This business of keeping territory after winning it in war: where do we draw the line?
Well, read Bret Stephens on the issue of Gibraltar, and it appears that no issue regarding territory taken in war is ever going to go to the UN for debate: not Gibraltar in Spain, not Tibet, not Ceuta and Melilla in Africa, not Turkish-occupied northern Cyprus, not the Malvinas off the coast of Argentina, not Western Sahara, not the vast tracts of Algeria from which the pieds noir were unceremoniously ejected, not New Caledonia, not French Guyana, not Alsace, not Greenland.
There is only one territory won in a defensive war that occupies the minds, resources and time of the UN tsars and indeed the world community: that part of the Jewish homeland known as Judea and Samara from which Jews were “successfully” ethnically cleansed between 1948 and 1967.
The UN argues that because that ethnic cleansing was total and absolute and not one single Jew remained in those territories during that period after being forcibly evicted, the area is to be de facto declared as belonging to the nascent state of Arab Palestine.
A Palestine from which all Jews will be banned – by decree of Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas. Abbas is the man with whom Israel is currently engaged in “peace negotiations”, following Abbas’s insistence that Israel first free 104 convicted mass-murderers and terrorists guilty of killing Israeli civilians for reasons of pan-Arab political ideology. This as a precondition for even sitting at the same table as Jews for the purpose of the US-demanded “peace talks”.
Against that background, now read Bret Stephens’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on the subject of territorial claims, wars and occupation, and see if you agree that there should be one law for the Jews (well, against the Jews actually) and another entirely different law for everyone else.