By Ted Belman
Martin Sherman delivered this lecture a year ago. I was there. It is essential for any person interested in the the Arab-Israeli conflict to watch the whole thing, perhaps more than once, particularly if you are one who, for one reason or another supports the Two-State Solution. It is imperative for anyone, particularly American Jews, who support the Two State Solution, to understand that it will not bring peace but war and that the majority of Israelis who reject it, do so, for good reason.
President Obama and the mainstream media characterize Netanyahu and Bennett and their parties as extremists, when in fact they are realists only. It is the Democrats and the left who push for the TSS who are the extremists. Their solution has no moorings in reality and will bring about disaster.
I urge you all to show this video in your homes to friends, and in your churches and Synagogues to wider audiences. People must understand why Israel rejects it.
Sherman proposes a Humanitarian Solution
mrg3105 Said:
TX says , ” cattle in Australian must be up-sides down”. Any how what do sheepherders know about cattle.
As it happens if you have ever been to a farm, you will find that treading in bullshit is potentially life-threatening, while cowshit is quickly gathered as fertiliser. In fact farmers rarely tread in any of that crap. There is a lesson there for city people.
And how do you know who my favourites are? I can tell you that my take on RASHI is not going to go down well with any haredi rabbi, and I am far more on the side of Ramban than Rambam.
Halakha is only half the Torah, duh!
I don’t need approval of anyone; Israel’s viability is assured by Shamaim Inc. 🙂
MELCHEMET MITZVAH OVERRIDES PIKUACH NEFESH – whoever wrote that had never served in armed forces. The duty of a soldier is to SURVIVE the war. I’m sure no one understands MELCHEMET MITZVAH as it ought to be executed based on HaZa’L (Yoma 83a-84b)
In any case, I may well move to Israel sooner rather than later for other reasons.
I’m happy you edited out the Karaite remark.
honeybee Said:
No, analysis of the US Constitution
mrg3105 Said:
Australian intellectualism ? : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfR9iY5y94s
mrg3105 Said:
Bullshit and your favorite commentator Rashi and Ramban concur. This mitzvah is not conditional unless it’s physically impossible. Your excuse is a rationaiztion and an excuse not a justification based on Halacha. There is no such Halacha and even the disputed one about taking the land by force and with the approval of the gentiles has been met both by the approvals of both the league of nations and the UN. Israel is the Only country to have both in it’s pocket and MELCHEMET MITZVAH OVERRIDES PIKUACH NEFESH. You have no case.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Told you a myriad of times that there ain’t no such thing as International law. It’s a fiction just like that myth of the dead guy on a stick is…. 🙂
@ Honeybee, US politics is crap. The People keep electing individuals who care not a bit for the Constitution, and this started fairly early with Madison.
@ CuriousAmerican, most people look at the wrong map when thinking about San Remo. The relevant map is that of Allied Powers occulation zones produced in 1918. The reason that San Remo SEEMS to exclude Trans-Jordan (not by that name yet, so it DIDN’T exist) is because the Ottomans never mapped the land past about 200km east of Jordan, and because Vilayet of Syria, a French Mandate, extended to where the Kingdom of Jordan is now. This presented the problem of Franco-British border drawing, but this was not completed until much later (see British attempt to conduct aerial survey of the Mandate in the late 1920s)
That is, no one quite knew where “east of Jordan” actually ended because no western border of Iraq had been designated either! The San Remo and whole of Mandatature paperwork process was moving faster than it could be accomodated on the ground.
@ Yamit, living in Israel is only different to living outside of Israel when Israel is Eretz Kadosh. Currently it is not Kadosh, and for that matter most people don’t even know what Kadosh means with reference to Israel. It is not the conversion of the entire population to haredim and praying that the next Bet HaMikdash comes down in falmes from the sky. For that matter prayer is vastly misunderstood.
@CuriousAmerican, ‘traditional’ doesn’t mean “permanent”. Traditions evolve to cater for specific changes, and when the causes of traditions disapear, so do the traditions. In law, a permanent structure, or seasonal cultivation of land is considered evidence of settlement, and therefore evidence of land title in property, unless other claimants can show other evidence.
For example there are Jews who claim to be ‘traditional’, which means they eat gefiltefish on Pesakh made from carp, NOT a Torah requirement (mitzva). If I lived in Israel, and couldn’t find carp, or any fish for that matter, I would still be able to have a perfectly good seder 🙂 Tradition is one of the 200 things wrong with the film Fidler on the Roof 🙂
Jews have never abandoned their claim to land title in Israel, and maps to thaat effect have always existed based on the description in the Torah. Arabs had never denied these claims. Moreover, the Ottomans never denied these calims. Arabs were settled in these lands under Seljuc and Ottoman protection. There is no evidence of Arab settlement or cultivation in Israel-claimed lands prior to its conquest by Islam. Greeks (Byzantines) who were very good at recording such data, have no record of Arab settlemnt in Israel. Ergo, no claim.
@ honeybee:
A little 😛
@ yamit82:
Jealous !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CuriousAmerican Said:
Racist chickenshit AH!!
@ CuriousAmerican:
bernard ross Said:
Again, you appear unfocused and scatterbrained, you did not answer to the question
You asserted that israel disenfranchised the arabs which implies that they were enfranchised with specific rights under the occupation of Jordan, prior to their disenfranchisement by Israel. This is why I call you dishonest, you assert libel on Israel and Jews.
CuriousAmerican Said:
If you’re going play Tejano, play the good stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFnxvWgX73Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7EY1hF-i2E
If Israel claims Judea and Samaria in accordance with The San Remo Mandate, then the law indicates that Israel had to give them civil and religious rights, which includes the vote.
Fortunately Israel was not that insane, which indicates that Israel’s leaders did not view International Law so highly.
But I never felt Israel had to use International Law to make its case. I thought history was a better starting point.
You are not arrogant. You are the Yeller Rose of Texas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sGlN7Ca_mk
I withhold comment on Yamit.
Stalking the Jews?!
I had not been here in months until last week.
What paranoia?!
I was too busy noticing the atrocity of the large Mosque, subsidized by Turkey, being built in Lanham MD.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Prior to Israel’s alleged disenfranchisement of Arabs in Judea and samaria, with what rights were they enfranchised?CuriousAmerican Said:
Why the doubt? 5000 per person to reduce it 50% is much less than the amounts you and sherman advise and the pals would pay the other 5000. Start with smaller subsidies and work down while working to expand existing criminal networks to increase volume and create more networks. This can be done covertly and all intelligence services have worked with criminal networks
This approach can work because it would not be Israel driving it overtly. They would pay and deal with arabs. No one tries to keep them from leaving now but if Israel paid them to leave they would be threatened. Start with small steps and let the demand drive the growth. Apparently demand is strong especially for europe.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Europe violates the law with its illegal building in Israel. I have confidence that it could be well hidden or have plausible deniability. Its done all the time. it might encourage the euros to quit stalking the Jews.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Before that time there would be decades of civil strife which would lessen Europes attention on the Jews.
have you seen this while you are busy stalking the Jews?
CuriousAmerican Said:
If any one on the pundit is arrogant it’s me, Darling. Yamit82 makes a close second.
CuriousAmerican Said:
My afternoon chuckle, you never fail me !
yamit82 Said:
Men perhaps, but women ??????
CuriousAmerican Said:
at the moment its persisting well:
the enemies in chaos suffering and misery, killing each other all around Israel. the christian BDS churches stalking the Jews and causing christian heads to be lopped off by their jew killing proxies. The euros being gobbled from within by honor killer termites while Vlad drools at their eastern gate making them quiver in their girly boots begging for mercy.
Try to enjoy the good times while they are still running 🙂
CuriousAmerican Said:
Satisfaction Guaranteed, my motto !!!
CuriousAmerican Said:
Inbreeding !!!!!!!!!!!!!
CuriousAmerican Said:
then I suggest you find another dance partner to write on your dance card at the ball.
@ mrg3105:
USA politics, A conservative/libertarian. Converaterian !!!!!!!! easy peasy
CuriousAmerican Said:
this would only come from war. the severance was not legal becuase the con to swindle the jews in contradiction of the trust cannot be a justification of the swindle. participation in a swindle, allowed by a court would not make it legal. Segregaton was alloed, slavery was allowed, by your own admission.. its obvious that swindles must be reversed and he who holds power succeeds.
CuriousAmerican Said:
you say the Jews do not have a claim to the land, but they control the land…. spot the problem for you.
you are the obfuscator, one minute you cite law, then you say its fickle, then you cite abraham, then you cite pal feelings and beleifs……. you are a pot of confusion confounding yourself.
RE the law: the whole world broke the law when they did not facilitate Jewish immigration and encourage Jewish settlement in the mandate territory. that was the prime directive of the mandate and that directive remains unfulfilled. that is number one, everything else is far down the list.
Reducing it below 10K.
I doubt you can do it.
But if Israel is found complicit in smuggling aliens into Europe, Israel will be in clear violation of International Law – without a doubt – not that you would mind one bit.
You hatred of Europe is evident. You probably consider Europe to be Edom.
I can understand why!!!
But is it practical?! If Europe goes Islamic, or comes under more Islamic influence, then you will have enemies more formidable than Arabs. The Germans, hate them or love them, can fight. The French, despite popular belief, are actually rather good fighters – and they have nukes, as do the English.
I know you want Naqam on Europe, but you are shooting yourself in the foot.
No one doubts that which is why Israel allows Jews immediate citizenship.
FINALLY, a cogent thought. FINALLY!
That is one defense of Israel’s disenfranchisement of Arabs in Judea and Samaria. It might hold up in International Law.
I am not sure you would want to enfranchise even a pacified community of 2 million Arabs in Judea and Samaria.
You are being irrational.
I have not voiced opposition to Israel, but merely to a flawed line of legal reasoning. Transjordan – whether morally rightly or wrongly – was legally severed from Israel.
I have stated that Israel has the better claim to Judea and Samaria than the Palestinians.
However, because I do not whomp and stomp, and join in your bloodlust suggestions, I am pilloried.
You are the arrogant one, not me.
BTW: I think Prince Charles is an idiot.
CuriousAmerican Said:
perhaps you and prince charlie should go and do some more sword dancing with the saudis?
Since they do not mind fighting wars you should send more of them to the desert to kill each other… oops, thats already going on.
To the land.
Look, you are not interested in debating but in obfuscating. You are the arrogant one, not me.
mrg3105 Said:
the acquired and derived rights of immigration and settlement of the jewish people from the LON mandate did not expire with the mandate, nor cancelled or rescinded. these rights continue today.
regarding the prejudice of minority community religious and civil rights, this does not occur in Israel or any where there is not a hostile enemy community. Any prejudice of arab rights is caused by arab behavior similar to that of criminals and lunatics, whose rights are also curtailed in civilized nations. He who causes is responsible.
A case for Israeli sovereignty over Jordan.
But San Remo does not give you that sovereignty.
The British were duplicitous. We agree on that.
But the International Law Reference point is the LON adoption of San Remo.
By that time, Article 25 had severed Jordan.
The issue here is not what is your patrimony, but what rights obtain under a very fickle International Law.
International Law and the Abrahamic Covenant do not agree on all points. I seriously doubt Abraham was promised a border with straight lines.
In fact, if wherever the tribe of Israel put their feet is part of the Abrahamic Covenant, then Mount Horeb [Jabal Al Lawz], in Saudi Arabia, is Israel’s.
But again, none of that comes in under International Law.
You are confusing International Law with Abraham’s patrimony. They are not one and the same.
What God gave you, and what International Law [Caesar] gives you are not identically equal.
To base Israel’s rights on International Law [Caesar] will in the end prove fatal.
International Law changes all the time.
In the 18th century International Law [the Asiento] required Spain to buy slaves from England. By the 19th century International Law forbade the slave trade.
To base Israel’s rights on International Law – which even as we speak, is incorporating Sharia concepts -is to invite trouble.
CuriousAmerican Said:
only when the Jews wake up, the arabs are awake but the Jews are in a stockholm syndrome coma. five wars should have resulted in driving them all out to the neighbors where they would be a plague to them
CuriousAmerican Said:
what claim? did someone file a claim somewhere, were you called to adjudicate? i think you should discuss your ideas and their feelings with the arabs. Its all irrelevant and non constructive, a waste of time.
CuriousAmerican Said:
LOL, obviously that professor’s name was rightly forgotten as what matters is truth and fact. The beliefs of the arabs is irrelevant. It matters not their beliefs but their behavior and their behavior warrants jail or the asylum. Tell their feelings and beliefs to the Judge, if he is interested.
the same fools believe the Jews practice apartheid, bake blood into matzah, never had a shoah, blah bla blah….who cares what they believe as long as they sit weeping in a pile of rubble and reap their just reward for their despicable behavior.
Right now they are chopping off christian heads while the supersessionist BDS christians who hired them to kill Jews are still stalking the jews. I dont think those christians are getting the message yet. Esau hires Ismael to kill Jacob, but a strange thing happens.
CuriousAmerican Said:
here is a pay to leave plan I endorse as there is a bigger bang for the buck and it is cheaper as the pal and euro help with the costs:
50% of gazans want to leave for Europe but the price is 10k, Israel should subsidize and bring down the price, expand the existing networks, set up covert land smuggling ops also, and increase the flow considerably. radical pals in europe would be a win win killing 2 birds with one stone.
everyone gets what they want 🙂
this would complement the IS plan of boats from Libya they promised. Italy just rescued a thousand a couple of days ago 🙂
CuriousAmerican Said:
a strong case for what?
CuriousAmerican Said:
I suggest you take some ritalin as your ADD is rearing up. This post bears no resemblance to the point I made. Try to focus and reread my comment and how it referenced to your own regarding whether the “reconstituted” Jewish national home was an indian reservation. There is only a mystery to you and the other swindlers as to whether Israel is a nation or a reservation. As Israel is in charge the point is moot
CuriousAmerican Said:
NO, fibbing is correct. San Remo agreement in 1920 and the adoption of san Remo agreement by LON are 2 completely different events. One is an actual dated agreement and the other is a separate adoption of the agreement as part of the basis for the LON mandate. actually I think it was lying rather than fibbing.
The fact that Britain had used the period to conjure up its con game and swindle of its future beneficiary i the Trust is a separate series of actions which prove that Britain was a swindler prior to presenting its case to the LON. Referring to Britain for credibility is a futile effort like calling a thief and swindler to the stand as a character reference. Your whole description merely details the timeline of Britains con game.
There are critical points in the legal argument which are consistently missed.
Israel’s status and actions in international law are often sited by detractors without context or comparative study.
The context for reconstructing Israel as an entity was within the context of the deconstruction of the British and other European and Asian empires.
This is something that various documents could not predict, i.e. in 1922 there was no inkling that the British Empire would be no more by 1947.
Just so we are clear, forcible resettlement of populations following redrawing of borders for post-Second World War new states was not unprecedented. Millions were driven out of India into Pakistan, and a million died during the process, yet this is largely forgotten.
The other thing British could not foresee was Nasser, and nationalisation of the Suez Canal before the expiry of the 20 year lease. France and UK supporting Israel’s right to restore freedom of using the Canal effectively pronounced the Mandatory of 1922 null and void retroactively (ex post facto law).
Given the annulement of the Mandatory authority through breach of contract, what remains are the original San Remo borders and the Balfour Declaration on which the San Remo was based.
The San Remo resolution (can be found even in Wikipedia) says “To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the process-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine” – the undertaking towards preservation of rights enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities was an undertaking on the part of the MANDATORY POWER, not the state that would replace it, Israel.
Even if Israel took on this undertaking voluntarily, it is still only obligated towards those non-Jewish communities that REMAINED communities as when the San Remo was enacted, i.e. 25 April 1920. Any communities that were not there, i.e. ‘Trans-Jordan’ and ‘West Bank’, DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE SAN REMO RESOLUTION.
Israel has NO obligation to preserve the rights of these ‘communities’, and indeed, has the obligation to cause them to surrender any rights they may claim during a state of war as existed in 1947. This conclusion can be reached by examining the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences on the occupation of Germany by the Allies. The Cold War was about the Sovet occupation of Eastern European staters. So the Western Allies were prepared to conduct a nuclear war for 60 years, yet Israel is not to take any steps to retake its territory occupied by Jordan and later a mass of economic migrant squatters?
Seems a double standard if there ever was one.
And the Arab does not care how you feel. A recipe for peace, no?!
A history professor in college once told us: It matters no so much what is the truth, as what people believe to be the truth.
The Arabs believe that they are the rightful true owners of Palestine. True or not, that is what motivates them.
I would agree that the Jews have a better claim, but my views do not inform the Arab street. Neither do your views.
Rightly or wrongly, the Arab feels that he has been wronged — whether or not you care what he feels. To that end, the problem – SADLY – will persist.
Arabs are not Westerners. They do not mind fighting wars for centuries.
Paying them to leave Judea and Samaria may be cheaper than funding
a century of battles.
The legal right of the Palestinian Mandate was NOT fully
authorized until 1922, and not before Britain inserted
Article 25, which gave British the right to lop off
Transjordan.
Moreover, the addition of Transjordan seems to have
been effected after the San Remo Conference,
The League of Nations agreed.
Instead of arguing whether or not Israel should have
gotten Transjordan, ask yourself if Israel would
have had more problems with millions more Arabs
if it had not been lopped off.
I understand your point of view, but the Yishuv in 1922 wisely decided not to contest the British on this issue, though they were NOT pleased.
When the League of Nations finally authorized everything in 1922, it was after the League of Nations had authorized Article 25, which allowed Transjordan.
If your authority is the Abramic Covenant, then you have a strong
case, but then, in that case, stop appealing to San Remo.
mrg3105 Said:
Passover just ended and I didn’t read anywhere where it read OK now you’re free go live wherever you want…Even your friend Rashi maintains your prayers have no merit in the Galut but are good practice so you won’t forget the traditions when you return to the Land of Israel. We Jews in Israel are getting tired of carrying your water. 🙁
What matter that the rabbis decree that “a man shall rather live in the Land of Israel in a city with a majority of heathens rather than in the Exile in a city with a majority of Jews.” What matter that the rabbis proclaim that “one who lives outside of Israel worships idols in purity…”? What matter that they intone that one who lives outside the land “is as one who has no G-d”? One knows how to explain away rabbinical injunctions when the spirit so desires…
“Ephraim, he mixes himself with the peoples; Ephraim is become a cake not turned. Strangers have devoured his strength and he knoweth it not.” (Hosea 7)
Even before the conference
The fact is: That early on, Herbert Samuel HAD TO ASK for permission to extend jurisdication. It was refused. This indicates that the San Remo conference did not consider the area of Transjordan.
If fact, Transjordan was not considered at the 1920 San Remo Conference:
In March 21, the British sought to bring Transjordan under Mandatory Protection – a year AFTER the San Remo Conference which means it was not considered during the Conference.
However, before the League of Nations approved anything, this addendum was made.
So clearly, Transjordan was not considered at the time of the 1920 San Remo Conference. Only after the Conference was it put under British rule, and then before League of Nations legalized the Mandate, the British had Article 25 approved which gave them an escape clause.
So before the Council of the League of Nations approved San Remo in 1922, Transjordan was already a fact on the ground.
The findings on the San Remo Conference were not adopted by the League of Nations until 1922, and only AFTER Article 25 gave the British an escape clause.
Therefore 1922 or 1923 is the operative date. It did not become operational until 1923.
Therefore, if I muddied up the history by not being precise, the fact remains nonetheless.
Transjordan was already a fait acompli BEFORE San Remo was fully authorized by the League of Nations in 1922.
In fact, the Yishuv leadership was upset with it, but the British threatened the Yishuv that if the Jews did not accept it, the the whole project would be scuttled.
AGAIN THE MANDATE WAS NOT APPROVED UNTIL 1922
http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1922mandate.html
Again, ceding Transjordan may have been morally wrong — that if for you to decide — but it was probably quite legal.
The duplicity of the British was legendary. They made sure they had escape clauses at every point.
I was not fibbing, I was imprecise, but the conclusion remains the same.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Reference is to reconstituting the Jewish homeland which existed as a sovereign state. Reconstitute means to put back what was there before. The interpretation of he who controls the land is what obtains.
honeybee Said:
what?
CuriousAmerican Said:
the british swindled the beneficiary of the Mandate trust and used their hashemite proxy to invade and kill jews. Not exactly a useful point of citation.CuriousAmerican Said:
wrong agian
CuriousAmerican Said:
more evidence for the need to apply the principle in law that agreements made under duress are illegal and unenforceable. Like segregation much of British swindling needs to be corrected still.
CuriousAmerican Said:
there is Iraq 🙂
CuriousAmerican Said:
the pals breached again by prejudicing their own rights. the rights of criminals and lunatics are usually prejudiced and curtailed by their behavior in most civilized societies.
CuriousAmerican Said:
😛 😛 😛
He’s back!!!!!!!!!
But where is Tonto, his JFJ sidekick????????
CuriousAmerican Said:
arab rights were given and it failed miserably therefore the chief weakness was not to deal with Jewish interests as superior to arabs interests.
CuriousAmerican Said:
On the contrary, my surprise is always from the Jew, I expect arabs and christians to swindle jews. My surprise is that the Jews have not dealt with the arabs as the arabs deal with the Jews.
CuriousAmerican Said:
I dont care about his rights or about how he feels. I might begin to care when I see that he cares about Jewish rights and Jewish life, until then lets stick to discussing Jewish rights and interests. as far as I am concerned those who send their toddlers to jew killing summer training camp have no rights just like a criminal or lunatic in a jail or asylum in any civilized society.CuriousAmerican Said:
No, this is completely the wrong and proven failing approach. It is the arab who needs to win over the Jews and convince them, I dont know how, that he does not seek to kill Jews. As long as Jews care what they think or feel it will be Jews dying instead of arabs dying. Your MO is to get Jews to consider, think and empathize with those trying to kill Jews. hence your chronic dishonesty.
CuriousAmerican Said:
once again:bernard ross Said:
CuriousAmerican Said:
The Arabs pigs rejected the partition plan and went to war. They have no rights other than those we afford to them. Israel’s juridical birth certificate is the pre-Holocaust League of Nations Mandate for Palestine of 1922 (provisionally operative from 1920) — not the post-Holocaust United Nations Palestine Partition Plan of 1947. Moreover, the Mandate was itself explicitly based upon the preexisting “historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country” (Mandate for Palestine, Preamble, Paragraph 3). Clearly, there is an enormous difference between endorsement and creation. While the United Nations certainly endorsed the establishment of modern Israel (at least within the tiny Partition Plan lines), that feckless endorsement (which was so violently rejected by the entire Arab, and larger Muslim, world) had no operative effect on the creation of the Jewish State precisely because it was stillborn.
Nonetheless, that endorsement did bestow upon Israel a unique international legal status, namely, that of being the only nation in the World whose establishment was officially endorsed by both the League of Nations and the United Nations.
Israel exists not due to the issuance of the meager Palestine Partition Plan, but due only to the fact that the renascent Jewish State militarily defeated the seven Arab states (namely, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan aka Transjordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen) which, together with the Arab League’s “Arab Liberation Army” and local “Palestinian” militias drawn from Arab population centers throughout the western portion of Mandatory Palestine, had sought to annihilate the Jewish State, thereby igniting Israel’s War of Independence.
Those who assert that Israel was created, rather than diminished, by the Palestine Partition Plan knowingly reverse Cause and Effect, as U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. 181 was the result — rather than the determinant — of Great Britain’s decision to quit the remainder of Mandatory Palestine. This is because, in February 1947, Great Britain had already announced its intention to completely withdraw from the western portion of Mandatory Palestine by August 1948. Since this announcement was made some 9 months prior to — and, in fact, served as the direct impetus for — the United Nations’ issuance of its Palestine Partition Plan, it is clear that the subsequent British withdrawal from the western portion of Mandatory Palestine in May 1948, the consequent Arab war of annihilation against the Jewish population centers thereof (in rank violation of the Palestine Partition Plan), and the ensuing emergence of the State of Israel therefrom all would have occurred regardless of the existence of the Palestine Partition Plan.
Last point Israel mistakenly allowed the remaining Arab pigs not only to remain in our country we allowed them the status and rights of full citizenship. Itr was a mistake baded on false and erroneous beliefs. What was once freely given can be taken back as Jordan has demonstrated without any great upheavals nor any outcry from the Intl. community we can do likewise if we have the leadership willing to do it. The Jewish majority will support such a resolution as a first step in transferring the pigs out of our country. I would include those like you but that’s only my personal preference. 🙂
@ CuriousAmerican:
The foregoing comment is at best sarcastic at least snarky and could be easily viewed as hostile. If you are trying to be constructive or have anyone on Israpundit be receptive to your commentary you are failing.
Estoy muy contento de que yo te entretengo.
Mi vida está llena.
That is a stretch. Most of Alaska is unsettled, does that mean it is not owned by America.
That sets up a paradigm along the lines: If you can’t produce paperwork, we can take it over. The rights of the literate newcomers take precedence over the rights of the illiterate aboriginal solely because the aboriginal does not have a system of deeds.
Hence the collapse of Indian, and Aboriginal claims.
There is even a classic case of this in West Texas, New Mexico.
There was a river, which the local Hispanic community has held in common for centuries. Everyone had water rights, and no one claimed ownership since it was deemed to a commons – a right which was also common among Anglo-Saxons, until the English started changing the laws during the Industrial Age.
The Mexican-American claim was grandfathered in. The local Hispanics even had historical right. There were not illiterate, but had some legal precedence.
But in 1866, Texas changed the Constitution.
Then around 1870, a speculator shows up and, noticing that no one claimed the land, but not inquiring why – the locals held it as an informal trust – the speculator buys the land and starts charging the locals for water and salt, which they had gotten before for free.
I think the Texans commenced to shooting over this.
I believe it was called the Salinero War, but I could be mixing the name up.
If you think this has nothing to do with Israel you are wrong.
Prior to 1967, the Arabs owned the lowlands in Judea and Samaria, but held the mountains as common grazing area. This had legal precedence in their culture. The mountains were allotted to the municipality as grazing commons available for free to all to graze their flocks, but no less part of the municipality. When Israel took over in 1967, Israel decided the mountains were not municipal property.
This cut off Arabs from grazing much traditional land. Israel says this is legal. Arabs say this is theft by fiat. Israel says no private property was taken; but Arabs have a sense of common property.
Hence the different stories given by both side.
Israel: We took no one’s property
Arabs: They stole our land.
They have different definitions of what constitute property.
The contest is on.
West Texas to West Bank. Same issue. Same results. Commence to feuding.
I am not saying such informal rights are always right. I am saying they cannot be so easily dismissed; and one would be foolish to use British precedence (Terra Nullius) as justificaiton.
It actually goes back to the Romans who used the law to grab land.
This is particularly tricky as the Torah did not hold land ownership as private property like the European West- and in some ways, held Israel as a communal trust, which had to be reset every 50 years back to the original tribal arrangement.
So the Torah understanding is not that far removed from Indian, Mexican, or even Arab arrangements.
Using Terra Nullis is not as good as one might think.