Israels biträdande utrikesminister Danny Ayalon har skrivit en artikel i The Wall Street Journal. Den är väl värd att läsas. Det talas i politiska kretsar på hög nivå om Israels "ockupation" av västbanken som en "olaglig ockupation". Men faktum är att Israels närvaro i det omstridda området inte är olaglig, tvärtom har Israel och judarna mycket goda skäl för att finnas i området.
Israel's Right in the 'Disputed' Territories
"The recent statements by the European Union's new foreign relations chief Catherine Ashton criticizing Israel have once again brought international attention to Jerusalem and the settlements. However, little appears to be truly understood about Israel's rights to what are generally called the "occupied territories" but what really are "disputed territories."
That's because the land now known as the West Bank cannot be considered "occupied" in the legal sense of the word as it had not attained recognized sovereignty before Israel's conquest. Contrary to some beliefs there has never been a Palestinian state, and no other nation has ever established Jerusalem as its capital despite it being under Islamic control for hundreds of years...
...After the war in 1967, when Jews started returning to their historic heartland in the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, as the territory had been known around the world for 2,000 years until the Jordanians renamed it, the issue of settlements arose. However, Rostow found no legal impediment to Jewish settlement in these territories. He maintained that the original British Mandate of Palestine still applies to the West Bank. He said "the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan River, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors." There is no internationally binding document pertaining to this territory that has nullified this right of Jewish settlement since.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar