After the treacherous attacks against the Jewish populace in 1948
Israel, a brand new state, set itself up to defend what it possessed.
In 1967 it thoroughly thrashed its enemies in the Six Day War when
once more threatened.
During that period, the Israelis took over Jerusalem, and in its
Basic Law, effectively announced to the world that 'possession is nine points of
the law' and The Holy City would be theirs 'for all time'.
The Palestinians, whose treachery was noteworthy up to 1967, have
naturally complained bitterly about having lost so much territory - including
'the third holiest place in Islam'.
Next year it will be 50 years that the Israelis have held
Jerusalem. I wonder how the UN is going to respond after countless, previous
denouncements of Israel?
Perhaps I might suggest Kosovo as a worthy
comparison?
Kosovars (largely Albanians) moved into that part of Serbia now
called Kosovo, over a period of a hundred years until they had a majority. They
then demanded to become an independent state - an idea supported by the
UN.
By this logic, Israel should not have to wait too long for the UN
to support their occupation of Jerusalem. Sauce for the goose ... and all
that.
This brings us to the Falklands. These islands were colonised by
the French and later the British in the 18th century. Argentine attempts to
claim the islands began only in 1820 with a half-hearted attempt by argentine
whalers to set down roots.
The British dominion of the islands long pre-dates any of the
recent attempts by the argies to steal the islands, 99% against the proven will
of the people.
If the UN is consistent - then they MUST reject all Argentine
claims to this self-governing British protectorate. De facto means
de facto.
Using Kosovo as our measure, the Israelis, as de facto
owners of Jerusalem must receive a full UN endorsement.
The case for the Falkland islanders having the right to
self-determination is even stronger.
