• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

EU Foreign Affairs Chief Denounces Potential Annexation of West Bank by Israel

May 27, 2020 10:00 am By Hugh Fitzgerald

The Times of Israel has the story of Josep Borrell’s latest failed attempt to get the E.U. to denounce the potential annexation by Israel of parts of the West Bank:

The Foreign Ministry on Tuesday hit back against the European Union’s “megaphone diplomacy” after the bloc’s foreign affairs chief, Josep Borrell, again warned Jerusalem against the unilateral annexation of West Bank territory in a message congratulating the Jewish state on its new government.

“The Israeli Foreign Ministry would like to thank the EU for their message congratulating Israel on the swearing-in of a new government,” spokesperson Lior Haiat said in a statement.

“Israel and the EU share history, values, interests, opportunities and both face threats. It is regrettable that once again, the security of Israel, a key partner of the EU, and the threats that Israel face, were not mentioned at all and were not given the centrality that they should be in such a message,” he said.

Borrell said:

The European Union’s position on the status of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 remains unchanged. In line with international law and relevant UN Security Council resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), the European Union does not recognise Israeli sovereignty over the occupied West Bank.

Josep Borrell clearly does not understand what U.N. Resolution 242 means. Resolution 242 was intended by its main author, British Ambassador to the U.N. Lord Caradon, to set out the rules for territorial adjustments following Israel’s capture, in the Six-Day War, of the Sinai, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank. The first principle was that Israel would never again have to be squeezed back within the pre-1967 lines, that is, the 1949 armistice lines. Israel was required only to “withdraw from territories” it had won in the recent conflict and — despite the efforts of the Arab states to change that wording – would not have to “withdraw from all the territories.”

The second principle of U.N. Resolution 242 was that Israel was entitled to achieve “secure and recognized boundaries” – “secure” meaning boundaries, or borders, that could reasonably be defended – that is, be “defensible.” This is obviously a decision that only Israel itself can make.

Borrell further stated:

The European Union reiterates that any annexation would constitute a serious violation of international law. The European Union will continue to closely monitor the situation and its broader implications, and will act accordingly.

No, the European Union did no such thing. It did not state, much less “reiterate,” that “any annexation [by Israel] would constitute a serious violation of international law.” Borrell was acting ultra vires, beyond the scope of his authority. E.U. statements are valid only when they are unanimous; the statement opposing Israeli annexation of part of the West Bank was opposed by six E.U. members. Borrell was wrong to be speaking in the name of the E.U., and wrong in his characterization of its view. What he should have said is that “failing to arrive at an unanimous vote, the European Union continues to take no position on possible Israeli annexation of part of the West Bank.”

An earlier report has more on the Israeli reaction to Borrell’s statement:

Israel’s public broadcaster Kan reported that, shortly after, Israeli Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz fired back at the EU, saying, “It is unfortunate to read that Joseph Burrell, who claims to be trusted with the EU’s foreign relations, chooses to welcome the new government of a central partner of the EU in this way, and prefers to see the relationship between Israel and the EU through the prism of the pandemic and the ‘status of the territories.’”

“Given the depth of the relationship and in light of the fact that this announcement did not receive the support of the EU member states yesterday, we wonder which policies the honorable gentleman is choosing to represent, and not for the first time,” Katz added.

Borrell attempted in February to push through a joint EU resolution condemning annexation, but it was blocked by six countries, including the Czech Republic and Italy.

Josep Borrell tried to get the EU to approve a statement opposing Israel’s annexation of territories, but failed, just as he failed last February to get the EU to approve a similar statement condemning Israeli annexation. But that did not stop him from speaking out as if he were legitimately representing the views of the E.U. As the E.U. had failed to take a unanimous position, it could not have issued a statement. Borrell represented only himself.

Katz thanked the EU countries that opposed the latest statement, which again prevented the text from being officially adopted by the EU.

“These countries recognize the value of relations with Israel and we will continue to promote relations between Israel and Europe together,” Katz said.

Katz might also have reminded the E.U. of what U.N Resolution 242 stands for, which is the right of Israel to make territorial adjustments it deems necessary in order that the Jewish state might have “secure and recognized boundaries.” It needs to be reiterated, because people like Josep Borrell claim that Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 lines, which it most carefully and deliberately – see Lord Caradon’s vigorous denial — does not.

Josep Borrell claims that any unilateral annexation by Israel of territory in the West Bank would “violate international law.” What “international law” does he have in mind? We have already dealt with Resolution 242 and its significance. There is a principle of international law, which says that territory won from an aggressor in a war of self-defense may be kept. And indeed, we saw this principle put into practice after World War I, when, for example, Italy retained what had been the Austrian Sudtirol (South Tyrol) and turned it into the Italian Alto Adige. After World War II, much of East Prussia became part of Poland, while the German city of Königsberg was turned into the Russian city of Kaliningrad; the United States has held onto numerous islands it won in the Pacific, such as the Northern Marianas. No one claims that these changes in sovereignty after wars of self-defense violate international law.

There are, of course, objections that one could make as to the practicality of Israel annexing all of the West Bank. It is clear that there are many in Israel who, though they are prepared to annex land deemed vital to Israel’s defense, such as the Jordan Valley, and the Golan, do not want to annex the entire West Bank. But calling such annexation a “violation of international law” is simply wrong. Josep Borrell needs to study the matter before issuing his self-assured pronunciamentos. He will discover that it is not despite, but because of, international law, that Israel can lay claim to the entire West Bank. The best source on the matter is Israel and Palestine: An Assault on the Law of Nations, by the eminent jurist Professor Julius Stone. Borrell should take the time to read it.

There is another basis for the legal, historic, and moral claim that Israel can make to all of the West Bank, and that is the Mandate for Palestine itself. That Mandate’s provisions remained in force even after the League of Nations had been replaced by the U.N. Article 80 of the U.N. Charter commits the U.N. to fulfilling the provisions of the Palestine Mandate, including “close settlement by Jews on the land.” What land? The land that was covered by the Mandate’s provisions. This was all the land from Mt. Hermon in the north to the Red Sea in the south, and from the Jordan River westward to the Mediterranean. In other words, all of the West Bank was to be included, in accordance with the Mandate, in the future Jewish National Home. Jordan seized the West Bank in the 1948-49 war, and held onto it as a “military occupier” until 1967. When Israel took possession of the West Bank, it was not as a “military occupier”; its claim — legal, historic, and moral — was enshrined in the Mandate itself.

If Josep Borrell still believes, after reading the exhaustive study of Prof. Julius Stone, that Israel has no rightful claim to annex the West Bank, he should be made to explain why.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: European Union, Featured, Hugh Fitzgerald, Israel, Useful idiots, willful ignorance Tagged With: Josep Borrell


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Anjuli Pandavar says

    May 27, 2020 at 10:32 am

    Thank you, Hugh, for eloquently and consistently making these points. I used to cringe every time Federica Mogherini sidled up to Muhammad Javad Zarif, but Josep Borrell’s foolishness is simply painful to watch.

  2. janwog says

    May 27, 2020 at 11:15 am

    Hypocrit EU globalist gangsters. Israel cannot allow a second Gaza on the east.

  3. mortimer says

    May 27, 2020 at 11:30 am

    Israel did not have to take the West Bank by conquest in order to possess it legally.

    It is Jordan which illegally annexed the West Bank after invading it.

    If someone invaded your home and occupied it for several years, you would still legally own the house.

    The deed to the West Bank was given ‘in trust’ to the future Jewish homeland (Israel) by the League of Nations … the territory of current-day Israel was given to the future Israel in the 1920s pending the time the future State of Israel could take full responsibility for it.

    • gravenimage says

      May 27, 2020 at 9:24 pm

      +1

  4. Ray Jarman says

    May 27, 2020 at 12:36 pm

    I still contend that the states of the EU have no moral right, much less legal, to criticize Israel and place demands upon them after an attempt to invade and finish what Hitler started by its Arab and Egyptian neighbors. Why is the UN and EU not adamant about returning the territories such as Alsace Lorrain, Eupen, Jutland to Deutschland. Austria today is only a fraction of its former self as is Germany. It amazes me hear these self righteous hypocrites condemn Israel while sitting in court in Alsace Lorrain, France when as far back as Pippin it was part of the German Empire. As far back as cities, states and nations go in history, the rule has been and still is that when a nation lays siege to another one and loses, the winner has a legitimate right to gains acquired over the losing aggressor.

    Unlawful precedence was established when the EU, UN and Clinton administration stole land from Serbia and given to a bunch of Muslim drug traffickers. Kosovo had been part of Serbia long before WWI and now the EU with UN endorsement is condemning Israel similarly to the way it condemned Serbia.

  5. mortimer says

    May 27, 2020 at 12:50 pm

    The Israeli Foreign Ministry made a very important point: EU should consider that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that shares the same political values.

    The EU should support those who share the same values, rather than support those who oppose modern values.

    Islamic terrorists are against almost everything EU stands for.

  6. Rob says

    May 27, 2020 at 3:48 pm

    I see elsewhere that Jordan wants annexation. They would rather have Israel as neighbours than Hamas. Can’t see Hamas remaining solely in Gaza long.
    I have until now, only disdain for Jordan. They got their ‘chunk’ of the Mandate in ’25 yet object to Israel’s formation and existence.

    • Hugh Fitzgerald says

      May 27, 2020 at 5:56 pm

      That “chunk” was 78% of the territory originally to have been part of the Mandate for Palestine. Handed over to a Hashemite prince, Abdullah, who resented the fact that his younger brother Feisal had been put on the throne of Iraq. Abdullah wanted something too, so he was given, by the British, the Emirate of Transjordan. For the Arabs, that ought to have been enough.

      • gravenimage says

        May 27, 2020 at 9:24 pm

        All true, Hugh.

  7. Charlie in NY says

    May 28, 2020 at 9:00 am

    In 1967, President Johnson directed the Joint Chiefs of Staff to report on what defensible borders for Israel would look like. The report and map were made public several decades later.

    http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-defensible-borders-of-israel.html?m=1

    Someone should ask Borrell, given his support of the Palestinian Arab cause where he stands on Catalonian demands for sovereignty- and why the difference.

    • gravenimage says

      May 28, 2020 at 9:06 pm

      Thanks for that link, Charlie.

      Of course, Muslims want borders for Israel that are *not* defensible.

  8. OLD GUY says

    May 28, 2020 at 1:20 pm

    BIG QUESTION, who is funding this mouth piece? The EU should stay out of Israel’s they are having enough problems at home with their open border policy. The EU doesn’t even recognize the Muslim/Islamic migration invasion taking place under their noses. Or are the fools being bought into it with Saudi oil money padding their pockets?

  9. Jack Holan says

    May 28, 2020 at 8:58 pm

    Robert I am most appreciative for this article. The real history that is kept hidden from the Public, so demagogues can rule over society. Even though I know the history well I’m buying your book today Palestinian Delusion.

    • gravenimage says

      May 28, 2020 at 9:07 pm

      It’s an important and informative book, Jack.

      I know quite a bit about this history, and I still learned a great deal.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • Hoi Polloi on Why so many Muslims can’t wait for Biden to get inaugurated
  • Hoi Polloi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • jacksonl03 on India: Police make first arrest for ‘love jihad’ under new law
  • Yogi on Canadian Mental Health Association studies Muslim women’s mental health due to ‘discrimination’ and ‘hate crimes’
  • Walter Sieruk on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.