By Ted Belman
With all the talk about the freeze, announced or de facto, I decided to write an article on the genesis of the freeze thinking it began with the Mitchell Report in the early nineties. Prof Barry Rubin set me straight and advised that in 1993 Israel agreed or at least announced, a freeze. She would not build new settlements but would do infilling of existing settlements.
My research led me to this very important resource, Statements on American Policy toward Settlements by U.S. Government Officials – 1968-2009
-
Introduction
The policy of all Israeli governments since 1967 of settling Israeli citizens in the territories Israel occupied in the 1967 war is regarded by most governments as a violation of international law defined by the “Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.” In 2004, the International Court of Justice confirmed this in an advisory opinion. The United States supported the applicability of the Geneva Convention and the unlawful character of settlements until February 1981 when President Ronald Reagan disavowed this policy by asserting that settlements are “not illegal.”
President Reagan’s policy has been sustained, implicitly, by subsequent U.S. administrations, all of whom have declined to address the legal issue, although they have all opposed, with varying emphasis, settlements or settlement expansion. However, on April 14, 2004, President George W. Bush, in a further retreat from past policy, told Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that, “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949…”
I presented the truth about the occupation and the settlements in an article in which I concluded that the Fourth Geneva Convention (FGC) does not apply and even if it did, there was nothing to prevent Jews from voluntarily settling in the “occupied territories”. Today Yaalon agreed
The first statement of the US government on the matter came in April 8, 1968
-
The Johnson Administration
“Although we have expressed our views to the Foreign Ministry and are confident there can be little doubt among GOI leaders as to our continuing opposition to any Israeli settlements in the occupied areas, we believe it would be timely and useful for the Embassy to restate in strongest terms the US position on this question.
You should refer to Prime Minister Eshkol’s Knesset statement and our awareness of internal Israeli pressures for settling civilians in occupied areas. The GOI is aware of our continuing concern that nothing be done in the occupied areas which might prejudice the search for a peace settlement. By setting up civilian or quasi-civilian outposts in the occupied areas the GOI adds serious complications to the eventual task of drawing up a peace settlement. Further, the transfer of civilians to occupied areas, whether or not in settlements which are under military control, is contrary to Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, which states “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
September 10, 1968
“Arab governments must convince Israel and the world community that they have abandoned the idea of destroying Israel. But equally, Israel must persuade its Arab neighbors and the world community that Israel has no expansionist designs on their territory.”
Already the US government took the position that the FGC applied and that the West Bank was Arab territory; both dubious propositions.
-
The Nixon Administration, July 1, 1969
The expropriation or confiscation of land, the construction of housing on such land, the demolition or confiscation of buildings, including those having historic or religious significance, and the application of Israeli law to occupied portions of the city are detrimental to our common interests in [Jerusalem]. The United States considers that the part of Jerusalem that came under the control of Israel in the June war, like other areas occupied by Israel, is governing the rights and obligations of an occupying Power. Among the provisions of international law which bind Israel, as they would bind any occupier, are the provisions that the occupier has no right to make changes in laws or in administration other than those which are temporarily necessitated by his security interests, and that an occupier may not confiscate or destroy private property.
The pattern of behavior authorized under the Geneva Convention and international law is clear: the occupier must maintain the occupied area as intact and unaltered as possible, without interfering with the customary life of the area, and any changes must be necessitated by the immediate needs of the occupation. I regret to say that the actions of Israel in the occupied portion of Jerusalem present a different picture, one which gives rise to understandable concern that the eventual disposition of East Jerusalem may be prejudiced, and that the private rights and activities of the population are already being affected and altered.
“My Government regrets and deplores this pattern of activity, and it has so informed the Government of Israel on numerous occasions since June 1967. We have consistently refused to recognize those measures as having anything but a provisional character and do not accept them as affecting the ultimate status of Jerusalem. . . .”
Thus the US has consistently refused to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
This position with the exception of the Reagan recalibration and the Bush ’04 letter, mentioned above, continued until today.
What drove the US policy from the beginning was the desire to prevent anything which would “prejuudice the search for peace”. This search for peace started with the assumption that the territories were Arab lands and not disputed lands as Israel from time to time asserted. Obviously they were serving Arab interests.
This is the reason that Israel never asserts her rights to the land. She doesn’t have any in the eyes of the world. She is left to only claim concessions in the name of security. Through out most of the time since the ’67 war, Israel has accepted the American limitations on settlements and simply looked for wiggle room.
Israel has always taken the position that the FGC does not apply and that she would voluntarily be ruled by its humanitarian provisions. Were Israel to have accepted that it applied, she would in effect have accepted that the territories were lands of another party. This she wouldn’t do. Nevertheless she never asserts her rights to them.
Why not? By agreeing to construction limitations for almost thirty years, she was acknowledging that she wasn’t entitled to build.
Today the whole thing is so bizarre. Israel claims the right to build but only within the limitations that she originally accepted. The issue is whether she is entitled to build anywhere. By not exercising her right to build anywhere she has forfeited that right has she not.
Actually the problem goes back to Res 242. Why did Israel ever agree to withdraw to “secure and recognized borders” after the preamble to the resolution cited “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” . I believe there is an exception to this rule, namely that if you acquire territory in a defensive war, you can keep it.
In any event the Roadmap requires the settlement to be in accordance with Res 242 at best and the Saudi Plan at worst.
So I ask you, are the territories disputed or not. I believe that Israel has relinquished its rights to Judea and Samaria granted in the Palestine Mandate. But I am also happy that Min Yaalon is trying to reclaim that right.
It is time for the government of Israel to start asserting our Mandate rights to Judea and Samaria as Min Yaalon just did. It is not too late to reject Res 242 as the basis of settlement.
In No. 42, not-so-Shy Guy gleefully thinks he has made an incisive observation – that there are only TWO examples of ex-jihadis who now attack the jihadis. I think he is probably upset that they both have become Christians. Shy Guy is now a shoo-in to join the Jewish Chapter of the Confirmed Bigots Club, whose members believe that ALL Muslims are homicidal maniacs, and anyone who don’t think so are also maniacs:-)) Never mind that these are two out of hundreds of millions of Muslims who are not homicidal maniacs, including most of the people in Turkey, Indonesia, India, Kosovo, Albania and North America.
In No. 43 Ted demands “proof” that the obsolete Palestine Mandate does not apply today. Never mind that it has been superceded by the partition of 1947 and 63 years of history since then and even the Israeli government doesn’t think it applies. Ted says that anyone who disagrees with his OPINION is “naive”. Ted wants to know who said that “all Muslims are homicidal maniacs”. I said that, by mathematically interpreting what Bigot Yamit, Bigot Max and other members of the Confirmed Bigots Club have said about ALL Muslims. The mathematical interpretation of the Confirmed Bigots Club philosophy works like this:
1. All Muslims think the same. 2. Islamofascists are homicidal maniacs, Therefore,. 3. ALL Muslims are homicidal maniacs. QED.
Sorry, we Indians are mathematical maniacs:-))
Ted wants to know something Israel has done wrong. For a supporter of Israel’s right to exist in peace and security who is not a Jewish zealot, I would have to pick building settlements in areas that Israel concedes is under dispute, while selectively annexing East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. That’s TWO mistakes, Ted.
I would much rather that Israel had annexed EVERYTHING they captured while defending themselves in 1967 under the principle of the spoils of war. Then returned what they did not want after squeezing concessions from the losers, including acceptance and non-violence. No concessions, no land. Offers of sexual intercourse with whoever disagrees. Someone tell Bigot Yamit that’s English for the 4-letter word he likes to use:-)) Militants could have been handled like militants inside Israel, deported to Syria, Lebanon or Jordan, or jailed. The “world opinion” that Bill Narvey cites would have pissed and moaned but soon everyone would get used to the status quo,just like they have in Kashmir where Pakistan grabbed what they could in 1947-48 and are holding on to it.
Ted says that “we” at Israpundit are right and everyone else is wrong. He demands proof of several negatives. Isn’t this the definition of a zealot? No “innocent until proven guilty” in this philosophy. When Ted says someone is guilty THEY have to prove they are not.
Max,if you spent as much time trying to offer an informed, coherent and cogent opinion as you take dissing me, maybe there’s a chance you can provide us all with something worth reading.
In No. 42 we see not-so-Shy Guy applying for membership in the Jewish Chapter of the Confirmed Bigots Club. After these guys claim that ALL Muslims are homicidal maniacs, they then try to demonize every example you show them.
I have previously shown that tens of millions of Muslims from Turkey, Indonesia, India, Kosovo and North America are not homicidal maniacs who feel they must follow Sharia law in order to be considered Muslims – which is what the Jewish and Muslim Chapters of the Confirmed Bigots Club believe.
In No 43, we see Ted demand more “proof” that the obsolete Palestine Mandate – superceded by the partition and 63 years of subsequent history – does not apply, because it is his and Bill’s OPINION that it does. Sadly, even the Israeli government disagrees with them.
In No. 41 I had shown Ted’s tendency of building straw men to fit his agenda and then drawing FINAL conclusions, etched in granite, based on these.
Ted wants an example of what Israel has done wrong. Well, for someone like me who is a defender of Israel without being a Jewish zealot, I would say that building settlements in areas that Israel concedes are in dispute would be considered wrong, capricious, arbitrary and provocative by most clear thinking people.
I would much rather have seen Israel annex these areas in 1967 itself, as it has done with East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, which were acquired while defending itself, and then let “world opinion” chase after it, which “world opinion” is doing anyway. No one returns land acquired in defending itself without MAJOR concessions by the losing side.
In this case the losing side is demanding concessions from the winning side, and then some, without any concessions in return. My position would have been, “Screw you!” What would the Palestinians do? They are already trying to wipe Israel off the map without success. The US would have pissed and moaned some, but the net result would have been the typical status quo with an outstanding annexation issue but without the aggravation of a settlements issue. Radical Palestinians could have been deported to Syria or Jordan. Hamas, Hezbollan and their ilk would have been on the outside looking in. Israel would have more defensible borders.
That’s the beauty of a status quo in an age when no one in a conflict is allowed by “world opinion” to win decisively so that the losers can move on with their lives.
Pakistan did that in Kashmir. It just grabbed as much as it could and is holding on to it. India grabbed the other half. The status quo will continue indefinitely.
Now, in No. 44 we see that Bill is also beginning to do the same when he writes, “you assume – snip – that world majority opinion is right because it is the majority opinion.” No, I don’t. If I did I would not have been defending Israel’s right to exist in peace and security since before Bill was born, against all comers, INCLUDING MUSLIM RADICALS, MARXISTS AND SOCIALISTS, AMERICAN LIBERALS, AMERICAN LIBERAL JEWS AND JEWISH ZEALOTS.
Bill seems uncomfortable with “the weight of the U.S. government’s thinking and policies.” Never mind that the US has defended Israel in front of the world and underwritten Israel’s security at considerable expense for decades now and as a consequence become the No. 2 target of the major Islamofascists.
Bill, I don’t need selective articles to prove that “World Opinion” is against Israel. This is another gross generality. Some in the world are, others are not as we saw in polls in India and the US. Besides I don’t care what “world opinion” says and neither should Israel.
All Israel should care about is what the US public opinion thinks. If that turns against you, you are in deep trouble, but it wont as long as there are Islamofacists and a recalcitrant Iran run by certifiable maniacs looking for the 12th Imam.
What seems to gall the Jewish zealots is that the US prefers a solution that will lead to peace in the region, which the zealots don’t give a crap about. They are more interested in shoving their OPINIONS down everyone else’s throats.
In No. 37 the irrepressible Bigot Yamit regales us with a column by the lovely and gracious and very paranoid Debbie Schlussel who really doesn’t know much about the Son of Hamas, but she is pissed off that he converted to Christianity encouraged by a fundamentalist Christian friend of hers who apparently makes a moral equivalence between Hamas and Jewish zealots, which is very rare among American Christian fundamentalists.
In No. 38 Bigot Yamit “exposes” Walid Shoebat as a “fraud” while missing the fact that Walid is a Palestinian Muslim who has turned against the Islamofascists which is yet another example among millions that ALL Muslims are not Sharia-obsessed homicidal maniacs.
A chuckle is a chuckle. I had a chuckle ,it was a real one,
Lighten up a little. (Emotion is not your strong point.)
You are like a tired old flower lady selling the same old wares and you don’t care you sell them to, as Yamit noted.
.
I’m not interested in your politics BM, I ‘ve seen everything you have and I understand the base on which you are standing, you have nothing to offer. I have nothing to debate with you, I only denounce you as I have said many times. Someday maybe you can accept that.
And I don’t care what you agree with or what you think is coherent or incoherent. You are just a dead spot to me now except the occasional entertainment like that chuckle.
You don’t need to continue to write these purposeless and contentless posts to me. It’s a neurotic waste of time to engage in personality entanglements. But I suppose you don’t know how else to exist.
Your obsession for who agrees with who is also neurotic. That has little to do with science or analytic thought and more to do with schoolyard bullying. If you have confidence in yourself and something of your own to say you don’t need to have others agree with you.
I’ve already written more than enough, the theoretical concepts are all beyond your level. However , I made all my positions abundantly clear, I don’t have any more manifestos or declarations. And no more social research essays with new paradigms that are relevant here, those researches are better developed elsewhere. It’s useful to get some idea of mass psychological reaction to those new paradigms but I’ve about exhausted that here.
I’m just following the flow of events now and reading the informative articles that the contributors provide here. I’m not interested in the trolling arguments, I just skip over those.
The tragedy that is going on doesn’t seem to reach you, the loss of freedom doesn’t seem to bother you, you even assist it – you’ve lost yourself down some pointless world of mind games.
—
The response you are going to write – don’t bother. I don’t care. No one else cares.
Take a pill, Bill. Forget about these fishing expeditions – you won’t get anything back.
Don’t read anything I write – it’s better for you.
AE, here is one more article worth your time to read – World Leaders Ignore International Law.
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=153
Max,you chuckle? Who are you trying to kid? Your playing tweedledumb to Yamit’s tweedledee does however, give me real material for many LOL’s as does your latest missive.
If you ever can get your head out of the clouds or wherever you have it that is causing you to incoherently ramble and thus can make a reasoned case for any particular issue, I would be more than delighted to debate you.
I suspect if you ever can get back to reality and string some coherent sentences together to present a cogent case for some position, you might just very well find that I agree with you.
Why not try that? For you, it would be something entirely different but, you owe it to yourself to at least take a chance and try it.
AE, your confrontational characterization of motivations of what Ted and I have written is no factual or reasoned challenge to what we did write. It is not conducive to informed discussion and debate.
You are right of course that the Israeli government is not directly advocating that Jews have a lawful right to J & S or even to settle the land of J & S, save for those areas where Israel has constructed communities that allows for Israel’s natural grown and security needs.
Though Israel is strong in the region, she is vulnerable to the weight of the world’s conventional disingenuous thinking and in particular to the weight of the U.S. government’s thinking and policies.
Your views amount to acceding to the view that might makes right. In that regard, you assume without more that world majority opinion is right because it is the majority opinion.
As I said before, you really should open your eyes to just how world opinion has been shaped by anti-Jewish/Israel sentiment and/or nations pursuing their own interests in the Middle East.
To get you started on a much needed fact finding mission, check out the following articles at Myths and Facts:
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/
Finally, as I stated many times before, I don’t like ad hominem attacks and name calling. That is no substitute for reasoned disagreement. It distracts from reasoned and informed discussion and debate on the issues of mutual concern.
Calling anyone a bigot be it against you or by you is simply unacceptable.
AE. You continue to maintain that the mandate doesn’t apply but offered no links in support. You simply say that people don’t believe it applies and that “it is not even the prevailing view in the Israeli government”. The prevailing Israel government is certainly not asserting it but that doesn’t mean that a majority of MK’s in the government don’t think it applies. But still find me an objective legal opinion that refutes it. Then we will talk.
This takes the cake “if you and Ted’s opinion was so obvious, no one would be disputing it.” How naive. That’s like saying that Israel is guilty of everything the world accuses it of because everybody says so. The world isn’t interested in the facts or the truth. It has an agenda to pursue. International law is only used as a club to beat Israel up with regardless of whether there has been any violation of said law. Perhaps you believe that whatever the UN says, must be true.
. No facts are being swept under the rug. Au contraire. It is you and world who refuse to honour the facts or the law. What this quote really applies to is the UN and their supporters. It certainly doesn’t apply to Israpundit and its readers for whom facts and law are everything.
Nothing wrong with exposing “manifest bigotry and blind and mindless bias” when you see it providing you are not myopic.
Who said this “all Muslims are homicidal maniacs”. It is obviously not true. I want to get to the bottom of that quote and to add my voice to yours? So who said it?
Can you suggest a couple of things where we we deny a wrong on Israel’s part. Please offer support for your accusation. Let’s deal with specifics.
We, at Israpundit believe we are right and others are wrong. If someone proves otherwise, we will admit it. Of course, I am speaking for myself. Others on this site may be to the right or left of me.
We believe that the facts and law are in our favour though world opinion is not. We want to debate the facts and the law. We are not afraid because we know we are right. We are quite prepared to admit when Israel is wrong or did wrong. Nothing is to be served by perpetuating a lie except if you are an Arab.
Aside from these generalized accusations the one thing you hang your hat on is the death of the Mandate. Let us assume you are right in this. Where does that get you. It certainly doesn’t mean that the lands are Palestinian or that Israel isn’t entitled to them by virtue of acquiring them in a defensive war. Israel still has a better claim. So tell me where that leaves you.
Both Yousef is a former Muslim. Shoebat’s claims to have been born Muslim (and the rest of his stories) are disputed. In any case, both of them are now self proclaimed christians.
Also, even had your claim been correct, that’s 2 people. Woohoo!
Bill and Ted,
You are strange bedfellows. Ted is more like Yamit, Max and Laura in many if not all respects.
Re. No 34, if you and Ted’s opinion was so obvious, no one would be disputing it. Yet it is not even the prevailing view in the Israeli government. The Palestine Mandate is obsolete. Be happy that Palestinian intransigence is ensuring that the status quo will continue indefinitely.
After making up an opinion that the Palestine Mandate still applies, Ted is now reduced in No. 37 to making up stuff about me, namely that I “want Israel to accept the Saudi Plan”, and that I am “constantly arguing the Arab narrative in stead of the Israeli one”, none of which is true. After building these two straw men, Ted then arrives at yet another brilliant conclusion that this makes me anti-Israel. This is the kind of mindless bias and avoidance of facts we are dealing with here.
Ted says it is OK to accept moderate Muslims, after strenuously agreeing with the members of the Jewish Chapter of the Confirmed Bigots Club that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. These bigots have repeatedly argued that all billion plus Muslims are homicidal maniacs, just for being Muslims. Ted says this opinion is based on facts. Common sense says it is based on a blind hatred of Muslims and the ignorant assumption that all Muslims are like the Arabs that menace Israel.
Ted is right that I am guided by even handedness; after all I am not a Jewish zealot. However, as a long time supporter of Israel – all of Israel, not just its most implacable zealots – I have never made a moral equivalence between the radical Palestinian position embodied most clearly in the Hamas Charter that Israel must be wiped off the map, and Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, which I defend along with a majority of Americans.
I did not say in response to Chesler that Muslims were not at fault – I argued that selective reports of Muslim atrocities in India did not logically lead to a conclusion that the Muslims were “persecuting” the majority Hindus, whose own fanatics are just as violent as any Muslim fanatic.
I have no idea what Ted’s view is of an “equitable solution” – I believe I said that the 1947 solution would have been a fait accompli had it not been for Palestinan intransigence and hubris – but I don’t hate people who see things n black and white when things are in black and white. I don’t even hate people who build straw men and make up scenarios out of whole cloth.
There is nothing wrong with being partisan. As an American non-Jew I am partisan on behalf of Israel. However, there is plenty wrong in being blinded by hatred and bigorty and having a pre-conceived agenda into which historical facts must be made to fit and others that don’t fit must be swept under the rug.
I may be ignorant about Judaism but not about Israel and its history. I call ’em as I see ’em, and have no problems with exposing manifest bigotry and blind and mindless bias when I see it.
There is nothing to be learned from those whose seminal view is that all Muslims are homicidal maniacs, when I know this to be untrue. There is little to be learned from those who believe that Israel is right even when it is wrong, or that others are wrong even when they are right, just because there is nothing wrong with being partisan.
lol Mr. Narvey Your statement made me chuckle.
Of course as Yamit observes you do mind the slightest cloud of opposition to your views but what you probably mean is that you never tire of any opportunity to recite them once again.
But as Yamit points out you have a total lack of discrimination as to whom you buttonhole to tell your same old story.
—-
The information at the start of this thread makes it a a keeper. A good education.
AE. I agree with Yamit. Your comments reek of anti-Jew and anti-Israel bias. You say you are pro-Israel because you support Israel’s right to exist. That’s a pretty low bar. You want Israel to accept the Saudi Plan which makes you anti-Israel. You are constantly arguing the Arab narrative in stead of the Israeli one. That also makes you anti-Israel. You support Arab claims rather than Israel claims.
You support “moderate Muslims. That’s OK but you also attack people who don’t. We are entitled to our own opinion
because it is based on facts.
You are guided by even handedness and moral equivalence. You argued against Chesler’s view that the Muslim’s are at fault. You want an “equitable solution” to the mid east conflict which essentially denies Israel’s security concerns and rights. You hate people who see things as black or white. That’s why you accuse me of having a closed mind. Better to stride down the middle. How noble. I think not.
What’s wrong with being partisan.
When it comes to Judaism and Israel you are ignorant yet that doesn’t prevent you from arguing with with people who aren’t. Instead you should learn from them.
Walid Shoebat: ‘Ex-terrorist’ exposed as fraud
Hannity Exclusive: Son of Hamas Founder Says Moderate Islam Doesn’t Exist; All Muslims Believe in Jihad
Enough, Walid Shoebat: Why is Sean Hannity’s Fake Terrorist Harassing Me?
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4245/enough-walid-shoebat-why-is-sean-hannitys-fake-terrorist-harassing-me/
Intelligent people know of what they speak; fools speak of what they know.”
Who is Behind “Son of HAMAS”? Meet His Anti-Israel Ghost-Writer (Published by PJM)
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/24199/who-is-behind-son-of-hamas-why-did-pajamas-media-publish-anti-israel-author/
Meet “Son of HAMAS’” Pro-Obama Israeli Handler
Liar! Of course you mind Narvey , you egotistical bigot, LOL well at least egotistical. You are trying to convince one of Hitlers acolytes, you know who I mean? He is here to pull your chain, he’s a stupid, ignorant Jew hating/baiting provocateur and you are so full of yourself that either you don’t see it for what he is or maybe you are no better. I expected it from you based on your past but from Ted I am a little surprised. A Jew who can’t spot an antisemite a mile away is either no real Jew or a dead one.
AE, I am surprised by your response to my explanation as to the argument advanced as to why Israel/Jews still have a right to J & S given the Arab rejection of the 1947 Partition Resolution.
Yes, there probably are a number of Israelis who would not agree with that contention. I have not read any convincing case in that regard. Indeed, those writers who make the case that Israel/Jews retain the right to J & S, are not often met with a rebuttal case, cogent or otherwise.
You certainly have not advanced any case against my views, save to disagree with my referencing conventional thinking as conventional stupidity. That is probably is more accurately characterized as mendacious or disingenuous positions motivated as I earlier stated anti-Jewish/Israel sentiments or shaped by nations that see their interests are best served to say that.
That fact has been stated time and time again by many skilled and knowledgable writers from some liberals, to centrists to conservatives and right wing.
But AE, you don’t have to read those articles which I suspect you haven’t. All you would have needed to do, is keep up with the news of the day on what’s happening in the ME, what is happening and being said of Israel, what American, Canadian and EU leaders are saying as reported in the news or in TV and radio interviews, to reach the same conclusion I have.
It appears you have not been doing that or if you have, somehow you have managed to miss the obvious.
I don’t mind you challenging my views or in particular challenging me on the general brief explanation I put to you.
I do mind it however, when you challenge me with opinion, but without reference to facts, to law and to sources. The sources Ted and I allude to are plentiful and can be provided you if you are serious about learning about what we are talking about.
By the same token, if you do have sources however, to challenge what I stated, please provide them.
It simply is not responsive for you to challenge my views and recitation of the history and law as I understand it by telling me there are people that disagree with what I said, but you do not identify whom and what their specific arguments are.
I do hope AE that you make a concerted effort to come up with a cogent case as to why Ted and I are mistaken in our views. I would like to hear what you have to say based on facts, information, history and even reliable sources if you have them, but no more of what you have thus far offered as a contrary point of view.
Let’s see what you and Bigot Yamit have to say about the following anti-jihadi Muslims with far more credibility than all the rest of you combined because their lives are on the line:
Who is Behind “Son of HAMAS”? Meet His Anti-Israel Ghost-Writer (Published by PJM)
Meet “Son of HAMAS’” Pro-Obama Israeli Handler
Walid Shoebat: ‘Ex-terrorist’ exposed as fraud
Enough, Walid Shoebat: Why is Sean Hannity’s Fake Terrorist Harassing Me?
Ted, there comes a time when you have to see someone for what they are and exercise your ownership prerogatives or else your site will become Obfuscapundit or Islamopundit.
Ted,
What unsubstantiated allegations? Haven’t you seen what has been said by some of your bigoted members about these anti-jihadi Muslims like Jasser, Raza, Manji, et. al.?
Let’s see what you and Bigot Yamit have to say about the following anti-jihadi Muslims with far more credibility than all the rest of you combined because their lives are on the line:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/son-of-hamas-founder-speaks-out-against-islam
http://www.shoebat.com/blog/archives/273
With all due respect, what you believe is also irrelevent, except to you, because your beliefs are not proof of anything other than your own point of view. If your view had traction with enough people in Israel, you would be running for Netanyahu’s job.
If it were so simple and clear-cut this contretemps would not have lasted this long.
AE. You are becoming incoherant. You contine to make unsubstantiated allegations and assertions.
You write
What they believe is irrelevant. A persopn’s belief is no proof of anything. Why tell me what they believe.
Bigot Yamit,
I see you are continuing your abusive language even as you have been asked to cease and desist. All this proves the incoherence of your positions.
Daniel Pipes knows far more about Islam than you do, which is why he can make the distinctions you are too blind with hatred and intellectual bankruptcy to be able to.
Your views are colored by the sub-culture you live in and your education in some Israeli madrassa.
You are delusional and intellectually dishonest when you paint over a billion people, the vast majority of whom are not radicals, with the same narrow-minded brush.
What the #$%& difference does it make that you live in Israel as someone who is not even recognized as a Jew by the Orthodox Jews, you stinking, insufferable bigot, with all due respect, of course?
Bill,
Whatever happened prior to 1947 is obsolete in my opinion. Let’s get real here.
The contention that just because the Arabs rejected the formation of Israel in 1947 shifts the bar to a prior landmark is where the conflict with International Law takes place.
There are supporters of Israel who disagree with you because your interpretation is just as brilliant and insightful and self-serving and arbitrary as anyone else’s. Calling it conventional stupidity leads nowhere because they could call YOU stupid as well without any logic on either side.
Repeating the adjective “credible” to suit your selective points doesn’t make them credible. If they were so credible and the issue was so simple we would not have had a 63-year-old conflict.
The Palestinians want everything and then some as if they had defeated Israel militarily and received a full surrender. Obviously, they cannot have this.
No need to worry abou a right of return because the dominant Palestinian organizations don’t even want to negotiate with Israel, so Israel simply has to use whatever PR and pretense is in their interests to minimize harm to their own security and economy. In my opinion Netanyahu is better equipped to do this than the Jewish radicals I hear about as an alternative to him.
The dependance on Arab oil can be eliminated quite easily if we had a US President like Sarah Palin and could open up all the US continental reserves for exploration and drilling.
The bottom line is that all sides to the conflict are so entrenched in their self-righteous and self-serving positions that Israel should proceed on the basis that the status quo will last for the forseeable future, which is beyond all our lifespans.
Now, if Iran breaks out it may provide an opportunity for Israel to take care of business once and for all, especially if this happens after 2012, after we send Obama back to Chigago and all the anti-Semitic and anti-American radicals he is so comfortable with.
Pipes is a historian and no expert on Islam, His views are also colored by the culture he lives in and the education he received. He admits that “Islam is the problem but said what can we do fight 1.5 billion Muslims. No we must find a way to reform them”. He is delusional and intellectually dishonest. What the fuck difference does it make if he is Jewish or not Herr Chicken?
I will leave legalism’s to Ted. I don’t base my Jewish or Israeli claims on anything the so called European powers did or decided. The Land of Israel belongs in it’s entirety to the Jewish people and to no other unless they have the power to evict us by force. Conversely I believe within that paradigm What we can take by force and hold is ours. That’s my law, and my right. No gentile (Goy) has the right to dictate to the Jewish people what our historical borders should be that they can’t enforce by force. I grant no indigenous rights or any rights to the Land of Israel other than to another Jew.
In the real world might combined with zeal make right. By the way our estimated 400 nukes can make a very entertaining fireworks display just by pushing a few red buttons. How about that? In Ezekiel, G-d promises to rain fire and brimstone on Magog, and by now we know what the prophet means.
In the words of Mahabharata, “A column of smoke and flame as bright as a thousand suns.” G-d gave us close to 400 hundred such weapons. 8)
AE, I agree with Ted on the signficance of the Arabs rejecting the 1947 Partition resolution and thus disagree with your view that:
If you have read Ted’s and other articles about the creation of the State of Israel, they begin with the seminal 1917 Balfour Declaration. From there we have the San Remo Agreement of 1920 and the British Palestinian mandate which was confirmed the League of Nations and came into effect, in 1923. According to Wikipedia the Palestine Mandate:
Your view is that of mainstream conventional wisdom or what I have called conventional stupidity, where international law is interpreted based on visceral antisemitic or anti-Israel biases and according to how nations see their own best interests met at home and in the Muslim world. The power of oil, to which Western nations are so vulnerable, has been leveraged by the Saudi led OPEC nations to demand that the Western powers accede to their wishes vis a vis the Jews before and since the creation of the state of Israel.
There have been quite a number of very credible works by authoritative and credible historians, political scientists and international lawyers that have made a strong case that:
1. because the Arabs rejected the Partition Resolution, the lands of Gaza and J & S never became the sovereign lands of Arabs and Arab nation;
2. The UN adopted all resolutions and agreements of the former League of Nations, without exception and reservation and that included the acceptance of the San Remo Agreement and the Palestinian Mandate.
3. The UN has never passed any SCR that denied Jewish rights to settle Gaza and J & S.
4. UNSCR 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all territories that came under her authority in 1967.
5. Any Israel withdrawl from the territories of Gaza and J & S was to be concurrent and part of an overall settlement between Israel and her Arab neighbors. There is no mention of sovereign territory in UNSCR 242.
6 Israel has already withdrawn from some of the territory it took control of in 1967.
7. There is no overall peace agreement in existence contemplated by UNSCR 242. Accordingly, Israel remains in legal possession of the territories she has not yet relinquished control of.
That is not to say that the growing Palestinian population has created facts on the ground that any peace agreement will have to take into account.
The Palestinians as you are aware claim to want a state of their own that is Jew free. One need not read between the lines of the Hamas and PA charters or fisk Mahmoud Abbas’ words too carefully to know that what Hamas and Abbas want is a Palestinian state that incorporates all of Israel. That however, is another issue that requires further exposition.
Palestinians concurrently demand a full right of return of Palestinians into the State of Israel.
There is however, at law no right of return that exists. It is a legal fiction created by the Palestinians in referencing I believe UNGA 191, which made a recommendation in that regard along with recommendations on I believe about 20 other issues.
Those nations and people who are moved by their conventional stupidity are similarly advocating. Western powers however, do not go so far as to demand Israel give full expression to the Palestinian claimed right of return, for they know beyond doubt that is not feasible and what moves the Palestinians to make that claim.
A few of those recommendations have been acted upon. Most have not and that includes any reference to a Palestinian right of return. A UNGA is a recommendation only. It has no force of law.
Here is a Jewish intellectual, Daniel Pipes, who spends his life fighting radical Islam but is a target for narrow minded Jews who are willing to eat their own and pretend that ALL Muslims think alike to fit their own distructive agenda:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139663
Quote:
During his talk, Pipes said that he wants “to defeat radical Islam”, or Islamism, which he defined as the third of three radical utopian movements, along with Fascism and Marxism. According to him, while the other two did not survive over time since they did not learn from their failures and stuck with “brutal violent totalitarian ways” right to the end, Islamism, on the other hand, has learned and is not making the same mistakes now as it did 30 years ago. Pipes brought forward Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan as the model of what he called “a second generation of Islamist takeover” which uses democracy to legitimize itself.
Pipes addressed the Obama Administration’s tendency not to criticize the Iranian regime, and said that it is embarrassing that leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown condemn Iran, while President Barack Obama does not. He added that while Obama’s tendency not to criticize Iran is not having any effect, neither did the Bush Administration’s policy to criticize Iran. The example of the failure of the Bush policy, said Pipes, is Hamas, a terrorist organization that was elected and came to power in democratic elections.
Unquote.
Bill,
When Muslims do speak out against Islamic radicalism like Zuhdi Jasser, Raheel Raza and Irshad Manji, these same Jewish bigots jump all over them with the most pathetic and feeble and picayune criticisms.
I wonder what they have to say about Mosab Hassan Yousef and Walid Shoebat, who were actually Islamic terrorists and now speak out against Islamic radicalism, with targets on their backs:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/son-of-hamas-founder-speaks-out-against-islam
http://www.shoebat.com/blog/archives/273
Yamit, be nice. AE is clearly not a Jew hater or Muslim facist lover, which incidentally a few have falsely accused me of.
AE is not Jewish. If he does not know much about Judaism, rather then put him down because of his lack of knowledge, help him learn.
AE articulates my point, but differently that not all Muslims are radical. How many are and are not radical is a matter of conjecture given as I said before, there have been no reliable studies done and there is no uniform definition one can look to, in order to determine that.
Your point I think is as Ted expressed it, by suggesting that you, Max and Laura:
The loudest and by far greatest number of Muslims we hear the most from are radical leaning Muslims. Their views would indicate that they believe that those Muslims who practice Islam to a lesser degree than them, are not real Muslims and are apostates.
AE alluded to that in mentioning Hamas. There are many others like Hamas.
That these Jihadist and fundamentalist Muslims are able to draw Muslim crowds to the streets in both Muslim and Western nations to rally for Islam or protest against America, Israel or the West, indicates that the vast silent majority of Muslims are not as moderate or peaceful and tolerant as Western leaders wishfully want to believe and want us to believe.
Still there are the Muslim reformers of whom we spoke before. They decry and denounce radical Islam. They may, like Dr. Jasser, say that he is a democrat first and a Muslim second. In his speech that you referred to, Dr. Jasser was saying that the religion of Islam teaches the same universal values as does Christianity and Judaism. He contended that the radical Muslims are taking the tenets of Islam literally, which is not the correct interpretation of Islam. Irshad Manji and Salim Mansur, too have expressed such views.
It suggests to me that these reformers believe in an Islam and Sharia that, while literally is antithetical to Western Judeo-Christian democratic values, norms, principles, etc., is not really if one interprets Islam as they call on Muslims to do.
Perhaps some or all Muslim reformers may instead or in addition to their interpretive approach to Islam, in trying to bring Islam into modernity, be calling for Muslims to discard or ignore certain Islamic/Sharia tenets that we Westerners see as abhorrent and antithetical to our Western cultural beliefs, values and norms.
I have not read or heard any Muslim reformer explain how those Islamic/sharia tenets, so objectionable and antithetical to Western culture/religion, do not mean what they literally mean.
I have not read or heard any Muslim reformer explain how those tenets can and should be ignored or interpreted to make a solid case for their view that Islam preaches the same universal values as Judeo-Christian democracies.
I take your point Yamit that you believe Islam differs from Judaism in that Islam demands absolute adherence, while Judaism is less demanding. For Muslims it is all or nothing and for Jews to be Jews, some adherence to Judaism is all that is required.
That would seem to be correct from a Jihadist and fundamentalist Muslim view. The question I raised before however, is whether it is for non-Muslims to decide who is or is not a Muslim or for Muslims themselves. I believe it is the latter.
In addition to Muslim reformers who consider themselves Muslim, there are Muslims of lesser faith in and practice of Islam who also still consider themselves Muslims.
Is it not for them to determine whether they are Muslim?
Giving Muslim Reformers the benefit of the doubt and for the foregoing reasons, I am not yet convinced that using belief in Sharia as you and Ted do, is the only yardstick by which one can determine whether a Muslim is a Muslim or not.
Besides, whether a Muslim is a Muslim or not by whatever definition we or Muslims apply, that point seems to me to be of far less significance for us Western non-Muslims.
For me the most important issue is for us to adopt methods and means to better determine who is a Muslim that is radical or leaning that way and thus a potential mortal threat to us and which Muslims are no threat.
As noted before, the voices of Muslim reformers seem to be overwhelmed by Muslims who are Jihadists, their supporters or sympathizers.
That these fundamentalist Muslims appear to have a far greater following then the Muslim reformers, one is left to conclude that radical Muslims are far more plentiful then our Western leaders would like us to believe and that peaceful, law abiding and tolerant Muslims are far fewer then our leaders would have us believe.
To conclude, the definition of who is and is not a Muslim should be left to Muslims. We need to focus on better determining how we can distinguish between Muslim friend and Muslim foe and with that to have the guts to act on what we learn in order to effectively deny and derail anti-Western Muslim agendas and defeat the Jihadists of all stripes.
Ted,
The key sentence from your paragraph is, “It would have ended if the Arabs declared a state as Israel did.”
Those who disagree with you believe that the Mandate ended in 1947-48 even though the Arabs did not declare a state because they wanted it all.
Yes that is the key sentance but you paraphrased it as “Your position seems to be that the hostile Arab actions in 1947 settled the issue in favor of Israel, ” There is a world of difference in the two.
As for your last paragraph show me the link. Even if they did though, I am entitled to my interpretation. And besides they attacked us and we won. No turning back the clock.
So tell me about your “equitable solution”.
Bigot Yamit,
How do you like being on the same side as Hamas as to who is a “real” Muslim?
BTW, if you are not a bearded, long-haired, black-suited Orthodox Jew, you are not even a real Jew in Israel.
When you can write, apparently with a straight face, “Islam hasn’t the ethnic component in it that Judaism has.” it is hard to take the rest of what you write seriously.
In your closed minded view, in relatively ethnically homogenous Judaism, it is someow OK for Orthodox Jews to consider Conservative and Reform Jews to be heretics, but in the ethnically diverse Muslim community, where the largest number are of Indonesian ethnicity followed by Muslims of Indian ethnicity, and they number far more Muslims than all the Arabs combined, you want us to believe they are ALL radicals.
Unfortunately, by confusing Arabs with the vast majority of Muslims who are not, the facts support my claim that those of you who insist that ALL Muslims are radicals is classic bigotry in its purest form.
Not only are you a Muslim hater but a Jew hater as well. You only love yourself and other bigots like yourself.
I notice you avoided what Ted wrote in No. 15, “I have read many legal opinions which hold that the Mandate didn’t end on Judea and Samaria because Israel was created on the rest. It would have ended if the Arabs declared a state as Israel did. I have read no legal opinions to the contrary.”
The key sentence is, “It would have ended if the Arabs declared a state as Israel did.”
Other legal scholars believe that the Mandate ended in 1947 with the partition that Israel accepted.
That’s true in a religious sense but not necessarily in an ethnic sense. Islam hasn’t the ethnic component in it that Judaism has. But heck Judaism isn’t a religion. Stick to what you know which isn’t much.
Not if the facts support the attribute. Then it’s not bigotry.
You are a Jew hater and a Muslim fascist lover and apologist. You are about as conservative as George AH Bush.
Seems every-time you open your mouth here you show just how ignorant and bigoted your really are.
Ted,
I accept everything you have written. However, anyone who reads your opinions knows that your mind is as one-sided and closed as a steel trap.
I concluded that you have concluded that the matter was settled in 1947-48 from what you wrote in No. 15 above, “I have read many legal opinions which hold that the Mandate didn’t end on Judea and Samaria because Israel was created on the rest. It would have ended if the Arabs declared a state as Israel did. I have read no legal opinions to the contrary.”
The key sentence is, “It would have ended if the Arabs declared a state as Israel did.”
AE. You refuse to accept what I have written.
The legal opinion on which I rely is sounder. Not all opinions are of equal value. But still the Arabs and the West use international law as a club on Israel without proof that the law has been applied correctly or violated. Certainly there is no conviction. Let’s not talk in generalities. If you have a case to make that Israel is in violation of international law, give it your best shot. Allegations will not suffice. Goldstone will not avail. I have gone into the law dealing with occupation and settlements and I have no doubt that I am right. Not because I am close minded but because I am right.
That’s not near my position. Please don’t waste my time by distorting what I write. Use my words to attack not your misrepresentation of them.
Ted,
Since there are intransigent and opposite positions on both sides as to what International Law says in this case, the conflict in the middle-east will continue indefinitely, unless there is a Sri Lankan solution.
Your position seems to be that the hostile Arab actions in 1947 settled the issue in favor of Israel, which no one believes inluding the Israeli government amd most Israelis.
I do not use the term “bigot” loosely or as an epithet, but as an accurate description of what the people I have identified as such have repeatedly said, that ALL billion plus Muslims are the same and that one cannot be a “real” Muslim without subscribing 100% to Sharia law, which is also what the most radical Muslims assert as well. This puts you and Hamas on the same side on this issue. The good news is that BOTH are being patently illogical and self-serving in this case.
This would be tantamount to an Orthodox Jew asserting that Conservative and Reform Jews are not “real” Jews. Those who do would also fit the definition of a bigot.
Here is the definition of bigot, “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”
Bigots paint entire groups with the same broad brush, so for you to deny the bigotry of those whom I have described as bigots would be disingenuous. Your agreeing with them does not allow you to redefine the English language.
It is not for those who are hostile to Muslims to either interpret Islam or define what the vast majority of Muslims should believe or do.
If “your mind” on who the land was given to was legitimate, we would not have had the 1947 partition or a deadly 63-year conflict. An equitable solution to an open-minded outsider like myself would have been the 1947 partition. Even you had to agree that that arrangement would have stood and been acceptable to all sides but for Arab intransigence back then.
AE. Not so. I have read many legal opinions which hold that the Mandate didn’t end on Judea and Samaria because Israel was created on the rest. It would have ended if the Arabs declared a state as Israel did. I have read no legal opinions to the contrary.
Furthermore the Mandate created a trust in favour of Jews all over the world. They were the beneficiaries and as such they are entitle to live in J & S.
You have not quoted any law that I am spinning or that I am flying in the face of. International law is not irrelevant.
The only reason that Israel didn’t annex all the land after ’67 was that they had demographic concerns. But now they don’t. Israel did annex Jerusalem and the Golan though. Sure the world didn’t recognize it but Israel did so on the basis of the Mandate rights.
The fact reamins that the FGC does not apply according to the argument I laid out. It is the international community that is off base. Read my article on occupation and settlemetns and you will learn how off base.
I am suggesting that the Arabs, now called Palestinians have no right to sovereignty on these lands. Not everybody can claim national Liberation rights to a state. In a legal sense why do you think they have a right to these lands.
Your paragraph on moderate Muslims requires a totally different discussion. They are not bigots in my view and I ask you to refrain from calling them so. I also “share the belief of the Muslim Chapter that “real” Muslims cannot practice Islam without adopting Sharia Law and therefore ALL “real” Muslims are REQUIRED to be hostile to Israel ” but I would say it differently. There is only one Islam and Muslims follow it to varying degrees. But allmuslims know what the religion demands and virtually no Muslims attack those demands and say they should be dropped. That doesn’t make me or them a bigot.
Finally you want an “equitable solution”. What does that mean. Is the law to be followed or not. Is history to be ignored. To my mind, the land was given to the Jews by international law and the Brits and the Arabs tried for 90 years to thwart that law. They barred Jewish immigration, massacred Jews and destroyed their property and synagoges. We want to be in the same place that we would have been had they not violated the law. Sounds equitable to me.
Ted,
In No. 3 above, you are again spinning International Law and the Palestinian Mandate to suit your pre-conceived agenda, with all due respect.
It is far more plausible that the Palestinian Mandate was made obsolete by subsequent events, i.e the partition of 1947 and the creation of Israel as a full-fledged modern country, and the FGC therefore does apply. If this were not true Israel would have long since annexed the West Bank and Gaza, absorbed the Muslims who wanted to stay and ejected or disposed off those who were hostile just as they do in Israel.
For you to suggest that the intransigence of the Palestinians makes International Law irrelevant is like saying that law breakers make criminal law irrelevant.
Fortunately for those with your point of view, and unfortunately for those like me who seek an equitable peace that protects Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, the Palestinian intransigence not only continues but has escalated because they have been successful in their Public Relations campaign claiming victimhood whereas they are actually the aggressors, and painting Israel as the aggressors because of the vehemence of Israeli defensive reactions.
Those Jews who are equally intransigent like Bigot Yamit, Bigot Maz, Bigot Laura and other members of the Jewish Chapter of the Confirmed Bigots Club – who share the belief of the Muslim Chapter that “real” Muslims cannot practice Islam without adopting Sharia Law and therefore ALL “real” Muslims are REQUIRED to be hostile to Israel – and others who have a similar narrow and self-serving agenda play right into the hands of world-wide critics of Israel, because they can point to the intransigence on the Jewish side even though it is a minority position in Israel.
If the Palestinians would experience some kind of epiphany and accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and renounce violence, your point of view would be in serious trouble as the Palestinian Mandate would not give you a leg to stand on. You would be like the settlers in Gaza who were dragged out kicking and screaming.
You read it too quickly.
As for the matter of who the Arabs are, who gives a shit. why does it matter?
The Mandate awarded the land to Jews where ever they might live. Thus Jews anywhere in the world became the beneficiary of close settlement in Palestine.
Ted, your article, The truth about the occupation and the settlements responds to only one of the questions I posed, relating to any sovereign claim to J & S. https://www.israpundit.org/archives/27051
I do not think however, that Israel as a High Contracting Party ie Sovereign state, did not sign on to the FGC, per se frees it from the FGC’s application.
I still see the better argument against the application of the FGC lying in the fact that J & S do not comprise land of any state.
I don’t put much stock in a distinction between indiginous and itinerant Arabs in the region.
Though Jewish immigration to the region in the latter part of the 19th century and early 20th century created an industry that drew Arab immigration for the jobs Jews offered them, those Arabs that came, did settle the land and that Arab population in J & S has now grown to well over 1 million.
Those Arabs that did come considered themselves nationals of Syria, calling the area southern Syria. Again, Syria once it was created, made no lawful claim over J & S and did not treat the Arabs of J & S as Syrian citizens.
J & S thus never had any of the indicia of statehood and thus the Arabs there had no sovereign claim to the land they lived on. Perhaps the laws of prescriptive rights have application here, but that is another issue that does not make its way into the arguments by the signatories of the FGC that Israel is an occupying force in J & S and thus is bound by the FGC.
What information or thoughts do you have as regards my other questions, however?
Bill.
The Arabs living in Palestine were mostly itinerent rather than indiginous. They came in when Jews came in. Then Britain stopped Jewish immigration but not Arab immigration. Then Jordan conquered parts of Jerusalem where Jews were in a majority since 1880 and threw the jews out and destroyed their property.
As for the applicability of the FGC read my article linked to in my post “the truth about the occupation and the settlements”
Good overview Ted. I am concerned that you are correct that Israel has forefeited any rightful claim to J & S, by agreements made and postions and actions taken.
Your e mail exchange was further enlightening.
I am unclear however, on a few historical points and perhaps you can clear this up.
As I generally recall, the entire region was under the sovereign control and authority of the Ottomon Empire. With the allies’ defeat of Germany and its ally the Ottomon Empire in WWI, the allies took control of the region. It appears they did not assert sovereign control. Each ally assigned a parcel of the region, began to return soveriegn control of the land to the indiginous Arab people, believing that by breaking up the Middle East into smaller nation states, would prevent the resurgent power of an Ottomon Empire that could pose problems for the allies again. New Arab nations thus arose such as Lebanon, Syria and Transjordan to become Jordan.
The British exercised occupation, but not sovereign power over its Palestinian mandate. After lopping off 78% of the mandated territory to Jordan, the remaining 22% was land over which there existed no sovereign claim as near as I can figure.
The 1947 UN Partition Resolution sought to create two new sovereign states, being one for Israel and one for the indigionous Arabs in that area. Israel accepted the partition, but the indigionous Arabs did not.
It seems to me that the result is that the Palestinians as those indigionous Arabs came to call themselves, have been living on land over which no sovereign nation ever had a claim, save for the Ottomon Empire that lost that sovereign claim at the close of WWI.
The FGC deals with occupation of another nation’s sovereign territory. Since J & S and I guess Gaza as well have not been sovereign territory, I am wondering how the FGC could possibly apply.
Is my point valid?
If valid, has Israel by her agreements, positions and actions nonetheless forfeited any superior claim to J & S?
As for the land in J & S that Jews purchased presumably only before 1947, from whom was it purchased, where exactly was that land located in relation to where Israel is now and just how much land of J & S was actually purchased?
What and which nations’ laws applied as regards those Jewish property rights? Ottomon Empire, British, Israeli, etc.?
Even though individual Jews may have rightly owned land in J & S, has Israel by her various agreements, positions and actions relinquished or extinguished those individual Jewish property rights in J & S? Can the progeny of those Jews that purchased land still advance their claim to it?
Hopefully you, your e mail contact or the contributors to Israpundit can assist in clearing these issues up for me.
Too late for that; Unless we declare OSLO DEAD!, THE ROAD MAP DEAD! then annex unilaterally all of Y & S. Grant some form of autonomy to the Arabs and kill and or deport any who resist. Who would do such a logical thing? BB?
Nothing good can come out of a process whose foundations are rotten. The “peace process” has always ignored the legitimate rights of Israel in all lands west of the Jordan River and, therefore, has gone from failure to failure.
It is high time to revisit the basic Israel’s Rights under international law:
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TED!
email rec’d
I replied
and Robert replied
Robert Miller of Joshua Pundit replies
AE. Thus, had the Palestinians accepted the partition in 1947 and agreed to live in peace with Israel, the 1967 war would not have taken place and there would have been no acquired land as a consequence and thus no settlements issue.
I expected better from you.
You are right but they didn’t. Accordingly the Mandate continued to apply to Judea and Samaria.
Ted,
Notwithstanding what “the Palestine Mandate encouraged”, the West Bank and Gaza were not part of Israel as constituted in 1947. Thus, had the Palestinians accepted the partition in 1947 and agreed to live in peace with Israel, the 1967 war would not have taken place and there would have been no acquired land as a consequence and thus no settlements issue.
Are you spinning the facts to fit your agenda when you write that the FGC does not apply?
Traditionally, land acquired through the spoils of war, certainly a defensive war, are either formally annexed, which Israel has not done, or the issue settled by concessions made by the losing side, pending which the status quo continues.
What am I missing?
(No spell-checker Ted?)
Somehow I didn’t see the last two sentences before and with the misspelling I was perplexed. Maybe you hadn’t finished writing it.
Anyway the last two sentences now make it clear. Without that I couldn’t figure where you were going with this.
Ha! Thanks for that Ya’alon link. My favorite General.(Who’s the “jerk”, now Olmert? – someone should issue an arrest warrant for Olmert for treason).
Well at least there is one person in the government that can be trusted.