A Whopper? No, a Lie

By now, everyone knows that Burger King Corp. has canceled the right of a franchisee in Israel to operate an outlet in Ma’ale Adumim, a suburb of Jerusalem. BK claims breach of contract, American Muslim groups claim victory, and the franchisee is fighting it in court.

The issue isn’t hamburgers, it is the status of land that came under Israel’s control in 1967, i.e., land across the “Green Line.” While BK disclaims a political agenda, the American Muslim Council, which orchestrated the boycott, put it on the line.

By now, everyone knows that Burger King Corp. has canceled the right of a franchisee in Israel to operate an outlet in Ma’ale Adumim, a suburb of Jerusalem. BK claims breach of contract, American Muslim groups claim victory, and the franchisee is fighting it in court.

The issue isn’t hamburgers, it is the status of land that came under Israel’s control in 1967, i.e., land across the “Green Line.” While BK disclaims a political agenda, the American Muslim Council, which orchestrated the boycott, put it on the line. “Corporations should not do business and investment on land that is occupied by force and whose original owners have been displaced into refugee camps.” Never mind that the land on which Ma’ale Adumim sits was completely uninhabited and barren, the fact that BK refuses to hang its sign there indicates that the company accepts the Arab argument that land acquired by Israel in 1967 is somehow “Palestinian.” The corollary is that Israel is there illegally and required to give it up. Not so, and BK should know it – so should Disney and Sprint, the next two Arab boycott targets.

[Ed. Note: This next paragraph is old hat for many of you, but it is the crux of the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma. Because the Arabs blatantly lie about it (tell whoppers, if you like bad puns), we feel compelled to repeat as often as necessary that Israel controls the territory up to the Jordan River legally and in accordance with international law and relevant UN Resolutions.]

Israel agreed in 1947 to the UN division of the British Mandate for Palestine into Jewish Palestine and Arab Palestine (UN Res. 181). The Arabs rejected it and attacked Israel upon its independence. Jordan illegally occupied much of what had been planned as Arab Palestine and illegally occupied the eastern half of Jerusalem as well. In 1967, Jordan used these occupied territories to attack Israel. Israel’s defense resulted in control of what is commonly called “the West Bank” and the eastern half of Jerusalem. UN Res. 242, anticipating apolitical settlement between Israel and the Arab states, called for an end to “threats and acts of war” and Israeli military withdrawal from “territories occupied in the recent conflict.” (Note: no mention of hamburgers or Palestinians.) Prof. Eugene Rostow, a drafter of Res. 242, has said that following the return of the Sinai to Egypt (more than 90% of the territories occupied in ’67), Israel would be compliant with Res. 242 whether it ceded “all, some or none” of the West Bank to any claimant.

“All, some or none” of the West Bank is precisely what the Palestinians and the Israelis are discussing. The Oslo Accord which governs those discussions makes no mention of Jerusalem, and Prime Minister Barak has made it clear that Jerusalem and its environs – which include the town of Ma’ale Adumim less than 4 miles from the center of the city – are not on the table.

BK can sell hamburgers wherever it wants, but we don’t think it should have a foreign policy based on a whopper, make that a lie. Disney and Sprint, pay attention.