![]() |
|
Home > Opinion > Article |
![]() |
![]() |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
advertisement |
Thirty-five years ago, on June 5, 1967, the start of the Six-Day War, Israel faced a threat to its very existence as a coalition of Arab armies, including a third of the Iraqi army, prepared to invade across the fragile armistice lines that had separated Arab and Israeli forces since 1949. The declared goal of the attack was Israel's elimination.
Israel successfully defended itself. The exercise of Israel's right of self-defence was entirely proper and lawful. It followed months of terrorist incursions into Israel, mobilisation of Arab troops for war, the blockade of the Strait of Tiran denying Israel use of her only southern port, and Egypt's President Nasser ordering the UN out of the area.
Ironically, far from there being a double standard in relation to compliance with UN Security Council resolutions (even putting aside their Charter classification), under UN Security Council Resolution 242 Israel is entitled to hold all the territory acquired in 1967 until a durable and fair peace is achieved. Resolution 338 is in similar terms.
In Resolution 242, recognising that Israel was not the aggressor in the 1967 war, and in calling for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, the UN required the application of withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict. It also required termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area, as well as their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
Israel withdrew from the Sinai - and dismantled Jewish settlements - when the peace treaty was signed with Egypt. Israel is not required to withdraw from any other territory until it can be assured that ordinary Israeli civilians can go about their lives free from threats or acts of force, including the homicide bombings that Iraq helps to finance.
With the prospect of war again looming, the Israeli Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, in a speech last month to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, reaffirmed that Israel has no desire to go to war, but if required will defend itself in co-operation with the US. This was echoed by his Prime Minster, Ariel Sharon, in a comprehensive exclusive interview with The Jerusalem Post two weeks later.
There is a certain moral bankruptcy in calls to treat as equivalent the actions by a democracy such as Israel in defending her citizens against homicide bombings and other forms of terrorism, as against repetitive, unprovoked aggression and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction by a despotic dictator such as Saddam.
David D. Knoll has taught international law in the United States and Australia, and is the acting president of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies.
Printer
friendly version
Email
to a friend
Also in Opinion
Alston's for the Beeb but Aunty knows best how to handle complaints
Iraq and Israel: the difference between aggression and defence
![]() |
text | handheld (how to) | membership | conditions | privacy Copyright © 2002. The Sydney Morning Herald. |
advertise | contact us |