By Ted Belman
Last week I attended a seminar on the legal status of the territories hosted by Media Central for reporters and correspondents.
Professor Ruth Lapidot, renowned scholar on international law, and a young female Arab lawyer, Nada Kiswanson representing al Haq presented. al Haq, funded by the EU, prepares legal analysis from the Arab point of view.
Lapidot started out by giving a balanced presentation of the law with respect to the Geneva Convention, occupation law, settlements and the like. She was entirely devoid of passion.
Kiswanson spoke fluently and passionately and argued the case from the Palestinian perspective and mentioned the word “occupation” in every sentence. Everything she said needed to be challenged because she was stretching the law beyond recognition. And of course she buttressed her opinion by claiming world opinion and the General Assembly of the UN agreed with her. Obviously both are irrelevant in a court of law.
Her presentation reminded me of the lawyer’s tactic of drowning the opponent in paper most of which was irrelevant but still required some attention. Similarly when the Palestinians present facts or law, they throw so many inaccuracies at you that your efforts are consumed with dismissing all the lies rather than focusing on the truth.
Unfortunately, when she said the Palestinians were a people, Lapidot agreed with her. I wanted to ask what made them a “people” believing that there are a list of criteria to define a people, none of which the “Palestinian people” share. Even if they are to be now considered a “people”, that doesn’t give them an automatic right to a state. Look at the Kurds who certainly meet the criteria but are denied a state.
Essentially she was demanding that Israel withdraw from all territories which is not what Res 242 provides. She was relying on the French translation of the resolution rather than the English rendition which is the official one.
She talked about the “occupied Palestinian territories” but did agree with me when I said the occupation was legal. She stressed that the occupation was to be temporary and I pointed out, to the contrary, that the Security Council resolution, agreed to by the PA, said that the occupation was to continue until there was an agreement on “secure and recognized borders”. The PA keeps alleging that it is temporary to avoid negotiating such borders in order to end the occupation..
Another correspondent acknowledged that there was an occupation but asked what made the land “Palestinian”. She answered that the Palestinians were always there and in a majority before the state was declared. A follow up question suggested that following that logic, all of Israel was Palestinian land. She declined to go there.
Of course she ignores that prior to Israel coming into existence in 1948, the Jews were referred to as Palestinians and the Arabs that were there were just that…Arabs. She also ignores that but for the British violating the Mandate by restricting Jewish immigration while permitting Arab immigration, the Jews would have been in a majority.
Prior to the Mandate the lands were part of the Ottoman Empire until they came under the control of Britain and France who defeated them in WWI. International law recognizes the right of the victors to redraw borders. Pursuant to this right, the Palestine Mandate was created with a view to such lands becoming the Jewish homeland. Jews were given the right of “close settlement.” This right has never been abrogated. Thus the Jews have every right to settle in Judea and Samaria. Thus the settlements are legal. Somebody should tell Obama.
It was clear that she wanted all the territories to be given to the Palestinians based on her legal reasoning and world opinion. Lapidot pointed out that the Roadmap required all parties to negotiate all issues in order to come to an agreement. Resolution 242 does likewise. Negotiations imply that there be give and take to reach agreement.
Israel, began this process because she believed that there would be no resolution without her agreement. Never did she think, prior to the Obama administration, that she would be denied negotiations and would have a solution imposed on her.
A year ago, President Obama promised King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia that he would impose the Saudi Plan on Israel without requiring the Arab countries to sign a peace agreement.
The PA does not want negotiations which imply that they must give and not just take. They are relying on Obama and world opinion to force Israel to do the giving without any taking.
Hard to find fault in this statement. So far you have been the sole pundit with astute insight. Maybe something good even if inadvertent will come out of this. Like the way you think. Your father, too.
>
yamit82 says:
January 27, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Bill Narvey says:
January 27, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Joy, G-d/God will not allow this to happen. G-d led the Jews back to the Holy Land and the manifest did not include any Arabs.
Since the Palestinians are mostly Jordanians and Arab cast offs, they should be invited to live in Jordan or maybe Egypt, both have ample space.
Secondly Jerusalem cannot be a divided city,
When someone questions me about the Palestinian situation I tell them go to Google Earth and take a good look at the ME, the whole landscape is mostly Arab territory. Now take a closer look, you have to move in close to see the Holy Land. Now ask yourself what the hell is this all about. Why do these Arab rejects feel they have to settle in this small area while their brothers have all the room to take care of them.
Just maybe the whole Arab world is nothing but a cesspool.
Why do you think the Saudis are not allowed to drink booze. Booze give you courage and just maybe after a few drinks you begin to realize those fat kings who wear towels on their heads and sun glasses are nothing more than creeps racking in the peoples resources and getting rich and fat and don’t kid yourself these fat boys drink and have women.
Fatah’s in trouble. The loosening of the Gaza blockade will strengthen Hamas, which will destroy Fatah. This is why I have a hard time accepting Obama as a master manipulator. I think he’s just a screw-up. It would be much easier to con the American people into accepting Fatah; selling Hamas to Americans will be hard. If Obama’s goal is a Palestinian state either alongside or in place of Israel, lifting the Gaza blockade is a dumb move. I’m having trouble thinking of a smart Obama move. He lucked into the presidency and has made one mistake after another ever since. He’s going to lose Congress and the Republicans will torture him with investigations over things like the Black Panther case and the Gulf spill. Our father said never confuse station in life with brains because a lot of powerful people are stupid. He said it about movie studio presidents, but it fits this president, too.
US, UN are main sponsors of Palestinian terrorism
Arab countries have transferred just over $500 million in aid to the PA in the last three years, and almost nothing of the $7 billion pledged to Gaza after the war.
That leaves US as Fatah’s main sponsor, both directly and through the UN, of which the United States is the main financier. Israel keeps the terrorist entity afloat with tax
BB is a minimalist Tel Aviv, Jerusalem NYC is what is important for him.
There are no historic rights!! That Jewish presence in the Land of Israel never ceased and the Jews are its oldest residents is irrelevant: native populations throughout the world are annihilated and subdued rather than allowed to prosper and win sovereignty; look at the Native Indians in America.
Besides, Jews are not settling our historical lands now. The historical lands are exactly the “occupied territories.” The Jewish state was there while the sea coast was dominated first by Philistines, then by Greeks and Romans. Jews held it only for short time, and it was largely a pagan area. Our historical connection to Tel Aviv is just a bit stronger than to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Arabs, too, have a historical connection to it. Not all of them; some are relatively recent migrants—though even a century-long stay in Palestine makes them more native then the Russian Jews who came in the 1990s. But what is the historical connection of the perfectly proper Jews of Khazar descent to Palestine? Their ancestors never lived here. What is the historical connection of Ethiopian converts to Judaism to Palestine? What warped atheistic reasoning allocates them more rights to the land than the local Arabs? Jews demonstrably have a stronger historical connection to Europe than to Palestine: we spent 1,900 years of our history in Europe, much longer than in the Middle East.
The argument that Jews need a state is also dumb. Chechens need a state. Basques need a state. Some Eskimos, perhaps, think they need a state. There are more than 2,000 written languages in the world; behind each one there is at least one national group. Not even 10 percent of them have their own states. The number of Jews willing to man our own state is minuscule: states are not normally made up for just six million people. Much larger ethnic groups strive for independence with no international support.
Why should atheist Jews have a state in the current location? Palestinians justly rejoin that Europeans made them pay for Christian crimes against Jews in the Holocaust. Theodore Herzl was cynical about Jewish religious rights, left Jerusalem to Christians, and so retained a single stupid justification for founding the Jewish state in the Land of Israel: it was ostensibly a “land without people.” Of course, the land was settled from time immemorial, and even the deserts and swamps were a part of the Muslim world. Would anyone presume to take the vast uninhabited tracts of Siberia away from Russia? If Muslims had no rights to uninhabited desert, what rights does Israel have over the largely uninhabited Negev desert?
There is no common history: Sephardi Jews were largely spared the hallmark feature of the Ashkenazi Exile: continuous persecution. Nothing besides religion unites the Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews, or the Polish and German Jews.
Israel at first succeeded in developing respect for Jews worldwide. That’s not a proper objective, as Jews never cared about foreign opinion; indeed, we acted contrary to prevailing Christian thought. The Israel that engages in the peace process’ concessions, fails to suppress Arab terrorism, and generally acts weakly, provokes anti-Semitism.
Jewishness without religion is racist. What would Jews say of WASP Americans launching a campaign against intermarriage? Or of white citizens of South Africa urging their kin against marrying the blacks? What would we think of American black nationalists calling upon their tribe to avoid marrying whites? Everyone, however, is completely fine with religious distinctions. It’s okay for a Muslim to refuse to marry a non-Muslim, and so it is for Catholics. It is politically acceptable for Saudi Arabia to forbid non-Islamic worship in Mecca, and for the Vatican to refuse citizenship to non-Catholics. Imagine the US proclaiming a policy of preserving itself as a white, non-Hispanic state, or of the Belgians suppressing the birth rate among their Muslim citizens. However reasonable, such efforts would be detested. A Jewish religious state can restrict intermarriage, banish the Arabs, and do away with foreign worship (and conveniently, also foreign presence) in the Land of Israel.
Jewishness is indefensible on atheist grounds. Anti-Semites all over the world protest the Jewish concept of chosen-ness as racist, and decry anti-gentile pronouncements in Jewish religious books. American liberals already censored the school edition of Huckleberry Finn to remove racist remarks, and it will not be long before they will get to the Talmud and Shulhan Aruch. Liberal “rabbis” have already disavowed “barbaric” and “racist” statements in the Bible. Jews will be unable to defend our religion against liberal onslaught unless we fall back onto the statement of honest belief that Judaism is divinely revealed in its entirety.
There is a single atheist argument for Jews ruling over the Land of Israel: raw power. We are powerful and willing enough to take over this land. As good an argument as this is, it is not without the divine miracle that the handful of us Jews can stand against the Muslim hordes.
Religion provides Jews the only politically correct justification for the necessary actions. Everyone claims that the days are gone when European colonists annihilated the Native Americans to clear a country for themselves and Israel cannot act likewise now. Everyone says that Jews cannot repeat the sixty-year old example of Czechs and Poles who evicted millions of their Germans after the WWII. Cleansing the land of sworn enemies is confused with cleansing it of an undesirable ethnic group, and condemned. The world media screamed when Israel displaced 400,000 Palestinians in 1948. It is unlikely that media would abandon this topic after some months if Israel repeated the trick. But claiming a religious commandment to cleanse the land of natives, however nice and loyal, and to annex all the Promised Land that we hold, is a somewhat more acceptable way of dealing with foreign sensibilities. Few Western and Russian politicians are prepared for a head-on assault on the Bible. Machiavelli was surprised about Ferdinand’s decision to evict Jews from Spain, surmising that his religious justification was a clever ruse, and that the real purpose was to take over Jewish property. Religious justification is still workable, whether you’re a believer or not.
Though one can easily criticize the Bible, there is no point in doing so, as that undermines secular Jewish values as well. People don’t question many concepts with direct bearing on their lives: monetary policy, military intelligence, or state’s investment of their retirement funds. People take on faith incomprehensible scientific doctrines, such as the theory of evolution, parallel lines not crossing in infinity, and the Big Bang. So include the commandments among those unquestioned things.
It doesn’t pay to question whether G-d gave us the commandments on Mount Sinai or Moses knew the laws earlier and recorded them on Jethro’s suggestion. Just accept as a matter of belief that G-d revealed himself to the hundreds of thousands of Jews at Sinai, promised us this land in perpetual possession, and commanded us to drive the aborigines out. That position is so much simpler than labored nonsense about historical rights. Is it true? Who cares? What political theories are true? Lenin lied. Marx was wrong. Jefferson’s principles were idealistic, and were never implemented. Plato was a leftist monster who envisaged an Orwellian society. How often people choose to believe evident falsehoods which are expedient and comfortable, such as government’s wisdom, politicians’ relative honesty, or the peace process?
The biblical notions are plausible, sensible, and—as humans proved for millennia—utterly believable.
Thx Yamit for your detailed answer.
Given the substantially greater area comprising the promised and given land according to Numbers, Ezekiel and the other sources you cited, it raises another question.
When pro-Israel advocates and Israelis, including I believe Netanyahu refer to Israel’s historical rights, is that the same as claiming rights to land recited in the Torah? If it is not, then what are the historical rights to land?
I do not think Netanyahu or other advocates for Israel’s historical rights to the land of Israel, have ever specified what those rights were that are being claimed.
Do you know Yamit? Your further advice will again be appreciated.
Ah, This must bee your rationalist escape clause?
The Hebrew Bible provides three somewhat more specific sets of borders, each with a different purpose. The passages where these are defined are Genesis 15:18-21, Numbers 34:1-15 and Ezekiel 47:13-20.
More precise geographical borders are given Exodus 23:31 which describes borders as marked by the Red Sea , the “Sea of the Philistines” i.e., the Mediterranean, and the “River,” the Euphrates), the traditional furthest extent of the Kingdom of David.
Numbers 34:1-13 uses the term Canaan strictly for the land west of the Jordan, but Land of Israel is used in Jewish tradition to denote the entire land of the Israelites. The English expression “Promised Land” can denote either the land promised to Abraham in Genesis or the land of Canaan, although the latter meaning is more common.
Ezekiel 47:13-20 provides a definition of borders of land in which the twelve tribes of Israel will live during the final redemption, at the end of days. The borders of the land described by the text in Ezekiel include the northern border of modern Lebanon, eastwards (the way of Hethlon) to Zedad and Hazar-enan in modern Syria; south by southwest to the area of Busra on the Syrian border (area of Hauran in Ezekiel); follows the Jordan River between the West Bank and the land of Gilead to Tamar (Ein Gedi) on the western shore of the Dead Sea; From Tamar to Meribah Kadesh (Kadesh Barnea), then along the Brook of Egypt (see debate below) to the Mediterranean Sea. The territory defined by these borders is divided into twelve strips, one for each of the twelve tribes.
Hence, Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 47 define different but similar borders which include the whole of contemporary Lebanon, both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and Israel, except for the South Negev and Eilat. Small parts of Syria are also included.
The common Biblical phrase used to refer to the territories actually settled by the Israelites (as opposed to military expansions) is “from Dan to Beersheba” (or its variant “from Beersheba to Dan”), which occurs many times in the Bible. It is found in the Biblical verses Judges 20:1, 1 Samuel 3:20, 2 Samuel 3:10, 2 Samuel 17:11, 2 Samuel 24:2, 2 Samuel 24:15, 1 Kings 4:25, 1 Chronicles 21:2, and 2 Chronicles 30:5.
The border with Egypt is given as the Nachal Mitzrayim (Brook of Egypt) in Numbers and Deuteronomy, as well as in Ezekiel. Jewish tradition (as expressed in the commentaries of Rashi and Yehuda Halevi, as well as the Aramaic Targums) understand this as referring to the Nile; more precisely the Pelusian branch of the Nile Delta according to Halevi — a view supported by Egyptian and Assyrian texts. Saadia Gaon identified it as the “Wadi of El-Arish” referring to the Biblical Sukkot near Faiyum. Kaftor Vaferech placed it in the same region which approximates the location of the former Pelusian branch of the Nile. 19th century Bible commentaries understood the identification as a reference to the Wadi of the coastal locality called El-Arish. Easton’s however, notes a local tradition that the course of the river had changed and there was once a branch of Nile where today there is a wadi. Biblical minimalists have suggested that the Besor is intended.
Genesis gives the border with Egypt as Nahar Miztrayim — nahar denotes a large river in Hebrew never a wadi
Only the “Red Sea” (Exodus 23:31) and the Euphrates are mentioned to define the southern and eastern borders of the full land promised to the Israelites. The “Red Sea,” corresponding to Hebrew Yam Suf was understood in ancient times to be the Erythraean Sea, as reflected in the Septuagint translation. Although the English name “Red Sea” is derived from this name (“Erythraean” derives from the Greek for red), the term denoted all the waters surrounding Arabia—including the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf, not merely the sea lying to the west of Arabia bearing this name in modern English. Thus the entire Arabian peninsula lies within the borders described. Modern maps depicting the region take a reticent view and often leave the southern and eastern borders vaguely defined. The borders of the land to be conquered given in Numbers have a precisely defined eastern border which included the Arabah and Jordan.
Observations on Torah borders:
A lot of scoffers, whose agenda is to delegitimize HaShem, the Torah, and the Jews who believe in it, say that the Torah is a man-made script composed much later than the Torah itself says it was.
Yet the Torah contains many geographical place names, and names of animals, which have been unknown to Jews for thousands of years.
But we Jews can live with that.
HaShem created the Universe the way He wanted. And He created the Torah in the form He wanted. Originally, it contained specific information whcih was releveant to Jews living at that time. Now, it retains enough general information to continue to be relevant for all Jews at all times in all places.
The ultimate borders of Israel will work themselves out according to the will of HaShem. Right now, Jewish Israel is a work in progress.
We are unsure if Israel will survive at all, if it will become a truly Jewish State, and if we will get to build the Third Temple.
But “You don’t have to complete the job, you just have to do as much as you can.”
Yamit& other Jewish scholars- a question. In Numbers 34 of the Torah, God tells Moses what the borders for Israel shall be. I presume you know what those borderds would translate to today.
I would appreciate your advising me in this regard.
The following is extracted from Jewish Virtual Library at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Numbers34.html
It wasn’t me!!
Ted, herzberg, is hymie and we have long ago established that fact.
Yamit and Randy are correct but whoever is handling the Israeli PR work is very likely a covert Hamas agent.
In part, Israel has sludged through because no matter how inept leadership has been, adversaries have proven to be more so. Relying on the enemy to fail has worked in a number of instances, but let’s hope that no one in leadership becomes so accustom to it that it becomes the foundation of defense.
someone is feeding this specific language to the media. Today’s NYT, in their big investigative report on “Tax-Exempt Funds Aid Settlements in West Bank”, uses the exact same word sequence as Kornblut’s WashPo article yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/world/middleeast/06settle.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
Bird, you assume that our politicians know the correct facts,
That they care even if they do.
That they themselves agree with the incorrect narrative of the enemies of Israel.
That there is any organized programed attempt by our government to counter such misrepresentations.
Every Israeli government has operated on an ad hoc basis from 1948 till today. lets say that despite Israels lack of program and coordination, somehow they always seem to muddle through. They must consider : Don’t fix that which they believe isn’t broken.
Cute cat. Where can I get one like him? The cats I have are a bit on the aggressive side.
is PR problem #1 when only Bret Stephens in the WSJ is correct when he states that Ramat Shlomo is in NORTH Jerusalem, built on a rocky hillside previously used for goat grazing. Today, the Washington Post wrote
This is how the palestinian myths become part of the accepted narrative. Why is it so hard for Israel to correct this one fact?
That’s him!
Damn you and your bladder, too!
Really?
Good!
Might I suggest a cure that never fails. Drink a half quart of undiluted hemlock.
No, I would have said that that our rights are stipulated and defined in the Torah but since you are a non believer I shifted the point to the historical and meant that our rights were bought and paid for by the millions of Jews throughout history up until this day who fought and died for this land. This land is soaked in Jewish blood. That’s our basis in rights, along with the willingness of this generation and the next to fight for the land and win. If we lose we lose the land. That’s the reality and the point I was trying to make.
I don’t care what the world thinks, as long as I can defend what we have. You care about the good opinion of others and I don’t. You believe we can’t survive without outside help, I do.
The rest I agree with you. Except why debate those vermin if you will not attack them personally. Who cares if they are offended? They offend me just by breathing.
I have a raging headache from reading all these comments. Suffice it to say that PR game or whatever you want to call it is not going well when houses continue to be built in East Jerusalem and settlements expand, thus giving Abbas his reason to call a halt to negotiations. Now you may feel Israel has the right to expand, but the world largely does not feel such is the case till there is an agreement reached by both sides…Obama has made it clear that he wants a halt for a time to expansion, and now Bibi goes to Washington and will doubtless have expansion going on while he talks about a solution…This is a disastrous PR game!
Yamit, you’re right. That’s the picture of abject horror. But this is what’s awaiting you:
Ted, I quite agree that bad PR, which includes failing to gain broad acceptance and respect for Jewish/Israel rights and the law upon which those rights derive, results in pressure on our negotiating position. That in part was the point of my 1st comment.
Yamit, I was talking about the role both correct and incorrect statements of law plays in the PR game that contributes to setting the stage for and becomes part of the negotiations, if and when they take place.
Your following statement contains a contradiction and ends in a non-sequitor,
I presume you are saying that all the rights Jews/Israelis are entitled, derive from law and thus both the relevant law and Israeli rights derived therefrom are within the land of Israel.
That is a mighty fine statement Yamit. In case you had not noticed however, that view is not self evident to Israel’s enemies, their supporters and Israel’s friends. Further, Yamit, what rights are you speaking of? The right of Jewish self determination within the present boundaries of Israel or do you say those Jewish/Israel rights exist in the soil of Judea and Samaria.
As I have stated many times before, a right not asserted is no right at all. Further to merely assert a right and I am not clear on exactly what rights you are referring to, but not gain acceptance and respect for that right, means that right is in doubt.
To assert a right entails both an offensive posture to convince others of that right and a defensive posture to defend the rights you assert and others deny.
What do you mean by saying countless millions lived and died for the Land and the Jewish people? How does that relate to your other two statements in your quoted words?
My comment Yamit was specifically relating to Ted’s article.
Your reaction to my comment Yamit, clearly conveys your personal distaste and dislike of me, but your reactive comments that are all over the map or nowhere on the map, offers nothing in the way of a pointed coherent counter argument to my views specific to Ted’s article.
Ranting as you do Yamit, certainly does convey your feelings, but it in no way presents any credible opposing point of view.
Ok, I’ll bite. What’s coming?
Bill arguing the law as I did in my post is only for PR purposes. And yes we have to articulate our rights if only keep our friends. Unfortunately bad PR results in pressure on our negotiating position.
Yamit, you are over reacting to Bill Narvey and I wish you would come off your high horse and tone it down.. Bill is entitled to his opinion as you are to yours. You will have to learn to tolerate differences of opinion.
And this is a country that is supposedly “moderate” and has a peace treaty with Israel. The reason there will never be peace is because of the infantile and petty resentment and hatred of Israel by the arabs, but yet the world blames Israel.
Thank you for proving my point that Narvey is a Christian, at least, his values and world view are.
Your questions: No I don’t care about Uruguay or even Utah and I don’t expect them to care about us. There is nothing I or my elected leaders are doing or intend to do that would harm Uruguay, But both live under and vote for governments that can and do harm Israel and by definition Jews.
Therefore it is not false rhetoric not in the least.
I hold these truths to be self evident: You leave us alone and we won’t call you names anymore!
There is only one conflict: Jew haters against Judaism and Jews.
We are too small and weak to fight on too many fronts only one is needed if we had a leader with vision and Big canoles, Then my Christian missionary friend, we would see very soon who is theologically right you or me.
That is if you survive what’s coming. Maybe you will face that great lake of fire 🙂
I would surrender all our leftist and liberals, even most of our lawyers ( I said most Ted not you)
Classic overstatement. Most of the Gentile world doesn’t give a rip one way or the other. They are busy with their own lives, families, communities and countries. Do you give a rip what happens in Uruguay?
I can only conclude that you and others knowingly use this false rhetoric to push for total disengagement with the world – which is of course your real goal. That and war.
But I agree with Narvey that this is self-defeating. You face a multi-faceted conflict: There is a PR front. There is a legal front. And, yes, there is a physical front.
Why would you surrender to your enemy on any front?
‘Israeli Gowns’ Cause Outrage in Jordan
University Fires Professor for Opposing Homosexuality
That’s as good of a description as any I can think of.
The Palestinian Authority said again today it won’t negotiate with Israel, but I’m reading a ton of commentary blaming Israeli intransigence. It’s so bizarre (until you remember why Israel had to be created, then it all makes sense). I’m reading about this Al Gore story with the masseuse, and I finally understand why he always gave me a major case of the creeps. I get the same vibe from these guys who go on and on about Israeli intransigence. There’s some bad wiring in them, the word I’m looking for is defective. Gore has defective wiring, just like these analysts who blame Israel for everything. Mother used to call it being soul dead.
What enigma? BB is a classic demagogue, an extremely paranoiac demagogue. What is it you don’t understand?
Liberal Christian justice. Disgusting and shameful. The efficacy of Western Humanist thinking. Right, Narvey?
Narvey’s Boys at it again
In June 2008, Mahmoud Abu-Atawi scurried across the border from his roach-nest in Gaza into the western Negev. He didn’t risk the trip from Arab-occupied Gaza due to a sudden craving for shwarma, or a desire to bargain hunt in the Bedouin shuk of Beersheba. He came to slaughter Jews, which would explain the grenade he was carrying. Upon crossing the border, he hid among the bushes, where he was eventually discovered by two Israeli soldiers who attempted to apprehend him. There were several other soldiers in the vicinity. Atawi had different plans. Characteristic to his breed of human virus who worship the blood deity (never to be confused with Hashem), Atawi uttered the standard guttural cry, pulled the pin, and hurled the grenade at them. Had the grenade done what 99.9% of other grenades do when the pin is pulled, ZAKA would have had their hands full scraping up thick puddles of Jewish blood and body parts. Miraculously, this particular grenade failed to detonate and no one was killed.
Consider for a moment what would happen to a Jew who hurled a grenade at an Arab soldier in a so-called “moderate” country like Jordan, Turkey, or Egypt? He’d be subjected to incomprehensible forms of torture in the form of maiming and mutilation, culminating in a violent death. Compare this to “the mercy of fools” of the Israeli courts. Last week a Beersheva district court handed down a prison sentence for Atawi’s crime, which the kangaroo court noted was a “severe” one. (What a revelation. We needed the courts to teach us that throwing grenades at soldiers is a “severe” crime.) Of course you would never know that the court felt this way judging from the sentence. Atawi was given 12 years in prison. (It’s a good thing they thought it was severe, otherwise he might have gotten away with community service.) What an abomination! Atawi should have been hacked into pieces and had his head set on a pike at the Karni crossing.
There is no justice in Israel. The leftists who pitied this beast weren’t interested in the fact that only a miracle prevented a bloodbath. Ironically, the District Court Judge, Rut Avinada, paid lip service to “the miracle” (for whatever that’s worth), which makes the sentence even more puzzling.) 12 years? Are they insane? These leftist lemmings of the court would make good Christians, were it not for the fact that they don’t believe in any sort of a creator, even an idolatrous man-god.
In 12 years, Atawi will be free, and if history teaches us anything, he’ll be spending his time in prison plotting his next attack. Of course there’s always the possibility that Netanyahu will pardon him and several hundred other Jew-killers as part of some sort of goodwill package to Abbas. The notion of ware-housing these beasts is outrageous. Instead of storing this human refuse at the taxpayer’s expense, we should send a real message, and bury a personalized bullet into the skulls of these Jew-killers and would-be Jew-killers, while their eyes are propped open. Ruthlessness is the key to fighting Amalek, not imposing impotent prison terms that only embolden him and encourage future acts of terror. Furthermore, when terrorists are imprisoned, they become commodities for treasonous politicians like Bibi and Barak to swap for “assurances of peace” and the mutilated remains of murdered Israeli soldiers.
The Arab and Islamic world is not impressed with the havlagah of rubber bullets, or the leftist commitment to “compassionate justice.” A policy of killing terrorists will go a long way towards resurrecting the tradition of the brutal Jewish warrior and erasing the chillul Hashem of Jewish weakness. In the meantime, let it be known that this grotesque sentence was a victory for Mahmoud Atawi, who in this lunatic country, was granted another crack at killing Jews when his sentence is up. Israeli prisons should be reserved exclusively for Jewish criminals. The only prison Atawi deserves is a pig’s carcass stuffed with his bludgeoned corpse. In the absence of a pig, he should be eviscerated with a butter knife and left for the buzzards.
Why should the palis give anything?
The entire goyish world, plus the large number of Hebrew-speaking goyim within “Jewish” Israel, are on their side.
The palis’ (unspoken but widely understood) arguments:
1. Jewish Israel (i.e., arrogant Jews) is already too big, and must be cut down to size.
2. The dirty Jews do not belong in the middle east. They are european colonialists, who stole Israel from its rightful muslim pali inhabitants (the underdogs, the “good guys”).
3. The palis have already given up too much.
4. The Israeli Jews are the real nazis. They are international war criminals, and everything they say and do is a crime.
Since the liberal/muslim aliance (particularly Obama) “holds these truths to be self-evident” then Jewish Israel is always in a bad starting position going into any negotiations.
If Barak and Netanyahu actually give Obama a map of what Israel really intends to hold onto, it will only be used as a starting point to shrink Jewish Israel further.
That will be fine with Barak, but Netanyahu remains an enigma; he “talks the talk”, but then always ends up appeasing.
You can get away with throwing a few small bones to the goyish wolves as appeasement, but sooner or later you have to stop if you seriously intend to survive.
Narvey F–You, now I know why I hate liberals especially those claiming to be
LiberalJews!!! Everything you stand for has brought us to our current situation and contributed to the murder and killing of tens of thousands of other Jews.Defending Jewish rights in Law that is worthless. Our rights are buried in the soil of the Land of Israel. Countless millions who lived and died for the Land and the Jewish people. You elevate Christian Law to defend our rights? Ha Humbug to you sir.
Everything you hold holy is but a false god by another name and a pagan form of idolatry. You believe in words and toilet paper made respectable in your mind by calling them agreements, treaties etc. etc. never mind they are never observed or enforced and always lead to war and more Dead Jews. You are pathetic and intellectually mummified or dishonest. You advocate what you know is bullshit, what else can I say? I could say I expected more from you but that would not be truthful.
To the contrary, while law alone will not determine the outcome of negotiations between Israel and Palestinians, reference to law, be it a correct or incorrect reference to law, has had a definite role to play in bringing Israel and the Palestinian/Arabs to the point they are today as regards setting the stage for negotiations.
Interim agreements reached by Israel and Palestinians have been viewed in legal context.
Furthermore, the outcome of those negotiations if they do get off the ground and are successful, will seek to achieve a legally binding agreement.
One facet of Western democracies is that they value the rule of law and look to law in so many ways to justify their claimed rights.
Palestinians and anti-Israel activists in their propaganda humor Western respect for law by couching much of their rhetoric and messaging within the context of law as they claim it to be. They thus seek to tie the Palestinian narrative, claimed rights and list of demands to law.
There are many issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians that are of practical significance and importance that are not about law.
You can however, expect that if and when negotiations come about, both Israelis and Palestinians will seek a legally binding outcome. You can also expect there will be in the context of those negotiations, reference to legal precedent, law written or inherent and alleged rights derived therefrom and to prior alleged legally binding agreements.
Law, be it accurate or false references to it, has thus contributed to setting the stage for negotiations to begin.
Ted is right that there are so many lies and half truths comprising Palestinians/anti-Israel advocacy and rhetoric, it seems that we are spending too much time defensively trying to unmask these lies, that we do not devote enough time to advancing our own truths.
Though that may pose difficulties, nonetheless, in advancing Israel’s case we must not only advance our narrative, rights and truths, we necessarily must respond to Palestinian/anti-Israel activist propopaganda and messaging. Since some or much of that messaging seeks to validate itself by false or disingenuous references to law and rights, we must unmask those legal connections as being tenuous or outright false while at the same time making our own case based on law and our claimed rights derived from the law.
I agree there has always been pressure as far back as the Rogers Plan in 1970 to give all the land back. But I maintain that Israel thought that she would have the right to negotiate. She would never have started the oslo process if she thought otherwise.
In any event we both agree that law won’t determine the outcome.
I didn’t miss the line, and I don’t agree that Israel never thought a solution would be imposed or an attempt at imposition by America. It has always been on the table and even used, as a threat to move Israel to concede that which she otherwise wouldn’t have. Till now it has never been Israli resolve which prevented more Israeli concessions even a Pali state, It has always been the Palis who managed to sabotage American pressure on Israel. You know as well as I that no negotiations will bring a settlement but only war will bring a resolution we can live with, that is if we have leaders willing to see that war to it’s end and substantiate that wars conclusions with a firm resolve to see it through and not buckle under American pressure as has been the case in the past.
The Israeli war on Palestinian terrorism stopped the two Intifadas. Peace, on other hand, changes nothing but only formalizes the facts established by war. After the Germans were utterly defeated, peace ensued regardless of whether a peace treaty had been signed. After Israel defeated Syria, there was peace even without a peace treaty. War changes facts, and peace is only the name for the resulting change.
Yamit. Clean your glasses. My bottom line was that this conflict is supposed to be settled by negotiations, not law. Therefor law is irrelevant.
Ted you can take all your legal arguments and with 7-10 bucks you might be able to buy a cheap café au lait at your local Starbucks or local coffee emporium.
No legal argument has ever served Israeli interests or changed anyone’s mind. We have never by legal argument won any argument or dispute in the International arena in or out of court. So why waste your time and breath? Your arguments are a non sequitur
“Politics is a game that ends when one runs into the point of a bayonet!”
By that time it’s too late, your as good as dead.
Two additional points.
Obama looks much worse than any of his predecessors because of the traitorous weakness and incompetency of BB and Barak.
Barak Obama is not doing anything or demanding anything, so far at least, that all of Americas Presidents have not demanded in the past. Obama is just trying to use the leverage he perceives he has over Israel. Very similar to Carter and Begin. Weak President and an even weaker Israeli leadership. That is our worst scenario. We can’t change Obama but we can change our leaders here, almost overnight.
The Jews have abetted the Palestinians in the framing of the problem.
1) What is wrong with the current situation that will be solved by changing it?
2) Why is an apartheid Arab state better than the current mixing of the inhabitants?
3) Has the non-Muslim world thought through what would happen next to them?
4) Has Islam presented a superior outcome to Israel’s approach to societal norms and habit?
5) What American problems are solved by throwing Israel under the bus? More to the point, what new problems will likely present themselves should Israel be abandoned?
6) Given the lack of support from the Obama administration in terms of Israel’s security, doesn’t Mr. Obama make the use of nuclear weapons more likely than less likely in the immediate and intermediate future?
7) What values are expressed by scapegoating Israel? Are those the way in which America wishes to understand itself?
8) Given Mr. Obama’s penchant for retrenchment on previous promises, why should Israel trust his intentions at all? Indeed, why should anyone in the world trust Mr. Obama? He seems to have thrown the concept of “trust” under the bus!
We need to quickly reframe the the arguments that are applied to justify the pressure that is being applied to Israel, rather than accepting any assumptions or assertions that are unattached to facts on the ground. It is a waste of time and energy to argue ‘their’ points! Most important, Jews must insist upon the victim’s role, not based upon historical reference to the Holocaust, but to the current demands and their implications! Politics is a game that ends when one runs into the point of a bayonet!