• Borukh

    I urge CJN readers, especially those who may be taken in by some repeat letter writers like Harold Pomerantz, Bert Raphael, Bernard Spiegel, Neville Woolf and Jonathan Usher, to consult neutral factual sources about the legal status of Israel’s occupation of “Judea and Samaria”. I offer the official Web site of the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and their page; Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, which can readily be found at .

    Never mind the right vs the left and all that nonsense. Never mind the biased analyses and reports from sources which have their own axes to grind. Read these positions taken by our own Canadian government – for MANY years, I should add – about the true actual status of the West Bank and Gaza, the annexation of East Jerusalem (indeed the overall status of Jerusalem in international law), the status of the annexed Golan Heights, the Palestinian refugees, the separation “wall”, the use oif terror against Israeli citizens, and other prominent matters. These positions are based on law (not ‘pilpul’) and come from a clear and unmitigated national friend of Israel. I believe that they also reflect the majority of Canadians’ positions on these issues.

    For example, regarding the “wall” or separation barrier, it states: “Canada recognizes Israel’s right to protect its citizens from terrorist
    attacks, including through the restriction of access to its territory,
    and by building a barrier on its own territory for security purposes.
    However, Canada opposes Israel’s construction of the barrier inside the
    West Bank and East Jerusalem which are occupied territories. This
    construction is contrary to international law under the Fourth Geneva
    Convention. Canada not only opposes Israel’s construction of a barrier
    extending into the occupied territories, but also expropriations and the
    demolition of houses and economic infrastructure carried out for this
    purpose.the
    West Bank and East Jerusalem which are occupied territories. This
    construction is contrary to international law under the Fourth Geneva
    Convention. Canada not only opposes Israel’s construction of a barrier
    extending into the occupied territories, but also expropriations and the
    demolition of houses and economic infrastructure carried out for this
    purpose.”

    This statement of our Canadian position is based on facts upheld by international law. Some may not like that, however Israel must be bound by international law if it is to survive. It was born within that law, it declared itself to be bound by it and was thereby admitted to the international community of nations, and if it does otherwise it will become a rogue state (like North Korea) and will suffer the consequences of a real botcott, divestment and sanctions movement. I offer one example to illustrate my point. There is not one country in the world, not even ONE single nation, which has its embassy in Jerusalem – anywhere in Jerusalem, east or west. There are consulates, but no embassies. Why? Because an embassy, unlike a consulate, in international law is held to be built on land that is actually part of the national territory of that embassy’s country. It’s not merely owned by the country. And as the Canadian position on Jerusalem states: “Canada considers the status of Jerusalem can be resolved only as part of
    a general settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. Canada does
    not recognize Israel’s unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem.” Nor does any other country in the world, including the USA. Both Canada and the USA will not issue a passport to a citizen stating the person was born in “Jerusalem, Israel” – even when the person was born in the Hadassah Hospital in West Jerusalem! The passeport will only say, “Jerusalem”.

    So dear folks, tayere layt, khaverim and fellow Jews, don’t be fooled into thinking that things are what they are not. There is no right vs left in these matters. There is only the law of nations, to which Israel must adhere or ultimately be declared “non grata”. Put your dreams as well as your biases into a drawer. If you love Israel, as I do (my paternal grandparents made aliya in 1921 to Mandate Palestine from eastern Galitcia, together with other close family and otherwise would have been murdered by the Nazis), wake up, smell the coffee, read the realities, and reject the nonesense being poured forth by some of the members of our community.

  • StanleyT

    Borukh (Bernard???), I refer you in turn to the work of Dr. Jacques Gauthier, a non-Jewish international lawyer from Quebec. Dr. Gauthier has spent the past 25 years studying the law – not political opinions, the law – regarding Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. He has written a 1,300 page treatise, replete with footnotes referring back to his sources, that concludes beyond any doubt that Israel has full right to all of Judea and Samaria and all of Jerusalem.

    The question of Jerusalem, which you seem to feel does not belong to Israel, is particularly interesting. Jews have lived in Jerusalem for more than 3,000 years. No other people has ever claimed Jerusalem as its capital until recently, when the “Palestinians” suddenly discovered it. The San Remo conference of 1920 made it perfectly clear that Jerusalem in toto was to be part of the Jewish state.

    The 1948 UN Partition Plan recommended that Jerusalem become an “international city” – whatever that is – and the Jews agreed. However, the fact that the Arabs did not accept this  plan renders it and its dispositions completely null and void. The fact that Jordan occupied Jerusalem – after ethnically cleansing every last Jew from the Old City – for a mere 19 years, also cannot and does not grant the “Palestinians” any rights to any part of the city.

    I don’t care where you get your information. It is misinformed and not based on the law.

  • Borukh

    StanleyT, I don’t know who Dr. Jaques Gauthier is, nor have I read his 1,300 page thesis on the international law regarding Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. I looked for his book/thesis online at the National Library of Canada (Library & Archives Canada), in the U of Toronto’s Library and even in Amazon. I did not find any mention of it anywhere, even by simply searching under Gauthier as an author key word and Jerusalem as a keyword anywhere. However I did take the time to listen to his talk about his research with Christine Williams of On the Line (5 parts, about an hour in all on YouTube). I have many questions about what he said, and what he did not mention about the Mandate for Palestine, such as the requirement that the people living in the area of every mandated territory having to be consulted by the trustee power (in Palestine, the British) in order to help decide on the direction the trustee was to follow in order to bring them to the level of self-determination and independence envisioned by the system approved at the San Remo Conference and passed on the the League of Nations. That’s part of the core of what happened at San Remo, but Dr. Gauthier omits it.I’m a trained historian and librarian and I am going to check the San Remo documentation (all is available online) and I’ll report back. But in the meantime, I’ll say two things. First, it is hard for me to accept what he says as being the actual legal situation, given what I’ve already reported as factual in my earlier posting – which you dismiss in the light of his research and OPINION as to the legal status still valid today. Those last few words are very important, I hope you will agree. Second, if I were to agree with his point of view based on his detailed and extensive legal reserach, then I would have to say that Israel should legally cover the entire area of what he calls “westertn Palestine”, from the Jordan RIver to the Mediterranean Sea. Is that what you want Stanley? If it is, then what happens to all the Palestinians living there wh are not citizens of Israel? Do they become citizens? Does Israel expell them to Jordan against their will? This is certainly not suggested in any way by Dr Gauthier, who emphasised that they had civil and religious rights under the San Remo agreements vis-a-vis the British mandate for Palestine. What are included under “civil rights”? Does that include the right to vote? If not, would Israel survive having about 50-50 Jews and non-Jews (moslty Palestinians) living in “greater Israel” but only the Jewish citizens having full rights of citizenship, including the vote?Please think about these things and what they imply. I will get back as soon as I can do the research!

  • StanleyT

    Boruskh, some very interesting recent ideas include giving all Palestinians in Judea and Samaria the option to take up Israeli citizenship, together with all its rights and obligations. This will require them to swear an oath of allegiance to Israel, which is surely not too much too ask? (As an immigrant to Canada, I swore an oath of allegiance to this country.) Now, some people will throw their hands up in horror at this and scream “demographic suicide”, but that’s only if you believe the Palestinian numbers, which have been shown to be highly exaggerated. Add to this the increasing Jewish birth rate and the decreasing Arab birth rate and it gets even more compelling.

    As for the rest, I await with interest the results of your research. I do believe you’ll find that Dr. Gautheir makes a compelling case. Nobody else has studied it in the depth that he has.