This would not be a policy change from their part; it is merely a restatement of what the international community had already recognized when its members approved the Mandate for Palestine. Most of the present EU countries, during their membership at the League of Nations, approved it in 1922-23. So did Canada, Australia, Japan and many other countries which are now members of the U.N. The U.S. ratified the Anglo-American Convention in 1925 in which the full text of the Mandate was incorporated. The concept of sovereignty has been recognized as one of the most controversial in international law. Even though the de facto sovereignty of Israel over Judea & Samaria has never been asserted by Israel since 1967, the de jure title of sovereignty is iron-clad.
The negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are deadlocked. Israel and the Quartet (U.S., EU, U.N. and Russia) are eager to resume the "peace process."
This process is based on the concept of "land for peace," which was derived from UNSC Resolution 242. It was first applied to the Sinai Peninsula and it led to a peace treaty, however shaky, between Egypt and Israel. It was later invoked in 1991 at the Madrid Conference which spawned the Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO.
The latter application has been a resounding failure almost since the Declaration of Principles (Oslo I) was adopted in 1993.
The "land for peace" concept was deemed acceptable for Sinai but it cannot be readily transposed to territory located between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea specifically Judea and Samaria (J&S), commonly misnamed "the West bank."
The difference is obvious: Israel has a strong claim on Judea & Samaria historical, cultural and also legal. Therefore, a new foundation must be introduced that conforms to recent historical events and international law in order to resume negotiations on a sound footing.
What is wrong with "land for peace" when applied to Judea and Samaria?
It implicitly conveys the idea that Israel is in control of a territory that lawfully belongs to others. For reasons that are debated today, Israel accepted to be a "belligerent occupier" in 1967, and even though the occupation is not illegal (as UNSC Resolution 242 clearly attests), Israel is nonetheless viewed as an "occupier" of a foreign land.
The detractors of Israel avoid all the legal intricacies and only retain that "the West Bank is under occupation." There is hardly a statement from any Arab leader and their leftist supporters that does not refer to the "occupation." It is then claimed that the territory must be returned to its previous owners as all other occupied lands were in the past.
This false perception was amplified by the U.N., starting in 1969, with a plethora of General Assembly resolutions pointing to Israel as a "colonial, imperialist, racist" entity which deprives "the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination, sovereignty and independence in Palestine." Such a forged narrative culminated in 1974 with UNGA Resolution 3236 and the creation, by the United Nations in 1975, of the "Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People." (CEIRPP).
The reckless twisting of reality increasingly evolved into an overt anti-Israel attitude in academia, the media, civil society and diplomatic circles where "apartheid," "illegal settlements" and "stolen land" are liberally hurled at Israel. Simply put: the false notion of "occupation" has poisoned all the wells.
Restore factual truths:
To restart peace negotiations on a sound footing, a new "Declaration of Principles" should include the recognition by the Quartet of Israel's de jure title of sovereignty to the land west of the Jordan River. This would not be a policy change from their part; it is merely a restatement of what the international community had already recognized when its members approved the Mandate for Palestine.
Most of the present EU countries, during their membership at the League of Nations, approved it in 1922-23. So did Canada, Australia, Japan and many other countries which are now members of the U.N. The U.S. ratified the Anglo-American Convention in 1925 in which the full text of the Mandate was incorporated.
The concept of sovereignty has been recognized as one of the most controversial in international law. Even though the de facto sovereignty of Israel over Judea & Samaria has never been asserted by Israel since 1967, the de jure title of sovereignty is iron-clad. Few peoples, if any, obtained the same international recognition as the Jewish people did in San Remo (1920) and in subsequent agreements for the reconstitution of their national home in Palestine on the grounds of their historical connection to the land.
But this seminal foundation of the State of Israel seems to have been erased, and the erasure forgotten. To avoid an Orwellian inversion of reality, the de jure title of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria ought to be brought to the fore:
- to restore the factual evidence from historical legal documents,
- to dispel the current perception that J&S are "occupied Palestinian territories", as commonly labeled by the UK, the UN, the ICRC , and other international agencies,
- to challenge the false notion of a "Palestinian people," dispossessed of "their land" and entitled to political self-determination on territory which, actually, was lawfully allocated to the Jewish people over ninety years ago in an act of international law,
-to open the door for a fair resolution of the status of the non-Jewish populations living in J&S in order to arrive at a lasting peace in the region.
Israel's de jure title of sovereignty over J&S is of crucial importance. If this acquired right of the Jewish people is not forcefully asserted, the State of Israel will be facing further territorial claims from the Arabs, one more preposterous than the other.
This is to be expected since the Arabs understand there is no difference between territory acquired by Israel ("liberated" is the correct word) in the Six Day War (1967) and in the War of Independence (1948-49): Western Galilee may well follow J&S.
But after two decades of appeasement, futile concessions, destruction of Jewish communities, and territorial transfers rewarded by terror, can we still hope that the present Government of Israel will forcefully assert its rights to the land and take a proactive stand to uphold the legitimate rights of the Jewish people and rectify the past failed policy of "peace at any cost"?
Indeed some outrages against plain level-headedness can beggar even the most prolific of imaginations. For instance, presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's reference to Jerusalem as Israel's capital sent shockwaves of horror reverberating around the world. Obama's calculated agenda culminated in two farcical incidents this year. In March, his secretary of state's spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, was adamant that no Israeli capital exists, leastways not one she could name. More recently, White House spokesman Jay Carney stood discomfited on his podium, unable to identify Israel's capital. The best he could muster were stock inanities like: "You know our policy," and, "Our policy hasn't changed." In comparison, Romney comes up trumps. No contest. But that's only for folks whose common sense cannot be twisted with a few syrupy sentences, folks who still know that remembering isn't divisive and racist, that murder isn't loving and unifying. Such an unyielding mind-set is judged untrendy and uncool, much as is Romney's acknowledgment of the ancient ties of the Jewish people to the cradle of their nationhood. In our topsy-turvy existence, he dared to brazenly overstep the enlightened ones' mark.
A few months before the event, the police announced that they forbid the Walk out of fear from confrontation and conflict with the Muslims coming down from the Temple Mount after another day of the Ramadan fast. This decision was canceled two days after the Women in Green organization appealed to the Supreme Court, demanding that the police allow the Walk to be held as usual. Later in his speech he referred to the future of the El Aqsa mosque, located on the Temple Mount, as he sees it, and said that we can learn one thing from Beit El's Ulpana Hill deal, and that is the idea of sawing. "There is one thing we can all learn from one of the most questionable deals we have made lately, and that is what happened at the Ulpana Hill, where they decided to dismantle and relocate the houses, rather than destroy them. At least, when the time comes to reconstruct the Temple, and that time is coming, we will dismantle and relocate the "house" that is currently there. We will cut it up and they can relocate it wherever they want, because that's where the Third Temple belongs", called out Eldad over the applause of the crowd.
This article page provides Links to Youtube videos with English translations of the recent sovereignty conference speakers. If you don't know what this Sovereignty Conference you can read the following links to familiarise yourself. In short, it is the concept that instead of a two state solution, Israel takes control over the Palestinian West Bank
Definition: King's Calendar Chronological Research
The Premise: Between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE (but continuing down to at least 104 BCE), Sectarian redactors transcribed the legitimate 'solar year' chronological records of Israel and Judah, into an artificial form, with listed years as each comprised of 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days, or 336 days per year, thus creating a 13th artificial year where 12 solar years existed.
When the Synchronous Chronological Data provided in the Books of Kings and Chronicles for the Divided Kingdom Period are measured in years of 336 days, the synchronisms actually align. [Refer to Appendix 5. to see how it synchronises the Divided Kingdom Period]
About the KingsCalendar Publisher
R.P.BenDedek is the owner and Editor of KingsCalendar.com which was originally set up to publicize his research results into the Chronology of Ancient Israel. Those results were published under the title: 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran'.
Whilst there have been many attempts to solve the chronological riddle of the Bible's synchronisms of reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah and their synchronism with other Ancient Near Eastern Nations, no other research is based on a simple mathematical formula which could, if it is incorrect, be disproved easily. To date, no one has been able to dismiss the mathematical results of this research.
Free to air Academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah.