When I wrote in defense of Dr. Khaskin I compared these people who have aligned themselves with Global Terrorists to other “useful idiots”. Because something seems to have escaped them, I am adding this to my description: I used one word too many!

In their warped minds their ideology will, obviously, always trump reality. All of them claimed that I and others have nothing to say. They then used a diarrhea of words about something that was never said. You want proof that they do not read what they respond to? Check out the little apology in which RV mentioned to have signed with incorrect initials. That’s right! Our little group of morons does not recognize this as a name belonging and, without hesitation, clicks on “disagree”!

But, confusing “Hamas History Book” with “Webster Dictionary” took the cake!... (Koffman73) So, include me out! They are welcome to have the last word. It’s worth nothing, considering what they represent.

And: may their 72 virgins be less of a disappointment than their miserable lives are in the here and now because of self-inflicted pain! Hatred never begets happiness.

Have a nice day!

(1) Seldom have I seen such a gross misrepresentation of the documented historical record and international law as in the letter above from Michael Friedman. Suffice to note that his assertion that "Israel can, as a matter of international law, claim sovereignty over the entire territory from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River" is utterly ridiculous and laughable. Indeed, it is Mr. Friedman who “is no legal scholar.”

Israel cannot “claim sovereignty” over lands that it is illegally and belligerently occupying. That is why Israel’s annexations of Syria’s Golan Heights and the Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem have been rejected by the entire world. Indeed, West Jerusalem retains its corpus separatum status and is not considered part of Israel as Israel has failed to comply with the pledges it made during the 1949 Lausanne Peace Conference and before the UNGA as a precondition for UN admittance (subsequently incorporated into the UN resolution granting Israel admittance) and refuses to comply with UNSC Resolution 242.

For the record:
Security Council Resolution 446 (22 March 1979) affirms that "the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity..."

Security Council Resolution 465 (1 March 1980) "...all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

Security Council Resolution 476 (June 30, 1980) "Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem." In Resolution 476, the Security Council also "reaffirms its determination in the event of non-compliance by Israel with this resolution, to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations to secure the full implementation of this resolution." See also Security Council Resolutions 605 (22 December 1987), and 681 of 20 December 1990.

On 24 February 2004, the U.S. State Department declared: "Israel occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights after the 1967 War.... The international community does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over any part of the occupied territories."

The often heard contention on the part of Israel’s supporters that "the principles of belligerent occupation, including Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, may not apply to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip because Jordan and Egypt were not the respective legitimate sovereigns of these territories" is without foundation. As the Legal Adviser of the Department of State advised the Congress, "”¦those principles [of belligerent occupation] appear applicable whether or not Jordan and Egypt possessed legitimate sovereign rights in respect of those territories. Protecting the reversionary interest of an ousted sovereign is not their sole or essential purpose; the paramount purposes are protecting the civilian population of an occupied territory and reserving permanent territorial changes, if any, until settlement of the conflict."

(2) In 2004, the International Court of Justice, the only legal body with the authority to decide on the issue, ruled that “no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.” The Court denoted this principle a “corollary” of the U.N. Charter and as such “customary international law” and a “customary rule” binding on all member States of the United Nations. The Court also declared: "In the Court’s view, the tragic situation in the region can be brought to an end only through implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions. The Court further draws the attention of the General Assembly to the 'need for . . . efforts to be encouraged with a view to achieving as soon as possible, on the basis of international law, a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems and the establishment of a Palestinian State, existing side by side with Israel and its other neighbours, with peace and security for all in the region.'"

Israel’s Prime Minister Levi Eshkol knew from the very beginning that the establishment of settlements in lands Israel invaded and occupied during the 1967 war (including Syria's Golan Heights and Egypt’s Sinai) was illegal:
"The legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron, was asked whether international law allowed settlement in the newly conquered land. In a memo marked 'Top Secret,' Meron wrote unequivocally: 'My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
[ratified by Israel's Knesset in 1952.' " (Gershom Gorenberg, "West Bank settlements: Wrong from the start," New York Times, March 10, 2006)

To Gary, I would say, you are confusing UN Security Council Resolutions with law. The UN has no legislative mandate. Its resolutions and pronouncements of the Secretary General are expressions of politics, not law.

The ICJ "ruling" that you refer to is an "advisory opinion." The court is not functioning in a judicial capacity when it issues an advisory opinion and an advisory opinion does not form precedent. Moreover, the opinion that you refer to was impugned by Egyptian judge Nabil el Araby's going on the public record prior to the proceeding with his opinion.

A majority of states may consider Israel's actions illegal but that does not change the law.

As to Gary' comment about the distortion of history, that would seem to be his game. In 1967, Israel responded to Egyptian provocation of ordering UN troops out of the Sinai and massing its own troops in their place. Egypt closed the Red Sea to navigation and issued threats of invasion. At the same time, Israel asked Jordan not to become involved but the Jordanians invaded anyway. This was a high stakes gambit by Egypt and Jordan, which they lost. They were lawfully displaced as the formerly belligerent occupiers of territory.

As to the Golan, that will be returned to Syria in the context of a peace treaty, as was the Sinai to Egypt. Negotiations are ongoing.

Israel has acknowledged operation of the Geneva Convention by relocating sections of the security barrier wherever the security exception to the Convention could not be demonstrated before the Israeli Supreme Court.

UN Security Council Resolution 242, 1967, does not refer to "Palestinian" territory. When the term "Palestinian territory" finally appears in Council documents, the appearance is sudden and unsupported by legal argument.

Palestinians have no claim to territory as a matter of law. They are a political fact that must be acknowledged, but not at the expense of Israel's security.

Michael Friedman

Setting aside the fact you have not addressed most of my points, to repeat myself, Israel cannot annex lands it is illegally and belligerently occupying. It is prohibited by the UN Charter, which rejects territorial expansion by force of arms under any circumstances and Israel is a UN member. Hence, the UNSC unanimously invalidated Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem (including its illegally extended boundaries) and the Golan Heights.

While for obvious reasons, the opinion of the ICJ was advisory this fact in no way diminishes its validity. Nor do the comments of Judge nabil el Araby. Indeed, In its official position released on 15 December 2008, the European Union expressed its agreement with the ruling.

To quote Professor/Rabbi Henry Siegman, the eminent Jewish American scholar: "[UNGA Resolution 181] recognized the remaining Palestinian territory outside the Jewish state's borders as - at the very least - the equally legitimate patrimony of Palestine's Arab population, on which they were entitled to establish their own state, and it precisely mapped the borders of that territory. Resolution 181's affirmation of the right of Palestine's Arab population to national self-determination was based on normative law and the democratic principle that grants statehood to the majority population. (At the time, Arabs constituted two-thirds of the population in Palestine [and owned 94% of the land, including state land]) This right does not evaporate because of delays in implementation."

Res. 181 was of course, recommendatory only with no status in law, contrary to the British mandate, and grossly unfair to the native Palestinians. It could only be rejected by the Palestinians and the Arab states. Indeed, at the behest of the Truman administration, the UN was in the process of shelving Res. 181 in favour of a UN Trusteeship for Palestine when the state of Israel was declared. Nonetheless, during the 1949 Lausanne Peace Conference, it was formally agreed between Israel, the Arab states and Palestinian representatives that as a precondition for Israel's admittance to the UN, discussions for a peace agreement would take place based on Res. 181 (and Res. 194.) As I previously state, once it gained UN membership, Israel reneged on its commitments, which it also stated before the UNGA.

Then again, as you have in effect proposed, one state between the Jordan and the Med. with an ever-increasing Palestinian majority sounds good to me. After all, it is the inevitable outcome. Palestinians are already the majority and the world will not permit another mass expulsion.

Reality: At 7:45 AM on 5 June 1967, Israel attacked Egypt and thereby Jordan and Syria who shared mutual defense pacts with Egypt. The attack occurred just before Egypt's VP was to fly to Washington for a June 7th meeting with the Johnson administration to defuse the crisis between Egypt and Israel based on an agreement worked out in Cairo between Nasser and Johnson's envoy, Robert Anderson. In a May 30 cable to Johnson PM Eshkol promised not to attack Egypt until June 11 to give diplomacy a chance. When it heard about the June 7th meeting and the distinct possibility that war may ruled out, Israel decided to launch the war. In short, Israel’s attack against Egypt was the first step in another massive land grab.

Prime Minister Eshkol: "The Egyptian layout in the Sinai and the general military buildup there testified to a military defensive Egyptian set-up, south of Israel." (Israeli daily, Yediot Aharonot, l8 October 1967); Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Minister without portfolio in Eshkol's cabinet, while addressing Israel's National Defence College on 8 August 1982: "In June, 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." (New York Times, 21 August 1982); Meir Amit, chief of Israel's Mossad: "Egypt was not ready for a war and Nasser did not want a war;" Mordechai Bentov, an Israeli cabinet minister at the time: "All this story about the danger of extermination [of Israel in June 1967] has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of Arab territory."

Robert McNamara, U.S. Secretary of Defence: “Three separate intelligence groups had looked carefully into the matter [and] it was our best judgment that a UAR attack was not imminent." On May 26, while in Washington, Abba Eban was informed by President Johnson that "...even after instructing his 'experts to assume all the facts that the Israelis had given them to be true', it was still 'their unanimous view that there is no Egyptian intention to make an imminent attack." Also on May 26, in reply to Eban’s assertion that according to Israeli intelligence, "an Egyptian and Syrian attack is imminent," Secretary of State Dean Rusk dismissed the claim and assured Eban that Israel faced no threat of attack from Egypt. On the same day, during a meeting at the Pentagon, Eban was also told by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and his aides that "...Egyptian forces were not in an aggressive posture and that Israel was not opening itself to peril by not attacking immediately. The contrary was true, Eban was told.”

Michael Friedman
Further to the 1967 war launched by Israel on 5 June 1967:

Re: " At the same time, Israel asked Jordan not to become involved but the Jordanians invaded anyway."

Thanks to Lieutenant General Odd Bull, head of the U.N. Truce Supervision Organization, we know what really happened.
At 8:30 A.M. - 45 minutes after Israel launched its assault against Egypt -Odd Bull received a phone call from Israel's Foreign Ministry requesting his immediate presence. Upon arriving at the ministry, Odd Bull was met by Deputy Director-General Arthur Lourie, who falsely informed him that the war had begun with an attack on Israel by Egyptian aircraft that were intercepted by Israel’s air force.

Lourie then asked Odd Bull to pass on a message to King Hussein: "We shall not initiate any action whatsoever against Jordan. However, should Jordan open hostilities, we shall react with all our might, and the King will have to bear the full responsibility for all the consequences."

As far as Odd Bull was concerned, "[the message] was a threat, pure and simple and it is not the normal practice of the U.N. to pass on threats from one government to another." However, as "...this message seemed so important... we quickly sent it...and King Hussein received the message before 10:30 the same morning."

Because Lourie misled him into believing Egypt had started the war Odd Bull was of the view that Jordan was not obligated under the terms of its mutual defence pact with Egypt to enter the conflict. If Odd Bull had known that Israel initiated the war, he would not have forwarded the message.

Jordan’s air force, comprised of a few old British Hawker Hunters, attacked a small Israeli airfield near Kfar Sirkin and its artillery shelled Tel Aviv, West Jerusalem and other areas. Israel now had reason to order a full scale land and air onslaught against East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, beginning with its destruction of Jordan’s puny air force.

To state the obvious, if the Eshkol government really wanted Jordan to stay out of the war it would have communicated directly with King Hussein. At the same time of course, Israel knew Jordan was bound by their mutual defence pact to come to Egypt's aid.

Israel also realized that apart from his pact with Egypt and the fact he was the official custodian of Muslim shrines in East Jerusalem, King Hussein had no choice other than to come to Egypt’s assistance. Half of his subjects were Palestinian refugees, who along with the Arab world in general, would despise him if he did not. As Anwar Khatib, then governor of the West Bank, later noted, “If he didn’t take part all the people would blame him because he didn’t take an active part they lost the war. He couldn’t behave otherwise.”

Israel's purpose in deceiving General Odd Bull regarding who started the war and convincing him to deliver the ultimatum to King Hussein was to create the illusion that it had made a sincere effort to keep Jordan out of the conflict.

To gain a better understanding of what Palestinians are forced to endure on a daily basis at the hands of their occupiers, watch this video recently filmed in occupied Hebron, West Bank.

<object width="300" height="251"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kem1ajIKv1k&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kem1ajIKv1k&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="300" height="251"></embed></object>

Gary, I sense equally obtuse appreciation of my points by you. The ICJ advisory opinion is not law; it is valid only as a brief and that is the defect in almost all pronouncements emanating from the UN: they represent a one-sided brief favouring Palestinians. The UN is corrupt beyond redemption.

Your version of a single-state solution sets Palestinians up as losers. No state in the region will support that since no state in the region is interested in even a two-state solution involving Palestinians. The exception is Israel that would at least tolerate a Palestinian state once Iran is removed as a local irritant.

I agree that being a Palestinian in the territories is no fun, although it's more fun on the West Bank than in Gaza. Naqba was unnecessary but the Palestinians are authors of their own misfortune.

Palestinian Finance Minister Salem Fayyad understands that Palestinians must accept what Israel is willing to cede or lose all. That is the Palestinians' last, best hope.