Your views

Hugh ASh on BDS
Dear Sir,
I read with much interest Hugh Ash’s views on the BDS (boycott, sanctions and disinvestment) movement, which I entirely agree with him is yet another impediment to peace in the Mid-East.
 I am not an Israeli, not Jewish, strongly believe in a just, two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian problem and have some long experience in international law.
 Despite the European Union’s judgemental, anti-Israel’s stance and the “halo” effect given to the Palestinian cause by activist non-government organizations (NGOs), like Oxfam, the situation is very far from as crystal clear as many people ignorant of international law’s complexities imagine.
 Some legal minds might disagree, but so far as I am aware it is this:-
l  1: Israel won the territories in the course of a war of self-defense, which is legal in international law.
l  2: Israel, in accordance with UN Resolution 242, holds the territories legally until their final disposition and borders are determined by peace treaties between the contesting parties. This has not yet happened.
l  3: The San Remo Conference of 1920 allocated the territories to Britain to maintain in preparation for the establishment of the Jewish national home, which the UN approved in the partition resolution of November, 1947.
 The Arabs inside and outside the territories rejected the partition, including the Arab state it proposed; Israel accepted the partition and so is the only legal entity with title to the territories occupied after 1967.
 Jordan and Egypt, which had illegally taken over the non-Jewish areas - West Bank and Gaza - from 1948 to 1967 (without any world protests), eventually renounced their claims.
 As for “Palestine”, as Mr. Ash states absolutely correctly, there never was a “Palestine” state, so it cannot now be “occupied”.
 It can only come into existence through peace negotiations that establish its proper borders. This has not yet happened.
 Finally, though the International Court of Justice has addressed various matters in regard to the Israel-Palestinian conflict (including that of Israel’s defensive wall), its decisions have been legally non-binding ‘advisories’, while several resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly - which have condemned both parties and others - do not meet the requisite standards of international law.
Frank S. McFarland
Chicago, London & Illetes