BY: Adam Kredo, Free Beacon
November 4, 2014 3:10 pm
Lawyers for the Obama administration compared Israel’s control of Jerusalem to Russian claims over the Ukrainian territory of Crimea during oral arguments this week before the Supreme Court in a case concerning the rights of U.S. citizens to list Jerusalem as part of Israel on their passports.
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who is rumored to be in the running to replace outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, drew the comparison on Monday while he attempted to convince the Supreme Court that Jerusalem is not officially part of Israel.
The controversial case hinges around Menachem Zivotofsky, who was born in Jerusalem in 2002. Zivotofsky’s parents requested that Menachem’s U.S. passport bear “Jerusalem, Israel” as his place of birth, a request that was denied by the Obama administration on the basis of its longstanding policy to not recognize the holy city as part of Israel.
The Zivotofsky family sued following the decision and the case has been stuck in judicial limbo since. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and initial arguments by both sides were presented this week.
Obama administration lawyers argue that the case infringes on the president’s executive right to conduct foreign policy. By acknowledging Jerusalem as Israeli territory, the White House would lose its credibility in the peace process, as well as its jurisdiction to manage foreign affairs, the government maintains.
Lawyers for the Zivotofsky family disagree.
They argue that a portion of a 2002 law permitting U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to have “Israel” listed as their birthplace supersedes the Obama administration’s policy position on Jerusalem. While the law was signed by former President George W. Bush, he and President Barack Obama have both issued signing statements to avoid implementing the measure.
During Monday’s arguments before the court, Solicitor General Verrilli maintained that a formal acknowledgment of Jerusalem being part of Israel would be tantamount to the United States putting “Crimea, Russia” on a citizen’s passport.
Verrilli was referring to the Ukrainian region of Crimea, which Russia forcefully seized earlier this year.
“The position of the executive [Obama] is that we recognize, as a practical matter, the authority of Israel over West Jerusalem,” Verrilli argued, according to court transcripts. “With respect to the rest of Jerusalem, the issue is far more complicated.”
“I do think, for example, Your Honor,” Verrilli said to Justice Samuel Alito, “if [we] were to start issuing passports to people born in Crimea tomorrow that identified Russia as the country of birth, that would carry obvious implications for our foreign policy position, and it would contradict the foreign policy position in a way that could be quite deleterious.”
As with the disputes over Crimea’s status, stating that Jerusalem is part of Israel also would interfere with the White House’s policy positions, Verrilli argued.
As arguments proceeded in the case, the justices appeared to split along the justices’ traditional conservative and liberal lines.
At multiple points, Justice Sonia Sotamayor appeared to argue that it would be a “lie” for the U.S. government to acknowledge on a passport that Jerusalem is in Israel.
Putting “Jerusalem, Israel” on a U.S. passport is a lie since the executive branch does not believe it to be true as a matter of policy, Sotamayor said.
“What they’re asking you [the Zivotofskys] to do is to look—they’re asking the government to lie,” Sotamayor said.
She repeated this argument again later in the arguments.
“How could you tell me it’s not a lie?” Sotamayor asked Alyza Lewin, the lawyer representing the Zivotofsky family. “You, the United States, are being asked to put on the passport that you believe the place of birth of this individual is Israel, and the government—and the executive has said, no, we don’t think it was Israel, we think it was Jerusalem.
Lewin maintains that the addition of “Israel” to the passport in question does not constitute official U.S. government “recognition” of Jerusalem as belonging to Israel, and, therefore, does not breach foreign policy pronouncements.
The Obama administration has countered that such a declaration would harm President Obama’s “credibility” in global affairs.
“Foreign governments, foreign peoples will not be able to have complete confidence that the position that the president announces on behalf of the United States is, in fact, the position of the United States,” Verrilli argued.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wondered why the administration would not just submit to the request with an added clarifier stating that it does not reflect official U.S. policy.
Justice Alito also was skeptical that there could be any reasonable “misunderstanding” of the executive branch’s position.
“So why will there be any effect on foreign policy except by people who will misunderstand the situation, either because they really don’t understand it or they will exploit it in some way?” he asked.
Court observers have paid particular attention to the case since it focuses on one of the world’s most intractable and hot button problems.
“This case manages to combine two of the things that this administration dislikes the most: Congress and Israel,” Adam J. White, a D.C.-based lawyer and writer, told the Washington Free Beacon.
“The administration’s fundamental position is that if the State Department is required to comply with the statute, then there may be confusion about what President Obama’s position is on the state of Israel,” White explained.
However, “that argument could be politely classified as a ‘legal fiction,’ because no one really questions what President Obama’s policy is toward Israel,” he said. “His administration has made that painfully obvious, and no matter what the Supreme Court decides in this case, President Obama’s position will continue to be obvious throughout the Middle East.”
dweller Said:
I think we are already blowing it by doing nothing. Jews the world over are suffering as a result of these libels and defamation’s of character. It keeps getting worse.
@ bernard ross:
Corrrection. I misread your remark [blockquoted here, below], and mistakenly assumed it had been couched in the negative. Didn’t notice my error until after the editing period had expired. So I’ve re-written my reply to that part of the post:
Maybe difficult by those old (I venture to say, mostly archaic) definitions of the word “illegitimate.”
But not at all difficult by CONTEMPORARY usage, as “acceptable.” The word is simply too loose, too easily commandeered for a user’s agenda. I repeat, BHO knows this, and it’s quite obvious that he knows it. In some matters — not all, but this is surely one of them — this man (or whatever eminence grise is behind him) is EXPONENTIALLY slicker than Slick Willy ever was.
@ bernard ross:
It isn’t merely vague. It’s also highly SUBJECTIVE. It is specific to the outlook & inclinations of the audience that is considering the ‘legitimacy’ of a matter.
You assume (in these matters anyway) that everybody regards the law as the ultimate and only true ‘legitimacy.’ And in a fallen world, the law IS the ultimate & only legitimacy.
Most people, however, will take what they can get away with taking. . . . That’s why law is necessary.
It’s also the reason why those who will take what they can get away w/ taking will prefer to DO their taking “under color of law” — i.e., will try to get the law to agree w/ their taking. If they cannot secure the blessing of the law, they will do what they can to discredit the law; viz
— to delegitimize it in the view of society generally (or significant sectors of it).
I see little chance that a claim based on his assertion of ‘illegitimacy’ would ever get off the ground. There’s no (present-day) law against falsely calling something or somebody ‘illegitimate.’ (Just as well, too — as that leaves the door open for US to challenge THEIR legitimacy.)
His Wonderfulness knows he’s untouchable as long as he limits his claims to ‘illegitimacy’ W/O alleging illegality — that’s why the Obami have systematically stuck to the former term and scrupulously (to coin a phrase) eschewed the latter. They aren’t stupid. Twisted & bent, yes; but not stupid.
In Euro courts maybe. But then, I wouldn’t hold my breath awaiting fair treatment for the Jews from them.
And stateside justice, altho less likely to exhibit prejudicial attitudes toward the libel charge in re Jews, present a much higher burden for the Accuser to meet where defamation is concerned: In America, you’ve got to prove INTENT. That’s why winning on a charge of libel doesn’t happen often in USA.
Maybe not difficult by those old (I venture to say, mostly archaic) definitions of the word.
But most assuredly difficult by CONTEMPORARY usage. I repeat, BHO knows this, and it’s quite obvious that he knows it. In some matters — not all, but this is surely one of them — this man (or whatever eminence grise is behind him) is EXPONENTIALLY slicker than Slick Willy ever was.
It would be hard to disagree with that proposition — but anything less than a solid legal case in a suitable jurisdiction for such a first foray into this kind of litigation could well have a counterproductive effect in the public eye (including the public Jewish eye)
— and not only for that action itself but also for any possible subsequent such attempts (deleterious even for better conceived, subsequent attempts) as well. We don’t want to blow it.
There WILL be a time for it; of that I’m certain.
dweller Said:
I believe that the 1939 white paper was unacceptable to the commission as it violated the prime directive of the mandate.
Certainly anything may be argued but that should not be a reason for Jewish interests to allow the canard to continue without rebuttal.
Although the term legitimate may have a level of vagueness I fail to see how anything deemed legal, and obligatory to perform, can be the called “illegitimate”. By taking a stance in opposition to the law he can be shown to be acting contrary to that law. Certainly the bringing of the case would bring the issues into the limelight and especially the issue of the legality of jewish settlement which so many, including Jews, now accept the common consensus of illegal or illegitimate. The only argument against bringing a case is that there is a potential for losing the case, which is true of most cases brought. I think this issue is too important to ignore and that the president should be brought to account for his lies.
dweller Said:
This is exactly what I am calling for, the bringing of a case. I would think it would be the “jewish people”, their agent, or a member of that collective as named in the Mandate document. Even in losing the benefits are great in exposing the facts. I believe that exposing the facts to public scrutiny will kill the canard of illegitimate or illegal settlement AND the canard that the west bank belongs to the faux pals. However, I personally believe the case is very strong in showing that Obama breached the law and caused damage to the Jewish peoples rights and interests as a result AND that the be compelled to mitigate his damage by “facilitating and encouraging immigration and settlement”. Why fight wars when this battle can relieve public pressure that encourages the pals instead?
dweller Said:
any member of the class can show damage. he has smeared the reputation of the state AND the jewish people. He has stated lies by claiming illegitimacy and those lies have damaged the ability of Jews to return plus caused loss of life to Jews in YS. even a case hard to prove can have merit especially when the major problem facing israel today is sanctions and these sanctions are based on the lies intentionally propagated by the EU, UN and US.
It is not for us to argue the case here but having a
hard case” should not prevent the jews from seeking justice and exposure of important facts, lies and libels. certainly it is worth the effort to show that Jews are not greedy thieves.
dweller Said:
One does not have to deem it legitimate to prove that claiming illegitimacy is a lie. that which is legal AND obligatory would be difficult to show as illegitimate.
Illegitimacy is synonymous with smearing according to “accepted standards” and to call something deemed lawful and obligatory as illegitimate appears to be an obvious lie which becomes a libel when showing damage.
I believe there is a strong case on all fronts and that even a loss would be of great benefit to the Jewish people and by not undertaking the action allows the libels to continue to smear and damage the Jewish people. Many jewish lives would be saved if the canard of illegitimate or illegal were disgraced. are the jews the illegitimate bastard child of someone? the word traditionally has libelous connotation and I submit obama’s use of this term is designed to libel and smear the jews.
thank you for your submissions, I believe that the same conversation we are having should be in the courts of law and as a result, public opinion. That it is important for all jewish people to be appraised of these facts and arguments. That opinion is formed by accurate information rather than smear campaigns on the Jewish people. The main value of the Eichmann trial was to expose his acts as he could easily have been assassinated. the same is necessary for all the despicable liars, defamers and libelers of the jewish people: they should be exposed for what they really are.
@ bernard ross:
He IS effectively violating Art VI by obstructing & discouraging — but I suspect he’ll always be able to get around that by making the same lame claims of interpretation that the Brits did as Mandatory over concerns of “conditions”
— until some person or group comes forward & shows that he has actually taken a legal position which flies in the face of The Mandate, and that this position has materially (or declaratively?) DAMAGED them.
That might’ve been possible when the May 1939 White Paper was issued. David Lloyd George was certainly up for something like that (in re HMG, as Mandatory), and Churchill as well. That very matter was up for review on Sept 8 of that yr. But German panzers rolled across the Polish frontier on Sept 1, and Britain (and France) declared War on Sept 3
— and after that, nobody cared much about legal niceties.
A libel, as I’m given to understand it, is a false defamation of somebody’s character; it’s tortious; viz., it’s a civil wrong that damages somebody directly. It’s not merely a mischaracterization of the facts or history of some situation, or even a misstatement of law — but must incorporate, at minimum, an allegation which directly (not merely by implication) defames a specific person’s reputation, and does it in a way or to a degree that actually damages him.
I believe you’d have a hard time sustaining a claim that BHO has committed ‘libel’ by pushing his ‘settlements-are-illegitimate’ mantra.
But it HASN’T been ‘deemed legitimate…according to US law.’ I don’t recall a single usage of the word “legitimate” (or “illegitimate,” or “legitimacy,” etc) anywhere in the Anglo-American Convention OR the Mandate Charter.
What I stated above (“From the perspective of law… etc”) was not some legal doctrine, just a personal conclusion based on an observation of how the law appears to work.
US law AVOIDS language like “legitimate” when it has the option of using “legal” — presumably because of the former’s imprecision. You certainly won’t typically find the two words together in the same document. . . .
dweller Said:
yes, you are correct, thanks for the reminder.
@ yamit82:
@ bernard ross:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/187384
@ bernard ross:
No; only in the UNGA Partition Resolution, Res. 181 [Nov 29, 1947] — which projected Jerusalem as a corpus separatum, whose fate was to be determined via a city-wide plebiscite after 10 years.
Res 181, however, was arguably UNLAWFUL, as it clearly violated a lawful treaty (the Palestine Mandate).
— and was, in the event, rendered a dead letter ANYWAY by the Arab Higher Committee’s rejection of it, as well as by the war which the AHC (the Mufti & cohorts) promptly pursued — starting the very next day, Nov 30, 1947 — to prevent Res. 181‘s implementation.
dweller Said:
The law which the US is obligated to observe states the obligation of the signatories and guarantors to “facilitate immigration and encourage close settlement”. It appears to me that the Pres. is in violation of the law by doing the exact opposite: he is discouraging and obstructing.
Furthermore, as a separate issue for libel: by calling Jewish settlement illegitimate it contradicts what has already been deemed legitimate and legal according to US law as you stated. I see no argument he can make to support his libel.
@ bernard ross:
Unlike legality, legitimacy is an imprecise & strictly subjective consideration. It’s the ultimate weasel word whenever this happens to be its user’s intention; it affords infinite wiggle room. No way to pin it down if the user doesn’t wish to be pinned down.
From the perspective of law, the only true legitimacy is legality.
Perhaps. Unless BHO has bigger fish to fry and gets sufficient SCOTUS support for it.
BTW (& tho not pertinent to this), presidential authority in foreign affairs is not total. Raising armies, ratifying treaties, declaring war, defining & punishing piracy, and funding govt ventures overseas (or at home) are all Article One powers — province of the Legislative Branch.
@ bernard ross:
I’m no expert on the haredim but it goes to the rabbis who lead them. They are being priced out of the bigger Urban centers into places like Dimona and they have several large Towns and settlements located in Y&S already and they are growing fast. That doesn’t make them Zionists just going where they can afford homes.
They key is getting enough of them into the IDF and breaking the stigma they attach to national service.
Large grrowing families created instant and generational poverty so the dam will have to break sooner or later it become untenable once they allow the IDF service jobs follow and integration and attitudes might change. Long way to go yet.
Salubrius Said:
Please cite where I said this PRIOR to your first comment to me. I am still trying to figure out your first comment. the drawing of boundaries has not been a focus of my comments and i dont see where redrawing boundaries is an issue in relation to my comments. I just do not understand what you are trying to say in your original comment and my latter comments are just trying to figure out your point and to what you are referring in my comments. Can you please go back and blockquote what quotes of mine you are referring to that led to your original comment about me “forgetting” Israels annexation of Jerusalem. I dont even understand what significance you are trying to put on “redrawing boundaries” (e.g. golan and jerusalem were annexed and both have been discussed by former PM’s as up for negotiation.) I am still trying to figure out what you consider to be the official boundaries of the state of Israel.
@Bernard Ross To my understanding Bernard Ross said that recognizing the PA as a state would not require redrawing the boundaries of an existing state because Israel has not annexed Judea and Samaria. But the PA is insisting on having East Jerusalem as part of its state. Israel has annexed East Jerusalem — so the PA getting statehood would require redrawing the boundaries of Israel so as to exclude East Jerusalem and perhaps all of Jerusalem if the PA were to get it too, as it would like to..
Salubrius Said:
are you referring to the passport case here. My understanding is that the US position is that it does not recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel. Perhaps this is related back to a time when it envisioned that Jerusalem be an internationalized city not under Jewish control, was this in the LON mandate? If this were true it would not relate to YS which was definitely part of the Jewish homeland.
Salubrius Said:
Sorry, but I do not understand the relevance of this statement to the various posts I made on the subject. I know E. Jerusalem was annexed but do not understand your comment. Can you blockquoote what particularly you are replying to in my post and what the point is it that you are making?
Salubrius Said:
I dont understand this..I did not advocate separating e Jerusalem and making it part of another state but which boundary of Israel are you referring to and what would redrawing Israels boundaries mean. Are you referring to the green line as boundaries, I dont know that these are boundaries but cease fire lines?
Salubrius Said:
are you referring to the boundaries of the mandate after the severing of trans jordan as being Israels official boundaries? in that case why would there need to be any redrawing of Jerusalem boundaries as Israel would go to the Jordan river?
Please try and use blockquote so as to reply to specific statements I made because when a lot of comments are posted it is difficult to understand what you are referring to and how your comment is relevant to my comment. Right now i am in total confusion as to what your point is and how whatever point you are making relates to a comment which I made.
@ bernard ross:
Bernard Ross has overlooked the fact that Israel has annexed East Jerusalem. Separating
East Jerusalem as part of another state would require redrawing Israel’s boundary. In any event it would require redrawing the boundaries of the “State of the Jewish People” approved by the Allied Principal War Powers and the other countries, including the US, that approved the trust agreement in 1922.
@ bernard ross:
Don’t know what I think I need to see them up close…
Not insulated metal sun heat????? Freezing in winter??? Not ideal for our climate unless they do something to insulate.
Cheap and low maintenance are pluses.
@ yamit82:
what do you think of this Ayalim? I understand they do some thing in dimona also
http://www.israel21c.org/headlines/students-build-sustainable-housing-from-containers/?utm_source=Israel21c+Weekly+Newsletter&utm_campaign=fd75c9c364-2014_11_12&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a2ed5ed71b-fd75c9c364-250435621
http://ayalim.org/building-sderot-and-no-rocket-will-stop-us/
@ yamit82:
Totally agree:
I see it as the best solution under the circumstances.
@ bernard ross:
I have a rather longesh reply I will try to provide it later.
yamit82 Said:
I have been wondering if the greater conflict which Israel fears is that of sanctions and isolation. Israel appears to be solid militarily but very weak diplomatically. the appearance is that Israel would not be able to survive isolation and sanctions and this was demonstrated by the FAA shutdown. If the ramifications are as I am speculating then BB’s MO would be justified. In such a scenario I would not advise even what I have been advocating physically. In such a scenario I would advise deception, stalling, lawfare, PR, the continued maintenance of international relations and the avoidance of provocation of the dangerous “allies”. Military advances which are unemployed can only have limited advantage in the diplomatic arena. This would be for me a decision to be based on facts and reality for survival and avoiding worse consequences as opposed to my desires.
yamit82 Said:
If my speculation is correct regarding Israels status vs. sanctions and isolation then perhaps the only avenue for moving forward on the issues we both desire is the scenario you describe. If this were to be the policy then what we have been witnessing would be as it is now….responding scrupulously according to law and waiting for the opportunity of the unthinkable.
If my speculation is correct then my criticism of BB would be null and void. It is purely a matter as to what are the real facts regarding Israel capacities to resist diplomatic aggression.
yamit82 Said:
an optimist 🙂
I am interested in your thoughts on this question I put to you prior
bernard ross Said:
dweller Said:
How about they raise the issue of “illegitimacy”: how can it be illegitimate when the US signed on to “facilitate immigration and encourage settlement” the US appears to be illegally obstructing these obligations of international law and, according to you, domestic law.
I expect scotus to sidestep the issue by voting for Obama but stating that it is not a ruling on legality of settlement but a statement on Presidential authority in foreign affairs.
@ bernard ross:
ISRAELI Supreme Court is structurally corrupt, and I cannot speak to that except from a much-removed, stateside p-o-v.
EU & UN will do whatever they can get away with; not worth discussion, IMABHO.
Where AMERICA is concerned, however:
Issue has not been “legally ripe,” because, thus far, there has been no USA govt assertion of settlement “illegality” (which would include J’lem) except for a brief time late in the Carter Admin (DOS holding of ’79) — and that was promptly reversed by Reagan as he entered the White House. And it has STAYED reversed to this day, 33 yrs later.
Feb 18, 2011, USA vetoed the otherwise unanimous UNSC draft resolution S/2011/24 condemning Israeli settlements as ‘illegal.’ Amb Susan Rice presented the Admin’s reasoning:
Again, though, only “illegitimacy,” not illegality (which the resolution had designated, much to the Admin’s chagrin). For Jewish groups to raise the ILLEGALITY issue in USA courts, it would have to be on the grounds that as Jews they are entitled to settle in (any part of) Jerusalem as asserted in US law (Pal. Mandate Charter, 1922; Anglo-Amer Conv, 1924) — and that some legal action (or legal declaration) by the govt was threatening to nullify that legal right.
So far, this has not happened, as the govt has carefully (& systematically) sidestepped the illegality issue.
If SCOTUS, however, were to find against Menachem Zivotofsky, then POTUS could palm off onto the US judiciary all responsibility for declaring the Jewish over-the-green-line presence as ‘illegal,’ and — I would think — this might WELL, at that point, render the issue ripe for joinder, and thus suitable for stateside adjudication.
What do you think, Salubrius (or any other USA legal practitioners)? Help me out here.
— Still there, Wallace?
@ bernard ross:
Managing conflict has always been the underlying position of all Israeli governments sometimes from weakness before 67 to strength afterwards. They are prisoners of conventional wisdom and undervalue our abilities and capabilities. There are just too many leftist defeatists in key positions in and out of government.
The people would have supported a very militant government especially at the height of the last intifada. The government bowed to International pressure especially American and went against public sentiment which guaranteed continuation of the conflict not always to our advantage.
In America we used to have a phrase a euphemism known as muddling through. That’s the real policy of the State of Israel and to a large extent it’s worked well in the economy and other areas of our existence….
The Arabs will do the expected unthinkable abd force us to act even against our collective political wills. Wait and see. Not a policy but policies never worked anyway ever and in no country.
There is always the “Bradbury Butterfly Effect” to confound.
Not to worry it will all wash out in our favor. It always has. No other country has gained our success with so little and with the worst of the worst in leadership, we simply confound the odds.
yamit82 Said:
You appear to have identified the key as to the inertia and the inability even to utter some words that all other nations are able to utter. Perhaps the fear is well grounded, I do not know, if so then all our chats are meaningless because this FEAR will be the governing directive. This demonstrates that the internationals do rule Israel and that perhaps Israel is incapable of preventing that rule and incapable of countering threatened sanctions. In this case if true, Israel must bow to reality.
yamit82 Said:
my understanding is that a “state” is not mentioned. also without agreement on borders the whole thing is worthless regarding Jewish settlement as the border of Israel can include area C to settle Jews.
yamit82 Said:
See, “after agreements”… there is no treaty until there is a treaty…. This is an agreement to enter a process designed to culminate in a treaty. Only the Israel Jordan treaty is in effect and applies legally. Obviously this agreement to arrive at an agreement is dependent and subject to PERFORMANCE which aint happening and only happens if the parties to the “agreement” perform. As treaties go it is a NON treaty.
yamit82 Said:
No on various counts
Note that your state has now devolved into an autonomous political entity with no boundaries agreed. Furthermore, you confuse the sovereign rights of the state of Israel to extend sovereignty over land with the internationally agreed rights of the Jewish people to settle in the land west of the Jordan river. There is no mention of Jewish settlement rights being superseded or canceled. In law there is no conflict between a palestine autonomy, with as yet no agreed boundaries, and the rights of the JEWISH PEOPLE! In law if 2 apparently conflicting clauses can coexist then that is the usual determination. In this case there is actually nothing but an agreement to enter a process of performance that is still un-executed. In contracts involving performance each side hopes that any breach is committed by the other side for the allocation of damages. In Oslo there is NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO, NOUGHT……there is only an ongoing performance of cooperation under a “pick and choose” chinese menu. It is legally worthless and depends solely on cooperation of the parties to continue.
However, even if it were a legally enforceable agreement please show me where under Oslo during the performance period there is any prohibition of Jewish settlement in YS. My understanding is that this is excluded.
the state of the Oslo agreement is LEGALLY as follows:
there is many a slip between cup and lip. 😛
when you can cite me specific clauses which expressly cancel jewish settlement rights, during or after the consummation of Oslo, I will happily revisit this issue. Remember, that popular opinion is NOT law.
yamit82 Said:
One does not at this time even have to go this far…just settle jews massively in YS and all else will follow. It is purely a matter of will…simply a matter of citing and applying LAW as interpreted for jewish settlement.
The goal is to settle Jews in YS and that can proceed merely by declaration AND it can be done massively and fast with the declaration of the need for affirmative action to correct past injustice and damage resulting from decades of obstruction of legal jewish settlement of YS. everyone understands and now accepts globally the concept of affirmative action. Declare an Israel Homestead act in YS with free land grants. Promote a massive immigration to YS from the diaspora therefore avoiding any talk of settling Israelis. Simply present it legally as an obligation of Israel, with no designs to grab land for itself, to fulfill the legal obligations, of any nation administering that piece of land, to facilitate and encourage Jewish settlement. Once the Jews are there the next steps are obvious.
The legal declarations will be disputed as any legal decision can be disputed but Israel would be providing a strong legal narrative on which to proceed. the only legal argument in such a scenario is to prove that JEWS (not israelis) are ILLEGAL in YS. GC will be entirely irrelevant. I see no legal case for that sole argument.
LOL,, if the state of Israel does not have the will to make such a simple legal declaration how would it got to war to annex?
yamit82 Said:
I agree, if you refer to the table of the current state of Israel. However, I see little appetite for YS in the gov and citizenry of the current state of Israel which I thought you wished to see under the control of the jewish people.
My approach recognizes what I identify to be the obstruction to Jewish settlement in Israel, whether Israeli or diaspora jews. If Israeli Jews for jewish settlement in YS were in the majority we would not even be having this conversation. I am less interested at this time in Israeli state sovereignty than in Jewish settlement of YS. the state does not need to annex to settle Jews there and can avoid the arguments of occupation laws applying to states by settling diaspora jews there with no Israeli citizenship. It needs the will and that will at this time can only come from Jews believing in the rightness of Jewish settlement there whether legally, historically or morally. I am not interested in arguing about diaspora vs israeli Jew except to determine problems and solutions to achieving Jews settled in YS. I think there is already enough division between Jews.
I have a question for you: do you see any avenue among the orthodox and ultra orthodox whereby they can accept Jewish settlement in YS as opposed to Israeli sovereignty. In other words I understand many consider the state of israel to be a pollution but if they were in a no mans land of YS could they be enticed to immigrate there from Israel AND the diaspora? It would be helpful to the Jewish people if the orthodox were able to be activated in this regard, in my view.
@ bernard ross:
If Diaspora Jewry want a say at our table they must first come here and assert them. Nobody will give them up freely.
Noboy today or at almost any time in the past will be rolling out the red carpet fro Western immigrants…
Most of the real heavy lifting has already been done by others including a lot of self sacrifice.
One Truth and Not Two
by Uri Zvi Greenberg
Your Rabbis taught: A land is bought with money
You buy the land and work it with a hoe.
And I say: A land is not bought with money
And with a hoe you also dig and bury the dead.
And I say: A land is conquered with blood.
And only when conquered with blood is hallowed to the people
With the holiness of the blood.
And only one who follows after the cannon in the field,
Thus wins the right to follow after his good plow
On this, the field that was conquered.
And only such a field gives nourishing and healthy bread
And the house which arises on its hill is truly a fortress and a temple,
Because in this field there is honorable blood.
Your Rabbis taught: The messiah will come in future generations:
And Judea will arise without fire and without blood.
It will arise with every tree, with every additional house.
And I say: If your generation will be slow
And will not grasp in its hands and forcibly mold its future
And in fire will not come with the Shield of David
And in blood will not come with its horses saddled –
The Messiah will not come even in a far off generation.
Judea will not arise.
And you will be living slaves to every foreign ruler.
Your houses will be straw for the sparks of every wicked one.
And your trees will be cut down with their ripe fruit.
And a man will react the same as a babe
To the sword of the enemy –
And only your ramblings will remain – yours…
And your statue, an eternal curse.
Your Rabbis taught: There is one truth for the nations:
Blood for blood – but it is not a truth for Jews.
And I say: There is one truth and not two.
As there is one sun and as there are not two Jerusalems.
It was written in the Law of Conquest of Moses and Joshua
Until the last of my kings and my traitors have consumed.
And there will be a day when from the river of Egypt until the Euphrates
And from the sea until the mountain passes of Moav my boys will go up
And they will call my enemies and my haters to the last battle.
And the blood will decide: Who is the only ruler here.
the phoenix Said:
It makes little sense to clamor regularly for a “new GOI” without identifying a road that can result in that goal. HOW can it be achieved?
In my view the most likely way it can be achieved is democratically by the citizenry of Israel. My view is that the various groups politically and socially are at varying levels of potential for change:
1- preaching or educating religious zionists is unneccesary they are already converted
2-It is unlikely that there would be any change in the postions of the ultra orthodox and orthodox and that those who are pro will remain pro and those who are anti will remain anti. The only possibility is a change in their religious perspectives. They appear to be able to acitvate socially but not for Jeiwsh interestsin YS or the MOunt. this group I believe has the least potential for change.
3- Leftists- although difficult to change intellectually I beleive they are more likely to change when under physical threat in conjunction with a clear lack of peace partners. Like the liberal Jews of the civil rights movement those radicals stopped supporting the blacks overtly when the blacks attacked them and it became clear that they were wrong.
4- the most reachable group for change are the secular and ignorant. Those who are ignorant of the history which establishes the legality and morality of Jewish settlement in YS. this group appears to have been systematically kept in ignorance and I suggest a massive education and lawfare campaign which engages the interest of this group and exposes them to facts and the clear double standard reactions of the defamers to those facts. (EG the exposing of the internationals war crime accusations even after it is proven that no other state has ever done more to protect civilians). this approach requires an Adelson or Saban to invest hundreds of millions like the nazi soros already does to delegitimize the Jews. Even those who will consider giving up Jewish sovereignty can be persuaded that jewish settlement is LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE. An education and lawfare campaign primarily targeted to the secular and ignorant appears to me to have the most potential of changing mindsets. this approach also has the added advantage of converting international seculars both Jews and non Jews.
the phoenix Said:
I believe it is vey important for Jews to be aware of these facts but especially the manner in which the successive GOI’s have been obstructing and swindling the Jewish people of their rights in YS the same as the british mandate and the Jordan occupation. I believe it is important for the Jewish people to understand the difference between the Jewish people and the state of Israel because this is the greatest LEGAL confusion: in that the rights of the Jewish people enshrined in international law are confused with the obligations and restrictions of occupation law related to the STATE of Israel. They are legally totally separate issues and are obfuscated intentionally in most LEGAL PR arguments.
the phoenix Said:
whatever happens, it will in my opinion depend on the Israeli people and without a change in their perspective no palace uprising etc can take place either. Therefore, barring divine intervention, I have identified education, lawfare and hasbara targeted to the ignorant seculars to be the best path. If you have a better one please detail that approach to me.
@ bernard ross:
Only borders Jerusalem and refugees were left for final resolution but the Oslo agreement for all practical reasons is an agreement to set up and recognize a Palis state read all of the protocols. According to Oslo I think a State after agreements finalized was to come into existence with the full force of International law and recognition…..
When you agree to an autonomous political entity within your own land given under a prior binding but broken treaty you by definition abrogate your own rights to same…. To claim them so long after the fact is a difficult at best proposition….
I say provoke war and reconquer the whole thing again and declare it all ours with official annexation. Create by force our claims and be dammed with the BS legalities real or virtual.
yamit82 Said:
cite it specifically wrt jewish settlement and agreed boundaries. My understanding is that there is no final agreement in Oslo accept the agreement to enter a process which will conclude with a final agreement a treaty…it is already dead
cite the specifics
yamit82 Said:
Oslo is not “in force” it is being observed like a chinese menu because there is no other agreement which is in place regarding Israeli PA cooperation. Israel is the one who appears to be desperately trying to save this “agreement” but the PA is regularly breaching it. Israel wants to save the time and money required to rule the pals and the US and EU know this. It is not the “agreement” that is in force it is the GOI game being played.
yamit82 Said:
cite specific treaties AND their clauses that need to be revoked in order for Jewish settlement to continue legally in YS according to the relevant documents which were continued in art 80 of UN charter.
I am sorry but I have been searching and see no rights of Jewish settlement being expired, cancelled or revoked by any treaty which Israel has entered into. If you see it please cite the specific applicable clauses which clearly cancel or supersede those rights. Instead, I see a con game being played by successive GOI’s who are happy with the slice of the land of Israel that they have but none of these cons are LEGAL in the same way that the terms ILLEGAL and ILLEGITIMATE are bald faced lies and libels which the GOI never counters because they do not want to annex NOR to settle Jews because it is NOT perceived to be an interest of the state of Israel to settle Jews in YS.
yamit82 Said:
When it comes to the rights of the Jewish people to live in the land of Israel the state of Israel should be expected to at least UTTER the words even while they swindle and obstruct the Jews. The correct thing for the state of Israel to do is to clearly resign any pretense of representing world Jewry in the Jewish homeland or to at least state the rights but also state that it does not wish to encourage or facilitate those rights and interests in YS. Israel should create a separate Jewish org who represents the interests of the Jewish people in YS, not the Israeli interests in YS. There is no org that represents those interests which were the original legal interests of the Jewish people in all land west of Jordan river.
bernard ross Said:
It is recognized as an International treaty and guaranteed by the USA.
Before you can return to the status quo ante you first need to void the Last one that exists which is still at least on paper in-force.
I agree that the treaty/agreement is in violation and viewed objectly both sides have violated it but it’s still the one the International community so to speak recognize. To revert back to Post Balfour, You need to revoke recind all subsequent agreements and treaties that effect the original…. There is no will after to long to even attempt it.
Statute of limitations??????
Bernie of course they do who doesn’t…..
;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8P80A8vy9I
SHmuel HaLevi 2 Said:
FEAR!!!!!!!
They fear Isolation.
EXACTLY!!!!
@ the phoenix:
And if I may add…
Why not informing all countries that the Capital of Israel is Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv and all Embassies must relocate to the Capital. Alternatively, they mat be only consular offices for a limited time span.
@ yamit82:
@ bernard ross:
@ Salubrius:
I am no legal expert and that would be an understatement.
But I am only wondering about all this BS going back and forth where everybody knows that the other side knows that it is all BS.
American presidents come and go.
Past agreements were conveniently forgotten or just plainly renegged.
I believe, as it has been shown day in and day out that this current ‘goi’ DOES NOT HAVE THE INTERESTS OF THE JEWS AT HEART. as such, let’s not waste time hypothesizing about this branch of the US masquerading as goi…
What if….
Whether democratically, or palace revolt or street uprising…
a new goi is established which declares in a very plain easy to understand language, in Hebrew and in english that ALL PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS ARE NULL AND VOID, AND THE LAND OF ISRAEL IS FOR THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL…
w.h.a.t. c.o.u.l.d. h.a.p.p.e.n.???
yamit82 Said:
Oslo is not a treaty but an agreement to terminate in a treaty. That agreement has already been breached and is for all real purposes now dead, but in any event has not reached to being a treaty that can supersede other treaties: it is an agreement to engage in a process that is not reaching consummation and may already have been legally breached and terminated defacto.
The agreement with egypt and Jordan are binding treaties which can supersede prior treaties but I do not see how they cancel Jewish rights of settlement of YS from 2 perspectives: 1-can the state of Israel be assumed to represent the rights of jewish diaspora and cancel those Jewish rights, 2-are there provisions in those 2 agreements barring jewish settlement in YS or in establishing boundaries in YS? My understanding is that there is an official border between Israel and Jordan at the Jordan river and unless there is a treaty otherwise that remains Israels official border. What are the specific clauses of those treaties which cancel Jewish rights of settlement in YS? In other words I do not believe that Israel legally ceded those rights if it had those rights to cede and I also don’t believe it legally had those rights to cede even if it ceded them (which it did not)
Law is not belief.
I have the suspicion that the GOI tends to intervene under the table whenever a diaspora jewish org appears to conflict with their perspective . (e.g. the GOI regular talks to tone down US congress attempts to stop US funding to PA because the GOI does not want the expense. Israel has an MO of subordinating principle to money and expedience.)
@ Salubrius:
It appears to me that the successive GOI’s do not advance the interests of Jewish settlement as they do not want to absorb the Pals upon annexation. however, there is no reason why this interest of the state of Israel should terminate the rights of the Jewish diaspora to be fulfilled as declared by international agreement. a scenario exists where those rights could be “facilitated and encouraged” but where the state of Israel eschews any claim to YS for itself but only protects and administrates diaspora Jewish settlement as mandated in International law. at the end of that settlement in YS there can be a separate state of the west bank which incorporates A,B and C or the west bank can be divided in to Jewish and arab zones of AB for arabs and C for the Jews. My view is that the vacant unoccupied lands of C were mandated to be reserved for diaspora Jewish settlement and that denying that right is a theft of the interests of worldwide Jewry.
Israel can declare its boundaries but still act as a “mandatory trustee” in the way that it administers the west bank. Israel can still fulfill its security issues but state it has no interest in further west bank land, however that scenario does not necessitate the cancelling of diaspora Jewish rights as world Jewry has not yet competed its immigration even though the state of Israel is satisfied with its share of Jewish land.
bernard ross Said:
Camp David Accords-Oslo accords and several in between recognizing Palis rights I think De-facto if not de-jure supersede all binding agreements before them in other-words Israel ceded those rights to later agreements and treaties.
dweller Said:
I agree with your position but I keep wondering why there are no Jewish entities who have brought this obvious issue to courts in the US, and also in EU, UN, Israel and anywhere else that is legally bound by the same documents.
Salubrius Said:
My understanding is that the state of Israel has not officially drawn its boundary to include any part of the west bank(YS) and that according to the Israeli SC it is occupied territory. I imagine that if Israel annexed YS then this would change legally. what are Israels official boundaries?
Salubrius Said:
Of relevance is that the mandate trust of GB collaborated with trans Jordan to illegally seize the west bank and subsequently became only one of 2 nations to recognize that occupation. If ever a case of swindling the beneficiary of a trust could be made I should think this would be the one.
The problem is that the behavior of the state of Israel in not annexing the west bank appears to render the rights of the jewish people to settle there to be subordinate to the perceived self interests of the state of Israel. This appears to me to be a classic case of a conflict of interest and the continuing rights of the Jewish people of the diaspora to settle in YS are being repeatedly compromised and squandered by the perceived self interests of the GOI. There appears to have been no legal separation of the rights of the Jewish people of the diaspora and the state of Israel. it appears to be assumed that the “jewish” state would advance those interests. However, the opposite appears to be true in that it is the state of Israel which is destroying the only interest of the Jewish people to the west bank.
What is the case for a non governmental rep of the jewish people to sue Israel, the UN, EU and US to cease to obstruct the rights of the jewish people to settle in YS under the mandate derived rights? I do not see how the confusion of occupation law would apply to the rights of the Jewish people, who are not a state, derived from the mandate.
My big question is why there are no Jewish interests bringing the UN, relevant govs and Israel to trial for breach of agreements, to cease obstructing settlement, to facilitate and encourage settlement as per agreements, to cease the libels regarding jewish settlement? Is this a case for shurat Ha din?
As long as the state of Israel perceives its interests to be in conflict with the ONLY interest of the world Jewish community in YS it should NOT be the legal representative of the jewish people as envisioned in the original mandate. the state of Israel is behaving exactly as did the swindling british mandate.
Au contraire. POTUS is asking SCOTUS to lie!
Jerusalem’s legal Israeli status is encoded & incorporated in the San Remo Resolution & the Palestine Mandate — both, international treaties.
The Mandate — created on direct ORDER of San Remo — was ratified by the US Senate, via the 1924 Anglo-American Convention (cited above by Salubrius). That makes it, like ALL Senate-ratified treaties, domestic USA law, authorized & protected by (and as if incorporated in) the US Constitution
— which EVERY United States president is bound by solemn oath to uphold, come hell-or-high-water.
This president KNOWS the law in the matter, but he wishes to prompt SCOTUS to issue a ruling which will relieve him of the responsibility for violating the law.
Justice Sotomayor is his High Court stooge for that purpose
— and he is one extraordinarily sneaky, and cheeky, cork-soaking motor-forker.
@Adam Kredo,
Russia’s case in the Crimea is unlawful under International Law. The same International Law would scuttle the Arab’s claim for the right of self-determination in Palestine. That is because when a right of a “people” to self-determination requires redrawing the boundary line of a sovereign state, the right of a sovereign state to territorial integrity is paramount.
That is why the Russian case under International Law is a loser and the case for the fake “Palestinian people” is also a loser, even if the Palestinian People were a genuine people instead of a fake created by the Soviet dezinformatsiya in 1964 when the PLO Charter was drafted in Moscow. See SSRN.com/abstract=2385304 Part II.
Even if it takes a US President to recognize a state, Presidents Harding and Coolidge have already recognized the Palestine Mandate and accordingly the state of the Jewish People now called “Israel”.
In 1919 both the Arab and Jewish Peoples submitted claims to the Supreme Council of the Allied Principal War Powers in Paris at the Paris Peace Talks, seeking the right to establish a government in Palestine and administer it. The Jews essentially wanted what the British Balfour policy of 1917 had recognized them as owning. The Arabs wanted Syria (now Syria and Lebanon) and Mesopotamia (Iraq) as well. The American Diplomats attending the conference carried with them briefing documents showing the the US wanted the same recognition of the Jewish People’s rights as the British. This was to place the political rights in trust initially so the Jews, who had only a 10% minority population in all of Palestine at the time, could attract others from the diaspora and become a majority over time. The trustees were required to facilitate Jewish immigration to effect this purpose. President Wilson had appointed a Committee of Inquiry to determine the right to self-determination, i.e. ownership of political rights around the world according to his Fourteen Points view. The Commission affirmed the right of the Jewish people that Palestine should become a Jewish State clearly on this ground. Palestine, the commission said, was “the cradle and home of their vital race”, the basis of the Jewish spiritual contribution, and the Jews were “the only people whose only home was in Palestine”…
Until they attained a population majority and the capability of exercising sovereignty, the Jews had a right to settle anywhere in Palestine — as a matter of right according to Winston Churchill — but when the political rights vested and they had legal dominion over them, the Jews could then establish their Jewish Commonwealth. The scope was cut down in 1921 to limit settlement to territory west of the Jordan River.
The Allies didn’t get around to dealing with the Middle East claims during the Paris Peace Talks so they reconvened in San Remo the next year in April, 1920. They adopted the Balfour policy word-for-word.
The trust res vested in 1948 and the Jews initially had only the capability of exercising sovereignty within an Armistice Line, the Green Line. In 1967, the Jews gained control over the rest of the territory, the rights to which had been put in trust.
In 1922 this trust was laid before the League of Nations and 52 Nations approved it. The US, not a member of the League, approved it too in a joint resolution of Congress in June, 1922 and later in the 1924 Anglo-American Treaty. These were signed by President Harding and President Coolidge respectively. The Court of Appeals must have missed this history when they concluded that there had been no Presidential approval. They only went back to the 1940s thinking that the 1947 Partition Resolution was the roots of Israel’s sovereignty when in fact it was the San Remo Resolution and the Palestine Mandate.
My legal opinion on all this is archived at SSRN.com/abstract=2385304 See also, SSRN.com/abstract=2404738 Google also, The Palestine Mandate in a nutshell.
I guess it takes a lawyer to be so stupid.
So perhaps these paragons of vanity could answer the question: If Jerusalem is not part of Israel, what country is it part of? After all, it has to be part of something.
If King David had realized that Jerusalem was not part of Israel, I guess he would never have given the place a second thought… The reason he did give some importance to the place is that he didn’t have any American lawyers around to “advise” him.
Stime to slam dunk the trash. Get the slave drivers there to fez up to the 432? “Indian Reservations” the deviants still use as concentration camps.
If I were the PM of Israel, my savlanoot would be worn so thin at this point, that I might seriously consider an operation to break Jonathan Pollard out of prison, arguing that the South Carolina correctional facility is part of Jerusalem.
Obama needs to be impeached. His administration gets more disgusting all the time.