In 1917, Britain gave the Jews the Balfour Declaration. The British held the mandate over the land of Judea/Palestine at that time, and the Declaration legally established a national homeland for the Jews which authorized their return to the land God gave them. Plus, the United Nations voted to establish Israel as a legal nation in 1947. Therefore, the Israelis are not occupiers, and the Palestinians have no right to a state in that land whatsoever because God gave it to the House of Israel forever as is recounted in Scripture. “And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land.” Ezekiel 37:21
Conversely, in The Book of Mormon, another Testament of Jesus Christ, 2nd Nephi 29:14: “And it shall come to pass that my people, which are of the house of Israel, shall be gathered home unto the lands of their possessions; and my word also shall be gathered in one. And I will show unto them that fight against my word and against my people, who are of the house of Israel, that I am God, and that I covenanted with Abraham that I would remember his seed forever.”
Much of the pan-Arab leadership in the Islamic world didn’t see it that way, particularly in Egypt, Jordan, and Syria who obstreperously deemed Israel an occupying power. In May 1967, Egypt belligerently closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping in the run-up to what would become the Six-Day War in June of that year. Its tactical underpinnings need not be retold save Israel fought tenaciously against what proved to be a pernicious existential threat. At its conclusion, Israel achieved a stunning victory few could have foreseen. The Sinai, Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, and West Bank were Israel’s by right of conquest. Jerusalem was at least strategically unified as de facto the Israeli capitol. But contrary to the overly optimistic expectations in the United Nations, later events particularly in the Suez Canal and the growing Israeli presence in the West Bank, would prove that the war would not lead to glowing approbations of peace as many on all sides with alacrity had hoped for it culminated in the expulsion of the Jordanians.
Nonetheless, it did establish the legality of the settlements both within and beyond the 1967 lines. The sovereignty of these territories had been militarily settled. The capture of Judea and Samaria from Jordan in the aftermath of the war was itself a defensive act against the rising tide of Arab aggression. It solidified their legality and since that time, Jews have every right to make their homes not only in Israel proper but also in Judea and Samaria. Thus the laws of occupation do not technically apply. While international law clearly states that a nation may not occupy the land of another nation, to label Israel as an occupier is morally incongruous.
Veracity is most firmly established in a speech to the Knesset by Dr. Harel Arnon, an international lawyer of some renown who explained: “In 1967, Israel returned to Judea and Samaria, got rid of the illegal Jordanian occupation, and took control. …This prompted scholars of international law to coin the phrase ‘terra nullius,’ meaning a territory without a sovereign, or a vacuum territory. Judea and Samaria is a territory over which no country has legal sovereignty, not even Israel, but Israel holds it.” Next, he goes on to argue “…when we want to examine the question of whether or not Israel is occupying Judea and Samaria, we must address the fact that Israel took Judea and Samaria from someone who was there illegally, and therefore Israel cannot be seen as an occupier…the laws of occupation do not apply to Judea and Samaria.”
It is existentially imperative that the status remain unchanged. Recall in October 1997, Hamas was designated a terrorist organization by the State Dept. because its charter mandated the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people since 1988: https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm. Israel’s destruction still remains its main goal, as it ever shall. To draw any moral equivalence is nonsense.
But there is also a political as well as a military argument to be made for prosecuting the Israel-Hamas war. Since 1993, the Palestinians could have achieved peace had Arafat proved faithful in Oslo. He didn’t. Rather than using the foreign aid his government had received since then to make life better for the folks with food, houses, hospitals, and schools, the PA and its proxies chose to finance weapons and build infiltration tunnels. With tacit world approval, Hamas has been firing interminable arrays of rockets into heavily populated areas of Israel since the beginning of the second intifada in 2000. Hamas abducted and subsequently murdered 3 Israeli teens, culminating in what became the present conflict. All by their design, they used their children as human shields and cowered behind anonymity and the ensuing optics of collateral civilian casualties in order to foment world opinion against Israel. The loss of life and missed opportunities are as regrettable by Israel as they were foreseeable by Hamas.
Further, in 2006, the Palestinians could have freely elected a viable coalition of leaders to govern Gaza instead of terrorists. They didn’t. Notwithstanding, Israel has been remarkably tolerant and restrained – until October 7, 2023. Gaza citizens would not be facing “genocide” had they not elected a terrorist entity of their own free will and volition. They could have publicly repudiated and divorced themselves from these Islamic barbarians by electing new leadership but did not.
Hamas gained political power in Gaza because the Obama administration established the precedent of elevating the moral stature of terrorists by opening dialog thus normalizing relations. This was recently and poignantly evidenced in his equivocatory speech before his Democracy Forum foundation where he imputed Israel as the failure to attain a lasting peace by branding it an occupying power. He is without moral foundation for in January 2017, his administration subsidized the Palestinian Authority with $221 million knowing full well that the Palestinian Authority would transactionally fund Hamas’ armories thereby undermining Israel’s sovereignty and hastening her destruction.
The events of October 7 substantiate the opinion that Democrats both propitiate and capitulate to radical Islamic extremists so they are indirectly responsible. Their demonstrable fecklessness and invective amidst rising anti-Jewish incendiary gave them the initiative in the media and in public relations obviating the possibility of a two-state solution interminably. By this logic, they would argue that America was responsible for 9/11. It would seem that former president Obama has taught them well when instead, he should have learned the history well. Even despite the expansive sympathetic periphery, Palestinians deserve no sympathy. Israel must remain steadfast until such time as Hamas, their proxies and sympathizers have been eradicated. The left must come to terms with this universality lest we ourselves become casualties of it.
