An office of incomprehensible moral bankruptcy

Charlie2

I don't understand the legal and moral entitlement to the West Bank, or Judaea and Samaria if you will. Is it historical? If so, I could see a moral case could be made, but the legal case is obscure to me. I'd be interested in your answer, Melanie.

roughyed2011

"the Arabs" eh ? What - all of them ?

cyllan

wiliam hague, i used to respect the man....

Truthtriumphs

"As one of your commenters so eloquently put it:--
The Arab countries produce oil and Israel produces orange juice.
My car runs on oil, not orange juice, so I don't care how badly the Arab countries behave, until my car runs on orange juice, I will take their side".
That's it in a nutshell.
At least he, unlike the FO, doesn't dress up his "interests" in a thin veneer
of moral outrage.
That's the difference.

Truthtriumphs

Charlie2.
March 14th, 2011 9:41pm

"I don't understand the legal and moral entitlement to the West Bank, or Judaea and Samaria if you will. Is it historical?"

I've posted the answer
several times recently following similar queries to your own... it's important that people know the facts, so thanks for asking!

1)Following WW1 and the defeat of the Turks, the Ottoman Empire which spanned the Middle East for 400 years, was divided up by the British and French, and new countries were created, namely Iraq (British jurisdiction),and Syria and lebanon (French jurisdiction).
The whole geographical area known as Palestine was designated to the Jews (British jurisdiction) in recognition of their historic connection to the land.
In 1922, Churchill awarded the land east of the Jordan river to the Hashemite dynasty, in recognition of the help it gave Britain defeating the Turks, and Abdullah became King of the newly created Trans-Jordan, which covered some 77% of historic Palestine.

In 1922, the 51 member states of The league of Nations unanimously ratified a document called "The Mandate for Palestine" which called for the Jewish national homeland to be RE-CREATED in Palestine in the area West of the Jordan river, and called for "close settlement" of this area by Jews, which also included Gaza and the Golan heights.
Jews were not allowed to settle on land east of the Jordan river.
The Arabs, in the main (most of whom were immigrants from Syria and Egypt) did not accept this and there were riots, and ethnic cleansing of Jews from areas such as Hebron in 1929.
btw, the Mandate document specified that there should be religious and civil rights for the non-Jews in the future Jewish state, but not political
rights.
When the league of Nations was superceded by the UN, the "Mandate for Palestine" was incorporated into Article 80 of the UN Charter, which, in the absence of any agreement to end hostilities, remains the legal status of the area to the present day.
There were many attempts to placate the Arabs, by whittling down the size of the future Jewish state, but were never accepted by them.
Finally, the UN, in 1947, proposed a partition of Palestine, giving the Jews a very small proportion of the original area.
The Jews accepted, reluctantly,
(Jerusalem was excluded), and the Arabs rejected.
It was put to a vote in the UN in November 1947, and passed.(Resolution 181)
In the following May, on declaration of statehood, 5 Arab armies attacked the fledgling state, but the new state survived (just!).
Then Trans-Jordan made a land-grab of the West Bank, and annexed it, in a move which was recognised only by Great Britain and Pakistan (but minus recognition of the annexation of Jerusalem).
It became Jordan.
Egypt illegally annexed Gaza and Syria, ditto the Golan.
In 1967, Israel again won a defensive war against the combined armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan, and by the time the ceasefire was called, had reached the Golan, the Jordan river and the Sinai peninsula up to the Nile.
Israel's offer to withdraw totally to the armistice lines of 1948 (the so-called Green line)in return for peace was rejected out of hand at the Arab summit at Khartoum, which issued a statement known as the 3 NOs... no peace, no negotiation, no recognition.
Subsequently, Egypt made peace, in return for the Sinai in its entirety.
Jordan made peace, but gave up all claims to the West Bank, which was never legally theirs.

2)The UN then passed Resolution 242, calling on Israel to withdraw from territories, deliberately omitting the definite article, in return for a cessation of hostilities from the Arab side, (which has never happened).
Israel started to re-settle some of the areas which had legally belonged to Jews before 1948, such as the Etzion bloc, near Jerusalem, for which Jews held the title deeds, and Hebron, in both instances from whence they had been driven out.
Interestingly, although the status of the WB remains legally part of the Jewish state, before any new settlement was formed, every government of whatever hue consulted with a specialist lawyer called Plia Albeck, to ensure that it was built on state land and not privately owned land.
She was an expert in the field and consulted British and Ottoman law before sanctioning the building of every new settlement.

3)There is also the legal precedent of land won in a victorious, defensive war.
In a landmark ruling, Judge Stephen Schwebel, one time head of the International Court of Justice, the court of the UN, ruled in 1970, that where a country had won territory in a defensive war, and that territory had previously been taken by force (ie, by Jordan), then the victor (ie.Israel) had the better title.
Indeed, following WW11, the Axis powers lost land that had been theirs, such as Germany losing the Sudetenland, and other lands which went to Poland.
There are many such examples, and there are never demands to return them.
The only exception seems to be Israel.

It's also worth remembering that the reason that East Jerusalem is often called Arab East Jerusalem, is because in 1948, the Jews were ethnically cleansed from there.
The only time during 2,000 years that there were no Jews in the old city of Jerusalem, was between 1948 and 1967.
The oldest and holiest Jewish cemetery on Mount of Olives is in East Jerusalem, (3,000 years old) as is the Western Wall, so to call new Jewish suburbs in East Jerusalem, settlements, is absurd, and designed to undermine Jewish legitimacy there.

The reason why Western and other powerful nations perpetuate the myth of illegal settlements, when they are no such thing, is because it suits them--- they need Arab oil and Arab/Muslim markets to trade with.
It's expediency.

4)The only people to have enjoyed sovereignty (countries called Judah and Israel)in the geographical area of Palestine were the Jews.
No independent country of Palestine ever existed--- neither was there ever a Palestinian people--- that is a myth.
The name "Palestine" was given by the Romans, when they were victorious against the Jews (AD 70),and wanted to obliterate the names of Israel and Judah forever.

Adam B.

Hague has hardly covered himself in glory recently - firstly, he irresponsibly and wrongly told Libyans their leader had fled to Venezuela (possibly resulting in the deaths of some Libyans), then messing up the evacuation of Brits, then botching a meeting with the rebels by inexplicaby sending a diplomat in the middle of the night by helicopter with armed SAS men (with passports of several countries), who were then deported.

His judgment about Israel is equally flawed.

Ari

@Charlie2

Read Melanie's latest book. It answers your question there.

Melanie, there's a difference between what an individual murderer does and what a state does, especially in terms of how other states should react.

When Yitzhak Rabin was assasinated, should John Major have commented that Haredi Jews or even the Israeli right were an obstacle to peace?

Jerry

Charlie2 wrote, "I don't understand the legal and moral entitlement to the West Bank, or Judaea and Samaria"

I will presume that you truly want an answer to your question.

1) Israel's legal claims to Judea and Samaria are superior to that of the Palestinians. See the history of the San Remo Conference that divided the Ottoman Empire.

2) Israel is in de facto possession of these territories as the consequence of hostilities opened by Jordan in 1967, which then relinquished all rights to the territory.

3) The strategic position of Israel would be substantially diminished by relinquishing the topological high ground that is Judea and Samaria. Morality should not require the need to commit suicide to meet someone else's needs. Even if you ignore the historical strength of Israel's claims, you must understand the following: Going forward, withdrawal from Judea and Samaria places all risks on Israel. There is no reason other than animus towards the Jews to insist upon such risk taking on their part.

Charlie2, do you not find it exquisitely strange that so much energy has been expended in trying to weaken Israel? I believe that the world's attention to the matter of "Palestine" is unique and has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Palestinians" and their rights. Indeed, they possess more rights and freedoms than their cousins in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.

Caballero

The legal right to settle within Judea'Samaria, in addition to being innate, as most of the pleaces of significant interest and affiliation to Jews are located in these area, stems from the fact that "close settlement" throughout Palestine is something the League of Nations assured to Palestinian Jews, based on the ancient Jewish connection to thet land. Although such settlement was at times restricted for areas lopped off for another palestinian arab state called Jordan, no internationally binding legal document abrogated that right to "close settlement" in these lands by Jews. And how hypocritical. Ethnic cleansing has in fact occurred in the middle east. Ancient Jewish communities in places like Iraq and Iran, Syria, Morocco, Yemen etc, which existed for millenia, have been ethnically cleansed by their long-time muslim hosts.

Roger K

I really don't understand how some commentators can be so indifferent, cynical and nihilistic about these things. I am as concerned for Arabs as I am for Jews when these atrocities take place. I may be soft and not be 'up' with all the political play, but there is a difference between right and wrong, it is not relative, may God protect me from a hardened heart. When Fatah and Hamas thugs behave like this under the direct orders and encouragement of other foreign entities, let the condemnation of the so called civilized world be clear and sharp. Let the scales drop our eyes and the callouses soften from on our hearts.

Joshua

"At least he, unlike the FO, doesn't dress up his "interests" in a thin veneer of moral outrage."

Given that the Foreign Office has been consistently betraying Jews since before the Holocaust that is small comfort to the Jewish people.

John Dubai

Melanie, I really don't understand your outrage here. William Hague, the Foreign Secretary and therefore speaking in some part on behalf of the foreign office, described the murder in your quotation as "incomprehensible cruelty and brutality which I utterly condemn". That surely accords with your view? Speaking in an unrelated capacity the Foreign Office said the Isreali settlement programme was "illegal" and "counterproductive"; the two ideas are not mutually exclusive, and just because they didn't comment on it, it does not imply they don't think the murders were also counterproductive to the peace process. You may dispute whether the settlement programme is illegal, and that is a separate issue. But the FCO has taken a position, and it is in line with most international opinion - how is it morally bankrupt to condemn a murder and condemn what it judges to be illegal settlements? It seems to be morally consistent.

The outrage you express seems in large part due to a conflation, in my view, between a judgement which finds Israeli expansionism to be wrong, and anti-semitism. An attack on Israeli expansionism is not de facto an attack on jews. It is often treated as such, not least by you.

That said, many groups do use the question of Israel's border dispute as cover for antisemitism, and that is of course dispicable, but I don't think there is any evidence that the FCO has ever done this.

Shimon

Unfortunately W. Hague exhibited very typical behaviourof British goverments, well known for ages.

teresa

truthtriumphs,

You post legal and political justification for Israel's entitlement to the West Bank but avoid the moral question, in my opinion.

//the Mandate document specified that there should be religious and civil rights for the non-Jews in the future Jewish state, but not political
rights//

How was it moral to deny non-Jews political rights in their own territory and yet grant such rights to newly arriving migrants, who would be expected to rule over them?

Edward in the USA

Speaking of settlements, I look forward to the honourable Mr. Hague demand that the settlements in Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and the West Indies be dismantled and the artifacts of questionable provenance in the British Museum be returned to their rightful owners.

elixelx

@ unnamed @12.51
"Melanie, there's a difference between what an individual murderer does and what a state does, especially in terms of how other states should react..."
So really it was just 19 guys acting individually that slammed into the WTC...
And really, it was just two prison guards acting as rogues that caused the kerfuffle at Abu Ghraib...and of course it was just 10,000 exalted rogues who suddenly and spontaneously decided to throw stones over the Western Wall at the worshippers below...
So, if the settlers in the West Bank decided to build homes WITHOUT the permission of the Israeli Govt: if they decided to invade Palestinian homes, cut down their trees; kill their children and sell some into slavery...well...that would be OK then because they are not recognisably state sponsored...
Do you really hate the State of Israel so much that you can blame it of inciting an Arab to slit the throat of a 3-month-old baby...?

Stephanie Tohill

'The Arabs'. Nice

And yes I would see building on disputed land as a bigger obstacle to piece to an individual (savage as it was) murder. Although do you have details on who exactly committed the murder yet?

Herzen

This is obtuse. Atrocities such as these murders are not just random evil, they are surely a strong incentive to seek peace. Yet Israel continues to build settlements on land it has no intention of letting anyone else have. As the Palestinians point out, it is like continuing to eat the pizza while purporting to negotiate over how to share it out.

What "moral" entitlement? What "legal" entitlement?

Herzen

Truthtriumphs
You repeat your falsehoods that have been rebutted again and again. You have never even attempted to address the rebuttals.

NicoleS

Stephanie Tohill: "And yes I would see building on disputed land as a bigger obstacle to piece to an individual (savage as it was) murder. Although do you have details on who exactly committed the murder yet?"
Have you read any of the comments explaining the historical background to the conflict? Too difficult for someone who can't even spell peace? Much easier to stick with blind hatred of Israelis, especially the evil settlers who have built houses on disputed (and previously unoccupied) land, for which they deserve to be stabbed to death, children, baby and all. Palestinians were handing out sweets in open celebration of this glorious act afterwards, so I think we can assume it was an act of Palestinian terrorism, wouldn't you say?

Victoria

"when Israelis build on land to which they are legally and morally entitled this does."

Melanie, when has Israel ever had the legal right to build settlements? Honestly, I could say "the sky is brown" and somebody who doesn't know will believe me. It doesn't mean what I am saying is true. And obviously, if I believed the sky to be brown, Id probably say it.

Please, anybody, give evidence where this 'legal right' is enshrined. I very much doubt you will respond with anything substantial, other than more words.

Derek Pasquill

Perfidious Albion.

Exemplified by the FCO over the centuries.

Any progress made by the British people and nation was, of course, in spite of rather than because of the FCO.

VEBott

"Do you really hate the State of Israel so much that you can blame it of inciting an Arab to slit the throat of a 3-month-old baby...? "

Wow, you've really lost it there. I was talking about what it was appropriate for foreign government officials to say. I never suggested that the Israelis were responsible for this horrible murder.

There is a difference between an individual murder, a rioting mob (which should be policed), and the policies of a state. You can blame the Arab authorities for promoting poisonous anti-semitism, but I really doubt that Mr Cameron could have attributed the murder of the settler family to any potential party to peace or ceasefire negotiations.

Everybody understands that continued settlement is perceived by all the Arabs as a sign that Israel really has no desire to seek a peaceful resolution.

I agree that Palestinian acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state should be an element in a comprehensive peace. No such peace will be achieved if the Palestinian authority that could be brought to acknowledge Israel is politically destroyed by Israel's settlement policy. All that will be left on the other side of the wall will be fanatical mediaevalist supporters of Hamas. One has to assume that this is deliberate.

Mr R

teresa, remind me ... what rights do Jews have in Arab countries? Exactly!

Victoria

Where are on earth is it enshrined that Israel is legally entitled to build settlements? Somebody please tell me.

Nachman

It is obvious from the comments of Herzen and teresa that even if you spell it out in black and white by providing chapter and verse for the Jews' rights of settlement in Judea and Samaria they will still deny it. My advice to posters on here is to not waste your time responding to people who have made up their minds not based on any sense of fairness or even justice but outright prejudice. It is rapidly becoming clear that when it comes to Jews unless of the type that went to deaths in the Holocaust the world has no time for us. After two posters on this thread alone set out the Jewish case and bearing in mind Arabs living in the State of Israel have complete equal rights before the law teresa comes up with "How was it moral to deny non-Jews political rights in their own territory and yet grant such rights to newly arriving migrants, who would be expected to rule over them?" and Herzen comes up with "What "moral" entitlement? What "legal" entitlement?"
You see even painstakingly explaining the position to people who fundamentally deny the rights of Jews to self determination in their own homeland is a complete waste of time - these peole have no place for facts or the truth having been blinded by a prejudice that pre-dates even the Nazis. The Government of Israel must do as it thinks fit, be guided by a moral compass that has seen us through two millenia of persecution and sixty odd years of Statehood and safeguard the lives of its citizens. If the so-called intelligentsia of the so-called enlightened West find that objectionable then so be it - whatever we do is objectionable to them - even breathing!

Victoria

Truthtriumphs -
I'd promised myself I wouldn't read your posts anymore because your moral compass is so skewed but I find myself disagreeing with this fabricated history you have posted on several queries.

"No independent country of Palestine ever existed--- neither was there ever a Palestinian people--- that is a myth."

So tell me, what was the British Mandate in Palestine enacted after the Balfour declaration? Would it not have been 'British Mandate in ...' otherwise? I'd be interested to hear.

Sadly this is probably just another attempt to de-legitimize the Palestinians of any moral right to their own state. Don't worry anyway, while you are busy at your computer/phone screen there is already talk amongst Palestinian activists and groups that the UN are working on declaring Palestine an independent state with West Jerusalem as its capital by the end of this year. So even if you dispute it ever existed, it will soon.

Victoria

We cannot justify the actions of these people who killed the Fogel family, no matter where they're from.

But when people talk about there being no 'moral equivalence' between people deliberately targeting innocents and the work of national security forces, I'd like to remind you of the New York-born Baruch Goldstein.

He was born in America and migrated to Israel, where he became a very successful doctor. On Feb 24, 1994 however he went into a place being used as a mosque and opened fire on over 100 Muslims who were praying. 29 were killed and 119 injured. What crime had they committed? Goldstein considered them to be 'potential terrorists'. 29 fathers and mothers died this day.

The Israeli authorities denounced this heinous act, but at Goldstein's funeral, Rabbi Yaacov Perrin claimed that even one million Arabs are "not worth a Jewish fingernail". A teacher in a nearby college called him 'the greatest Jew ever'.

So here's an essay question to quell over. Do you think the majority of moderate Israelis should be punished for this man's actions? What of Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, are his reactions not the same as that of Hamas, who denounce the targeted killing of the Fogel family a 'heroic success'?

The worrying this is that Israeli terrorism exists, but in masked-forms. It is hidden in doctors, teachers, people who otherwise we should be able to trust.

I'm afraid the more we continue to act as if any one aide is more just or more moral than the other, we will never have peace. Terrorism, as exhibited by Goldstein and daily by extremist Jewish settlers who are almost never brought to justice for the persecution they lay on Palestinian families, exists in all forms.

In my posts thus far, I have always defended both the Palestinian and Israeli need to defend themselves. Hamas or Irgun (who although disbanded in 1948 are now part of the IDF); they are the same people, have the same motivations, the same extremist views, the same murderous beliefs, same disregard for human life. While anyone defends any of them, there will never ever be peace.

Augustus

TT - A very good historical
summary, well done! And all right-thinking people accept Israel's right to 'occupy' her historic homeland. However, back in the early 1970s one organization thought differently, namely the International Red Gross in Geneva. It was the IRC who, during a secret meeting decided that Israel had breached the
Fourth Geneva Convention, which had been adopted in 1949 in order to protect civilians in a war zone, and to limit such brutal occupations which the Nazis had undertaken in WW2. Virtually unanimously the IRC used this treaty as a weapon to
villify Israel and pronounce illegality without any legal precedent. They in fact invented
the whole thing, and because all the IRC details surrounding the case are still kept secret
behind lock and key, even as to who took part and how this decision ended up as international law. In short, there is no transparency whatsoever regarding the IRC's
judgement, but it is certainly the basis for the accusations
of illegality of the 1967 occupied territories.

Sergio I. N.

@VEBott
March 15th, 2011 10:02am

You couldn't be more wrong. Incitement is promoted by the Palestinian Authority in a more than straightforward manner, and by Hamas in Gaza as well. Examples follow:

Politics of education are the most direct one, as are isolation and imprisonment of anyone dealing with Israelis (it's forbidden to sell them land, by law). Streets and parks are named after suicide bombers, and candy are given to the kids in celebration of this specific act of terrorism (terrorist because it was solely for the purpose of spreading fear and apprehension at the Jewish people living in that neighbourhood). TV shows for children calling them to commit "martyrdom" and making them sing death to Israel and the Jews are subsided by the respective authorities, boot camps for children (paid with UN funds) teaching them to shoot and hate Israelis... the list goes on and this event is only a minor result of the implementation of all those policies. Of course buying rockets and mortar shells are not independent acts of delinquency.
I'm sorry I have not put links to each example, but they are many and very easy to google up.

Please (PLEASE) take a bit of time to check them out and think about it again.

Sergio I. N.

Victoria
March 15th, 2011 10:50am

Then read mine.
I agree that there may be a Palestinian state soon, and hope that may promote a lessening of the hatred to Jews and Israelis. I do not believe it would dissipate it all, as it never happened in history before.
Before the British Mandate Jordan and Israel were part of the Ottoman empire. There were no independent states, that's what the Arabs sought in allying themselves with the British in WWI, independence from the Turks, actually allying themselves with the Jews... of course before the Mandate, to help them establish an Arab state, which also ended in many different states altogether, since the new conquerors had to please every tribe that had helped the British gain control of former Turkish oil (which would otherwise had been taken by the Germans). In all that, the Zionists were involved, pushing for the restoration (the actual term used in every negotiation by every party, so indicating the rights to the land) of their homeland in the lands of the former province of Palestine, former kingdom of Judea (there are antique coins and archaeological findings depicting the word Israel).
Why don't you question yourself why isn't Joran called Palestine since it was the biggest part of the Mandate for...
You got it!

Nachman

@Victoria I will not engage with you because it will only empower you and so even if you post some rejoinder to this post I will not answer you because as I say above someone with your prejudices cannot be engaged in any kind of meaningful discussion. However to dispel the myths that you unfortunately believe are truths you should be aware that "Palestine" was the name given to the area lying between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan by the Romans after they exiled most (but not all) the Jews from the land over 2000 years ago. Despite what you say which you are unable to verify since how can you possibly attempt to verify a lie without uttering further lies no independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in "Palestine". When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not." Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted: We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds. In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria." The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria" and that, "politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria”. Hard as these facts may be for you to swallow they are facts and not the myths you believe. If for once you might put aside your prejudices and make an effort to learn the unvarnished truth it may be possible to engage with you until then there is no point.

Herzen

Nachman
March 15th, 2011 10:46am
You insinuate that I prefer Jews dead. Despite your misapprehension (I am trying to put you in as good a light as your insinuation will allow), I will nevertheless assume that you can be relied upon to answer a simple question with a simple answer shorn of further slurs: Who is it you think here has "spelt it out in black and white by providing chapter and verse for the Jews' rights of settlement in Judea and Samaria"?

Nachman

@Victoria you say "But when people talk about there being no 'moral equivalence' between people deliberately targeting innocents and the work of national security forces", and then you mention Baruch Goldstein who acted entirely on his own so what pray are you talking about?
Interesting though isn't it you can remember Baruch Goldstein but I do not expect that you can tell me without looking it up the name of the terrorist who slaughtered 30 Jews and injured 140 others celebrating their Passover Seder in Netanya in 2002? Thought not - maybe it's because the case of Baruch Goldstein is so exceptional which cannot be said for Arab terrorism.
BTW his name was Abdel-Basset Odeh yet no one bandies his name about as much as they do Baruch Goldstein's.

Nachman

@herzen Victoria and teresa
The IDF's Shayetet 13 Naval commando unit has just intercepted a shipload of Iranian weapons headed from Turkey to Gaza on Tuesday morning. According to IDF spokesman Avi Bnayahu, who is being interviewed on Israel Radio as I am typing this, the origin of the weapons was in Syria, and it is too early to say what types and quantities of weapons were on the ship. The ship is owned by a German company and flies the Liberian flag. It was intercepted 200 miles out at sea, and was taken over without resistance.
The ship, known as Victoria, was flying a Liberian flag, and was seized by the navy off the coast of El-Arish in Egypt, 200 miles off of Israel's coast.
The Victoria was boarded by commandos from the Israeli Navy's Flotilla 13, also known as the Shayetet, and is expected to arrive in the Ashdod port on Tuesday evening.
An initial inspection of the cargo revealed the ship was carrying weapons. The exact amount is to be determined.
The crew, questioned by the Navy Commando, was not aware that the cargo contained weaponry.The ship set sail several days ago from Turkey, and was expected to dock in El Arish. There, it was supposed to unload the weapons, which would travel by land to Gaza.
Haaretz adds that the ship is carrying 'tons' of concealed weapons. Do not expect any condemnation from the British Foreign Office anytime soon or acknowledgement of Israel's legal right to blockade Gaza they are more worried by the replacement of roof tiles in Ma'ale Adumim.

Are you being altogether honest, Sergio?

It was Hamas that handed out sweets, not the PA. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas went on Israel Radio to condemn the March 11 killings as “despicable, inhuman and immoral.”

You condemn Palestinian celebration of their terrorists. What would you expect a people who have lived under military occupation for two generations to teach their children? Love your enemy, turn the other cheek? It's a pity they don't teach them about Gandhi, at any rate, because the first intifada, the intifada of the stones, was the only time the Palestinians had a chance of winning the argument; the Israeli soldiers themselves started complaining when they were asked to shoot at children. Taking up guns and rockets was no doubt an easier way of maintaining Palestinian self-respect, but it was much less effective politically.

A culture celebrating martyrdom, self-sacrifice for the national cause, hatred of their oppressors is entirely normal. Acts of terror are the desperate, brutalised, last resort of people who have been denied any kind of normal life. Supporters of Israel shouldn't demand of the Palestinians something they would not demand of Jews placed in a similar predicament.

You will say that there should be a rational Palestinan appreciation and acknowledgement that a psychopath slitting a baby's throat is beyond any bounds of justifiable behaviour . Of course there should. But in this conflict, so many more Palestinian babies have died as a result of enemy measures than Israeli ones; do you justify that by saying the Arabs bring it on themselves by continued attacks on Israeli civilians? I just need to know who I'm talking to here.

Augustus

Nobody is defending religious terrorism here, as far as I am aware, from whatever quarter it comes, and it is easy to quote
historical acts of terrorism for your own convenience to arrive at your own truth. The fact is that this was a truly
despicable act, and it is by no means the first time that the village of Itamar has been targeted by Palestinian violence: In May 2001, Gilad Zar
who founded Itamar, and the son of Moshe Zar, was shot dead in an ambush by Palestinians. In
May 2002, three yeshiva students, Netanel Riachi (17),
Gilad Stiglitz (14), and Avraham
Siton (17), were killed by a Palestinian gunman. In June 2002, a Palestinian militant broke into the home of the Shabo family and opened fire. Rachel Shabo, the mother of the family, was murdered, as were the three children, Neria (16),
Zvi (13), and Avishai (5). Later
after more than an hour of fighting with Israeli soldiers
the terrorist was killed, but the Shabo house caught fire and burned down. Quite a lot of 'deliberate targeting of innocents' for one village, I'd
say!

Truthtriumphs

teresa

truthtriumphs,
"How was it moral to deny non-Jews political rights in their own territory and yet grant such rights to newly arriving migrants, who would be expected to rule over them?"

Interesting that you think that it isn't the Jews' "own territory" and that the Jews were all immigrants.
You are buying into the historical revisionism that the Jews are the colonial interlopers, and that the Palestinian Arabs lived there since "time immemorial".

The reason that the "Mandate for Palestine" document was particular to mention Jewish sovereignty in that small territory, was because the Arabs were granted sovereignty in the newly created countries, or mandates, of Iraq, Trans-Jordan and lebanon.
Indeed, the Jews were forbidden to settle in land to the east of the Jordan----somewhat a racist position, don't you think?
In fact, in Israel today, the one and a half million Arab minority, and others, have full political rights, whereas Jews still are forbidden from living in Jordan, and from setting foot in Saudi Arabia.

You seem to be unaware that some 800,000 Jews were thrown out of the Arab countries in 1948... Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Tunisia, Morocco etc. etc. where they had lived for millenia, minus their possessions, and were given sanctuary in Israel.
It is estimated that the property they left behind is some 4 times the size of present day Israel.
It is amply documented that most of the so-called indigenous Arabs in Israel today are descended from the recent, huge scale immigration from Egypt and Syria during the last century, drawn in by Jewish activity in re-building the land, such as turning swamps in the north into fertile land.
Even their surnames attest to their origins.
Indeed, the British mandate authorities complained about the illegal and huge Arab immigration from surrounding countries.
You may find it unpalatable, because it doesn't fit your narrative, but there has been a continuous, unbroken Jewish presence in the Holy land since the Roman conquest in AD70, when most Jews were sent into exile, and if you read the accounts from British, Dutch and American explorers in the 19th.C, you will see that there were very few inhabitants in the region at all, thus proving that your concept of the real owners of the land, is based on a revisionist myth.

You should read some history, before you spout your vaccuous opinions.

Sergio I. N.

Anonymous,
Yes I am. Maybe you should question that about yourself.
It is very questionable of you that you did not understand I was speaking about the authorities of both Palestinian Entities (the facts about the TV shows, for example fall on Hamas).
According to the Oslo accord, the PA must stop incitement, but they have done the complete opposite, yet they claim to be pro-peace. Israel, on the other hand, has established countless projects for appeasement, look them up, they are there.
So, to summarize (I really don't think your opinion could be changed), go read a book. I'm really tired of people with double standards like you, Ani.

Michael White

My amateur review of various records seem to show that when Israel have ceased their building programme, incoming attacks have not stopped.

Truthtriumphs

Herzen
March 15th, 2011 9:37am
Truthtriumphs
"You repeat your falsehoods that have been rebutted again and again. You have never even attempted to address the rebuttals...."

or, lost in translation!

I have addressed the rebuttals, but you dislike the responses because they are irrefutable... it's what they call a dialogue of the deaf.

MairT

I do not give a toss with regards to legal or illegal settlements. Any person be they male or female who has the capacity to stab and cut the throat of a 3 month old child is evil in the purist form. This was not an act of war nor desperation, this was a cold, calculated murder of an entire family.............There is no excuse, non what so ever.

DB

To the person who asked if Sergio was being honest....

I love the irony. You go on to say: "I just need to know who I'm talking to here" -- this coming from a person who does not give their name!! Typical of the sort of person whose real agenda is to vilify Israel and anyone who supports her! Says it all, really.

C Cole

@Herzen

Rebutted where, pray tell? I genuinely would like to know.

Edward in the USA

Victoria, Do you really want to tally the number of atrocities committed by Arabs .vs. Jews all over the World?

Just who bombed London on 7/7/05?

Who does Mr. Andrew Choudary laud as "The Magnificent 19"?

Who threaten the UK with a 9/11 of its own?

Who beheads bound captives whilst masked men shriek how their God is Great?

Who used WMD, poison gas, on the civilian population of Halabja Iraq?

Who dynamited the two 1,500 year old Buddahs of Bamiyan Afghanistan?

Who threatens writers, artists, filmmakers with death due to some claimed blasphemy?

Who placed a bomb on Pan Am 103?

Adam B.

To anonymous, this atrocity was not committed by a lone individual. The Al aqsa martyrs brigades, the armed wing of the Fatah administration which receives all that EU funding - claimed responsibility for it.

Adam B.

Victoria talks about a skewed moral compass - this from someone who tried to get political capital; out of the murder of this family.

Victoria - I will ask you again:

What is your view on the celebrations on the Palestinian street regarding these murders? Do you still contend that most orthodox rabbis are against settlements (source please?) and do you still contend that no imam has ever called for the murder of Jews and Christians (one need look no further than Youtube for the answer).

I await your responses.

Rose

Maybe Hague was overruled. When Cameron was aware of what Hague had said on Saturday he said that the Foreign Office release this statement on Monday.
Cameron wants to keep in with the Germans and French but especially the American Administration and confirm all this special stuff. Just what terms and conditions did Cameron agree to before Obama accepted his invitation to come on a State Visit.
Were Israel Settlement issues and Turkey EU membership at the top of the list

Cyrus Spitama

You know, I get so tired of the circular arguments that inevitably crop up whenever the ‘Israel/Palestine’ issue. Let’s get it into the context of world history.

At the end of World War II 3 million Sudeten Germans were expelled from the former Czechoslovakia, where their communities had lived since the 13th century. Their homes, lands and businesses were taken from them and they were allowed to take only the belongings they could carry on their backs before being marched, at gun-point, across the German border.

Modern historians estimate that more than ½ million Ethnic-German died as a result of their forced expulsions from Central and Eastern Europe.

Once over the border, the Sudeten Germans were crammed into filthy refugee camps, some of which had previously served as concentration camps for enemies of the Nazi state.

It was a brutal and awful time for the Sudeten Germans. But there had been a war. Their ‘people’ lost. And that’s what happens in wars. Losers lose.

Imagine if Germans were like Arabs. Instead of the German population striving to settle the Sudeten German refugees into their cities and assimilate them into their society, they would have kept them deliberately impoverished in refugee camps. They would point across the Czech border, and tell their wretched ‘refugees’ that Slavs they had ‘stolen’ their lands and must be blamed for their misery. The children of Sudeten Germans would grow up in overcrowded shanties, filled with hate and dreaming of blowing up Slavs in a Prague cafe.

Germans everywhere would demand the ‘right’ for all descendants of Sudeten Germans to ‘return’ to the Czech lands, to ensure the demographic dominance of ethnic Germans.

But European culture isn’t Arabic culture. Europeans look to the future. They thrive and prosper. Today, you can drive from the Czech Republic into Germany without even realising you’ve done so.

History happens. Borders change. Some people lose. Some people win. It was the way for thousands of years and in some cases, it still is.

And the irony is that throughout history Arab and Muslims peoples have been no strangers to changing the borders and demographics of the lands they’ve conquered.

There is absolutely no point whatsoever in engaging in a debate about the rights or wrongs or historical detail of the I/P situation. The facts are that Israel exists. The clock can’t be turned back. Neither Arabs nor Muslims have a very good track record of coexisting with Jews. The only way forward is to recognise these facts and try to make the best of the situation.

John.

TruthTriumphs: An excellent summary of the facts - how opponents continue to gainsay them I just don't know.
Edward from the USA: the Falklands were granted to GB by Charles the Third of Spain in the Treaty of Madrid in 1760. They were uninhabited so were taken from nobody. The only permanent settlers since then have been British, mainly Scots sheep farmers. The results of 3 referenda on whether they wished to be incorporated into Argentina have been something like 99% voting no. To give Argentina, (which didn't evenm exist in 1760), islands to which they have no entitlement whatsoever and against the express wishes of the inhabitants would be crazy. Gibraltar was ceded to GB by the Spanish crown in the Treaty of Utrecht in the early 18th century. The Spanish inhabitants all abandoned the Rock and a mixture of Leventines, Indians, British and others replaced them. They also have repeatedly declared their allegiance to the British crown and their wish not to be incorporated into Spain. How democratic would it be and how just to ignore the express wishes of the actual inhabitants? The very few remaining crown colonies in the West Indies are free to leave the protection of the British crown whenever they so wish. You may remember that Belize had to be forced to become independent of GB by the UN - they did not want this. I would maintain that you would find the same sentiment to be generally held in the few British possessions left in the West Indies.

Trumpeldor

The San Remo 1920 Conference awarded full sovereignty of the whole Mandate to the Jewish People.
These clauses are still valid under "International law"and binding.
If British people on this site deny these conclusions,I am not surprised since "Great Britain" sabotaged it several times....
-unlawful give away of Transjordan to emir Abdalla in 1922
-unlawful and incited massive migration of arab population to the Mandate from Auran (South Syria),Egypt (Arafat is a good example),Irak and even from Lybia (2 weeks ago,4000 Lybians from Gaza demanded to be returned there)
I will just mention transfer of strategic locations to Arabs insurgents in May 48 and the more than technical support of Arab legion from British officers (Glub pacha)
Very strangely, UK decided to fight Hagana when the victorious Jewish army began to pour into Sinai in 1948 but conversely never tried to prevent Egypt to attack the new state !

Herzen

Truthtriumphs
March 15th, 2011 1:38pm
You're something of a comedian, aren't you. You "addressed" the rebuttal by quoting a long letter from an aged Zionist that addressed NONE of the assertions you had made and I and others had corrected.

Sergio I. N.

@John.
March 15th, 2011 3:25pm
Quite off topic here, sorry everyone.

Las Malvinas were settled by Argentinians (Provincias Unidas del Rio de la Plata is another name for Argentina, actually in use), and were expelled by the British.
Before that, they were claimed by the British, but Spain, in the Nutka conventions achieved the recognition that they were Spanish, not British. They were not ceded and were part of the Virreynato del Rio de la Plata. Then, on declaring independence from Spain, the Argentinians claimed them as a part of their natural territories (as former part of the Virreinato). It was later that they were expelled by the British. In the meantime everyone was trying to profit on the seal hunting there, I think even the Dutch.
The fact that Argentina does not have the minimum leverage in the UN to get the matter to be treated means nothing on sovereignty. Before the Argentinians the islands exchanged hands, that is true, but geographically and historically, the territories were taken from Argentina, while Argentina never evicted any British living there (they had left).
Apart from all that, the Malvinas have lately been used by the most vile of polititians and military to assert their power over their respective people, so they are used and abused... and drained from oil by BP.
Can't speak about Gibraltar, but C'mon! it is just one more colonial residue!

Herzen

C Cole
March 15th, 2011 1:58pm

This is taking a bit of a liberty, but here is one TDH's response to what Truthtriumphs wrote on an earlier thread and repeated here on March 14th, 2011 11:32pm (with a few comments of my own):

Palestine was not "designated to the Jews". The Mandate power was instructed to facilitate a National Home for the Jews in Palestine with the proviso that the rights of (the other 95% of) the inhabitants, civil and religious, were not to be harmed. (Civil rights explicitly included political rights.)

There is an argument that the Mandate promised more. It incorporated Balfour's declaration. The British cabinet understood that "National Home" was Zionist code for "Jewish State" (code apparently adopted to keep the Zionists' intentions a secret!) Therefore, in incorporating Balfour's declaration, the League of Nations necessarily incorporated the private understanding of the code words, and therefore the Mandate promised a Jewish state in Palestine. However, "National Home" has no recognised application in international law. I am no expert on the Convention on Treaties etc., but the terms of a treaty are likely to be elucidated, where it is deemed ambiguous, by common usage and evidence of the drafters' intentions. Those who drafted the League of Nations Covenant and the Mandate for Palestine were explicit that they did not intend a state for the Zionists and did not intend the other inhabitants to be disadvantaged by the commitment to a Jewish National Home.

At the time the Mandate was signed, it is not true that most of the Arabs were immigrants from Syria and Egypt. Truthtriumphs has been provided with the findings of population surveys for the century up to the Mandate. He appears to prefer anecdote. In the mid-19th century, there were approximately 420000 Muslims, 60000 Christians, and 20000 Jews. At the beginning of the Mandate, there were approximately 650000 Muslims, 80000 Christians, and 60000 Jews. This was the population referred to in the League of Nations Covenant as one of thecommunities living in the former Turkish empire. (McCarthy 1988 "The Population of Palestine: Population Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate" Columbia University.)

"When the league of Nations was superseded by the UN, the "Mandate for Palestine" was incorporated into Article 80 of the UN Charter, which, in the absence of any agreement to end hostilities, remains the legal status of the area to the present day." - If this is correct (and there are good arguments for it), then Palestine has the status defined in the Mandate: a state held in trust for its inhabitants by the Mandate Power.

"The UN, in 1947, proposed a partition of Palestine, giving the Jews a very small proportion of the original area.
The Jews accepted, reluctantly" I am sure you are aware that the Jews accepted explicitly (at least within their own councils) as a first step to a state in the whole of Palestine. (I will provide some evidence if you do not already have it.)

"It was put to a vote in the UN in November 1947, and passed.(Resolution 181)" It is generally understood by now that Resolution 181 was a recommendation and by the time the Zionists made their unilateral declaration was a dead letter.

I am sure you are also aware that the civil war that ensued was well under way before the Arab state intervened. With the Israelis implementing Plan D, the Arab states could claim to be coming to the defence of the Palestinians. I'm sure you are also well aware by now that the Israeli forces were much stronger than the Palestinian irregulars and the armies of the Arab states who intervened. Neither the Zionist high command, nor British and American intelligence, were in any doubt about the outcome.

There is good evidence that Jordan's annexation of the West Bank was part of a reluctant understanding between Jordan and Israel, with British approval.

That 1967 was a war of defence is contentious, especially if you study Israeli behaviour in the run-up, and if you read intelligence assessments by the Israelis and the US. I refer you to Zeev Maoz (no "self-hating Jew" - he served in the War of Attrition after 1967, in the Yom Kippur War, and in Lebanon, he served as a military advisor to Yitzak Rabin, and held a senior position at the IDF's National Defense College). He agrees with the consensus among historians that the war was avoidable and caused by mistakes on all sides. However, he places most blame on the Israelis because of their decade of aggression prior to the war.

"Jordan made peace, but gave up all claims to the West Bank, which was never legally theirs." It was as much theirs as Galilee etc. is Israel's - they both took them by conquest. Jordan did not renounce its claim in favour of Israel but the Palestinians.

"The UN then passed Resolution 242, calling on Israel to withdraw from territories, deliberately omitting the definite article..." Why should the elucidation of the wording given by the drafters to Israel trump the elucidation given to the Arabs? Why should the English version trump the French? Who among the drafters had in mind other than minor mutually agreed adjustments to borders?

"Although the status of the WB remains legally part of the Jewish state..." This will have to be explained. Is it part of the Jewish state "legally" because Israel took it by conquest, or what?

"In a landmark ruling, Judge Stephen Schwebel..." As I understand it, this was not a ruling made in any official capacity, but a personal opinion. I cannot find the basis for the claim that territory acquired by military force in a war deemed by the state acquiring the territory to be defensive is acquired legally. Even if there were such a law, there would still be a requirement to demonstrate that the war was indeed defensive. Germany after all waged a "defensive" war against Poland in 1939.

If you argue from the League of Nations Mandate, then Jerusalem is part of Palestine, and Israel's claim to it is again based on military conquest.

"The only people to have enjoyed sovereignty (countries called Judah and Israel)in the geographical area of Palestine were the Jews.
No independent country of Palestine ever existed--- neither was there ever a Palestinian people--- that is a myth."

If you are basing your claims on international law, this is not relevant. Courts up to and including the ICJ have recognised no right derived from ancient title. Advocates for Zionism make great play of the concept of a nation - the Jewish diaspora is a nation but the Palestinians are not, therefore the claims of the Jewish diaspora, though not resident, are stronger than the claims of the Palestinians, though resident. However, the relevant treaties talk of "nations", "peoples" and "communities". The Palestinians are quite clearly one of the peoples or communities mentioned by the League of Nations. Whether they determined that they wished to be part of a Syrian state or a Palestinian state would not have affected their rights as a community.

Barry

Edward in the USA: "Speaking of settlements, I look forward to the honourable Mr. Hague demand that the ... artifacts of questionable provenance in the British Museum be returned to their rightful owners."

Why single out the British Museum? Most of the world's major museums contain items of "questionable provenance", including a few in the US with collections more recent than the BM.

C.Gee

Thus spake the UK spokesman at the United Nations Security Council (during the Security Council debate on the draft resolution on the illegality of the settlements):

“MARK LYALL GRANT (United Kingdom), speaking also on behalf of France and Germany, said he had voted in favour of the draft because the settlements were illegal, constituting an obstacle to peace and a two-State solution. A just solution to the refugee question and a determination of Jerusalem as the capital of both States was also needed, he said, noting that the Palestinian Authority had found a way to build the institutions of a State that, hopefully, would come into fruition by September.”
This is what the FO is working towards: recognition of Palestine. The deaths of illegal settlers are irrelevant.

Barry

Sergio I. N:

From: R. Reginald & J.M. Elliot, 'Tempest in a Teapot : The Falkland Islands War', (1983), The Borgo Press, San Bernardino, California, USA

"Argentina did occupy the Falklands in 1820, and maintained a tenuous colony until the British displaced them. It is upon this fact that Argentina's strongest claim is based. But even this claim includes its share of deficiencies, the chief being that Argentina never controlled more than a small section of the Falklands, that part near Puerto Soledad, during its twelve years of occupancy. The sealers and whalers who used the islands as a way station did not acknowledge Argentine sovereignty or control, and generally refused to pay taxes for their catches. Argentina's half-hearted attempts to impose its authority over these transients failed. Further, the Argentine colony never consisted of more than fifty or a hundred settlers, and these few colonists made few attempts to farm, raise livestock, or otherwise conduct themselves as permanent residents."

Herzen

There is also the enduring puzzle or apparent inconsistency of advocates for Israel insisting Israel has legal title bestowed by the institutions of international law while at the same time insisting on its right to defy the institutions of international law.

trumpeldor

Eretz Israel was very scarely peopled before 1870
Who described this desolation?karl marx,pierre lotti,chateaubriand,marc twain among many others

aelle

But surely it is the Israeli government, not the British Foreign Secretary or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that has linked the unspeakable atrocity of murdering a family and its children with the decision to accelerate the establishment of new settlement homes on the West Bank.

The respected Y Net.news reporter Nahum Barnea, for one,
finds this response counter-intuitive. In an article entitled " Israel Punishes Itself " he questions the underlying logic when, as he claims, the majority of Israelis see " no way to perpetuate the current situation ".

As William Hague clearly stated the murder of innocent children is totally repugnant and indefensible.

Without in any way condoning such bestial behaviour, what kind of response to the situation is it to effectively announce that even more families will be sent into an area originally designated by the United Nations as part of the two state solution proposed after the end of WWII because of the majority Arab presence in the area?

After the hard-line tone of most contributions to this site it comes as a surprise that Barnea and Gideon Levy, who delivered some presumably unpalatable home truths a few days ago in Dublin, represent an authentic Israeli set of opinions that is in sharp contrast to those expressed here by many, who, I strongly suspect, live their lives in the relative security of the UK.

Truthtriumphs

Herzen
March 15th, 2011 4:51pm
C Cole.

Palestine was not "designated to the Jews". The Mandate power was instructed to facilitate a National Home for the Jews in Palestine with the proviso that the rights of (the other 95% of) the inhabitants, civil and religious, were not to be harmed. (Civil rights explicitly included political rights.)"

You cannot read, or comprehend.

The exact opposite of what you say appears in black on white in the relevant documents.

As a matter of interest, do you have any problem with the awarding of the mandates to Iraq, Syria or Trans-Jordan?
Do you have a problem with the sovereignty of Saudi Arabia....awarded to a few feudal families?
Do you have a problem with the statehood of any other nation on earth, or is it only with the Jewish state?

I suspect you are one of those Jews who crave acceptance from those who hate you.
If so, just remember that those type of Jews were marched to the gas chambers in exactly the same way as all the others.

Owen Morgan

Yet again, the Foreign Office disgraces the nation. I continue to believe and fervently hope that people with the moral stature of Melanie Phillips characterize the British more than the bbc, the guardian and the general yahoos who try to do her, the Jews and our entire British nation down.

Nachman

@Herzen
The "rebuttal" you have written takes the Hamas' line that the State of Israel is an illegal entity for that is what you are attempting to "prove". Questioning the legitimacy of the State of Israel is per se within the European definition of anti-Semitism. The "rebuttal" is no such thing. For a start the “Mandate for Palestine” clearly differentiates between political rights – referring to Jewish self-determination as an emerging polity – and civil and religious rights, referring to guarantees of equal personal freedoms to non-Jewish residents as individuals and within select communities. Not once are Arabs as a people mentioned in the “Mandate for Palestine.” At no point in the entire document is there any granting of political rights to non-Jewish entities (i.e., Arabs). Article 2 of the “Mandate for Palestine” explicitly states that the Mandatory should:
“... be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”
Political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed by the League of Nations in four other mandates – in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and later Trans-Jordan [today Jordan].
International law expert Professor Eugene V. Rostow, examining the claim for Arab Palestinian self-determination on the basis of law, concluded:

“… the mandate implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favor of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land. Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Minister, made this reading of the mandate explicit. There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent ‘natural law’ claim to the area. Neither customary international law nor the United Nations Charter acknowledges that every group of people claiming to be a nation has the right to a state of its own.”
Secondly, you term the invasion by five Arab states on the establishment of the State of Israel as a Civil War - obviously it was no such thing.
Thirdly you indicate that assertion that the Six Day War in 1967 was a war of defence is contentious. However whilst mentioning Israeli actions you fail to mention that the closing of the Straits of Tiran by Egypt was of itself a causus belli and further that Israel warned Jordan to keep out of the war which was answered by Jordanian shelling of west Jerusalem which entitled Israel to defend iyself i.e. it did not initiate a war which resulted in it holding Judea and Samaria an area previously illegally occupied by Jordan. The Galilee likewise was taken after Israel came under attack in 1948 from the five invading Arab armies. When Jordan gave up its wholly unsuportable claim to Judea and Samaria it most certainly did not revert to the Arabs because in all history other than for the Jews no one had held sovereignty over that area which was included in the 1922 Mandate to which the Arabs had no political rights.
As to your comments about Resolution 242 (again selective) the resolution does not make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisite for Arab action. Moreover, it does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from "all the" territories occupied after the Six-Day War. This was quite deliberate. The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant "that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands." The Arab states pushed for the word "all" to be included, but this was rejected. They nevertheless asserted that they would read the resolution as if it included the word "all." The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, Lord Caradon, declared after the vote: "It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear." This literal interpretation, without the implied "all," was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those involved in drafting the resolution. On October 29, 1969, for example, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories." When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial." Similarly, Ambassador Arthur Goldberg explained: "The notable omissions — which were not accidental — in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'....the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal.

Truthtriumphs

Victoria.

When you profess to being just anti-Zionist, as opposed to being anti-semitic, this is what Martin luther King had to say about people like you:--

MARTIN LUTHER KING ON ZIONISM
"Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend"
"... You declare, my friend; that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist'. And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of G-D's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews -- this is G-D's own truth.

"Anti-Semitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agree-ment. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently anti-Semitic, and ever will be so.

"Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tryant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered our L-RD. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.

"The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested -- DEMANDED -- the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.

"How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfillment of G-D's promise, that His people should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land. This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.

"And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is anti-Semitism.

"The anti-Semite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the anti-Semite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerrade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!
Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews -- make no mistake about it."

These were his sentiments AFTER the 1967 war, when Israel held the disputed territories.

Nachman

In this post I want to address this lie – “I am sure you are also aware that the civil war that ensued was well under way before the Arab state intervened. With the Israelis implementing Plan D, the Arab states could claim to be coming to the defence of the Palestinians. I'm sure you are also well aware by now that the Israeli forces were much stronger than the Palestinian irregulars and the armies of the Arab states who intervened. Neither the Zionist high command, nor British and American intelligence, were in any doubt about the outcome”
Immediately after the UN announced partition resolution on November 29, 1947. The Arabs declared a protest strike and instigated riots that claimed the lives of 62 Jews and 32 Arabs. Violence continued to escalate through the end of the year. The first large-scale assaults began on January 9, 1948, when approximately 1,000 Arabs attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine. By February, the British said so many Arabs had infiltrated they lacked the forces to run them back. In fact, the British turned over bases and arms to Arab irregulars and the Arab Legion.In the first phase of the war, lasting from November 29, 1947 until April 1, 1948, the Palestinian Arabs took the offensive, with help from volunteers from neighboring countries. The Jews suffered severe casualties and passage along most of their major roadways was disrupted. On April 26, 1948, Transjordan's King Abdullah said:[A]ll our efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Palestine problem have failed. The only way left for us is war. I will have the pleasure and honor to save Palestine.
On May 4, 1948, the Arab Legion attacked Kfar Etzion. The defenders drove them back, but the Legion returned a week later. After two days, the ill-equipped and outnumbered settlers were overwhelmed. Many defenders were massacred after they had surrendered.7 This was prior to the invasion by the regular Arab armies that followed Israel's declaration of independence.The UN blamed the Arabs for the violence. The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted by the Arabs or British to go to Palestine to implement the resolution. On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the Security Council: Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.The Arabs were blunt in taking responsibility for starting the war. Jamal Husseini told the Security Council on April 16, 1948:The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight.
The British commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, John Bagot Glubb admitted: Early in January, the first detachments of the Arab Liberation Army began to infiltrate into Palestine from Syria. Some came through Jordan and even through Amman . . . They were in reality to strike the first blow in the ruin of the Arabs of Palestine.10Despite the disadvantages in numbers, organization and weapons, the Jews began to take the initiative in the weeks from April 1 until the declaration of independence on May 14. The Haganah captured several major towns including Tiberias and Haifa, and temporarily opened the road to Jerusalem. The partition resolution was never suspended or rescinded. Thus, Israel, the Jewish State in Palestine, was born on May 14, as the British finally left the country. Five Arab armies (Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq) immediately invaded Israel. Their intentions were declared by Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades
The Jews won their war of independence with minimal help from the West. In fact, they won despite efforts to undermine their military strength. Although the United States vigorously supported the partition resolution, the State Department did not want to provide the Jews with the means to defend themselves. "Otherwise," Undersecretary of State Robert Lovett argued, "the Arabs might use arms of U.S. origin against Jews, or Jews might use them against Arabs."14 Consequently, on December 5, 1947, the U.S. imposed an arms embargo on the region. Many in the State Department saw the embargo as yet another means of obstructing partition. President Truman nevertheless went along with it hoping it would be a means of averting bloodshed. This was naive given Britain's rejection of Lovett's request to suspend weapons shipments to the Arabs and subsequent agreements to provide additional arms to Iraq and Transjordan.The Arabs had no difficulty obtaining all the arms they needed. In fact, Jordan's Arab Legion was armed and trained by the British, and led by a British officer. At the end of 1948 and beginning of 1949, British RAF planes flew with Egyptian squadrons over the Israel-Egypt border. On January 7, 1949, Israeli planes shot down four of the British aircraft. The Jews, on the other hand, were forced to smuggle weapons, principally from Czechoslovakia. When Israel declared its independence in May 1948, the army did not have a single cannon or tank. Its air force consisted of nine obsolete planes. Although the Haganah had 60,000 trained fighters, only 18,900 were fully mobilized, armed and prepared for war. On the eve of the war, chief of operations Yigael Yadin told David Ben-Gurion: "The best we can tell you is that we have a 50-50 chance." So much for your historical revisionism.

vic lesser

Both actions are deplorable - killing an innocent Jewish family by Arabs or illegal building by Jews provoking Arabs. Both should seek forgiveness and peace

Leo

To Truthtriumphs:

I can only laugh when I read your quote from Martin Luther King. Zionism has now become one of the most radical and dangerous ideologies in the world today. Many of you talk about the threat of Islam but look at yourselves - quite happy to accommodate notions of God giving the land to the Jews. This is seriously dangerous stuff.

If Martin Luther King was alive today, he'd be appalled at what Israel has become. Say whatever you like on this forum - the history books will not shine a favourable light on the first 60 years or so in Israel's history. My fear is that the next 60 years may not be any better.

logdon

Michael White
March 15th, 2011 1:30pm

Well spoken, Michael.

However even the absolute of nail on the head will not deter the Victoria's of this world who live in such a cocoon of false conscious self righteousness that your little fact of evidence flies straight over their pretty little heads.

Deliverance of land for peace has resulted in nil peace and yet more clamouring for land.

That clamouring will not cease until the whole is subsumed into one Islamic state with Jews living under the duress and serfdom of the dhimmi laws.

It's headed Europewards also but for now Israel is the Ummah's testbed.

Be careful what you wish for, one day it could be nicely wrapped up in shariah compliant covering and dumped upon your own doorstep.

Jerry

Victoria wrote about Baruch Goldstein.

I do not condone what Goldstein did, but I can tell you first hand that it was an act of desperation from a man that had treated Arabs injured in a traffic accident on the day that he committed the atrocity. For about two weeks prior to Goldstein's act, the minarets of Hebron were regularly broadcasting the message that something was going to happen to the Jews, that they were going to be killed in the name of Allah. Every night, the same message. I was there until three or four days before the massacre and the Jews were indeed petrified. No excuse for Goldstein's act, but a Jew's building a house in Judea could never elicit fear in the manner of the nightly threats against the entire Jewish population of the area.

Nachman

@Leo
You are behind the times - the Arabs supported by the then Soviet Union got the General Assembly under General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on November 10, 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), to "determine that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination". The resolution was revoked by Resolution 46/86 on December 16, 1991. In the history of the UN, this is the only resolution that has ever been revoked.It was revoked because unlike you it was recognised that Zionism is not racist. Furthermore I did not know it was illegal to have religious beliefs or is that only if they do not accord with your views? I reckon that makes you a bigot.

Nachman

@vic lesser
your comment is deplorable you should be ashamed of what you have written. I trust on reflection you will withdraw it.

VEBott

@ ADAM B, SERGIO

“The Al Aqsa martyrs brigades, the armed wing of the Fatah administration which receives all that EU funding - claimed responsibility for it.”

Oh! When I read this, I thought you had completely destroyed my point, the point that Sergio seems to have missed so comprehensively. But in fact no, the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade linked to Fatah has explicitly denied it had anything to do with this atrocity.

The Jerusalem Post says:

"Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades officials denied that the attack came from within their ranks, telling Al Hayat that they are not connected to the Imad Mugniyeh group.

They added that either the perpetrator was acting alone, or had received instructions from abroad, suggesting that the group's name may indicate that it is under Hezbollah's command."

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=211909

This sounds rather like the problem that we had in Britain, with the 'Continuity IRA' usurping P. O'Neil's name. Nobody seems to have ever heard of this Imad Mugniyeh group before.

So, back to Sergio. The reason I felt it disingenuous to blur distinctions between Hamas and the PA is that the entire brunt of my post concerned the importance for Israel of preserving a valid interlocutor, and the fact that the settlement policy is quite obviously destroying that possibility – is in fact giving the Palestinians to Hamas.

My apologies if it was not deliberate on your part, or if you were blinded by anger, but to ignore this distinction is to miss what it was we were arguing about. Of course, Fatah, as a resistance organization, has claimed responsibility for attacks on Israeli civilians in the past. Just not this one, David Cameron's response to which Melanie found so unacceptable .

logdon

My brothers... in Gaza and in the West Bank... I want to urge you strongly to unite ... this enemy [Israel] is not an easy enemy, and if we want to defeat this difficult enemy, we have to be united so that we can strengthen our abilities... to liberate the entire stolen Palestinian homeland [i.e., all of Israel]. May Allah bless you."

Host: "Thank you very much... I join my voice to yours; of course, unity and liberation are the hope of all Palestinians."
[PA TV (Fatah), Jan. 23, 2011, and Feb. 27, 2011]

palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=4769

Clear enough?

Victoria

Adam B.

It's funny because you keep saying 'I await your response' when I have given you adequate replies so far. Either you are selectively choosing what you want to read or you're just not doing your research.

You write "Victoria talks about a skewed moral compass - this from someone who tried to get political capital; out of the murder of this family.

Victoria - I will ask you again:

What is your view on the celebrations on the Palestinian street regarding these murders? Do you still contend that most orthodox rabbis are against settlements (source please?) and do you still contend that no imam has ever called for the murder of Jews and Christians (one need look no further than Youtube for the answer).

I await your responses."

I will deal with these in turn.

1)
Q: What is your view on the celebrations on the Palestinian street regarding these murders?
A: I think they are wrong either way. Glorifying the murder of children is neither right for Israelis or Palestinians. But the people still haven't been caught so we still don't know for sure who did it.

2)

Q:Do you still contend that most orthodox rabbis are against settlements (source please?)
A: I did quote you some accurate sources in a previous post. But since I think anything I give you in words will be refuted with a counter-argument on the source or validity, I will give you pictures. Type 'Jews Against the Occupation' in Google Images and you'll see that it paints a thousand words. And I did not say 'most', I said 'many'. There is a difference.

3)
Q: do you still contend that no imam has ever called for the murder of Jews and Christians (one need look no further than Youtube for the answer)?
A: yes YouTube really is the mother of all resources for finding truth Adam(!) Having read the Quran I know that any true Imam would not promote violence. The Quran is closer to the Torah and Bible than you allow yourself to believe. If any 'imams' have incited hate I am confident that hey are following an agenda that has little to do with Islam. Like Rabbi Yaakov Perrin's teachings are so exteme that they do not preach true Torah values. Many Muslims condone this behaviors, as Jews do of Israeli extremism (the government at least appears so on the surface). If someone posing as a sheikh or imam does this they are showing their own prejudices, not that in Islam. I will never defend taking the actions of a few to represent the views of all. Like you. We can sit for hours arguing over this, but it goes off-subject. Islam and Judaism have nothing to do with these wars. That is my unshakable belief, no matter what you say.

You and I clash Adam, accept it. What you don't realize is that my views are not on any one side at all. I don't price the life of an Israeli above a Palestinian as you do. They are equal. You can't see that your tireless defensiveness against someone who just has an opinion that is different to yours is just why people like you lobbyists are the contempt of many. It has nothing to do with Islam, Judaism or Christianity. People spread lies about religion to fuel their own prejudices. Like you.

Now that is the extent I will answer your questions. There's only so much you can do or bother when reasoning with someone who will only believe what he wants to. We should accept to totally disagree on this - and that probably will not change. Well not until I express undying support for Israel, no matter what they do. I'm sorry, that's not democracy.

Herzen

Truthtriumphs
"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

...

ART. 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

ART. 3. The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy."

Thus, the Mandate.

And what did I say that you claim to be the exact opposite?

"Palestine was not "designated to the Jews". The Mandate power was instructed to facilitate a National Home for the Jews in Palestine with the proviso that the rights of (the other 95% of) the inhabitants, civil and religious, were not to be harmed. (Civil rights explicitly included political rights.)"

Just to clarify, the words "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion" were given authoritative interpretation in a Privy Council ruling in a case on appeal from the Supreme Court of Palestine. The words meant that "the Mandatory shall not discriminate in favour of persons of any one religion or race."

The mandates were set up under article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations:

"To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory..." (The rest of article 22 deals with peoples the Great Powers had an even greater contempt for.)

The people living in Palestine were one of the "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire"

Article 23 further required the members of the League to "undertake to secure just treatment of the NATIVE inhabitants of territories under their control" - native ie those born there.

Why is the Mandate for Palestine full of instructions for establishing immigrants in a Jewish National Home? - because these were additional to the responsibilities already itemized in the Covenant. The indigenous population were already there, so explicit provisions facilitating their immigration were deemed unnecessary.

Is the Mandate inconsistent with the Covenant? Everyone involved in the drafting thought so.

Even Balfour who was gung-ho for riding roughshod over the rights of the inhabitants acknowledged that self-determination had to play a part in the arrangements for Palestine, "The problem of Palestine cannot be exclusively solved on the principles of self-determination..." (ie they play some part).

Self-determination was already considered a legal right in 1920 (on the evidence of disputes mediated by jurists appointed by the League).

The Permanent Mandates Commission said that the mandatory powers had no right of sovereignty but that the people under the mandate held ultimate sovereignty.

Legal opinion at the time was that a mandate community was a subject of international law ie had the capacity to bear rights and responsibilities.

At San Remo the British, French and Italian drafters agreed that "civil rights" included "political rights". They would not be discussing such questions if the population under discussion were not the mandate community, the people under the mandate.

On what was promised to the Zionists, Lord Curzon briefed the cabinet (November 1920):

"...while the Powers had unquestionably recognised the historical connection of the Jews with Palestine by their formal acceptance of the Balfour Declaration and their textual incorporation of it in the Turkish Peace Treaty drafted at San Remo, this was far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim, and that the use of such words might be, and was, indeed, certain to be used as the basis of all sorts of political claims by the Zionists for the control of Palestinian administration in the future, and that, while Mr. Balfour's Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home - an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification...Mr. Balfour admitted the force of the above contentions and on the eve of leaving for Geneva suggested an alternative form of words..." (The alternative form of words is the form that appears in the treaties.

Even Balfour conceded that the Zionists had no legal claim to Palestine.

In short, the inhabitants of Palestine were the population whose state was held in trust by the British mandatory power, who also undertook to facilitate a Jewish National Home in Palestine for immigrants from elsewhere, so long as this did not infringe the civil and religious rights of the rest of the population (the 730000 Muslims and Christians as opposed to the 60000 Jews).

As I said.

Sergio I. N.

Barry
March 15th, 2011 5:20pm

So because they were overwhelmed by sealers and whalers and had not much to live on it is OK to kick them out?
That's the argument? In that case, you can justify every invasion you want with an "Yes, but look at how badly kept their hair is!" (I guess those were the arguments to get into India, Africa, China, etc etc?)
By the time Argentina was being born out of the wreck of the Spanish Empire, You had full control of half the world, so anything would be badly kept in comparison. And by the time the British invaded the Argentinan control was being established in these islands. The thing is Argentina did settle Malvinas and the British Empire kick them out by force. They took advantage of the fall of Spain.
But I respect the Kelpers' choice, although not BPs policy to drain Argentinian sovereign sea from oil without an accord with the Argentinian Government.

Augustus

Those commenters here who are
against the Zionist cause all
condemn the murders as bestial,
repugnant and indefensible. And yet they all seem quite willing
to relativate them with what
Israelis do. That is exactly where the sickness lies, because these murders didn't take place in a vacuum, they occurred in an anti-Israeli climate that has been sown and nourished by the despicable left-wing media in our modern world. The climate in which so many call for the abuse and pesting of Israel. The climate of those who march to protest in
demonstrations where people still shout, 'all the Jews to the gas chambers!' And the climate of those who licked the boots of mass murderers like
Yasser Arafat.

Brian Meadows

Britain and, indeed, most of the rest of Europe, really is SO morally bankrupt as to give that phrase a new and baser definition! Maybe they can redeem themselves a little by unilaterally declaring a no-fly zone in, and a blockade of, Libya. Unless, of course, the French allow themselves to be held back by British Daniel Cleaver-style cowardice!!!

Truthtriumphs

Leo
March 15th, 2011 7:00pm
To Truthtriumphs:

"I can only laugh when I read your quote from Martin Luther King. Zionism has now become one of the most radical and dangerous ideologies in the world today. Many of you talk about the threat of Islam but look at yourselves - quite happy to accommodate notions of God giving the land to the Jews. This is seriously dangerous stuff.
If Martin Luther King was alive today, he'd be appalled at what Israel has become."

I wondered how long it would take before some brain-dead goon would posit the absurd notion.... if he were alive today...blah, blah blah...
Just like those idiots who say that the 51 members of the League of nations didn't mean what they said, in documents which left no room for doubt as to their intentions, anticipating the likes of you sometime in the future.

Oh, and btw, it's "if MlK WERE alive today", not "was alive today".
You can't even grasp simple rules of grammar, can you, so what hope for more complex issues?

Hewbroid

The celebration by palestinians at the death of Israeli jews is the solidary behaviour of people in conflict, and is perfectly intelligle as such. It is the illegitimacy, in their eyes, of jewish claims that makes all IDF-caused deaths murder. The idea that jews have historic rights doesn't have any force with the Palestinians, and there is no reason why it should. It may not be pretty but that is what humans do at the death of an enemy - they celebrate. And, all the better that Israel can see that they are celebrating.

There is little point decrying the behaviour the behaviour of palestinians until the problem of legitimacy is resolved, or forgotten. It is not going to be resolved so it has to be forgotten. That is to say that palestinians have to become pre-occupied with an improvement in their circumstances. Start now it is going to take a long time. Israel should get out of the West Bank, start greening the Negev, join Nato, get a US base in the Negev, partially de-militarise, and start making lots of money. Prosperity is the only probable salve for the sore of illegitimacy. We in the West should then physically guarantee Israel's existence. Israel could be freed to be the centre of an economic transformation of the eastern mediterranean.

Truthtriumphs

Victoria.

And another thing.
Just noticed this priceless insight of yours from a previous thread.

"Many true Torah Jews do not accept the State of Israel. They were banished from Israel by God!".

So that's it, is it, Victoria---they didn't accept your messiah, and so deserve eternal damnation?
That is the doctrine of the supersessionists.
It has nothing to do with Judaism.

McMurdo

Melanie

Perhaps you should set out the reason why the West Bank is *not* 'The Occupied Territories' as it is frequently referred to in the media just so that everyone is clear about this.

Kind Regards

Brian Meadows

Britain and, indeed, most of the rest of Europe, really is SO morally bankrupt as to give that phrase a new and baser definition! Maybe they can redeem themselves a little by unilaterally declaring a no-fly zone in, and a blockade of, Libya. Unless, of course, the French allow themselves to be held back by British Daniel Cleaver-style cowardice!!!

Truthtriumphs

Victoria.

Just interested to know how your admirable concern for the "poor Palestinians" translates itself into positive action to help them?
Please tell us what positive steps you have taken to relieve their "suffering", other than trawl through internet hate sites to find material with which to vilify the Jews.

VEBott

Anon is me just forgetting to fill in details.. sorry

Adam B.

Victoria, your answers reveal a lot. Namely, that

1.You make a disgusting and false comparison between Palestinian and Israeli reactions to the deaths of innocents, claiming that Israelis celebrate in the streets as much as the Palestinians. They do not. I would like your source for this claim.

2.You are wrong. You wrote this:

“What is even more riling, is that most orthodox Jews are AGAINST the settlements.”

That’s “most” Victoria, not “many”. Do you understand the difference? I trust you will now retract this statement. In any case, you trot out Neturei Karta as your evidence. Not only is this group a tiny fringe – they are also against the Jewish state completely, and partake in Holocaust Denial Conferences in Iran, with such luminaries as the Ku Klux Klan. Glad you think so highly of them.

3.Likewise, you falsely claimed that no imam has ever publicly called for the deaths of Jews or Christians. This is a lie. My point about Youtube was that one hardly has to go very far to find out how cretinous this assertion is. Dispatches did a whole programme about it in the Uk alone, with footage of several imams saying precisely what you deny.

All this in addition to your refusal to engage on the point regarding the difference between deliberate premeditated murder, and the loss of life in legitimate self-defence against terrorists.

Facts aren’t your strong point, are they? Much easier to live with indoctrination than reality.

Leo

To Truthtriumphs:

What kind of brain-dead goon would cite the words of someone long dead to support the Zionist cause? Martin Luther King’s words of support for the Zionist concept were uttered while Israel was still in its infancy. They weren’t uttered while Israel was dropping white phosphorous on civilians. They weren’t uttered following the Gaza flotilla raid. No you fool, they were uttered in the *1960s*.

Oh but of course, how remiss of me - anything a public figure utters is forever carved in stone. It’s unheard of that a public figure would ever change their position…..

Augustus

Herzen - "Even Balfour conceded
that the Zionists had no legal claim to Palestine." What in Heaven's name is the purpose of you digging up all this mumbo jumbo about the State of Israel's path to statehood? Is there any point in it? Look! Israel wasn't established in 1947, or 1948, it was by then already a developed functioning
state, with a language, culture,
agriculture and industry, newspapers, university, and a military which proved that it could defend itself against the armies of various Arab lands.
The only real event which happened after the Holocaust was
a UN vote in 1947 for a partition plan that never materialized because the Arab world chose instead to want to destroy Israel. But Israel declared independence anyway, and would have fought for its
survival whether it had declared independence or not, with exactly the same outcome,
Resolution 181 or not. And that vote wasn't really what created
the State of Israel or Zionism,
it was more an attempt to fix
Israel's boundaries. An attempt which failed because Arab genocidal hatred wasn't just aimed at Israel, the state, but
at the presence of Jews in Arab lands.

Neither was Israel created under the guise of post-war European colonialism. Britain,
the colonial power abstained in the UN vote. The majority of votes for Resolution 181 came
from countries in Latin America
and Eastern Europe. Mostly all countries with national aspirations and who had actually fought against colonialism. And neither was post-Holocaust guilt the reason for Resolution 181. less than a third of the 33 votes came from
countries who hadn't experienced the Holocaust. Israel would have existed without the Holocaust or Resolution 181, which was approved to a large extent by non-Europen countries. It is lengthy Jewish aspirations for
an independent country which brought Israel into being, not some mythical European colonial
guilt complex.

Truthtriumphs

Victoria.

"What is even more riling, is that most orthodox Jews are AGAINST the settlements".

Yet,here we have Victoria, on another thread, quoting Adam B,(Q), and then giving her answers,(A).
Q:Do you still contend that most orthodox rabbis are against settlements (source please?)
A: I did quote you some accurate sources in a previous post. But since I think anything I give you in words will be refuted with a counter-argument on the source or validity, I will give you pictures. Type 'Jews Against the Occupation' in Google Images and you'll see that it paints a thousand words. And I did not say 'most', I said 'many'. There is a difference.

Well, Victoria, caught with your pants well and truly down!

Proof positive of mad and bad.

DavidSI

Victoria,
You wrote the following passage in Melanie’s previous blog:
“Hypocrites! Did you know that an 8-month old Palestinian child was murdered by the IDF this weekend in a routine operation? Clearly this was not news-worthy either. Thankfully the rest of the world doesn't follow your example and price the life of an Israeli child above that of a Palestinian.”
You were asked by me and a number of others for a link to that story. I’ll ask you one more time for it. If you cannot do so, just leave and don't come back. Any further postings you make will be fundamentally compromised by your clear use of lies and insults to drive a debased agenda.
If on the other hand, you are able to point to the murder of an 8-month old Palestinian child last weekend, then I’ll apologize to you and leave.
Fair enough?

Barry

Sergio I. N:

I note your use of emotive phrases like "kick out".

A whaling station in a small part of the Falklands for twelve years, and no acknowledgement of Argentinian sovereignty or control? More than 200 miles off the coast of Argentina?

I wouldn't call that "settlement" of the Falklands. It hardly compares with the achievement of the Falklanders in 2011.

Sergio I. N.

It is not my intentions to be read as if I am angry or anything, I am quite happy to be chatting about these issues.

Yes, kick out may seem extreme on the screen, yet it was to summarize that the British navy arrived and by force of arms made Puerto Soledad be handed to them. The thing is it doesn't matter how much time they were there or if they were living in tents or caves, or if they were organized or else, for the matter at hand.
Now, I am not saying that the Kelpers have not the right to be there and determine their future, on the contrary, they are the rightful inhabitants, of course (it would be like asking that Texas be handed back to Maxico, which is not likely) and, if any of them has read the Argentinian newspapers lately, I don't blame them (I mean what is going on in my country!!! they seem all crazy! jejeje... yep they do). I just wish all the disputes could be treated to finally bring an end to silly discussions, which most importantly involve items about the sovereignty of waters (200 miles is not that much, and not an excuse) which involve lots of natural resources (oil, of course, but fish too, which is robbed from sovereign waters by fishers of many nations, mostly Asian).
Worthy of note is that Argentina entered the UN only for that matter and with that condition (talking about it), which never took place.
Ok, I won't be bothering everyone with any more post on the subject (although it was very interesting to learn about the others' view-point), and I specially would like to apologize to Melanie Phillips for entering in such an off-topic discussion.

Maya

Victoria
"I'd promised myself I wouldn't read your posts anymore because your moral compass is so skewed but I find myself disagreeing with this fabricated history you have posted on several queries."
DavidSi actually beat me to it.

Bearing in mind that you made up a story on the other thread, I would submit that the fabrications of history are all yours.
Pot, kettle and black come to mind.
Still waiting for your link.

VEBott

@Hewbroid

Nice post

@Truthtriumphs

"they didn't accept your messiah, and so deserve eternal damnation?"

Twaddle, she's not talking about Protestant doctrine, she's talking about Neturei Karta.
http://www.nkusa.org/aboutus/index.cfm

@Augustus

“these murders didn't take place in a vacuum, they occurred in an anti-Israeli climate that has been sown and nourished by the despicable left-wing media in our modern world.”

The anti-Israel climate has mostly been fed by Arab resentment about losing more and more of the fields and houses where they once lived, a situation made worse by the unavoidable and sometimes harsh IDF response to Arab violence and unrest. Modern western media of any leaning have very little to do with it.

George

I can understand why everybody feels that Melanie failed to make the distinction between the actions of a group of people and the actions of a state.

However, ask yourself this question: Why did William Hague bring up the murder of the settler family in the first place? Hundreds of people are murdered every day around in the world and many of these murders go unreported.

The reason why he, as Foreign Secretary, spoke about it was exactly because the murder occurred in a hostile disputed territory, by one ethnic/religious group against the another.

But he clearly made a mistake when he failed to mention that it constituted an obstacle to peace. By omitting this crucial sentence from the speech, he failed to acknowledge that this was not an isolated event and that terrorism against Jewish settlers on a large scale does indeed constitute a serious obstacle to peace.

Edward in the USA

@Victoria of March 15th, 2011 8:17pm and Adam B.

Victoria, in Melanie’s article “And still western 'liberals' support these people” of Saturday, 12th March 2011,

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6776460/and-still-western-liberals-support-these-people.thtml

your March 13th, 2011 12:12am post to Adam B., you first state in the next to last paragraph of your post:

“What is even more riling, is that most orthodox Jews are AGAINST the settlements”

Please note your use of “most” as in “most orthodox Jews”.

Days later, in this article, “An office of incomprehensible moral bankruptcy” of Monday, 14th March 2011, in your post to Adam B. of March 15th, 2011 8:17pm, you reply to his question:

“2)

Q:Do you still contend that most orthodox rabbis are against settlements (source please?)

A: I did quote you some accurate sources in a previous post. But since I think anything I give you in words will be refuted with a counter-argument on the source or validity, I will give you pictures. Type 'Jews Against the Occupation' in Google Images and you'll see that it paints a thousand words. And I did not say 'most', I said 'many'. There is a difference.”

As you can see above, you DID say ‘most’ and NOT ‘many’ as you now disingenuously claim. And yes there is a difference between ‘most’ and ‘many’, a difference that seems to elude you.

I have provided the article title, the date of the article, the date of your comments, and the relevant excerpts. All easily verified.

Please provide proof of your claim that ‘most’ orthodox rabbis are AGAINST the settlements and the source of your claim as Adam B. originally requested.

As to Neturei Karta of “jewsagainstzionism”, does Neturei Karta live in Gaza or Ramallah, living lives of “authentic Jews” with all the necessary support systems such as a synagogue, kosher butcher shop, school/yeshiva. How accommodating and multicultural are Hamas, Al Qada and the Palestinian Authority to practicing “authentic Jews” living amongst them?

C.Gee

Herzen:

Please set forth the legal basis for Palestinian Arab claims to sovereign national entitlement to any part of Mandatory Palestine.

Herzen

Augustus
March 16th, 2011 12:05am
This is disingenuous in the extreme. You and many others here have made appeal to history and international law to claim moral and legal right for the founding of the state of Israel. Read the blogs. Read the threads.

Herzen

C.Gee
March 16th, 2011 3:30pm
Don't think I haven't noticed that you deliver diatribes, disappear when convenient, or claim your only motive to be to "get the goat" of anyone you presume to accuse of anti-semitism (where your "thing" about "due process" does not appear to apply).

Forgive me if I do not rise to the bait again, particularly as all the information you request is to be found in the comments of mine (and others) you have already read.

Maya

Victoria,
I feel that your integrity in quoting what you call'history' has been compromised.
Whatever you quote now has the taint of being questionable.
"No independent country of Palestine ever existed--- neither was there ever a Palestinian people--- that is a myth."

Your rebuttal"So tell me, what was the British Mandate in Palestine enacted after the Balfour declaration? Would it not have been 'British Mandate in ...' otherwise? I'd be interested to hear" shows your knowledge to be scanty, if not downright wrong on the whole background to this complex issue, and unfortunately, your ignorance is showing.
The Palestinians in the British Mandate almost invariably referred to the Jewish inhabitants.
Can you answer these questions about any previous independent, Arab state of Palestine?
a. When was it founded and by whom? How did it get started?

b. What were its borders?

c. What was its capital?

d. What were its major cities?

e. What constituted the basis of its economy?

f. What was its form of government?

g. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?

h. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?

i. What was the language of the country of Palestine?

j. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?

k. What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, British pound, Roman denarius, or Greek drachma on that date.

etc etc

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

During the course of a BBC radio 4 quiz programme last Monday, the presenter made reference to "the most ancient and noble kingdom of Jordan".

Having first brain-washed themselves, these wretched BBC people have now come to really believe such twaddle !

C.Gee

“Prosperity is the only probable salve for the sore of illegitimacy.”

Perhaps you are unaware of the early Zionist hope that increasing prosperity for the Arabs through economic cooperation with the Jews would lead them to acquiesce in the establishment of a Jewish state. That hope died - despite the very real gains in prosperity, health and education for the Arab population during the 20s and 30s. As Arab prosperity grew, so too did anti-Zionist violence, which the British were happy to appease, by severely curtailing Jewish immigration.

Now you are suggesting Israel appease the Arabs by withdrawing from Judea and Samaria to build up the Negev. What makes you think that increasing their own prosperity on land taken from Jews will become the focus of Palestinian attention? What makes you think that tending their own garden will reconcile Palestinians to the “illegitimate” canker next door? The sore of Israel’s illegitimacy is the foundation of Palestinian politics and claims to nationhood. The Palestinians are inculcated with the idea that poverty, privation, and death are to be embraced rather than let Jews live in peace on Arab soil. Their founding documents are based on the idea that restoration of dignity can only be accomplished with the ousting of the Jews. They know that dignity is better for the Arabs than civil rights or wealth.

That the West colludes with Palestinians in the lie of Israel’s illegitimacy is a deep injustice. That it rewards them for this lie by offering them a state on land (cleared of Jews) to which they have no legal claim is perverse. That it hopes that acquiring a state will stave off Palestinian ambitions for Israel because they will be happily a-building their state is deluded.

John.

Sergio: i repeat: the Falklands wereg given to GB by the Treay of Madrid in 1760 and this treaty has never been revoked. No one settled the uninhabited islands till the Scots went there to run sheep farms. Bretons had temporary fishing staions on the coast, hance "Malvinas" - from St. Malo, I have no evidence whatsoever for your contention that Argentinians ever lived there or were evicted by GB. Even were this to be so, GB would have had the perfect right to evict such aliens from British territory. I repeat that in view of the unanimous result of THREE referenda in which the islanders voted resoundingly NOT to be handed over to Argentina, it would be the greatest imaginable injustice to let Argentina have the islands. How could Argentina ever claim what was not theirs to begin with? And what had been British since 1760, before Argentina had even been dreamt of? You also ignore the clearly expressed wishes of the Gibraltarians. Incorporating unwilling citizens by force into an entity that they vehemently declare they don't wish to be incorporated into would be both unjust and undemocratic and, in addition, the act of a bully. Argentina has not got a good record for its treatment of those considered to be in the way of expansion. The genocide of the Tehuelche, the Ona and the Alacalufes, (Kaweshkar), during the campaign of the Desert left not an Indian - native American - alive in the pampa or in Patagonia. The only ones to escape were the Mapuche who crossed the Andes to join their brothers in Chile and the Quechua up near Bolivia in the Andes where there was no land worth the stealing. To brazenly proclaim the intention of expanding once again into someone else's territory shows a certain shamelessness I would have thought. I have never heard a single Argentinian express the slightest regret for the massacre of whole peoples during the Campaign of the Desert.

C.Gee

Herzen:

“Forgive me if I do not rise to the bait again, particularly as all the information you request is to be found in the comments of mine (and others) you have already read.”

No. Nowhere in the comments of yours or others is the legal basis for Arab Palestinian claims to sovereign ownership of Palestine or any portion of it established. It is not enough to deny Jewish claims. Palestinian legal claims do not exist by virtue of the absence of Jewish ones. Please demonstrate the independent legal basis for Arab national claims to own the land.

This is not “bait”. I am not a fisherman. I am a goatherd.

Your rebuttals of Jewish claims are surrebutted:
“(Civil rights explicitly included political rights.)” Political rights did not include national rights. They referred to the existing rights, particularly of the (French)Christian churches to the control of their domains. See the history of the drafting of that clause.
“However, "National Home" has no recognised application in international law.” What? The “international law” in question is the document in which the a national home for the Jews was established. That is where the term is applied. The choice of term is also explained in the history of the drafting the document.
“Those who drafted the League of Nations Covenant and the Mandate for Palestine were explicit that they did not intend a state for the Zionists and did not intend the other inhabitants to be disadvantaged by the commitment to a Jewish National Home.” This is sheer laziness. There is plenty of evidence that a state was intended as the eventual result of close settlement. There was no disadvantage to Arabs - religious, civil, political - in Jewish close settlement or in setting up the institutions of a Jewish state. The were to be equal citizens.

"When the league of Nations was superseded by the UN, the "Mandate for Palestine" was incorporated into Article 80 of the UN Charter, which, in the absence of any agreement to end hostilities, remains the legal status of the area to the present day." Whoa there. What effect did the “hostilities” have on the legal status of the area? By the way, the rights accorded the Jews under Mandate did not lapse with it.

“With the Israelis implementing Plan D, the Arab states could claim to be coming to the defence of the Palestinians.” Why not look at at the Arab states’ actual claims? And of course the Arab states could not have known of Plan D - especially in the form of national policy of ethnic cleansing that was cooked up by “new historians” supporting the Palestinian narrative, itself invented in the 50s.

“ I cannot find the basis for the claim that territory acquired by military force in a war deemed by the state acquiring the territory to be defensive is acquired legally.” What are you hoping to find? An international statute book? The Schwebel dicta states a principle for adjudicating claims: those who hold territory taken in a defensive war hold better claim to title for that territory than the defeated aggressor. But think about it: there has just been a war between two states. One is the victor at the cost of blood and treasure. The victor - whether defender or aggressor - now agrees to go to court to have a judge decide if he can keep his winnings? At the level you are discussing it, international law is fit only for moot court (this forum).

“Even if there were such a law, there would still be a requirement to demonstrate that the war was indeed defensive.” Why do you think so much ink has been spent by the pro-Arab contingent (that’s you!) in trying to prove that 1967 was an aggressive war by the Israelis? It is a part of the lawfare being waged against Israel. But whether Israel’s claims to the territory are better (and they are not confined to the winning of a defensive war - there are other claims) than the Palestinians’ is a moot question. Not only does Israel control the territories, but they are willing to cede some of the land, provided Palestinians stop claiming the rest of Palestine (Israel).

“If you are basing your claims on international law, this [the fact that there has never been an independent Arab nation state of Palestine] is not relevant. Courts up to and including the ICJ have recognised no right derived from ancient title.”
Please cite the court cases adjudicating - or even advising upon - the specific claim that there was an independent sovereign nation of Arabs called “Palestine,” where they recognise “no right from ancient title.” I should be very interested indeed in reading them. But, again, think about it: even if a court rules out looking at ancient title, thereby placing the Jews on an equal footing with the Palestinians who never held title at all, the other claims in international law still stand. I am still trying to envisage upon what - other than there are more Arabs than Jews , more apples than oranges - the Arab Palestinians could base a legal claim for national sovereignty over any portion of the Mandate land. In looking at the relevant precedents for nation-creation, the court would have to find that the presence in situ of “majority” sects or tribes did not weigh with the powers in their setting up of vast tracts of land under the rule of favoured personages, often of different religion or tribe and imported from a land far distant from that given them to rule over.

“Advocates for Zionism make great play of the concept of a nation - the Jewish diaspora is a nation but the Palestinians are not, therefore the claims of the Jewish diaspora, though not resident, are stronger than the claims of the Palestinians, though resident.” There were always Jews residing there. In certain places at certain times they were the majority. Nationhood is about self-identification as a juridical group, not about tribal, sectarian or ethnic solidarity or spread. As stated, nation states may be formed (areas handed over to leaders, monarchs or despots, often from minority - and foreign - sects or tribes) without the people dwelling within the borders initially possessing national identity: Jordan, Iraq, Libya...

“However, the relevant treaties talk of "nations", "peoples" and "communities". The Palestinians are quite clearly one of the peoples or communities mentioned by the League of Nations. ” The Palestinian Arab rights as a community were not national rights: the right to set up a sovereign power displacing the Jewish National Home. That would make nonsense of the Mandate. Have you anywhere come across an Arab claim contemporaneous with the Mandate, that the Mandate gave them equal rights as the Jews to set up an Arab National Home, that the Arab National Home was to be an eventual state which would incorporate the Jewish settlements (while allowing them autonomy, or, more likely, not) ?

“Whether they determined that they wished to be part of a Syrian state or a Palestinian state would not have affected their rights as a community.” What? Their requesting to be Syrian - live under Syrian jurisdiction - did not say anything about their understanding of their national rights? The Vilayet of Syria was the Ottoman administrative district from which the Mandate for Palestine was carved. Arabs - or Arabic-speakers - were loyal Ottoman subjects because the Sultan was the head of the Islamic world. After the fall of the sultanate, the Arabs dwelling in the Vilayet (of which part was taken by the Mandate as Palestine) still turned towards the old centre of power, precisely because they had no national aspirations. By the way, the request by Palestinians to be incorporated into Syria (such as it was then - an Arab kingdom established in Damascus) occurred one year after November, 1917 (Balfour Declaration) - and that was the first organized showing of local opposition to it. (See Ephraim Karsh ‘Palestine Betrayed’, 2010). Their asking to be subject to an Arab monarchy also says a lot about how they regarded civil and political rights. Hardly an indication of a people yearning to be free (except of Jews).

Ann

Hague is an idiot. There is no law that prohibits Jews from living in J&S.

He is also, of course, a morally bankrupt one.

Ann

"The anti-Israel climate has mostly been fed by Arab resentment about losing more and more of the fields and houses where they once lived, a situation made worse by the unavoidable and sometimes harsh IDF response to Arab violence and unrest. Modern western media of any leaning have very little to do with it."

What twaddle. The BBC, Guardian and Independent, just in this country, have been feeding anti-Israel lies to the ignorant masses - otherwise laughingly referred to as the British 'intelligentsia' - by the bucketful for decades. Their lies have been swalloiwed whole and are repeated by several posters on this thread and others all the time. The ignorance and bad faith of policy-makers in this country and elsewhere - Hague, Obama, .... - is no smaller.

Herzen

C.Gee
March 16th, 2011 7:17pm
There is nothing here to persuade me to reconsider. I did take the time to supply some of the references you requested. For whatever reason, my post did not appear. If I have time later, I will try again.

Ann

And of course, C. Gee, the likes of Herzen will simply refuse to accept your arguments - because they are based on the plain demonstrable truth and on historical and legal facts, whereas deranged Israel haters base their dogma on ignorance and blatant lies; and the more blatant they are, the louderthey shout them. A well known tactic going back to the 1930s.

Leo

Hey Herzen, I've had the same problem with one of my posts not being published - it was a response to Nachmann and whilst it made mention of a few hard-hitting facts, there was nothing offensive about it. I don't know what's going on.

Oh well, I give up. Bye.

Herzen

C.Gee
March 16th, 2011 7:17pm
“Political rights did not include national rights”. You assume here what you have to prove: that the crux is not self-determination but who can claim to be a nation (as defined by Julius Stone). At San Remo, the Great Powers confirmed that “civil rights” included political rights. Curzon sought clarification from Millerand of what “political rights” might mean in French law that required separate mention. In British law, political rights were included in civil rights. Millerand replied that the French wished to include the word “political” to make explicit and unambiguous that the non-Jewish communities were not to be deprived of their political rights, which he understood to include the right to vote and take part in elections.

I will repeat the extract from Curzon's memo to the Cabinet: “It was pointed out 1. that, while the Powers had unquestionably recognized the historical connection of the Jews with Palestine....this was far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim...and 2. that, while Mr. Balfour's Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home – an extension of the phrase for which there is no justification...Mr. Balfour admitted the force of the above contentions and suggested an alternative form of words (the form that appeared in the Mandate).” (I am relying on Lloyd George's memoirs for these documents.)

On the term “National Home”, I refer you to Ernst Frankenstein in The Jewish Yearbook of International Law in 1948: “Logically...a national home appears to be equivalent for a State. But the very fact that it was found necessary to create the new term indicates that a national home is not a State but something less than a State.” It is customary in international law that a treaty is to be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in the light of its object and purpose. In its ordinary meaning, “home” does not mean “state”. The Zionists may well have used it as code for what they thought others might consider illicit. Mr. Balfour may well have been in on the secret and informed the Cabinet of it. But when it came to the treaties between the Great Powers the term was explicitly not intended to denote “state”. If they had wanted to make an unambiguous commitment to set up a Jewish state, they would have said as much, using the terms recognized in international law for that purpose, instead of using an ambiguous neologism.

"When the league of Nations was superseded by the UN, the "Mandate for Palestine" was incorporated into Article 80 of the UN Charter...” This is a quote from Truthtriumphs, whose contributions you have admired. Whatever he intended, it is a fact that UN Charter Article 80 called for preservation of rights of states and peoples under mandate arrangements. A Palestinian state had been provisionally recognised as independent by the League Covenant Article 22(4), hence it held rights. How this is to be reconciled with the fact of Israel's existence is, as you delight in saying, moot. The international community and the Palestinians agree on a two-state solution whereby the Palestinians get about 20% of the land covered by the Mandate. Israel appears to rely on its military might and the support of the US to impose a one-state and, at best, scattered ghettoes solution.

On the civil war in 1947-8, and the intervention of the Arab states, the Arab states did not need a copy of Plan D to see what was happening on the ground. As for the intentions and capabilities of the Arab states and Palestinian irregulars, it is true that we no less than about Israeli intentions and capabilities (unlike Israel, they have not opened their archives at all), but see the collection of articles edited by Eugene Rogan.

It is not for Judge Schwebel, like some legal Humpty Dumpty, to dictate principles. The place to look for such principles is the UN Charter, where you will find no such dictum.

Why is so much ink spilled to show that Israel's military actions in 1967 were not in self-defence? Simple: because Israel claims that it has a right to the territory because it conquered it in self-defence. There is no such right. If there were, it would not apply to Israel in 1967. You fall back on the claim from the fact of possession, which is in direct defiance of the UN Charter.

On ancient title, the ICJ, in a dispute between Britain and France over a couple of islands in the English Channel, stated that France's ancient title “could today produce no legal effect”. It stated further that attributing legal effect after an interval of several centuries “seems to lead far beyond any reasonable application of legal considerations.” In a similar case concerning Western Sahara, the ICJ advised that what matters in determining title to territory “is not indirect inferences drawn from events in past history”.

Your subsequent comments again make much of Julius Stone's definition of a “nation”, and studiously ignore the implications of the use of “people” and “community” in the relevant treaties. The right of self-determination belonged to the people whose state was being held in trust by the Mandatory Power. In this instance, that would be the 650000 Muslims, 80000 Christians, and 60000 Jews (both millet and immigrant). The US sent a fact-finding commission to Palestine (with the novel idea of canvassing the opinion of the natives), the King-Crane Commission. (It would have been enlightening if a similar commission had canvassed the opinion of Jews around the world, instead of taking the word of a fringe organization.) President Wilson had said that one of the allies' aims was that territorial settlements be based on “the free acceptance by the people immediately concerned, and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery. The commissioners said, “if that principle is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine” then “the non-Jewish population of Palestine – nearly nine-tenths of the whole – are emphatically against the entire Zionist program”. Some indicated a wish to be part of a Greater Syria, in the hope (probably misguided)that this would provide some protection against Britain's support for Zionism. Others indicated a wish that Palestinian nationalism, which had been emerging over the previous decades, should find expression in a state independent of Syria. The point is that it was a choice for the people of Palestine, not to be taken from them by Britain's commitment to Zionism (as Britain itself acknowledged).

Before you place any more reliance on Efraim Karsh and his latest book, can I recommend you read the review of it by Benny Morris.

And good luck with the "I am a goatherd" thing.

C.Gee

“Before you place any more reliance on Efraim Karsh and his latest book, can I recommend you read the review of it by Benny Morris.”

Morris and Karsh have been adversaries in the past. (Karsh exposed instances of Morris’s sloppy scholarship. Morris admitted to some error.) Why should anyone who wants to inform himself about the Middle East look to an adversary’s opinion of a book before deciding whether to read the book itself?

Ann

Treaties between nations are not 'law', since there is nothing supranational from which the legal authority flows. They derive their authority purely from the power of the nations in questions. This pulls the rug from your laughable accusation that it is (only) Israel that relies on force of arms, while other nations follow some mythical statute book.
The UN is not a law-making body. It is a voluntary club.

Truthtriumphs

Herzen.

You were conspicuously silent when I asked you whether you had a problem with the creation of the states of Iraq, Trans-Jordan, Syria and lebanon, or is your obsession only with the RE creation of the Jewish state, from the same area of the defeated Ottoman empire.
(Not to mention, of course, the creation of Pakistan,a hitherto non-existent state, created on land stolen from India, one year before Israel's independence.)

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Herzen

C. Gee,
You are right to be wary of academic squabbles. However: I did not suggest you don't read Karsh; Karsh criticised Morris in his pre-2000 guise - he pointed out some small errors which Morris acknowledged and corrected (no doubt to his chagrin); in his post-2000 guise Morris would be keen to agree with Karsh's thesis. For what it's worth, the criticisms Morris made seemed to me borne out in reading Karsh - you clearly felt differently, which is fair enough.

It is good to see you honing in on the main point of my post.

Steve

Herzen,

Why are you not able just to say that the legal status is complicated and disputed. You appear to accept that this is the case but then come down heavily on one side of the argument. By what authority do you do this? Do you have specialist legal training and experience in the creation of nation states?

How do you imagine that this intransigence helps? Why do you accept the authority of a body who is happy to include Libya on it's human rights commission and spends most of it's time obsessing about one country?

Ann

Sadly, Herzen, you are running away from some of the more substantive arguments. I wonder why.
Morris admitted to more than just a few simple 'errors'. And he has certainly been exposed as someone who cherry-picks the evidence at his convenience.

Herzen

Truthtriumphs
March 18th, 2011 10:48am
"Herzen.
You were conspicuously silent when I asked..."

You don't do irony, do you?

I will indulge you thus far: We have discussed this several times in the past, when I have given you my opinion in the clearest possible terms of the Anglo-French carve-up.

You have a habit of ignoring what is said to you either in response to your questions or in
correction of your inaccuracies - you then repeating the questions or inaacuracies in a later thread, as if the previous discussion had never taken place.

As with toddlers, there is only so often an adult can face answering such compulsive repetition.

The partition of India was indeed another British cock-up with lethal consequences. I think further study will convince you that Pakistani territory was not "stolen".

Herzen

Steve
March 18th, 2011 12:24pm
That something is complicated and disputed does not mean there is not a correct answer.

The legal arguments put forward for Israel rest on recognition of international law and international institutions. Yet when the same law and institutions find against Israel, suddenly they are to be denigrated and defied.

I am aware that sovereign states do what they can get away with. They are nevertheless constrained to some extent (as their behaviour shows) by international law.

My question comes down to this: if Israel can decide for itself what is international law and what is not, how is it law?

Any system of law is founded on the acceptance by all parties that legislation is the preserve of a legislature. In international law, this legislature is made up of the members of the UN acting under the UN Charter, rules and regulations etc. (as agreed by the members). Likewise, the interpretation of the law is ultimately the preserve of some form of supreme court. In interpreting international law, this court is the ICJ.

Herzen

Steve
March 18th, 2011 12:24pm
That you address your question only to me should give you pause.

Steve

Herzen

"That you address your question only to me should give you pause"

No it shouldn't. It should give you pause. I addressed it to you deliberately because you seemed to be one of the few people on these forums that understands that these issues are extremely complicated.

If you don't therefore realise that the simplistic statements of the likes of Blades regarding the ownership rights of tiny parts of a far away dessert land, then I can only conclude that your powers of reason are not what you think they are.

BTW, the fact that the partition of India involved the confiscation of vast tracts of land from people on both sides of the new borders is surely beyond question. I would love to know what sort of mental contortions are required to deny that one! Does it involve drug taking?

Herzen

Steve
March 18th, 2011 3:53pm
I notice that the question is so complicated that you have yet to address any of the substantive points I have been discussing.

And your remarks on the partition of India are not going to work as a diversion for you. Truthtriumphs showed as much grasp of this as he has of the history of Palestine. He asserted that Pakistan was created on land stolen from India.

C.Gee

“It is good to see you honing in on the main point of my post.”

The main point of your post was to re-rebut my surrebuttals, upon which I offer these re-rebuttals:

The burden is upon you to establish that the “crux” of Palestinian claims to sovereignty is “self-determination”. You have not begun to establish the legal framework under which Palestinian self-determination trumps Jewish self-determination in that region of former Ottoman empire. You assume what is to be proved: the majority within in certain boundaries, defined upon certain shared characteristics, is a proto-political collective entitled to be considered a nation and the land of the territory over which they are a majority is the sovereign territory of their state. The concept of “majority” assumes a cohesive political entity. Wilson and the C-K Commission reveal the same assumptions - which were not noticeably at work in the creation of other Arab states. To put it simply: “self-determination” could get you autonomous cities or regions under sovereign control of greater powers, an independent state in the form of a monarchy (Jordan, Iraq), with the monarch being imposed from without, not selected from within (Jordan, Syria), a liberal democratic republic (Israel), a sectarian constitution (“Christian” Lebanon), or no political voice at all (Kurds).

Can you direct me to a coherent jurisprudence or political philosophy of “self-determination” that sets forth globally applicable principles for legitimate nation-state creation? Even if there were, and even if they excluded modern Israel as the s-d of the Jewish people, they could not be retroactively applied. The precedents for nation-state creation at the time - whatever the terms of trusteeship in the several Mandates - did not demonstrate any coherent linkage between the population’s identity as a collective, that collective identity and the form of polity for realization of “self-determination” (monarchy, usually), that collective and the selection of their leaders (the monarchs were not elected, and had origins outside the realm they were placed as sovereigns over). For the Arab states, the act of handing over a population and territory to an Arab leader by the Great Powers, was the act of nation-state creation and sentiments of nationalist “self-determination” came afterwards, if at all.

At the time, “self-determination” for the Arabized population of the former Ottoman empire was expressed as pan-Arabism. It was not so much a popular upwelling of national sentiment as it was the goal of ambitious Arab tribal or clan leaders who wanted to be at the head of a pan-Arabia. (By the way, the Zionists considered treaties to federate the Jewish state to pan-Arabia .)

As for the other points you made:

You have left out a great deal of the history of the (deliberate) ambiguity of the phrase “National Home”. Generally, selective quotes are never dispositive of an argument. There are many quotes by the movers and shakers of the time saying statehood was exactly what was intended. See Grief’s book.

The ICJ’s opinion on the dispute between two states over some Channel islands is not what I asked for. It has no value as precedent on the issue of who has better claims to the sovereign ownership of territory of Mandatory Palestine, Arabs or Jews. But if it did, the court’s giving more weight to evidence of long-term possession and less to competing title claims in ancient treaties would place the argument on what - before, during and after the Mandatory Palestine - constituted “possession”? Which leaves us still with the issue of what sovereign rights emerge from - presence or control?

Ann

"In international law, this legislature is made up of the members of the UN acting under the UN Charter, rules and regulations etc. (as agreed by the members)."

Herzen doesn't seem to understand the concept of 'law'. An entirely voluntary agreement between the members of an entirely voluntary club is not 'law'. Much of the hot air expended by anti-Israel obsessives in accusing her of 'illegality' four times a day, incl. twice before breakfast, is generated by their total misunderstanding of the concept of law.

Herzen

C.Gee
March 18th, 2011 7:48pm
You will no doubt be desolate to hear that I find your sur-sur-re-re-rebuttal, if anything, still less persuasive.

You make a meal of self-determination, picking away at the undoubted vagueness of the term, at its cavalier application by the great powers, at its failure to supply “globally applicable principles.”

All this is beside the point. Our subject is the creation of Palestine by the League of Nations. None of the difficulties you raise apply.

You go wrong right at the outset: it is not necessary to prove that “the majority within certain boundaries, defined upon certain shared characteristics, is a proto-political collective entitled to be considered a nation and the land of the territory over which they are a majority is the sovereign territory of their state”. There is no requirement that anyone demonstrate to anyone that they pass muster as a “nation”, let alone a Julius Stone nation. The only shared characteristic needed of the population of Palestine is to be resident as an established community in the territory (and, yes, that is a vague formulation, but not vague enough for your purposes). All that is need for such a community to exercise self-determination is to agree on their governance (and, yes, that too is a vague formulation, as current events in the Middle East show, but again, not vague enough for your purposes). There is no “proto-political collective”. Nothing that need be “considered a nation”. You do on the other hand have to demonstrate that there was any such thing as “Jewish self-determination in that region of the former Ottoman empire”, if you intend anything more than that the Jewish inhabitants had a right to their say along with all the other inhabitants. You are correct that we must consider the law as it stood at the time, and at the time there was no “coherent linkage” between a population, however strong its collective identity, and a right to “self-determination” in a territory it did not live in.

The Great Powers promised the Arabs self-determination. The history books tell us that the people's choice was a pan-Arab state, which failing (in the relevant lands) a Greater Syria, which failing a polity based on the local community e.g. in Palestine. What happened? The Great Powers carved up the region to suit themselves. They gave their carve-up legal respectability (at least in their own eyes) in the League of Nations Covenant and in the treaties between the League of Nations and the Mandatory Powers. They considered themselves bound by the legal requirements laid down in these treaties. The League of Nations created states along the lines of the carve-up (“their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised”). The Mandatory Powers held them in trust for their populations (“a sacred trust of civilisation”, no less) and promised the population of these states the right to determine their future governance (“the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration”). The “community” in the new state of Palestine, provisionally recognised by the League, comprised the population I enumerated for you of Muslims, Christians, and Jews. These were the Palestinians. For the purposes of the Mandate they constituted one people. As a people, they had a recognised right to self-determination. Of course, the Mandate for Palestine was unique in its detailed stipulations for immigration to contribute to the establishment of a Jewish National Home. However, the Mandate did not recognise a right of self-determination given to the Jewish community in Palestine independently of the Palestinian community as a whole, but as part of it.

On the question of the term “National Home”, you are right that it was deliberately ambiguous; you are right that many of those involved intended it to refer to a Jewish state; you are right that selective quotation will not settle the matter (not even selective quotation by Mr. Grief). What will settle the question is the evidence of what the drafters intended. The place to look is in the travaux (I think that is the jargon) for the League Covenant and Mandates and in the White Paper and parliamentary debate thereon where the British Government explained itself.

Of course the ICJ rulings on the Channel Islands and Sahara are not what you asked for. You asked for a ruling specifically on ancient title to Palestine. I'm sure you were aware when you asked that no court has deliberated on that question. You are also aware that previous cases provide precedent. These cases do provide precedents. What argument can you produce for the contrary? We do not have to wait for a court to hear precisely this case of Palestine to learn how the law will apply. The ICJ has ruled and its ruling is not notably ambiguous. You quibble manfully on. The ICJ does not “give less weight” to competing ancient titles. It rules that ancient title has no bearing on the case. When Britain assumed its role as Mandatory Power there was no ambiguity about who was in possession, namely, the people of Palestine.

You have failed, again, to provide any reason to accept that Julius Stone nationhood is paramount in determining who had the right to self-determination in Mandatory Palestine. That a fringe group considered the world's Jews a Julius Stone nation and believed that a Julius Stone nation had a right to a state and had a right to decide where that state was to be located regardless of the interests of the inhabitants – does not constitute any sort of legal claim or title. The Zionists only claim to any legal connection to Palestine is in the League of Nations Mandate, which does not give them a right to a sovereign state. The surprise is that the Great Powers were taken in by the Zionists claim to represent the world's Jews.

Another Joshua

@Herzen
You say:"Palestine was not "designated to the Jews". The Mandate power was instructed to facilitate a National Home for the Jews in Palestine with the proviso that the rights of (the other 95% of) the inhabitants, civil and religious, were not to be harmed. (Civil rights explicitly included political rights.)
There is an argument that the Mandate promised more. It incorporated Balfour's declaration. The British cabinet understood that "National Home" was Zionist code for "Jewish State" (code apparently adopted to keep the Zionists' intentions a secret!) Therefore, in incorporating Balfour's declaration, the League of Nations necessarily incorporated the private understanding of the code words, and therefore the Mandate promised a Jewish state in Palestine. However, "National Home" has no recognised application in international law. I am no expert on the Convention on Treaties etc., but the terms of a treaty are likely to be elucidated, where it is deemed ambiguous, by common usage and evidence of the drafters' intentions. Those who drafted the League of Nations Covenant and the Mandate for Palestine were explicit that they did not intend a state for the Zionists and did not intend the other inhabitants to be disadvantaged by the commitment to a Jewish National Home."

This is a garbled incomprehensible piece of nonsense. The word "homeland" is certainly a unique term, but it is impossible for it to mean anything other than a Jewish State, whether or not the drafters believed there should be one or not. Britain's obligations were clearly set out and their role as trustees carried legal obligations of which there is no ambiguity whatsoever. The Colonial Office had a different take on what those obligations comprised of as they behaved in a way that made it absolutely clear to those living at the time, that the British were not going to meet their obligations.

The rights to "non Jews" are not rights to sovereignty . Indeed the nationalist aspirations of the Arabs were catered for under the other Mandates that were created at the same time.

This argument that you posit, as well as all the others are flawed.Your method is to undermine the meaning of words to make a case that what the leaders of the powers signed up to in those days meant something completely different. Well in that case I would like to posit an equally valid point: There is a belief by some that Britain was occupied by the Nazis for 10 years before Hitler even came to power, but it was not well known. Many however strongly disagree, and say it was 5 years!

Ann

Very well put indeed, Another Yehoshua.
In particular, "Civil rights explicitly included political rights" is a garbled piece of nonsense. They expressly did NOT include group political rights, i.e. separate sovereignty (as distinct from individual political rights such as e.g. the right to vote), because there is a clear list of the rights that WERE included.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Herzen: why on earth do you keep clacking on about the Jews having no rights to a state?

Israel is here to stay. What its final boarders become will be up to it to determine, either unilaterally (one can hope) or through negotiation with one Palestinian leadership or other.

All the rest, is claptrap.

Time you shut it, and focus on how to get a peace to stick.

Be bold. Be clear. Be honest.

...and read: "Being and Nothingness" and "To be and To have".

Herzen

Another Joshua
March 19th, 2011 10:36pm
I have clearly not persuaded you with my arguments. You are certainly not going to persuade me with bare assertions. Take a look at C. Gee's contributions here to see how it should be done.

You introduce the term "homeland". The inhabitants of Palestine could use the term of themselves more aptly than the diaspora Jews. They after all were born there and lived there.

The term is "National Home". It is simply not true that it is cognate with "State". Scotland is, I suppose, the national home of the Scots. Scotland has been several separate polities, a sovereign state, part of a larger state, and may again become an independent state. And all this while remaining a national home.

That the terms of a treaty should mean something other than the common usage of the terms in which it is written and other than those who drafted and ratified the treaty intended is a novel idea. If put into practice, it would cause chaos, much as the notion that states can decide for themselves what international law is and is not.

"Britain's obligations were clearly set out and their role as trustees carried legal obligations of which there is no ambiguity whatsoever." - Now, this is true.

"The rights to "non Jews" are not rights to sovereignty." The League of Nations recognized Palestine provisionally as a state. The Mandatory Power held it in trust for the inhabitants. The inhabitants were sovereign. Alas for your thesis, this was what the Great Powers in their treaties and the courts in their rulings determined.

Herzen

JOHN ROOSEVELT
March 20th, 2011 10:02am
As I have said many times, the reason to continue to discuss the history is because the state of Israel and its supporters continue to use a propaganda version of it to justify Israel's current behaviour towards the Palestinians. Our blogger is a good example.

Ann

Roosevelt, do you want me to send you the answer to your first question on a postcard? We both know what that answer is. And it applies to more than one obsessive anti-Israel poster here.

Ann

"You introduce the term "homeland". The inhabitants of Palestine could use the term of themselves more aptly than the diaspora Jews. They after all were born there and lived there"

Including Arafat?
In any event, however, evidently you have no idea what the term 'homeland' means.

C.Gee

Herzen:

You have cut from whole cloth a novel theory of sovereignty to fit the Arabs at the expense of the Jews. You did so, as I had anticipated, on the only factor upon which the Jews could not hope to rival the Arabs: numbers of population.

Let us conduct a thought-experiment on your theory that the right to sovereignty over a region emanates from the presence of a population of people there at the time when existing sovereign power is challenged. You do not look to how that region was formed, nor to the actual loss, holding and transfer of sovereign power. (In your reading of it, the Mandate gave power to the mandatory trustee as a place-holder pending the population’s decision for self-governance, so it has no legal authority to confer sovereign rights and is therefore irrelevant to this thought experiment.) Power is somehow up for grabs. You insist that there is no need for any collective characteristic to identify the people as the deciders of their governance over the region. You assert that the mere dwelling there of a population, whether or not that population - or any part of it - had held sovereignty over that region or any part of it (no ancient title allowed, no claims to prior sovereignty), entitles that population to sovereignty over that region or any part of it. Presence is what gives rise to political rights. In effect, you are proposing for the region of former Ottoman empire, a Rawlsian Original Position (the political outcome of which - according to Rawls - would be a social justice democratic state.) In the Original Position, people - stripped of all ethnic, religious, tribal, historical, cultural markers that would place them as members of one or more groups, nevertheless have the right to decide on governance for all. Your “established community” is this Original population. Under this theoretical scenario there could be no Jewish state, but nor could there be an Arab one, no “Christian Lebanon”, Hashemite-led Jordan, Alawite -led Syria, Baathist Iraq etc. Nor would there be a pan-Arabia, just a pan-old-bit-of-Ottoman-empire, a peopledom. Not the outcome you wished for - superior rights to sovereignty for Arabs over Jews - and manifestly unrelated to the real world.

How, then, to allow Arab superior rights and take account of the Arab states that actually came into being but at the same time delegitimize Israel? By inserting a characteristic that would identifying a majority of the population in the Original Position. You could have chosen a religious characteristic (being Muslim), but instead you chose ethnicity (being Arab or Arabized), in order to exclude the Jews. Now that population has a group identity based on something other than being present. An enhanced presense. That group will have a say in its governance, which satisfies (in your theory) self-determination, by virtue of being Arab. No actual prior agreement (plebiscite?) is necessary, as the Arab voice is presumed to dominate at the modified Original Position governance pow-wow. Hence it is legitimate for Hashemites to be imposed on Bedouin, Alawites to seize power in Syria , the Meccan sharif clan to be given nations here and there, because leaders are Arab and people are majority Arab. As long as sovereign power is in the hands of Arabs, the right to self-determination is fulfilled. Jews not being Arab, are outvoted in the pow-wow and must live, as subjects under whatever laws the sovereign decides for them. Israel, being the polity of self-determination of a non-Arab group, is not legitimate, as Jews are in the minority (and were correctly forbidden to bring in more Jews to increase their population - as they should be now) of the entire regional Original population. Voila! You have created an entirely Arab Middle East out of theory of national rights that has applied nowhere in history on this planet and that neatly finesses legal and civil rights.

The fallacy in your theory is obvious. We can see you put the rabbit in the hat before you extract it. There was no “established community” - singular - of the entire population of the region belonging to the Ottoman empire. There were tribes, sects, clans, towns, villages - many different communities. Including majority Jewish ones. You say that the population of Palestine consisted of Christians, Muslims and Jews, and these sectarian voices have a right to a say in the governance of Palestine emanating from their presence there. Under your population rights theory the identity that counts for political sovereignty is ethnicity. (The “Arabs were promised” independence). Hence you are able to dismiss the Jewish presence there as being too small to matter and in any case being a religious community. Jewish immigrants in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are not counted as being legitimately present as a political voice because they are by definition nationalist Jews. By your theory - contra Julius Stone - there could be no Jewish nation - nor proto-nation - because Jews are a (religious) minority wherever they are and whatever jurisdiction they dwell in. Drawing boundaries where Jews are a majority is illegitimate - precisely because it offends the bespoke right of Arabs to be a majority in any geo-political entity created in the Middle East, because they are a majority over the whole of it.

That is your brief for the Arabs. The conclusion of the thought-experiment? Arabs rule, Jews drool. What can I say? Take it to the UN.

Herzen

C.Gee
March 20th, 2011 6:52pm

I scanned your latest for an explanation or defence of your Julius Stone nationalism. I found none, again.

The question is specific: did the League of Nations in its Covenant and in the treaty appointing Britain Mandatory Power give a legally-binding promise to the Zionists of a “Jewish” state in Palestine.

I do not “cut from whole cloth a novel theory of sovereignty”. I relate how the League of Nations worked within the international law of the time.

Your thought experiment is not to the point. There is no veil of ignorance as posited by Rawls for wholly other purposes. Nothing hangs on ethnicity. The Palestinians descend from everyone who passed through or settled in Palestine over the last three thousand years (at least). The Palestinian Jews likewise. The Zionists were Europeans claiming to represent Jews from the steppes of Russia to Ethiopia and points south, from South America to China. Palestine formed a distinct community in a distinct land long before there was a League to concern itself with the matter (at least if you trust ethnographers and historians and local custom and collective memory). Take a moment to survey the political geography of Europe. You will find a patchwork of ethnic groups some within states and some across state borders.

And most important of all, in Palestine at the time in question, “existing sovereign power” was not “challenged”.

The Turks signed away their sovereignty at Lausanne. The League of Nations held it in trust. There is some controversy among scholars over the angels on a pinhead problem of where exactly sovereignty vested during the mandates. Some argued that sovereignty vested in the League. Others that the communities “approach very close to sovereignty”. Others that sovereignty was in abeyance. Jewish and Arab scholars argued that it vested in the communities. All agreed however that once the Mandatory Power relinquished its mandate sovereignty would automatically vest in the people of the territory.

Legal rulings, unlike the scholars, are entirely clear. The League's Permanent Mandate Commission said that the Mandatory Powers had no right of sovereignty, but that the people under the Mandate held ultimate sovereignty.

There is a dispute handled by the League in 1920 that is of interest, between Finland and Sweden over the Aaland Islands. Sweden ceded the islands along with Finland to Russia. When Finland gained its independence the islanders asked Finland to return the islands to Sweden. The League appointed a committee of jurists to adjudicate. They said that self-determination did not apply to a people located within a state, such as Finland, that is “definitively constituted”. The islanders therefore had no right to separate from Finland. They then said that if “territorial sovereignty” is lacking, then “the principle of self-determination may be called into play”. They referred to “the principle of recognizing the rights of peoples to determine their political fate” and said that a people in a situation of unresolved sovereignty had a right to choose between “the formation of an independent state” and merger with an existing state.

Whether you consider sovereignty clearly vested in the people or unresolved, the people ultimately decide. And people located within a “definitively constituted “ state, which Palestine was, do not have a right to separate.

As we have already discussed, the League's Covenant refers to territories “INHABITED by peoples”. It refers to “COMMUNITIES formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire”. It states that “The wishes of THESE COMMUNITIES must be a principal consideration”.

Palestine is one of the very few places where the Great Powers bothered to find out the wishes of the community. To remind you, the King-Crane Commission reported, ““if that principle (self-determination) is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine” then “the non-Jewish population of Palestine – nearly nine-tenths of the whole – are emphatically against the entire Zionist program”.

Whatever else they might want, the people whose wishes were paramount did not want anything to do with the Zionists and their project.

Over the course of this exchange, I have given you conclusive reasons and evidence. You have tried without success to rebut them. You have not tried to defend your own proposal that the Zionists could claim sovereignty in the name of the Jewish diaspora (who they did not consult) for a territory they had no legal connection with. This is on the face of it implausible and in need of positive argument.

To repeat, we have been discussing how international law was applied to a specific case at a specific point in history. Of course, the point of the Mandates was to give legal cover to the policies of the Great Powers. These policies stretched the legal cover to breaking point in the various Mandates. The reasons for the gerrymandering are clear enough in the likes of Iraq, in the Gulf etc. In Palestine the reasons for acceding to the demands of the Zionists are more of a puzzle. Great Powers do not normally persevere with a policy because the feel in honour bound (to the Zionists but not the various Arab leaders)..

This political deformation of the legal principles the Great Powers claimed to observe gave the Zionists a legal claim to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine. This claim gave them sufficient leeway to proceed with their project of state building. This much is uncontroversial. The further claim that the Great Powers through the League of Nations promised the Zionists a state is simply untrue.

C.Gee

Herzen:

You think the discussion is about whether the League Covenant or the Mandate promised a state to the Jews. Dear me, had I know that, I would have left it several posts ago. The existence of a promise to a state has been thoroughly argued - intentions of drafters, interpretation rules, text and context, quotes and counter-quotes, this authority, that authority etc. Though interesting, it is irrelevant, because even if “national home” did not mean “state”, or “civil rights” meant “national rights”, a state of Israel was established, affording all its citizens civil rights.

What is of interest to me legally, and what I thought the discussion was about, is how these documents - or others, or any legal, or political philosophy - show who has superior claims to sovereignty over a portion of the old Ottoman empire - Jews or Arabs of Palestine. The virtue of discussions on relative merits of competing claims is that one’s sides claim may be accepted as a valid claim for the sake of argument, to test whether the basis for the claim also applies to the rival claims. If it does, then both claims are valid, no superiority is shown, and other bases for claims must be tested in the same way, before one claim may be established as superior to the other. This is more interesting to me that getting stuck on whether or not a claim is valid: we know the arguments.

I have, in various different ways, made the point that upon whatever legal - or even philosophical - basis Arab political rights are claimed, Jews can claim those rights too, so that you have not met the burden of demonstrating superior rights for the Arabs. I have pointed out that even your misapplied (I explain why in the thought experiment) majoritarian choice rights would not preclude a Jewish polity (in particular, a democratic state) on a portion of the territory, UNLESS those rights were defined - as you do define them - to pertain to Arabs only.
Whether the Jews are/were a nation is another yes-it-is, no-it-isn’t argument mooted by the establishment of Israel. It is an interesting issue because if Jews were a nation, they had existing national rights and both the “national home” and “civil rights” language could be glossed accordingly, lending stronger claims for a Jewish autonomous polity, than for an Arab one. The Jews, having been nation, and claiming to be one still, and setting up the institutions of a nation state in Palestine can make a good claim that as a “community” under the League’s Covenant, they wished to form an autonomous polity according to principles of self-determination. The various Arab “communities” could not claim to have been nations, and the pan-Arabia they claimed as their nation showed no political coherency. Neither as smaller or greater polities did the Arabs show institutional readiness for autonomy The only political units of the Arabs in Palestine were tribally based (the mayoralties of cities, for example, were filled by certain leading clans ). Hence the vehemence with which it is argued that the Jews were not a nation. (And why you bring in case law about Channel Island disputes between two states to stand for the proposition that Israel cannot make claims to ancient title over territory.)

But I was prepared, for the sake of argument to leave aside the issue of what degree of political organization and self-identity should being germane to deciding on how these “communities” could express self-determination or assert sovereignty. Therefore, it was not necessary to defend Stone’s arguments that Jews are a nation. I ceded, arguendo, the major point that the Jews were a not a nation, because I argued that even seen as a religious, not national, community, the Jews were accorded a voice on a par with, not inferior to, the voices of Arab Christians and Muslims, so that if autonomous polities were being being formed on a sectarian basis, there was room for a Jewish state. If “people” were being put into state political units, as they were, where power was based on sects or tribes, where minority sects or tribes identified and administered jurisdictions, there was no principle that would preclude a Jewish minority administering a jurisdiction. In fact, as we know, the civil rights Arabs under minority Arab jurisdictions are inferior and unequal, that the leaders oppress their people, and if Jews are allowed at all, they are subject to discriminatory laws.

What was needed here from you was a legal theory supporting the idea that no formations of any autonomous political units up to and including states out of the “communities” who were beneficiaries of the trust (assuming the Jews were on a par with the others, and not a special case as it was in fact) was envisaged by the terms of the mandates. If you can support this idea, then no claims for Israel, but, by the same token, none for Arab Palestine: and there would also be no theoretical basis for a division of the territory, or the closing of the trust and retirement of the trustee. You might have developed such a theory by extracting the political implications of the word “prejudice” in the Balfour Declaration. Could this language be interpreted to mean that the non-Jews’ potential claims that their civil and religious rights - or even their “national” rights - might be prejudiced by a Jewish state, precluded the establishment of such a state? If so, why should an Arab state not be precluded by the Jews’ asserting that their civil and religious rights would be prejudiced? This would be very bold interpretation of the text - tantamount to giving the communities a veto over any other community self-determination.

The theory you did produce to support the idea that the Jewish community was not allowed to form a state was that a “state” of Palestine was created through the League of Nations Mandate and the existence of that state preempted a Jewish state. The “people” of the Palestine, by implication, were an existing political unit in whom sovereignty was vested - though you concede this is a controversial point - a sovereignty that overrides the claims for autonomy of the communities that comprise it. Despite that controversy, you assert that the people “ultimately” decide. Despite that fact that there was no language in Covenant or Mandate that constituted the state of Palestine or instituted any mechanism in this state for decision making about governance - or even for establishing majority opinion - you claim that the majority of this state-by-fiat did not want a Jewish state. You quote an American committee as authority on majority disapproval (as if the Zionists were not fully aware of it themselves and publicly acknowledged it). (And you bring out some more island case law, this time for the proposition that self-determination does not apply to a people located within a state, such as Finland, that is “definitively constituted” [so that] the islanders therefore had no right to separate from Finland. So, Palestine being “definitively constituted”, the Jews located within it cannot demand self-determination.)

That is where the argument now stands and where it stood before your last post. You have developed a theory for how Arab Palestinians may claim a state and Jews may not. I think it is self-evidently specious, and I have explained why. That is all I can do. You have precluded discussion of relative merits of claims of Arabs and Jews by denying all Jewish ones. From my point of view, the discussion has gone as far as it can.

Let me leave it by quoting the Covenant - to remind you for what the “wishes” of the communities were to be a principal consideration:

“Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.”

Herzen

C. Gee

It's odd how things simply disappear. I will try again to post my farewell comment.

Herzen

C. Gee
If you recall, the discussion began on a previous thread with our blogger and others saying that Israel had legal and moral right to Palestine (in effect, to the whole of it). I have been trying to discover what that legal right is, so far without success.

I don't think it will do simply to say of a given argument that it is rendered irrelevant by Israel's existence: the question we began with was what legal right the Zionists could claim from the Mandate. The question of what legal right Israel's UDI in 1948, or the very fact of its existence thereafter, conferred is for another time.

I also think you confuse matters by blurring the distinction between the Jews of Palestine, the Jews of the diaspora, and the fringe group calling themselves Zionists. You have here shifted the discussion wholly to the rights of the Jews of Palestine. I previously understood you to be talking largely about the diaspora and the Zionists and their claim on Palestine.

Confining the discussion to the Jews of Palestine has the unfortunate effect of allowing you to sidestep the request for a positive account of Julius Stone nationalism and how it allows the rights claimed by the Zionists to trump the rights of the Palestinians recognized in international law.

It does however simplify things. The Jews of Palestine had precisely the same civil rights as the rest of the population. According to the history books, the millet were not much taken with the immigrants and did not support a Jewish state (you may know better than me). However, if there were a strong and settled will among the Jews of Palestine for autonomy, then it seems to me, whatever legal precedent might say, that the majority should find some way to accommodate their wishes – to do right by the 5-10% of the population and avoid strife in the community. I have no notion how it could have been done in practice. It is still the case that there is nothing in the law or treaties of the time that required the population of Palestine to make such an accommodation (the same applies in all sorts of instances – Ulster, the Basque country, Quebec etc. - pick a state and you will find a similar dilemma). It was clearly within the power of the League to include whatever protection for minorities it wished (even for non-residents! - as the inclusion of the Balfour wording demonstrated).

You call what I have said “majoritarian”. You intend the term to be pejorative. I am not clear that “minoritarian” principles are more conducive to justice. By manoeuvring to maintain a permanent Jewish majority in its “democracy”, Israel would appear to disagree with you. Perhaps because it would find it difficult to respond should the Arabs of Israel now reclaim their right to self-determination within Israel (I mean in theory: in practice the Israelis would simply shoot them). Why should the rights of Jewish Israelis trump the rights of Arab Israelis?

Your thought experiment was intended to call into question the international law applied in Palestine, presumably by showing that it rests on some unacceptable principle. In an age of self-determination, “minoritarian” domination of the majority is always going to be a tougher sell.

That 95% of the population should stand aside while 5% (or some portion of the 5%) invite in their chums, avowedly to take over the whole land, and establish a state in which they will form a permanent majority, is on the face of it an exorbitant demand and an odd notion of self-determination for Palestine.

You have concentrated entirely on trying to refute what I say. You have side-stepped all requests to give your own account. Your account would have been of interest. I'm not sure why you have been so coy about it. In the circumstances, I think you are right that we can proceed no further, which is a shame. Nevertheless, thank you for continuing the discussion this far.