Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Derecho de Israel (Israel's Right)

Aggie R. Hoffman, Los Ángeles, CA. |2011-02-22 | La Opinión

Su editorial del 20 de febrero afirma correctamente que el fracaso de los árabes palestinos en reconocer el derecho de Israel a existir constituye un obstáculo para la paz, pero omite mencionar el derecho de constituirse en un estado judío. El mundo tiene 57 países musulmanes, muchas naciones católicas y otras de diversas denominaciones cristianas. En Alemania aun existe el partido Demócrata Cristiano.

El editorial está basado en datos históricos incorrectos, falsos principios de la ley internacional y el uso inexacto de la terminología, como detallado abajo. 1. No existen "fronteras tradicionales" entre Israel y Jordania. Parece que La Opinión se refiere a la "Línea Verde", que es nada mas que línea de armisticio donde Jordania e Israel cesaron la guerra en 1948, que nunca reconocida como frontera legal.

2. El incorrecto referir a comunidades judías como colonias. La colonización es la ocupación por invasión, de un estado soberano con el propósito de explotar a sus residentes y sus recursos naturales. Israel se encuentra en Judea y Samaria (el nombre bíblico de ese territorio) como resultado de la guerra de los Seis Días de 1967, lanzada por Jordania y países árabes vecinos con la meta de exterminar a los judíos. Israel no invadió a Jordania sin provocación ni para explotar a su población.

3. Entre 1947 y 1967, Jordania ocupó ilegalmente Judea y Samaria cuando declaró con otros países árabes la guerra contra Israel, negando la partición por las Naciones Unidas del territorio entre judíos y árabes .

4. Israel no obtuvo Judea y Samaria "a la fuerza" sino por defenderse contra la guerra inciada por Jordania.

5. Las poblaciones y ciudades de Israel en Judea y Samaria jamás estuvieron en territorio "palestino"; se encuentran en el territorio que Jordania perdió a Israel en 1967.

6. Las poblaciones judías en Judea y Samaria están en las elevaciones por razones defensivas y no políticas. Sirven para impedir el acceso a la línea de la costa de Israel y a su aeropuerto internacional por sus enemigos. http://tinyurl.com/36rlxjc

7. Quejarse de tener que remover a medio millón de judíos de Judea y Samaria hace claro que ningún judío deberá vivir en un futuro estado palestino, aunque 1.2 millones de árabes vivan en Israel. Eso no es más que un punto de vista racista y de apartheid.

8. El resultado de la historia de batallas, aclara que el territorio en disputa fue adquirido por reglas legítimas de la guerra y la ley internacional. En consecuencia, ni la ocupación ni las poblaciones judías son ilegales. Como la resolución 242 del Consejo de Seguridad declara que solamente las negociaciones ntre la partes podrán determinar el futuro del territorio, Estados Unidos correctamente vetó el intento de condena de las Naciones Unidas declarar las comunidades judías "ilegales."

ORIGINAL ENGLISH:

The editorial of 2/20/11 correctly states that the failure by the Palestinian Arabs to recognize the right of Israel to exist is an obstacle to peace, but fails to mention the right to be a Jewish State. The world has 57 Muslim, countries, many Catholic nations, and still others of multiple Christian denominations. Germany even has the Christian Democratic Party.

The editorial is based on inocrrect historical data, inaccurate vocabulary and false principles of international law, as detailed below.
1.No "traditional borders" exist between Israel and Jordan. The borders referred to by La Opinion (the "Green Line") are simply armistice lines where Jordan and Israel stopped fighting in 1948; the lines were never recognized by any treaty as legal borders.
2. Colonization is occupation through an invasion of a sovereign country for the purpose of exploiting its people and natural resources. Israel is in Judea and Samaria (Biblical name of the territory) as a result of the 1967 Six Day War unleashed by Jordan and neighboring Arab countries with the goal of annihilating the Jews. Israel did not invade Jordan without provocation, nor to exploit its population.
3. From 1947 to 1967 Jordan illegally occupied Judea and Samaria when it and other Arab countries declared war on Israel, defying the UN partition of the territory between the Jews and Arabs.

4. Israel did not obtain Judea and Samaria "by force," but by repelling Jordan's act of war.
5. Israel's towns and cities in Judea and Samaria were never within "Palestinian" territory; they are within territory that Jordan lost to Israel in 1967.
6. The location of the Jewish towns and cities in Judea & Samaria are on hilltops for defensive & not political reasons. They serve to repel access of attacker on Israle's coastline and international airport. See, http://tinyurl.com/36rlxjc

7. Complaining of having to move 500,000 Jews from Judea and Samaria makes clear that no Jew may live in a future Palestinian State, despite the fact that 1.2 Arabs live in Israel. This is nothing short of an apartheid and racist view.

8. Based on the hisory of battles, it is clear that the disputed territory was acquired through the legitimate rules of war, and international law. Consequently neither its occupation nor its Jewish towns and cities are illegal. The US correclty vetoed the recent attemtped UN codemnation, as it was contrary to UN Resolution 242 which provides that only negotiations of the parties may determine the outcome of the territory.


________________________________________________
http://www.impre.com/laopinion/opinion/editorial/2011/2/20/defending-the-unacceptable-240380-1.html#commentsBlock

Defending the unacceptable

|2011-02-20 | La Opinión

The United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements placed the United States in the uncomfortable position of defending what is considered an obstacle to a peace accord.

We must be clear: it is not the only impediment to reaching an agreement. Nothing can be done without recognition of Israel’s right to exist. One party cannot negotiate with another that is planning its destruction, period.

Nonetheless, the fundamental right to exist does not include carte blanche for Israel to colonize territories outside its traditional borders and inside the Palestinian territory.

From the outset, the Obama administration has recognized the adverse impact of these settlements on the peace process between the two parties. Even so, it failed in its attempt to get Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government to extend the ten-month freeze on their construction.

As a result, the United Nations Security Council condemned the settlement policy, with the United States standing alone in opposition. Unfortunately, the U.S. veto, in practice, signifies support for a policy it really does not share.

Israel is an ally in the region, its only democracy. And, Israel does have ancestral roots in the region.But all this does not entitle it to place a half million people and counting in territories won by force.

We are concerned that the settlements, as one of the obstacles to peace, have major domestic support in Israel, making it practically impossible for a government to dismantle them and bring the population back inside Israeli borders. The withdrawal from the Gaza Strip provided just a sample of the settlers’ resistance to an action of this type and its political impact.

The settlements in the West Bank are the result of a policy that has been implemented over many years and by several gov ernments. That doesn’t make it any more acceptable. Nor does it make the United States’ U.N. veto any more right, which while protecting an ally, is also defending an unacceptable policy.

No comments: