July 30, 2015
Mr. Ban Ki-Moon,
Secretary-General of the United Nations
1st Avenue and 44th Street
New York, NY 10017
Excellency,
Re: Your declaration that: "Settlements are illegal under international law"
On Wednesday July 29, you responded to Israeli government decision to
build 300 new apartments in Beit -El, by saying that " The Settlements
are illegal under international law". As the chairman of the Legal forum for Israel, that includes
attorneys from across the world , involved in international law, as well
as being closely concerned with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, I want
to clearly point out, that your declaration has no basis in
international law, and the time has come to tell the world the truth.
The legal basis for the establishment of the State of Israel was the
resolution unanimously adopted by the League of Nations in 1922,
affirming the establishment of a national home for the Jewish People in
the historical area of the Land of Israel. This included the areas of
Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, and Jewish settlement throughout such as
Beit-El, an ancient Jewish village mentioned several times in the Bible.
This was subsequently affirmed by both houses of the US Congress.
Article 80 of the UN Charter determines the continued validity of the
rights granted to all states or peoples, or already existing
international instruments (including those adopted by the League of
Nations). Accordingly the above-noted League resolution remains valid,
and the 700,000 Jews presently resident in the areas of Judea, Samaria
and eastern Jerusalem, reside there legitimately.
"The 1967 borders" do not exist, and have never existed. The 1949
armistice agreements entered into by Israel and its Arab neighbors,
establishing the armistice demarcation lines, clearly stated that these
lines "are without prejudice to future territorial settlements or
boundary lines or to claims of either party relating thereto".
The Palestinians entered into the various agreements constituting
what is known as the "Oslo Accords" in the full knowledge that Israel's
settlements existed in the areas, imposing no limitation on building new
homes in Judea, Samaria or Jerusalem, for Arabs or Jews, especially in a
place like Beit-El, that was re-established as a modern Jewish
community, 20 years prior to the Oslo accords.
Eugene Rostow, former Dean of Yale University law school, and the US
undersecretary of state, who worded UN resolution 242, stated that "The
Jews have a right to settle in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria just as they
have the right to settle in Haifa or Tel Aviv".
We trust that you will protect the UN and its integrity and retract
your declaration regarding the "illegality" of the settlements, because
it is simply not true.
Sincerely,
Yossi Fuchs, Adv.
Chairman of Legal forum for Israel
Cc: Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister
Mrs. Ayelet Shaked, Minister of Justice
Mrs, Tzipi Hotoveli, Deputy Minister of foreign Affairs
Dr. Dori Gold, CEO Ministry of foreign Affairs
Ambassador Ron Prosor, Israel's Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Illustration
on the loss of U.S. military options after the Obama/Iran nuclear arms
deal takes effect by Linas Garsys/The Washington Times
Defending the Iran nuclear deal he negotiated in Vienna, Secretary of State John Kerry
has repeatedly asserted ... that all options which the United States
possesses today to stop Iran
going nuclear will be there for a future U.S. president in 10 years.
Similarly, President Obama breezily assures us, “The same options that
are available to me today will be available to any U.S. president in the
future.”
Were it only true.
The
major options available to the president in the face of an Iranian
nuclear threat are covert (sabotage, cyberwarfare) and military
(precision airstrikes with bunker-busting bombs).
Mr. Obama has these at
his disposal today. But his successor is unlikely to have them in 10
years.
Why? For seven reasons.
First, amazingly, the Vienna nuclear agreement requires the Europeans to assist Iran
with training and technology in protecting its nuclear sites and
program against sabotage. It is no coincidence that, in 2013, when Mr.
Obama deviated from his earlier insistence on Tehran
ceasing uranium enrichment in favor of negotiating a deal permitting
continued enrichment, the CIA and NSA “drastically curtailed its
cooperation with Israel.”
This cooperation, aimed at disrupting the Iranian nuclear project, had
enjoyed “significant successes over the past decade,” according to
veteran military and intelligence analyst Ronen Bergman.
The nuclear deal thus renders future sabotage and cyberwarfare against Iran — such as the Stuxnet virus, which wrecked a fifth of Iran’s centrifuges in 2010 — more difficult; perhaps, in time, even impossible.
Second,
Mr. Obama has himself admitted the possibility that, at the deal’s
expiration, “the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”
(So much for his current claim that “Iran [would be] further away from a weapon” in 10-15 years). This means there might not be time to act even militarily, since Iran may well already have one or more nuclear weapons.
Third, Tehran
will have had the time to reinforce existing underground facilities and
build new, deeper ones that might be impervious to airstrikes. This
means that the 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the
bunker-busting bombs which can penetrate Iran’s underground nuclear facility at Fordow, might not be enough to do the job.
Fourth, Russia is already set to sell Iran
its upgraded S-300 anti-aircraft system. The S-300 system is believed
to have the capacity to knock out the latest American aircraft. The best
weapon in the world is useless if the planes carrying it can’t get
through.
Fifth, the nuclear deal permits Tehran
continued research, development and production of its own missiles,
including Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), the means of
delivery for nuclear weapons. This particularly should have been
rejected by the White House: Iran already has the missiles to strike Israel, but ICBMs will enable Iran to hit the United States, not now, but certainly in 10 years.
Sixth,
the nuclear agreement will award Iran $150 billion in unfrozen assets
and tens of billions annually in sanctions relief, enabling it to
develop faster its military capabilities and lavishly fund its terror
proxies around the globe. This means tens of thousands of new missiles
for Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and for the Shia Houthis taking
over Yemen and threatening commerce through the Suez Canal. The existing
Iranian potential to retaliate against and harm American allies in the
Middle East will be vastly magnified in 10 years, making any U.S. strike
on Iran more complicated.
Seventh,
this agreement terminates international sanctions and, if the Congress
approves it or fails to override a presidential veto, U.S. sanctions
will also be ended. Failing internationally-recognized Iranian
violations, the United States will not be able to reimpose sanctions in
the face of the now-UN Security Council-approved nuclear deal that lifts
them. And even if sanctions are reimposed, it will take years for these
to have any real impact on Iran.
In
other words, today, America has the ordnance, the capability and the
time to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities without fear of
anti-ballistic missiles or nuclear retaliation. It is likely to lack all
of these advantages in 10 years.
So much for President Obama’s “same options” being “available to any U.S. president in the future.” So much for Secretary Kerry’s claim that U.S. options remain the same for 10 years.
Mr. Obama’s and Mr. Kerry’s flat-earth, rosy assertions about America’s future capacity to deal with an Iran
headed for nuclear weapons warrant the Congress to oppose this deal.
A
future president could well use the moral, political and legal authority
of Congressional rejection — as well as the consequent impediments this
will create for other countries lifting their sanctions — to have a
stronger hand in dealing with the nightmare President Obama is
bequeathing us.
