Once again on “International Community” having two different sets of the law – for themselves and for Israel

The discussion on my recent post on “Now Israel has only one option in securing its future with Palestinians and Iran” revealed once again that a mystical “international community” has been a cover-up for the true anti-Semites. This cover-up is for anti-Semites who are trying to hide their dislike or even hate of the Jews and the Jewish leading “tribe” of Israel by pretending to be an “international community” which is trying to hold Israel responsible for violation of some “international laws” invented by anti-Semites themselves to rebuke Israel and the entire Jewish nation. Below is a response to their libels.

(1) They say: Israel should respect international law and abide by it and give up the illegal occupation of the West Bank as it is clearly stated in the UNSCR 242. There is no legal basis for not obeying the UN resolution.

There are various interpretations of the UNSCR 242 and among them there are some that suggest security provisions for the State of Israel in any final solution of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However the Palestinians have refused to consider the security provisions and the so-called international community is not demanding from the Palestinians to do so. Why? The answer is well known. The UNSCR 242 was created as an “international law” specifically designed for Israel – not to be applied to the Palestinians. The majority of UN General Assembly is composed of the anti-Western, anti-Judeo-Christian countries. Because Israel is a founding member of the Western Judeo-Christian world the de-legitimization of Israel is the chief goal of this organization.

The UN was established at the end of WWII as an international body for preserving the peace in the Western Judeo-Christian world under Judeo-Cristian definitions on what is Right and what is Wrong – based on all written and unwritten moral concepts of the Torah and the Bible which shaped the foundation of Western legal secular systems. Then, as any newly created governing body, the UN began expanding. Now UN majority consists of Muslim or Muslim-allied countries with a completely different set of what is Right and what is Wrong – for the Muslim countries it is based on the Koran and Sharia.

Until we find a UN common legal ground for Judeo-Christian and Muslim worlds the legal UN decisions concerning Israel should be always challenged.

(2) They say: Over 40 years have passed since Israel illegally occupied the West Bank. The prohibition of the acquisition of territory by war is illegal. This prohibition extends to any territory obtained through “aggressive” war or that obtained in a war of self-defense.

Again, those requirements on ending a war were not applied to any country in recent history but Israel.

The USA and its allies didn’t look for a legal solution to end the WWII – they won and then impose on the adversary Germany and Japan their legal solution. Seventy years later, we still have our military bases in Germany and Japan since that is a part of our legal solutions imposed on Germany and Japan.
The USA and its allies didn’t look for a legal solution in a recent anti-Saddam Iraq war – we won and now are trying to impose on Iraq their legal solution.

Now the USA and its allies are trying to win the war against Islamic assault on the West in many countries of the Muslim Middle-East without following any preconceived legal solution – a possible solution would be discussed after the victory.

In the 1967 war, Israel won a defensive war against the Muslim Arab world and now is trying to find a legal solution. If not for the set of “international laws” created specifically for Israel that are forcing Israel to accept a no-security solution, an Israeli-Palestinians conflict might be resolved long ago. And the conflict would be resolved not by returning to the “pre-1967-war borders” since those borders are the “Auschwitz borders” as Ambassador Eban defined them long ago.

(3) They say: the problem with special legal treatment of Israel is that Israel illegally captured and occupies the Arab lands, and many include in the occupied lands even the lands designated for a Jewish state by the original 1947 UN resolution 181.

We have to remember why the USA, UK and France finally agreed on the Palestine partition and creation of an independent Jewish state. It is well known and remembered that a group of influential Zionist Jews worked tirelessly to create a Jewish state. But something else even more important has been almost forgotten. The Jews in Europe who survived Holocaust became the so-called “dispossessed persons”. Whatever they possessed before WWII was taken from them by their government, by their neighbors, by their murderers. They have no place to go back. When a group of dispossessed Polish Jews returned to their home-village they were murdered by their former Polish neighbors who were afraid that the Jews may demand the return of their pre-war properties.

There was no place to go for the dispossessed Jewish persons and the USA and UK were not willing to take them. That’s why the Great Powers were eager to find a place for the dispossessed Jews somewhere outside Europe. Thus the dispossessed Jews were given the land in the British Palestine as a sort of compensation for the much larger possessions taken from them in Europe. The new Jewish State in Palestine was not created by expropriating the Arab private lands but rather by transferring to the State of Israel the British government lands.

(4) They say: Israel will not survive without USA diplomatic and financial help. That’s why it was a great mistake for Netanyahu to challenge Obama on Iran since Obama may retaliate against Netanyahu by curtailing economic and military assistance to Israel. Without such assistance Israel would not survive.

Here is the Stratford historic assessment of economic and military relationships between the USA and Israel.

While the United States recognized Israel from the very beginning in 1948, its relationship was cool until after the Six-Day War in 1967. When Israel, along with Britain and France, invaded Egypt in 1956, the United States demanded Israel’s withdrawal from Sinai and Gaza, and the Israelis complied. The United States provided no aid for Israel except for food aid given through a UN program that served many nations. The United States was not hostile to Israel, nor did it regard its relationship as crucial.

This began to change before the 1967 conflict, after pro-Soviet coups in Syria and Iraq by Baathist parties. Responding to this threat, the United States created a belt of surface-to-air missiles stretching from Saudi Arabia to Jordan and Israel in 1965. This was the first military aid given to Israel, and it was intended to be part of a system to block Soviet power. Until 1967, Israel’s weapons came primarily from France. Again, the United States had no objection to this relationship, nor was it a critical issue to Washington.

Therefore, Israel survived and flourished without any help from the USA from 1948 until 1967 and is ready to do it again if forced to do by an anti-Semitic “international community”. However, the probability that this happens is very low since the great majority of American people fill spiritually attached to Israel.

Published by Vladimir Minkov

Vladimir Minkov Ph.D. is a nuclear scientist, published author and writer. He is the co-author of "Nuclear Shadow Boxing", a scientific history of the nuclear confrontation between the Soviet Union and USA during the cold war and is the author of many books on the Jewish identity in the Judeo-Christian civilization. Having lost much of his family in the Holocaust and finding his search for spiritual development stifled in the Soviet Union, Vladimir migrated to the United States in the late 1970s. Here in the USA Vladimir work as a scientist on various peaceful applications of nuclear energy together with American and Soviet/Russian scientist. After his retirement, he concentrated his efforts on the study of the morality of the Judeo-Christian Western Civilization connecting the morality of public life with the morality of religious life with the emphasis on the USA and the State of Israel.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Exit mobile version