AFI acts against BBC bias
A letter to Mark Thomson, Director-General of the BBC, from Simon McIlwaine of Anglicans for Israel:
Dear Mr Thomson
I wish to complain about the outrageous allegation on the BBC website that: “All Israeli settlements within land occupied during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war are judged illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this. ”
This is utter rubbish! As a solicitor, I would be intrigued to know the authority for this proposition.
The Settlements are Not Illegal! Lawful owners of land have not been wrongfully deprived of it.
By contrast, however, Jordan expelled Jews from land they had lawfully bought in what is now called “the West Bank” after launching a war against Israel in 1948.
The settlements are not located in “occupied territory.” The last binding international legal instrument which divided the territory in the region of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza was the League of Nations Mandate, which explicitly recognized the right of Jewish settlement in all territory allocated to the Jewish national home in the context of the British Mandate. These rights under the British Mandate were preserved by the successor organization to the League of Nations, the United Nations, under Article 49 of the UN Charter.
The West Bank and Gaza are disputed, not occupied, with both Israel and the Palestinians exercising legitimate historical claims. There was no Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza Strip prior to 1967. Jews have a deep historic and emotional attachment to the land and, as their legal claims are at least equal to those of Palestinians, it is natural for Jews to build homes in communities in these areas, just as Palestinians build in theirs.
The territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was captured by Israel in a defensive war, which is a legal means to acquire territory under international law. In fact, Israel’s seizing the land in 1967 was the only legal acquisition of the territory this century: the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank from 1947 to 1967, by contrast, had been the result of an offensive war in 1948 and was never recognized by the international community, with the exception of some states and regimes. Only Britain (at the time)and Pakistan recognised the Transjordanian annexation of East Jerusalem.
The Settlements are Consistent with Resolution 242.
Many observers incorrectly assume that UN Security Council Resolution 242 requires a full Israeli withdrawal from the land Israel captured in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.
The assumption and the conclusion are deeply flawed. Resolution 242 calls for only an undefined withdrawal from a portion of the land — and only to the extent required by “secure and recognized boundaries.”
Israel has already withdrawn from the majority of the land it had captured, and nearly all of the areas in which it retains communities are essential to “secure and recognized boundaries.” The specific location of Israeli settlements was determined by Israel’s Ministry of Defense over the last 30 years, not by the settlers themselves, and they were set up in order to strengthen Israel’s presence in those few areas from which it cannot, militarily, afford to withdraw.
I cannot allow such a grossly misleading statement as that published on your website to remain unchallenged. The cause of peace in the Middle East is not served by falsehoods which are then used to excuse terrorism.
Yours sincerely
SIMON MC ILWAINE MA FRSA ACIArb (Solicitor)
