The Judeo-Christian West and Islam represent what Harvard professor of political science Samuel Huntington famously called a “clash of civilizations.”
The Muslim credibility problem
Before discussing the Jewish claim to “Palestine,” let us review the credibility of the Muslims who claim this land as their own.
We begin with a statement of Professor Ephraim Karsh the founding director and emeritus professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King’s College London.
Since 2013, Karsh he has also served as senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University. On the issue of Palestine he quotes the eminent Arab-American historian Philip Hitti who, in 1946, described the common Arab view:
“There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.” Palestine was never “perceived as a distinct entity deserving national self-determination but as an integral part of a regional Arab order.
The Arab claim to Palestine is a hoax. The hoax and the Arab’s sinister appropriation of the name “Palestinians” are thoroughly discussed in the monumental work of Howard Grief, The Legal Foundations and Borders of Israel under International Law (Jerusalem; Mazo Publishers, 2008), Section Four. Chs. 16-18.
The Arab hoax is intended to negate the Jewish People’s claim to their ancestral homeland. The hoax is typical of the Arab myth-making culture, a polite way of referring to the Arab’s tendency to prevarication. Middle East expert Professor Y. Harkabi says in Arab Attitudes to Israel (Keter Publishers, 1972): “The use of falsehood” and “distortions of the truth” are typical of Arab political life.” Political scientists, sociologists and historians, he adds, “seem to feel reluctant to mention this aspect of their analysis of the Arab world” (p. 337).
Harkabi goes so far as to say that mendacity is “second nature” to the Arabs, and that one may regard “falsehood as an expression of [Arab] national character.” He quotes the liberated Arab sociologist Sonia Hamady: “Lying is a widespread habit among the Arabs, and they have a low idea of truth” (p. 348).
Civilization
Arab sociologist Sonia Hamady: “Lying is a widespread habit among the Arabs, and they have a low idea of truth” (p. 348).
Various writers paint a bleaker picture. Scholars from diverse nations say that Muslims are inclined to violence and rape, precisely what is occurring today in the invasion of Muslim migrants in Europe. It’s an ugly truth, but violence and rape are endemic in Islamic culture, which suggests that Islam has deep-seated homicidal tendencies. There is a great deal of evidence supportive of this seemingly extreme, but by no means “racist,” conclusion, if only because of the 1.5 billion Muslims on planet earth, some scholars estimate that as much as 50 percent of this Muslim population supports Jihad – which has become a euphemism for murder!
This high estimate, even if halved, has been made plausible by the Center for the Study of Political Islam. According to the Center’s February 21, 2007 issue of FrontPageMagazine, Muslims have slaughtered approximately 270 million people since the ascendancy of Muhammad! Such slaughter is encouraged by the bellicosity of Islam’s sacred scriptures. Killing “infidels” in the name of Allah seems to be Islam’s most distinctive religious imperative.
Religiously animated murder may be traced to Islam’s origin in seventh century paganism and love of bloodshed. This is “necrophelia,” encapsulated in verse Sura 9:111 of the Qur’an, which exalts the Muslim who “slays and is slain for Allah.”
The homicidal proclivity of Islam is probably the basic reason Syrian-born psychiatrist Wafa Sultan, who now lives in America, does not regard Islam as a civilization. The philosophically astute Lee Harris agrees.
Harris, who rejects the cultural relativism of Western academia, defines civilization as having four prerequisites: (1) a stable social order, (2) the co-operation of individuals pursuing their own interests, (3) the ability to tolerate or socialize with one’s neighbors, and (4) a hatred of violence. To the preceding I would add (5) respect for truthfulness, a quality precluded by the Muslim doctrine of taqiyya, which regards deceit and dissimulation as virtues. Islam thus lacks the prerequisites of civilization. The insights of Dr. Wafa Sultan confirm this conclusion.
Now, it should be noted that the four prerequisites of civilization enumerated by Harris conform to classical liberalism, according to which men can be friends despite their differences. This principle, which agrees with modern as opposed to pre-modern Christianity, has always been evident in the caustic yet friendly debates among the rabbis of the Talmud.
I mention this to link Judaism and Christianity and thus indicate that the Judeo-Christian West and Islam represent what Harvard professor of political science Samuel Huntington famously called a “clash of civilizations.”
The violent peace process
However, in stark contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for reasons of his own, denied the existence of this clash in a speech he delivered to a joint session of the American Congress on July 10, 1996. Of course, his “politically correct” attitude provides him with some justification for his persistent but futile peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (PA), a consortium of Muslim terrorist groups ensconced in the Middle East.
By now, however, it should be obvious to any dispassionate observer that genuine and abiding peace between the Muslim PA and Israel is psychologically, politically, and culturally impossible. No doubt this caustic message will not receive serious attention by academics worried about tenure, or by the New York Times struggling to survive Internet
Small wonder that casual observers are baffled by the relentless violence in the Middle East “peace process,” despite the famous handshake on the White House lawn where Yitzhak Rabin shook the blood-stained hands of Yasser Arafat to the applause of three former American Presidents. That event occurred on April 13, 1993. It marked the historic Oslo or Israel-Palestinian Agreement; and though it has resulted in thousands of Jewish casualties, the Agreement is relentlessly honored by Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel, as if he or his country were suffering from a battered-wife syndrome!
Syndrome or obsession, Oslo should not obscure the moral and legal dimensions of this relentless and brutal conflict in which peace is no where n sight. It’s precisely the word “peace” that obscures and prolongs the conflict.
By casting the Palestinians and Israelis as “partners” in the pursuance of peace, Netanyahu is guilty moral obscurantism. He has obscured the fact that whereas Israel is a democracy, the Palestinian Authority is a military despotism. He has therefore placed Judaism, a religion that exalts peace, on the same level as Islam, a religion that exalts war. In other words, Judaism, which is based on the primacy of reason and persuasion and elevated by a love of truth, has thus been rendered spiritually equivalent to Islam, a religion based on the primacy of force and coercion augmented by taqiyya, the Islamic art of deception and dissimulation.
Netanyahu, who is not a fool, has nonetheless fostered the moral equivalency now rampant in the West, and he has done this “partnered” by Janus-faced Palestinians addicted to moral absolutism, which leaves us to wonder which of the “peace partners” is the more cynical!
Good and evil have thus been turned upside down in the Middle East. Netanyahu does not know how to deal with this topsy turvy world. He does not understand that the “peace process” which he deems good necessitates, on his part, an ongoing practical indifference to the evil of Israel’s enemies. And this is not all.
Having set security as his highest goal, mundane things preoccupy his mind. Of course, this is what ordinary politics is all about.
He cannot think of ways and means to attain a loftier goal. Setting his sights low, It seems he cannot do otherwise than purvey his conciliatory behavior toward the enemy as proper and good as justified by the quest or alluring facade of “peace.” He simply lacks, or is hiding well, the moral outrage one might feel upon realizing that you have been played with by a cunning and unscrupulous foe, which outrage would prompt you to see that your conciliatory behavior has produced not good but evil, not peace but a continuance of conflict. Netanyahu has thus unwittingly fallen into the trap of which Isaiah warns us: “Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil.”
He may have helped pave a road leading (God forbid) to calamity. The calamity has been magnified by Israel’s good friend, the United States, who’s President, Barack Obama, a moral relativist, is intellectually and emotionally impervious to evil. Hence it was not psychologically abhorrent for this President to conclude a “permissive” nuclear weapons agreement with a genocidal type regime like Iran, whose Mullahs gleefully expectorate the venom “Death to America!” Indeed, that nuclear agreement, which violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970, will hasten Iran’s deployment of nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, just what the Mullahs need to fulfill their satanic malediction.
Former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad murdered thousands of Iranian children by having them walk over landmines before his armies marched on Iraq. Consorting with the devil under the banner of peace is suicidal.
If the apocalyptic Muslims of Iran develop (or now have) nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, the Muslim love of death, or necrophilia, may trigger the use of those missiles to attain paradise. Former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad murdered thousands of Iranian children by having them walk over landmines before his armies marched on Iraq. Consorting with the devil under the banner of peace is suicidal.
The legal problem with the Two-State-Solution
That is the end result of Netanyahu’s consorting with the Muslims of the Palestinian Authority and releasing many of its terrorists. But let’s start on the legal level. It is a violation of international law, indeed, of the United Nations Charter, to release terrorists. Not only is the terrorism perpetrated by the PA via al-Fatah and Hamas proscribed by the UN Charter. The Charter obliges all UN members, including Israel, to punish these culprits. (See /Articles/Article.aspx/13610.)
Nevertheless, in violation of the Charter, Prime Minister Netanyahu has (1) frequently released terrorists, and (2) yielded Jewish land in violation of international conventions such as the Balfour Declaration of 1917, San Remo Peace Resolution of 1920, and the Anglo-American Treaty of 1925, all of which are still valid. Before continuing we must elaborate on San Remo.
On April 24-25, 2010, a number of seminars were delivered by spokesmen from the United States and Canada to commemorate the San Remo Convention. The seminars were followed by a ceremony held in the same house where the signing of the San Remo Convention took place in 1920. The event attracted politicians from around Europe, the U.S., and Canada. Knesset Member and Deputy Speaker Danny Danon attended and delivered greetings from Jerusalem.
At the conclusion of the event, the conference reaffirmed the San Remo Resolution, which included the Balfour Declaration and reshaped the map of the modern Middle East, as was agreed to by the Principal Allied Powers (Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and the United States acting as an observer), and as was later approved unanimously by the League of Nations. The Resolution remains irrevocable and legally binding to this day:
[Viewed solely in the context of international law, “the San Remo Resolution, as noted by attorney Howard Grief, “is the principle founding document of the State of Israel [in] recognition of the exclusive national Jewish rights to the Land of Israel under international law”[p. 9] as per the historical connection of the Jewish people to the territory previously known as Palestine;
The San Remo Resolution laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, a 10,000 square-miles the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. On July 24, 1922, fifty-one member countries – the entire League of Nations – unanimously affirmed the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine as their grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.
Any attempt to negate the Jewish people’s right to Palestine-Eretz-Israel, and to deny them access and control over the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations, is a serious infringement of international law.
Moreover:
? If there were any historical connection for Arabs to Palestine it was rejected in 1920 by the Supreme Council of the San Remo Conference, which, under the authority of the League of Nations, adjudicated the case after extensive representations by the Arabs. San Remo decided, in the form of a binding international treaty, to grant the land of Palestine to the Jewish People only.
? The United Nations approved the League of Nation’s position. Once San Remo was approved, Britain, the “Mandatory,” the League, and the UN had no right to vary the terms of these treaties. They thus became Res Judicata, the principle that a matter may not, generally, be relitigated once it has been judged on the merits.
? Any attempt to negate the Jewish people’s right to Palestine-Eretz-Israel, and to deny them access and control over the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is a serious infringement of international law.
Conclusions
? The UN General Assembly has no power to change borders. Therefore its decision or advice is insignificant from a legal perspective.
? The UN has no power to vary an existing valid international treaty which the League of Nations, its predecessor, approved (Res Judicata) and had inherited from the League of Nations (granting Israel the lands between the Mediterranean to the Jordan River)
? The UN has no power to draw new agreements which run contrary to existing Valid International Agreements or Treaties which it had inherited from its predecessor, the League of Nations.
Summary:
The San Remo Resolution incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. This resolution is the basis on which the Mandate for Palestine was constructed. While the decision made at San Remo created the Palestine Mandate de facto, the Mandate document signed by Great Britain as the Mandatory and by the League of Nations made it de juré. It thus became a binding treaty in international law.
It follows that the “two-state solution” to the Israel-Palestinian conflict endorsed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on June 14, 2009 at Bar-Ilan University clearly violates the San Remo Resolution and should be deemed null and void.
<
>
CuriousAmerican Said:
No, this board is about why you come repeatedly to cajole jews into believing that the filthy scum who daily kill jews and teach their toddlers that jews are sons of apes and pigs are deserving of caring, civil rights and better treatment. You are like obama who when muslims slaughter folks he tells everyone worry about islamaphobia. Your MO here is taking up a lot of jews time with red herrings which is the usual MO of anti semitic trolls. You keep trying to sell us, by pulling on our famous guilt complexes that jews killers and those who teach their children that jews are sons of apes and pigs are who we should really be thinking and worrying about rather than the jews they kill. If we worry about the jews they kill and not them we would immediately do the most logical thing….. trucks across the border, deposit the jew killers and their filthy spawn, buy the popcorn and watch the fireworks. right now the fireworks you avoid watching are chopped christian heads which are left unresolved because you are spending all your time trying to con Jews.
Other than being argentine and leftist you and Il Papa seem to have the same plan regarding christian chopped heads: be kind to honor killers.
Those christians took your advice and you did not even give them some neck balm to alleviate their pain and suffering…. instead of caring about christian pain and suffering from chopped heads you are roaming the world to protest for honor killer kindness and to swindle jews. What could be more vicious and insane?
I despise the Pope who is an Argentine Leftist.
But this board is about Israel, so I will post here about Israel. You do not know what I prefer.
CuriousAmerican Said:
yes, but you prefer stalking and cajoling Jews with red herrings rather than seeking live instead of chopped christians… once again… your priorities are clear, just like Il Papa who defends the muslims while they chop christians.
CuriousAmerican Said:
but they are not the smarty pants at the top running the show and depositing the profits.
CuriousAmerican Said:
bernard ross Said:
no matter how many times you make that ridiculous patently false statement regarding pals becoming less violent you still cant keep a straight face when writing it…. even you are bursting with laughter.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Haaaaaaaaaaaa That’s it ???
“casting pearls before swine” !!!!!!!!!!
Because not all feel that way, and if they are not subject to unfairness, many would become less violent.
How many times do I have to tell you. It is not that I do not answer your questions, it is that you refuse to deal with any response not to your liking.
You assertion is not factual. There are thousands of Christians denominations and billions of Christians who are poor, and are Christian out of faith.
I personally know preachers who draw no salary, and who pastor churches out of love, not money.
A few rich clerics do not define a whole religion any more than a few rich rabbis define Judaism.
Do not even bring up sex scandals. While the Catholic Church is full of them, so are the Hasidim (Click Here) – adjust for population the rates seem comparable – so no one is innocent.
Now, if you want to talk about corrupt leadership, then the Jewish leadership hardly strikes me as less corrupt than Christian leadership. Seems the problem is with the leadership principle in general.
CuriousAmerican Said:
have you admitted why you want jews to be fair to those who teach their filthy spawn that jews are sons of apes and pigs?
It sounds like my 3 speculations are correct, as you have been unable to rebut them OR to come up with a reasonable explanation for why you folks have more interest in cajoling jews than protecting christians. Looks like you have nothing to offer in that regard.
CuriousAmerican Said:
😛 😛 😛
even you were unable to keep a straight face when you wrote that.
CuriousAmerican Said:
why keep re stating the obvious… I have written countless times my solution of zero tolerance for anti semitism enacted followed by deportations, busses across the borders of the entities who have no benefit of a treaty with Israel, drop off the hostiles on the other side of the border, buy the popcorn and watch how those entities must either solve the problem they created or be destabilized into chaos.
CuriousAmerican Said:
In other words, I am 100% correct, as you made no factual rebuttal to my allegation… which logicly explains why christian and catholic establishments dont care about christian heads being chopped by the muslims they protect. I didnt see your explanation for the incredible lack of interest in christian chopped heads by christians….. like you, who spends his time cajoling jews to be kind to head choppers…. you are left with no time for christians… so why do you folks do that?
CuriousAmerican Said:
you prefer to spend your time cajoling jews to be “fair” to those chopping syrian christian heads. Your priorities are clear.
CuriousAmerican Said:
exactly, we all know that haaretz is completely unreliable because it uses questionable leftist sources for its “facts”
😛 😛 😛
CuriousAmerican Said:
In other words,your lack of any factual rebuttal means that you accept my 100% accurate factual assertion.
I did not vote for Obama, and I would have preferred Christians.
Are you admitting unfairness?!
When people are treated fairly, many get less violent.
Well, apparently the policy you want is being implemented. Maybe not as much as you would like.
Are you insane?
You accuse others of bigotry and stereotyping, and yet you post this idiocy.
You are trying to bait me into retaliating, by appeals to ugly counter stereotypes, so you can then falsely accuse me of a bigotry that I do not have, and then self-congratulate yourself that “I had him pegged all along,” without explaining the provocation.
You are a piece of work!
I am not biting this time.
Yamit is better at baiting than you, anyway.
I did not vote for Obama.
I would prefer if we took in Syrian Christians.
I got it from Ha’aretz. The issue is not whether you like the facts, but that they are facts.
You spout your bilge fantasies and have the gall to complain about me?!
Definition of chutzpah.
You spout you bilge and have the gall to complain about me?!
Definition of chutpah.
CuriousAmerican Said:
just quote your sources direct from Beinart or chomsky or Sanders … your “jewish” sources.
Bear Klein Said:
thats what happens when dumb americans elect a guy named hussein to be their president…. after 911. Go figure, who would have guessed?
Bear Klein Said:
whats a few dead christians compared to the enormous economic opportunity of over a billion potential muslim converts who already are mind controled and give regular donations… the 2 most important characteristics of making money in establishment christianity.
Furthermore, in the US alone over 20k per honor killer is spent by gov…most of this goes to christian charities, especially Catholic Charities, who are the biggest in the globe in the migrant resettlement business.
Thirdly, the christian establishment has suffered a severe blow to its 2000 year old business model which at it core postulated that their members are the replacement Jews.. so now they are funding the muslims to try to correct G_D’s error and oversight when HE made the barren land blossom for the returning Jews and NOT the replacement Jews. They are hoping that the muslims will get them back into Jerusalem over the bodies of the Jews to resurrect that 2000 year international business model whose prime FACT appears to be incorrect.
CuriousAmerican Said:
😛 😛 😛
CuriousAmerican Said:
😛 😛 😛
(even you are aware of the anti zionist bent of the german austrian owned haaretz)
CuriousAmerican Said:
another regular anti zionist source born in the land that violated its mandate trust, swindled the benficiary, and then invaded the beneficiary aiding the arabs.
CuriousAmerican Said:
why? why be fair to those who teach their filthy spawn that jews are sons of apes and pigs? what purpose does that serve? Isnt it enough that they are allowed to remain alive and breathe the air they pollute? There should no be one drop of fairness in any area… they should be made to suffer until they leave… there should be no good thing that comes to the scum who teach their children that Jews are sons of apes and pigs… and why do you come to Jews cajoling us to be fair, and to care about that filthy scum who teach their filthy spawn that jews are sons of apes and pigs? You are like obama who tells the murdered victims of slaughtering muslims that they should welcome muslims into their homes.
I think you should be fair to them and offer them your neck for a sharia chopping. NOt to worry, while you waste your time cajoling Jews your so called christian brothers heads are being chopped by those you want treated fairly. You are in good company becuase Il Papa has the same MO.
Christian Americans should be foremost concerned that Obama has on many occasions sighted the evils Christians have done in the world. He claims Islam is a religion of peace. He seems pro Islam and anti Christian.
He is rescuing Syrian Muslims almost exclusively and importing potential terrorists.
The Christians in Syria and Iraq are in danger of being exterminated. Yet he barely allows any into the USA. These people would fit right into the USA. Many are from the educated business classes and have the same general values as Americans normally.
Yet Christians in the USA are either apathetic or like CA busy telling Jews what to do in their country. Why not work on saving the Christians in lieu of messing with the Jews?
CuriousAmerican Said:
HMMMMMM???
bernard ross Said:
HMMMM, a contradiction?
CuriousAmerican Said:
HMMMMM, a completely irrelevant reply to my statement that you are incorrect. As we know you are well read then I assume your incorrect statement was made with knowledge of the true facts, intentionally. In other word, once again you lied and twisted the truth.
CuriousAmerican Said:
but there would be no way for you to know that…. as you never sell the truth here… when you mention something true we can rest assured that it is the sweetener preceding the lie. You are quite adept at you MO, but still transparent.
CuriousAmerican Said:
hmmmmm
Ted Belman Said:
hmmm, ted says you are wrong, what is your reply?
CuriousAmerican Said:
once more.. the statement of a lie clearly contradicted and a mealy mouth or irrelevant unsupported reply deflecting attention from the fact that you intentionally lied. Everything you do here is smoke and mirrors, half truths and full lies… if you can get away with it you try it and like most trolls you bank on the ignorance of the reader.
From an Israeli source:
I am not asking Israel to divide Jerusalem. Personally, I think the USA should move its embassy to Jerusalem, even the Eastern Side.
However statistics, even from Jewish sources, should an amazing lopsidedness against giving Arabs permits. This is bureaucratic tyranny.
I am not asked Israel to leave Jerusalem, just be fairer with permits.
From Ha’aretz again:
Do you think that discrepancy is just a statistical accident?
From the Economist
I am not even quoting Arab sources.
I am not asking Israel to divide the city, but merely to tender permits.
Again for Ha’aretz
CuriousAmerican Said:
Once qagain you are wasting my time. My earliest career was in land planning, zoning and subdivision. A very small portion of the land is zoned for residential construction. Usually the administrator of the land passes a Mster Plan indicating what parcels can be developed for residential.
So on what basis do you assert that the land is “arbitrarily zoned against construction”. It is up to a Master PLan that COGAT designates what land can be built upon.
That can be bureaucratically hindered. There seems to be evidence that Arab owned areas are arbitrarily zoned against construction.
I have no problems if Jews build in area C. I was against the destruction of Amona. Let the Arabs also have permits.
As I have said many times, I am not asking Israel to divide the land. I am confining my debate to civil rights.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Wrong that applies to Israeli Arabs who have full civil rights. The Palestinians in area C are not entitled to permits in land not zoned. Also If Jews can’t build there neither can the Palestinians.
It is required to give “civil rights” to the Arabs which means permits, at as easy a rate as it gives to Jews.
I have no love of Islam. Mohammed was a pig; but San Remo does require the “civil rights” of the other. This is another reason that one should not be appealing to San Remo as a justification for Israeli policy.
The first thing of yours in a long time that I agree with.
Sometimes the truth is a hard sell.
Jews are amusing… what keeps them from taking their homeland from the lunatics is concern for rights and opinions of the lunatics and their supporters. the rights of those trying to kill my children are not even last on my list. As for sanctions and attacks of their supporters Israel is at the center of the theatre militarily and has the power to destroy and obstruct the shipping and energy resources of the complainants. Experience shows me that the world cares less about rights when their interests are threatened. they accomodate with russia and china… Israel could destroy the mid east energy supplies leaving the arabs holding worthless euro bonds and the euros in cold winters.
@ CuriousAmerican:
its a good thing you dont make your living in sales, judging from your lack of success here I would suggest instead that you move to alaska to sell ice to eskimos. No matter how many times you repeat your sales pitch… no one is buying your fairy tale.
Ted Belman Said:
it also required the immigration of jews and their settlement especially on, but not limited to, the vacant state lands. Therefore, while Israel operates as a defacto trustee it is legally required to build jewish homes, not muslim homes as BB does.
CuriousAmerican Said:
yes, you want the jews to pay billions to the criminals to move but i say the only time worth paying, and at a much lower price, is to send them to europe so that 2 birds are killed with one stone. Other than that I see no reason to pay criminals to escape jail. The simplest is: zero tolerance for anti semitism, buses across the borders of those with no treaty to complain about, drop the hostiles on the other side, leave, buy the popcorn and watch the fireworks…. I guarantee a show worth the gas money.
CuriousAmerican Said:
my understanding is the exact opposite: the prime mission and purpose of the mandate trust was to immigrate and settle jews.. most especially on the vacant state lands.
CuriousAmerican Said:
not at all, Israel has already enfranchised the arabs to vote. this does not mean that all arabs have a right to vote.. voting rights may be denied for criminal offenses… like anti semitism… criminals may be deported and banished.. which is any states sovereign right. the entire arab population may be deported and still the prime mission of the mandate would not be effected. Just like any treaty or agreement the breach of an immaterial clause does not necessarily invalidate the whole agreement. As the prime mission is left intact the treaty purpose is still intact. And even it is wasnt…. what then governs… other than power? A silly and irrelevant submission as Israels right to the land will never be in any court… prior to that event europe will already have died.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Indeed, and afterwards the 6 arabs left in Israel can have full rights. I suggest the most commonly used succesful method obtaining this very moment, as we speak, in both the arab world and in europe….. arabs and muslims are being moved by the millions and it appears to be working very well in syria, iraq, europe, libya. Why not use something that works and is economically efficient…plus notice that afterwards… just as I predicted… the migrant becomes the problem of whose lap he is dropped into…. remember I told you before? Trucks to the other side of each border with no benefit of any treaty with Israel, deposit the hostiles, leave, then buy the popcorn and watch the movie. Once across the border those who sought to make them a problem will now have to deal with the problem or their nations will be fragmented like the others.
CuriousAmerican Said:
yes, you can. The breach of a clause is not a breach of the entire agreement. The breach is due to the muslims refusing to live in peace… the solution is not to divide and give the criminal the land but to remove him from the equation… after he is gone the rest can vote, all 6 of them… but it matters not.
CuriousAmerican Said:
no, san remo was successful but the arabs were not. the mission of san remo, its prime purpose, a jewish homeland is complete. Those arabs who do not want to live in peace must go and the remaining 6 will have peace. You are pissing in the wind to no avail, irrelevant with no one to hear you.
CuriousAmerican Said:
yes, IS has shown us how that is done in a way satisfactory to both the arabs and euros. There are at least 50 other ways, like buses across the border, drop the hostiles, leave, buy the popcorn and watch the fireworks.
CuriousAmerican Said:
dont read the arab papers and you will not be confused by jew killers narratives.
CuriousAmerican Said:
debate? Since when did a debate determine such issues. Arabs who are not anti semitic might be allowed to remain.. the rest must be banished… the 6 arabs left after they flee may have full voting rights. Did you notice that when the shiite hits the fan everyone accomodates to the new pile of shiite? Not much talk of rights in syria and iraq is there?
All your suggestions are silly and way out of date…IS and the world reaction has shown what works for moving people quickly. No need to open the bankbook.
@ CuriousAmerican:
You are very tiresome. You are a mouth piece for the Palestinians and our resident moralizer.
You often point out a caveat from San Remo … “in Palestine without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”as though we aren’t default. We aren’t and even if we were, we are a sovereign nation and can do what we want. The Arab Israelis have full “civil and religious rights” certainly no less that what they had in the Ottoman Empire or currently that Arabs have in neighboring Arab countries.
CuriousAmerican Said:
This is really a stretch and a distortion. You don’t mention who the land is held in trust for. The Palestine Mandate required the Trustee to hold it on trust for the Jews. The Arabs have no beneficial owner ship to these lands. Israel has every right to build there and the HIgh Court agrees.
Finally the matter of whose land it is, is res judicata. Stop re-litigating.
I am going to put you under moderation. I am tired of you repeating Arab talking points. I am tired of refuting them. I am tired of you moralizing or reminding us of our moral or legal obligation.
In short, you are a pain in the ass.
Let’s assume everything he says is true. There was the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem which roughly corresponded to the area of Palestine, so there were non-Jewish political entities which corresponded to the are between the River and the Sea.
BUT LET’S ASSUME EVERYTHING THE AUTHOR SAID WAS TRUE
We are still left with this straight out of San Remo
If we assume the validity of San Remo, this requirement does not disappear.
But what about voting?
We know the Arabs were to get voting in the national elections, and we can use, for example: the 1935 Palestinian Mandate elections, which the British staged, pursuant to San Remo … and which the Yishuv boycotted, ironically.
Jews Boycott New Assembly for Palestine
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1935/12/23/page/17/article/jews-boycott-new-assembly-for-palestine
Now, even if one hates Islam – as I do – San Remo posited some problematic requirements for the Yishuv. The British ran elections, which proved enfranchisement was in mind for the Arab; that same enfranchisement was problematic for the Zionist Project.
In other words, the requirements of San Remo were incompatible with the Zionist Project.
Today, it would be national suicide for Israel to enfranchise all Arabs between the river and the sea, yet that is what San Remo requires if Israel wants the land, if Israel even wants “to build on the land.”
Yes, “to build on the land.”
Until Israel annexes J&S, the “state land” is held in trust, and cannot be used to build Jewish settlements, despite what spin doctors say. But annexation brings with it the problematic Arab enfranchisement.
So what can we conclude:
1) San Remo’s internal contradictions make a poor basis for Israel’s claims
2) Per San Remo: Israel either has to enfranchise the Arabs or give up the claim to the lands.
3) Since most Jews do not want to surrender their patrimony, the Yishuv has to find a way to move Arabs from point A to point B, outside historical Israel.
San Remo is of no use in this, since it insists on “civil rights” to the Arabs which are counter-indicative to the desired goal of a united Israel.
All the intellectual talking heads are quick to discuss “Jewish Rights” which are indeed there, but dance over, ignore, or diminish the other obligation: full “civil rights” to the Arabs. Jewish rights are linked to problematic Arab rights.
These “civil rights” which indeed means voting – as I have demonstrated with the link to the 1935 article – are the flip side of the San Remo that most defenders of the Zionist Project ignore; and which the Arabs are quick to point out.
You cannot have one without the other if San Remo is your basis.
So, finally, in conclusion:
A) San Remo as a foundation has to be abandoned since it is inadequate for the take of the Zionist Project. San Remo was based on Western concepts of non-tribal democracy. Israel wants a tribal (Hebrew) imperative, which means you can either have a Jewish or a San Remo (Western) Israel. Your choice, but if you want a more Jewish Israel, San Remo is destructive.
B) A way has to be found to move the Arabs from point A (inside Israel) to point B (outside Israel). Methods can be debated, but point B is absolutely necessary.
This is the problem of San Remo. Anyone who has read Arab papers know that the Arabs are quick to point out the flip side of San Remo that the Zionist side ignores.
If you want the land: Option B must be exercised, and San Remo must be discarded as a justification – or israel may lose the debate. How you implement plan B is up to debate. You know my opinion.
it appears that “international law” is irrelevant to determinations made at the UN. The process of international law should not be relied upon to obtain justice in the forums of international law. The value of international law is as a deflective red herring when executing unilateral actions to ones own interest and benefit, a sort of narrative to give inquiring minds after taking action…. e.g. If Israel were to annex C or YS they could simply point to the relevant international law as the explanation and justification. The thing about law is that everyone has there opinion on what the law says but only the powerful are satisfied. Therefore, take action..
apparently the consensus driven lynch mob is unaware or doesn’t care about international law. Power determines international law.. this is why no one bothers china on tibet.
apparently the consensus driven lynch mob is unaware or doesnt care about interantional law. Power determines international law.. this is why no one bothers china on tibet.
and dont forget that they incorporated it into their political military mind control domination cult and gave it the name “taqiyya”…. now a revered muslim doctrine throughout the globe.