordan".

The Jews, in spite of being robbed a second time, accepted the proposal, because anything was better than nothing. Take a look at the proposed division here.

The Arabs however rejected the proposal. And in 1948, all Arabs went to war against Israel the day it was recognized by the UN.
The Arabs lost this war, and all successive ones they waged. But after the 6-day war in 1967, the UN adopted a resolution on which all subsequent negotiations and plans would be based.

There's something odd about this resolution though. It seems that to all the world, only the demands made upon Israel are visible and legible. The full text of the resolution is shown below (it's really not that long), with my comments added. I will show that since its inception, the UN and most of the world has been attacking Israel with this document without ever pausing to see what it so clearly demands of the Arabs (yes, ALL Arabs). Also, demands are made to all parties equally (it was not a bilateral problem according to 242, it was MULTILATERAL. And of course it was, and this has never changed).

Note: My comments are colored blue.

---------------- RESOLUTION 242 OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL ---------------
The Security Council,


Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

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

"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" appears to mean the Israeli's should give back whatever they gained in any war. This is an incorrect view. What it does mean is that land gained by an agressor can never be legally annexed.
If it would mean that a defending country would always be obliged to return land gained in a defensive war (as Israel did with Sinai 3 times!), what's to stop the agressor from trying again (as Egypt did twice so far).

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 East which should include the application of both the following principles:


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

Note that it specifically does NOT say here: "all territories". After having been forced to fight 3 wars in less than 20 years, the UN recognized that Israel's then-current borders were indefensible. In fact, the Russians of the time explicitly stated Israel was meant to keep some of the land it had conquered.
One of the chief designers of the resolution (a Briton) called Israel's borders "undesirable and artificial". That's quite an understatement, even from an Englishman. Check here to see what Israel looked like at the time, and keep in mind the fact that ALL Arab nations at the time were in an official and actual state of war with Israel.

Well, Israel gave back Sinai (for the second time). This made up 91% of all land conquered in the 6-day war. A very valid point could be made that Israel has fulfilled its part of the contract. The Arabs have yet to do the same.


(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;

This point is the simplest of all, yet the one universally disregarded by the international community. The UN of those days (things have changed a lot since then) recognized that the problem was between the Arabs in general and Israel. It was clear to all involved at the time that there could be no lasting peace unless and until all Arab nations made a real peace with Israel.
This point holds true today. And it still has not been achieved. Most "claims or states of belligerency" have not been terminated. And it is the primary reason there is no peace in the Middle-East today.


2. Affirms further the necessity:


(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

People forget so quickly. Egypt was always a prime mover in the wars against Israel. And whenever they felt like it, the Egyptians closed off the Suez canal, and even the Gulf of Aqaba, thereby strangling Israel's only port to the Red Sea.


(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

Another collective lapse of memory. Note that this statement specifically omits the word "Palestinian" in connection to the word "refugee". At least as many Jews were forcibly expelled from Arab countries as there were Palestinian Arabs displaced during the preceding 20 years. All these were absorbed by Israel. No Jew was ever compensated in any way for losses, both material and emotional, suffered during that period. There can be no talk of any form of settlement of the Palestinian Arab regugees without dealing with the injustice done to the Jewish refugees as well.


(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

"of every State in the area". This can only mean Israel. All other states were belligerent ones. Israel is the only country whose "territorial inviolability" and "political independence" need even be guaranteed. No other country was under any threat of attack from anyone, let alone facing extinction.


3. Requests the Secretary­General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;


4. Requests the Secretary­General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
------------- END RESOLUTION 242 OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL --------------

Note 1: Nowhere in this resolution are "Palestinians" mentioned. No matter what subsequent events have clouded global memory, or indeed the UN's own vision on this issue, at the time there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the heart of the issue was the Arab-Israeli conflict. A conflict born as an evil twin to the state of Israel itself. A conflict that will magically disappear the moment the Arabs (ALL Arabs) sincerely accept Israel's existence, and its RIGHT to exist.

Note 2: Up until 1946, "Palestine" was the name of an area administered by the UK. Britain had taken over administrative control from Turkey after WW1. "Palestinians" therefore denotes a term indicating a person living in the mandate.
After 1946 (when (Trans-)Jordan was founded, "Palestine" was what was leftover from the original mandate. "Palestinians" at that time were made up for a significant part of Jews immigrated from Europe and various Arab countries. These Jews bore that name with pride, and even during WW2, there was a Jewish brigade fighting for the British, made up entirely of "Palestinian Jews".

It was Yassir Arafat who hijacked and raped the name "Palestinian" (like he hijacked the name Arafat - his real name is Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa al-Husseini, after his mentor and one of Hitler's best friends) and with the help of Western media established it as the name for ANY Arab whishing to live where now Israel was founded.