The Arab land grab
By David Solway
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The historical record makes it nonsense to regard the formation of a Palestinian state as anything other than a collective, internationally-approved land grab in itself in an area mandated by the League of Nations as a Jewish homeland.
For too much truth, at first sight, ne’er attracts. – George Gordon, Lord Byron, Don Juan, Canto XIV
The Israeli government’s present intention of holding on to a sliver of the West Bank within the perimeter of the security fence is an issue of serious import and is widely regarded as an illegal land grab. Yet the issue is by no means as simple as it has been made out to be and cannot be cursorily decided to the advantage of the hypothetical Palestinian state.
First and foremost, this is the same West Bank from which Jews were expelled in 1929. It was never “Palestinian” territory in the first place and no political entity called “Palestine” ever existed except as a Roman provincial designation revived in the twentieth century as a Mandatory appellation. The West Bank was conquered from Jordan in a defensive war and Jordan subsequently waived its claims and rights to the area. Military and demographic considerations remain justifiably paramount in official Israeli thinking. Along with the entirety of Gaza, fully 94% of the disputed territory (altogether, 97.5% if one includes Gaza in the calculation) would be ceded to the Palestinian Authority.
Indeed, the original Article 24 of the PLO Covenant explicitly states that “this Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank…” It was only in the wake of the 1967 war, after Jordan had lost the territory, that the article was revised to assert the Palestinian claim.
The historical record makes it nonsense to regard the formation of a Palestinian state as anything other than a collective, internationally-approved land grab in itself in an area mandated by the League of Nations as a Jewish homeland. Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant of 1919 specifies that the tutelage entrusted to the “advanced nations” over the “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” should be “exercised by them [the advanced nations] as Mandatories on behalf of the League” (italics mine).
This Article, which is the source of the Palestine Mandate of 1922, envisioned the preparation of the colonies and territories under its administration for self-rule on a country by country basis, with Palestine forming a special case. The special status of the Palestine region was underwritten in Article 95 of the Treaty of Sčvres in 1920, thus differentiating treatment of this region from the Mandates for Syria and Mesopotamia, owing, obviously, to the unique factor in the administrative equation presented by the Jewish element.
No less important, Article 95 affirmed the Jewish right to plenary settlement, determining to “put into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by other Allied Powers”; and the San Remo Resolution in 1920 incorporated the terms of both the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and of Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, as did the Treaty of Sčvres. The League of Nations Palestine Mandate recognized both “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and the right to “reconstitute their national home in that country.” It further stipulated the right of the Jewish people to settle in the whole of the Mandated territory, as per Article 6 which encouraged “close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public use.” (This article was confirmed by Winston Churchill who wrote that “a Jewish state will arise in our day on the banks of the Jordan”—note the use of the plural.)
These legal obligations were later violated by the British, who, adding one injury to another, also transferred the greater portion of the Golan Heights, intended as part of the future Jewish state, to the French Mandate of Syria in a private arrangement known as the Franco-British Boundary Agreement—an act in direct contravention of Article 5 of the League of Nations Mandate which stated that “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.”
Since all the Powers involved in carrying out the Mandate were “foreign” and a sectoral agreement was in place specifying regional control of designated areas, the Golan transfer remains contestable since it entailed the cession of territory from one Power to another. Thus the Golan was never legally a part of the French Mandate nor, following a second “transfer,” could it be considered under the force of international law as part of the Syrian nation. In any event, what we now call “Palestine” is nothing less than an attempted political and demographic usurpation of Jewish mandated as well as ancestral territory which, in the formula applied at the time of the Mandate, was to be settled by Jews “as of right and not on sufferance.”
Considered from the standpoint not only of the long historical record but of the original League of Nations framework, which was flagrantly contravened but never legally vacated, it seems, then, just as reasonable, if not more so, to speak of Occupied Israel as of Occupied Palestine. For the obligations imposed by the League of Nations Mandate were validated by Article 80 of the United Nations’ founding Charter, Paragraph 1 of which unequivocally states that “nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner…the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.”
Since the British government returned the Mandate to the UN in 1947, the unassailable conclusion is that much of the territory now earmarked for Palestinian governance, which has never ceased to be the cadastral address for Jewish consciousness, was historically as well as legally an integral part of Israel. Additionally, Article 70 (1 b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties convened by the United Nations, signed on May 23, 1969 and extended on March 21, 1986, states that the termination of a treaty “does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.” Which is to say that all previous relevant and lawful treaties, regardless of circumstances, remain in force as international instruments. The Vienna Convention, known informally as the Treaty on Treaties, further consolidates Israel’s legal right, already determined as irrefrangible, to the territory which was stripped from it.
It is often asserted by Israel’s detractors that the country is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, in particular Article 49 which stipulates that: “The Occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” But as Ted Belman points out in American Thinker (August 30, 2007), citing legal expert Talia Einhorn, “this territory was not ‘occupied’ in the sense of the Geneva convention, since those rules are designed to assure the reversion of the former legitimate sovereign which, in this case, does not exist.”
And again: since these territories “had not been taken from a legitimate sovereign, the Fourth Geneva Convention and The Hague Regulations 1889/1907 were inapplicable there.” Former US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Eugene W. Rostow, who was also one of the framers of UN Resolution 242, is very clear about this: “the Convention applies only to acts by one signatory ‘carried out on the territory of another.’
The West Bank is not the territory of a signatory power, but an unallocated part of the British Mandate…The controversy about Jewish settlements in the West Bank is not, therefore, about legal rights but about the political will to override legal rights” (The New Republic, April 23, 1990). In ceding the whole of Gaza and 94% of the West Bank to their Arab claimants, it may be persuasively argued that successive Israeli administrations have overridden the legal rights of the Jewish settlers in these areas.
Michael I. Krauss and J. Peter Pham, in an article for Commentary (July-August 2006), have also shown that, from the standpoint of international law, the West Bank cannot be described as “occupied.” “The British withdrawal from the territory of the Mandate,” they write, “resulted in a lapse or vacancy of internationally recognized sovereignty. The West Bank was, in legal jargon, res nullius: a thing belonging to no state.” In other words, neither Jordan (which acquired the West Bank through armed aggression) nor Turkey as the residue of the dismantled Ottoman empire, could later lay legitimate claim to the area. “In such a case,” the authors continue, “sovereignty in international law may be acquired by any state in a position to assert effective and stable control without resort to unlawful means…” Since self-defence is a legal entitlement in the jus gentium (rule of law common to all nations), Israel’s defensive wars of 1967 and 1973 fulfilled precisely these internationally recognized conditions. Therefore, the notion “that Israel’s presence in the territory constitutes an ‘occupation’ is utterly specious.”
Equally spurious is the common belief that the current status of the Territories is the casus belli which must be defused at Israel’s expense. Since Israel had no presence whatsoever in Gaza and the West Bank prior to 1967, what then could possibly have motivated Egypt to close the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping—which constituted an Act of War—and to mobilize its army, along with those of Syria and Jordan, on Israel’s borders? Egyptian Radio’s “Voice of the Arabs,” broadcasting on the eve of the war, provides a pretty straightforward answer: the “extermination of Zionist existence.”
Historian Michael B. Oren, author of Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East, who has studied the original Arabic documents, unearthed the details of a certain “Operation Tariq,” which reveal that the three belligerent countries had planned “the expulsion or murder of much of [Israel’s] Jewish inhabitants in 1967.”
Ruth Wisse puts the case succinctly in her Jews and Power, an essential book on the so-called “Jewish Question”: “Since the disputed territories were Israel’s as a result of Arab aggression, they could not retroactively have become a cause.” In repulsing the Arab invaders and conquering Gaza and the West Bank in the process, Israel asserted a claim universally justified by the laws of war.
Consequently, from whatever angle we want to examine the issue, whether historically, juridically or militarily, the argument against Israel does not hold water. The legitimacy of the Israeli right to settle in the Territories or to regard them as an Israeli allodium does not derive, as many have contended, often derisively, from a divine injunction or the world’s bad conscience.
“We have really such an overwhelming case,” wrote Arthur Koestler in an aide mémoire to Victor Gollancz, “that it is idiotic to base our claims on Bergen Belsen or Abraham’s interview with God.” Further, when in 1994 Israel and Jordan signed a peace agreement, Jordanian control of the West Bank was relinquished to Israel and not to the Palestinian Authority; again, from the legal perspective, there is no—and never was—an Israeli “occupation,” as understood by the political echelon, the press and a profoundly misinformed public. This line of reasoning may be regarded by Israel’s critics as merely academic or inapplicable in the context of realpolitik; but if we believe in the validity of international law—which, be it said, is often mobilized against Israeli interests—then we have no logical or ethical alternative but to endorse it fully. Otherwise we are in bad faith.
The common tendency is to regard such issues and provisions as mere legalisms that do not impact “facts on the ground”; yet when adduced against the Israeli brief, they are suddenly transformed into legalities. One can’t have it both ways. This is the essential point. If the concept of international law is to have any meaning at all, if its dispensations are understood to be valid and to apply in all circumstances, and if we intend to be consistent as moral agents and political actors, then we have no option but to accept the conclusion that Israel is not an “occupying power,” that the territories in question are its legitimate possession, and that it has every right to dispose of these lands as it sees fit. If we reject this conclusion, not to put too fine a point on it, we are merely cynics wedded to the politics of expediency or temporizers divorced from the dictates of conscience. Cosi fan tutte, perhaps; nevertheless, it remains a scandal.
What we might call “the argument for Israel” is not a question of hairsplitting exegetics which can be readily disregarded in a real-world context—and in actuality, the nuances are by no means that subtle to begin with. The last institutional entity to exercise legal sovereignty over the area in dispute was the League of Nations, which upheld the terms and conditions of the Balfour Declaration. However we may like to fudge the issue, the constitutional authority of the League of Nations remains intact to this day. In the historical overview and under the auspices of international law, “Palestine,” all of it, is the Israelitic homeland; by the terms of the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations Mandate, and the various treaties which ensued and which are still juridically in effect via the United Nations’ own Charter, it follows inescapably that the West Bank, the Golan Heights and, for that matter, Jordan itself, are Israel. It is plainly too late to file a writ of complete replevin, but to insist that we are only dealing with finespun distinctions or a blizzard of clauses and protocols that have no bearing on practical matters is only a way of throwing a sop to the devil in the details, holding the rule of law in contempt, playing selectively with facts and principles to foster an agenda and thereby exempting ourselves from the labour of interrogating our biases.
Perhaps the most conspicuous instance of this abortion of truth was furnished by the International Court of Justice in The Hague which found against the Israeli security fence and West Bank settlements without examining the full dossier of relevant documents, many of which were suppressed and others misread. But to reiterate, international law is international law; it cannot be applied unevenly or preferentially without damaging or abrogating the very concept itself.
It must be bluntly said that the anti-Israeli consensus concerning the Territories is tantamount to the annulment of the principle of law, to revoking what is commonly understood to be imprescriptible. But Israel is not the only victim of such chicanery; the convention of international law is equally damaged, if not vitiated. Counter-intuitive as this may sound, it is indisputably the case. The most mordant irony of all is that the very institutions, such as the ICJ and the United Nations itself, which are predicated on the existence and sanctity of international law and which are sworn to preserve it against all depredations, have become its prime despoilers and are no better—and possibly worse, given the authority they command—than the world’s rogue regimes which routinely flout its provisions.
It is only fair to say that there are occasional rays of light that penetrate a desolate cloud cover. Every now and then one comes across an enlightened Muslim cleric who declares his support for the Jewish right to the West Bank. Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, Director of the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community, affirmed that “the territories of Judea and Samaria are the home Allah granted to the Jewish people” and that Jews are “morally obligated to struggle for the integrity of the Land of Israel.” Palazzi’s argument is obviously not a jurisprudential one. For him, the Land was God’s gift to Isaac; the descendants of Ishmael “received plenty of territory in other locations.” Be that as it may, such sympathetic voices are extremely rare and, regrettably, will not significantly influence, in Palazzi’s words, “the nations of the world…once again preparing bad days for the Jewish people” (IsraelNationalNews.com, December 21, 2007).
The momentum of public opinion, abetted by an unending media campaign and the relentless ideological blitzkrieg of the intellectual and political classes against Israel, has now become almost irreversible. Many Israelis, chiefly of the Left, the “Peace” movements and the emasculated political establishment, have also fallen for this presumed concession to reality and sanctioned a complete reversal of historical provenance and de jure merit. Such Jews have, sadly, forfeited the traditional practice of midrash, or the habit of close reading that fills in textual gaps, which would have served them in good stead today, just as their counterparts in the democratic West are in default of their own liberal heritage founded on the rule of law, statutory precedent and the binding nature of contractual indenture. For a pervasive falsehood has been accepted as an ineluctable fact so that even the mere possibility of principled reconsideration seems like a will o’ the wisp. People know the truth. Israel is guilty, the land belongs to the Arabs, and the world is flat.
True enough article, however the Arabs want to surround Israel is a noose, and Judea and Samaria are part of the plan. Also they claim the Temple mount as theirs because their prophet had a dream of himself being on the mountain and ascending into Heaven (stupid reason really, but then Islam is not a logical religion). In order for the Muslims to retain the Temple mount they must hang on to Judea and Samaria which contains eastern Jerusalem.
At last, an article which both looks at the broad picture without ignoring the crucial details. Bravo to David Solway for clearly presenting the “Case for Israel” (are you listening, Professor Dershowitz?)and for giving, we hope, a collective headache to journalists, diplomats, pontificating pundits, leftist brainless peacenicks, politicians of all hues, self-righteous NGOs and all others who have been assaulting the truth for too long, by ignorance or by design, and catering to the opinion of stupid people only because they are always in the majority.
This is a very impressive summary of facts in a succinct and well written article. How can these facts be disseminated and understood in a world that sides with Arabs, looks for ways to express anti-Jewish feelings through anti-Israel antics, and confuses law with biased politics?
The other question I have is this: even if the West were to accept Israel’s right to land that is legally, historically, morally, politically and in every other ways theirs, what is to be done with an Arab world that refuses to help their own people resettle in the huge landmass and resource-rich Arab countries? The world does not have the time to wait for Muslims stuck in the past and with a religion that has identified their enemies for all time in its books to see the light.
The struggle for the truth to be recognized is also a struggle for Islam to be revised and modernized. Unfortunately, no legal arguments will convince Muslims bent on destroying all people other than devout Muslims who dare occupy their Ummah and live among them as anything more than dhimmis or dead people.
The case for Israel:
There is no case for Israel, because making it is only preaching to the choir. The “internatinal community” (aka the goyim) have the same idea as Yasser Arafat: shrink (and weaken) Israel in stages until you can finally destroy it altogether. The goyim pretend to be “reasonable and enlightened” but they are as fanatic about this as Hitler.
There is already at least one fully Palestinian state: it is Hamastan in Gaza. It is completely controlled by Palestinians and does not contain a single Jew.
Israel’s security fence extends a few miles into the West Bank. It contains 200,000 Jews, who appear to be fairly safe from the Israeli suicidal leftists. That leaves 70,000 Jews in scattered settlements among the West Bank Palestinians. Their presence allows Israel to keep Hamas from taking control of the West Bank and bringing in more missiles bought with Iranian oil money. And crucially, they allow Israel to reach the Dead Sea and the Jordan Vally via the Jericho road.
The Palestinians demand: that the million Muslims already in Israel stay there and receive Jewish welfare money to keep breeding, that untold Palestinian “refugees” be allowed to join them in Israel, but that there be no Jews left in the West Bank and Gaza, demanding the ethnic cleansing of at least 70,000 Jews.
That Israel puts up with this khara shows that in the end, they have learned nothing from the Holocaust, that they still maintain a ghetto mentality of grovelling, and have become a nation of freyers (suckers).
Excellent article, but who amongst Jewish and Israeli leaders have read it and other articles with similar conclusions?
If things are so clear as David Solway makes it sound, why have Jewish and Israeli leaders not steadfastly told the Palestinians and the Arab world, get stuffed and go back to your holes, the land is Israel’s and get out of our land?
Is it too late for the GOI to do that? If Israel were to finally elect a leader with wisdom and balls, would such leader reverse course and fight to turn the tide of opinion of the international community in order to establish her sovereignty over J & S and Gaza and tell the Syrians to get stuffed over the Golan Heights?
It is difficult however to see that any of the Israeli leadership hopefuls possess such qualities.
Soloway alludes to a reason why Israel has not unflinchingly asserted her rights and instead have bartered away her rights, which is that Israel has not had the strength or courage to resist the force of international opinion.
If that is the reason, Israel’s government owes her citizens and the world Jewish community an explanation for their failure to assert and instead to compromise Israel’s rights. Israelis and Jews can put up a hue and cry that Jews and Israel always get screwed.
If on the other hand Soloway has it wrong and Israel never did have the rights he says she did, then we should all know that too instead of looking only to the Soloways to wallow in self pity that we Jews got screwed again, big time.
How does one get opinions and advice from the Soloways to the Israeli government and get them to take that advice into account in determining government policy vis a vis J & S?
Now, now, Bill. You’re not being realistic.
So Shy Guy what is the reality and what can Israelis realistically expect from their government and Jews realistically expect for their leadership?
The reality is that Israel can expect no success from the current Israeli political and elite echelons and the reality is that if Israelis don’t wake up and realize who they are and why they’re here, the spiraling downward and much misery will continue.
That is what I mean by the present reality versus the necessary reality. Already repeated ad infinitum by our prophets.
I concur Shy Guy.
I doubt we are much at odds, if at all on most, if not all realities.
We both want generally at least, the same thing which is an Israel strong, secure and thriving, self assured in and resolutely protective of her national Jewish character as a Jewish state.
Where you and I seem to part company is on the questions of what can be done to change current realities to improve the chances of a better future reality for Israel.
When did Israel go wrong?
When you look at Israel’s position today, with control of Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Jordan Valley, and the Golan, you have to wonder how Israel managed to get to a pretty good place, and why they now want to surrender and die.
They got there because they originally were Zionists, and believed in the Jewish nation of Israel and its Jewish aspirations.
They now want to surrender and die because of the success of the liberal internationalist movement, who believe that every white majority ethnic nation state must be replaced by an amorphous multicultural, multi-ethnic non-nation state (look at Obama-America).
They achieved their success by slowly and doggedly taking over the universities, the mass media, and the judiciary, and by brainwashing the people into thinking that only they were right; rewarding the believers with a cradle to grave welfare state, and by punishing dissenters through the use of political correctness.
In Israel, this took the form of Zionism slowly morphing into post-Zionism. I believe though, that in Israel there is an ever growing silent majority of real Jews, and that if the leftist liberals reach the brink of destroying Israel, then that majority will finally revolt.
email rec’d
email rec’d
David Matas writes
The Foreign policy advisor to a major American Jewish organization wrote
I replied
He replied
It upsets me that rather than say great information let’s work with it, you prefer to knock it. Are you with Israel or against it.
The UNGA had no “power and authority to redraw lines in partitioning western Palestine.”, it could just recommend. The Partition Plan is not law. The Arabs have no right to Judea and Samaria.
In response to Comment #13, David matas is correct: the Treaty of Sčvres was not ratified by Turkey. Its later replacement, the Treaty of Lausanne, no longer contains Article 95. All that is true.
But the fact of the mtter is that Article 95 of the Treaty of Sčvres, which reflected the decisions taken at the San Remo Conference, was integrally transcribed into the Preamble of the Mandate of 1922. And for those who, rightly, consider that preambles of resolutions are not operative, that particular preamble of the Mandate was expressly referred to in Article 2, thus making it fully applicable.
Narvey; The devil is always in the details
Bottom line here is that International Law and agreements including treaties are what the dominant power or powers at any given time deem them to be. Might makes right and so called Rule of Law is for suckers who believe in its efficacy. The vacuum of strong responsible leadership among the Jews here and in the diaspora only contribute to our on going decline. We certainly do not lack for astute legal minds and academics with proper insights. Its is the weakness of leadership on our part historically as well as our current cast amoebas,.We, as much as the International Community and World Powers are as responsible if not more and have acquiesced to the dictates of greater military and economic powers to our own detriment. It’s difficult to blame others when we have and continue to capitulate even under duress without even a good fight.
Yamit, truth is in the details obscured by generalities.
Which devil and which details are you referring to?
Narvey
Yes , generalities, this statement is full of generalities: be more specific!
Here is where everything breaks down, there will never be agreement between you and Shy Guy or me on this.
In regards to the content of the original article.. .. blah blah blah.
What is the case for Israel? The fact that Israel is.
What is the case for America vs the Native Indians? The fact that America is and the natives are a destroyed people (sad to say)
Israel needs to stake out its own imperatives.. to hell with what obsolete organs like the UN say.
If Israel can muster its national power to protect those imperatives then that is its case.
If Israel cannot muster its power to maintain its own legatimacy in the minds of its citizens , then it is inevitable… it will not be.
Yamit, you are such a contrarian that if I tell you the sky is blue I am sure you will disagree.
I don’t know whether Shy Guy will think it such an honour that you cite him as the other pea in your pod.
He can speak for himself.
I remind you Yamit that it was you who with all the bravado you could muster, threw down the gauntlet telling me to bring it on. I accepted your challenge and what did you do? You ran away. Your macho image is getting awfully tarnished and dented.
Yamit you have been telling me and everyone else what I think. Just like a mindreader that can’t get his act together, you have been batting pretty much batting 0 so far. Do you really think no one will notice?
If you have finally screwed up the courage that you want everyone to believe you have, I again accept your challenge Yamit.
Are you ready to get it on?
If so, I put to you once again, specifically identify whatever issues you want, explain your position and tell me where you think I stand in that regard.
So Yamit, what’s it going to be? Are you going to charge or are you to retreat yet again?
Narvey, what ticked you off tis time? Do you lose sleep if someone disagrees with you? take a vallium or Quaalude and relax not everyone loves you or agrees with you and if we don’t do you need to take everything personally. If I disturb you so much don’t read or ans anything I post and I will try the same with you but apparently I bother you more than you me.
Hypothetical: we have a verbal argument you spend a lot of time on a well thought out reasoned argument maybe even somewhat convincing, after you are through I produce my trust glock 45 and put a bullet through your well thought out reasonalbe brain. Questions: who wins the argument? who is deemed right? so I changed the rules of fair play can you then sue me?
Narvey: sorry for the typos its 2 am and I am getting bleary eyed!
Vince #20
Well said, I agree with every word. Most of the World are cowards, history has shown they will not pick on even a small insignificant country with a big sting. You project weakness, it is an invitation to be kicked in the ass by everyone, even your inferiors.
Hannibal (A good Jew) had Rome beat and those cheap money grubbing Carthaginian Leaders wouldn’t resupply him with reinforcements and money to finish the Job so he went home and left Rome to fight another day. The rest is prologue!
Yamit, you have me wrong again. I am neither ticked off nor ready for battle.
My point Yamit has always been that for the most part, you mis-attribute views to me which you then proceed to disagree with. Its the straw man tactic poorly executed.
I have spent considerable time trying to pin you down to specific issues so we both can engage on an apples to apples basis. You keep coming back with evasions and characterizations, but you zealously avoid being specific.
I do not have any problem if you or anyone else disagrees with me Yamit. I only ask that they make their case based on what I say and not what words they attribute to me.
It is not a matter that I want to convince you we are on the same team and agree on most things in principle. I really don’t care whether we agree or not.
All I am interested in is to understand if we really are in disagreement and where that disagreement lies.
I will make it easy on you Yamit.
Pick one or two issues only that you are big on, tell me where you stand and where you think I stand.
I will let you know how right or wrong you are about where I stand.
If that works out we can try a few more issues at a time.
Narvey:
I don’t think so but( here and there) I will concede it was possible.
Show me give more than one example and I will be more specific. This is easier for me as I tend to be too wordy.
Yamit, here’s four basic issues:
America’s relationship with the U.S. – friend, ally, foe, or something in between?
Is it in Israel’s best interests to cut all their dependence ties with the U.S.?
Are Christians all wolves in sheep’s clothing that seek to destroy Israel and convert all Jews?
Should Israel reject all Christians, their support and monies?
Pick any one or more of these issues. Tell me briefly where you stand and where you believe I stand.
An excellent article. I just have one problem with all this talk of international law, the rule of law, blah, blah, blah.
Firstly, I have mentioned before that international law is based on judeo-christian principles so it means jack shit to the muslims we are up against as they believe in sharia law. They love using these laws against us but certainly don’t abide by them.
Secondly, as long as there is no international body that enforces these laws then they aren’t worth the paper that they are printed on. I know Ted will come back and say that possession is nine tenths of the law but I will still come back to my first point.
So where does this all leave us? simple, as quoted at the top of Israpundits home page: “there is no diplomatic solution” and I will add here what was erased from that home page: “there is only a military solution”.
Narvey
Mostly foe.
NO BRAINER , BASED ON ITEM#1 painful short term none long term
who can say? one argument is as valid as the other except for those proved tobe acting against Jews and Jewish interests. This is the same as saying all criminals not caught. prosecuted and convicted are considered by your standards as innocent even though a small percentage of criminals are caught prosecuted and convicted. In the interim the behave as criminal and the public and society at large pay the price. maybe they are willing I am not. For starters funding our politicians and political parties should in any case be a no go zone. Any missionary caught missionizing pays a 100 000 dollar fine or ten years at hard labor and visa revoked forever. If more than one missionary caught from same group that whole group permanently banned from Israel and a hefty fine levied, and all property considered payment in lieu of cash. I can think up lots of good stuff short of beheading!!!
Yes, because it can’t be controlled and is at core subversive or potentially subversive. They want to give money give to UJA or some alternative central non specific charity ; Where there is 100% transparency and accountability.
I picked them all!!
Yamit,
You didn’t this time suggest where I stand on these issues so I will tell you.
1. America is a friend (geopolitically speaking) and supporter of Israel. I consider the following factors:
a. Financial support and loan guarantees that Israel has needed, without which who is to say whether Israel would have been able to hang in there.
b. Military supply support
c. Standing by Israel at the U.N. and running interference against the litany of anti-Israel politicized resolutions.
d. Overall Americans support Israel
These factors are pretty much ignored by those who focus on the various present and past American administrations’ Middle Eastern policies and actions that have served to undermine Israel’s position and security, including pressuring Israel to make various unenforceable agreements with the Palestinians which always turn out with Israel making concessions and Palestinians giving broken promises.
As I have noted before America and the West are too dependent on Arab oil and thus try to further their own interests by appeasing the Arabs, not just by pressuring Israel to make concessions, but American and the West too have made concessions of their own interests.
In general, though there are a number of policies and actions that America has taken that compromise Israel’s interests and upset me as much as I expect they upset you, relatively speaking by comparison to other Western nations, America would be the best friend Israel has.
2. I disagree with you on this, but only in degree.
You want Israel to cut all ties with America, but in this global community, no Western state can be afford to be island unto itself, nor would it want to be. Everyone needs friends and allies. Look at America which was the sole superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union. America almost went begging for European nations to call friends and allies and to this day is trying to overcome the anti-American politics of jealousy and resentment.
America found it lonely at the top.
Israel would do well to not so much cut ties with America, but more forcefully assert her rights and destiny and get her friends and allies such as America to respect Israel’s right to self determination as Israelis define that for themselves. In other words, Israel must not be anyone’s pushover on every whim that suits Western interests.
3. Christians and Jews
I think you are saying not all Christians have an agenda to harm or convert Jews or harm Israel. If so we are agreed on that.
I get the sense that the majority of Christians have transformed and no longer pose an existential threat to Jews either because of anti-semitism or being driven by zealous belief that converting Jews is part of their religious duty.
Here you may not be so certain, but I think you if we differ we again differ as a matter of degree.
We are agreed that missionizing in Israel poses a threat to the Jews of Israel and indeed to Israel itself.
We disagree on how to deal with the problem. You suggest using a hammer to force missionaries out of Israel and to pay a steep price for their activities.
I do not think such an extreme step is required.
I would suggest for example giving visitor visas to missionaries which clearly state those visas will be cancelled if the visa holder engages in missionizing against Israelis. I would also suggest Israeli anti-missionizing laws be made firm, but with the emphasis on being instructive and not punishing, at least not for first offenders. Sentences can be graduated in severity for subsequent offences, but harsh fines and imprisonment should be avoided.
Israeli governmental PR efforts should include firm warnings against missionizing in Israel.
Extreme threats require extreme measures. The problem with missionizing as near as I can figure is worsening, but it is yet far from an extreme existential threat to Israel and Israelis.
Here we therefore differ in degree of solutions, but not in recognizing there is a problem that cannot be swept under the rug.
Narvey: first of all the political price we pay for this fiction of America being our friend and one time ally (New American List omits Israel as an Ally) is too high a price for benefits gained.
Meir Kahane long argued (and I concur) for divesting from America. Three to five billion dollars in aid is not critical to Israel. If we rejected U.S. aid, we could insist on no subsidies to Arabs, either—and foreign money is critical to them. We could even call for an embargo on arms sales to the Middle East. Israel produces reasonable weapons; the point is not to accumulate more but to stop Arabs from acquiring modern weapons. U.S. aid ties our hands politically and militarily. Since 1948 and, especially, 1956 America has imposed unprofitable armistices on Israel. The Middle East today would be very different had we marched into Cairo or carpet-bombed Tehran. Now instead you have the Islamic Brotherhood definitely coming to power in nuclear Egypt, and nuclear mullahs are not far behind. Last, but perhaps first, is national pride. We shouldn’t depend on aid, absolutely not. We depended on Egypt, and Assyria, and Rome, and Persia before, and lost. Protectors have limited interest in their vassals and turn on them often: consider how very pro-Israel France became very pro-Arab in two decades.
It all comes down to: why be Jewish? If we want a gemütlich, ethnically blind democracy, what are we doing in Canaan? Let’s settle near Boston. I love the place. If, however, we honestly say that the whole point of being Jewish is separation (or isolation, as Rav Kahane translated it), things look different. Israel should not cling to foreign sponsors. She should not accept Arabs in the Knesset; this is a Jewish state with Jewish culture and Jewish laws. Those who want sharia can go to the fifty-two or so Muslim states, and those who want democracy—elsewhere. They are not wrong or bad; Israel is just not the place for them.
There is no issue of Arab violence threatening the Jewish state. Such a threat exists, but it is non-essential. Arabs outside of Israeli borders threaten her security, and I don’t believe that a Jewish ceasefire with the Christian world would last for long. We won’t be the ones to breach it, but breached it would be.
Peaceful Arabs in Israel are as much a problem as the rioting ones; indeed, the rioting Arabs are less of a problem because the very fact of rioting suggests Jews the necessary measures. Peaceful Arabs undermine the purpose of Israel: the Jewish state. The state where Jews live comfortably together. A reservation, if you would. Okay, we want to be like the Native Indians – respect our reservation, and we want no aliens here. Jews have a right to a country club; our country is the size of a Texan country club.
We want to live comfortably among Jews. For the first time in the nineteen centuries, we want to see no aliens around. You, who are a part of the homogenous Western culture, can’t imagine the immense pleasure of seeing Jews around – only Jews. We’re so vastly different from the rest of the peoples that we want to be left alone in our microscopic state. Alone – means with no aliens. Of course, Arabs are not aliens for many Israeli Jews, but neither are Jews neighbors for such Jews. The poor cosmopolitans, they embrace Arabs who reject them, and reject the Jews who wish to embrace them.
An idealistic President Wilson oversaw the mutual relocation of Turks and Greeks. An idealistic President F.D. Roosevelt sanctioned the eviction of 12 million Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia. Probably we can find another American idealist to pay scant attention to us evicting the Arabs from Israel, Judea, and Samaria.
And if not? We’ll herd goats for a decade until the international sanctions wear out.
The aid to Israel is an extremely efficient investment. America spent more than $300 billion for the second Iraqi invasion, but the debacle discredited it: Iran ignores the American threats and Muslim countries continue jacking up the oil price. Israel is given 1% of that amount in annual installments, and in return greatly reinforces the US stance in the Middle East: Arabs can always appeal to America against Israel, and America generally listens to them.
The American aid is insulting. In Jewish law, it is an obligation of every individual to avoid being a burden to society at any cost; charity is the last measure for those who cannot support themselves. It is outrageous for the Jewish nation to plead for aid with Gentiles. Israelis are not that poor, and the aid is not that huge. Ending the huge subsidies to Israeli Arabs and non-working Jews, reducing socialist pensions and job benefits in the Histadrut trade union, and firing a large number of useless bureaucrats would more than offset the lost aid. Sensible free market economic policy rather than the post-socialist regulatory abomination would propel the Israeli economy. The IDF can be reduced, long-term conscription abandoned, and a lot of money saved if Israel officially relies on nuclear deterrent in any large-scale war.
The amount of US aid, about $3 billion, remains steady in nominal dollars since 1979 while the CPI increased more by than three times during that period. The cost of weapons increases much faster than the CPI, and the amount which was substantial in 1979 is now negligible. The aid comprises 0.02% of the US GDP and 0.5% of its military budget. For Israel, the figures are, respectively, 1.5% and 17%. Though even the 17% can be realistically offset by streamlining the Israeli army, the situation is actually much simpler: Israel spends 77% of the American aid for American weapons. R&D is a major part of advance weapons costing, and Israeli purchases help amortizing it. In effect, Israel receives the US subsidies in order to pass them to the US military contractors. The comparable Russian weapons – not exactly of the same edge but still very good and sufficient for fighting the Arabs – cost 4-7 times less. In terms of purchasing power parity with Russia, US military aid to Israel amounts to about half a billion dollars annually and close to 3% of Israel’s military budget. Some of the weapons Israel procures in America are virtually useless, untested, hyper-expensive military toys superfluous in the real combat. Addicted to US weapons, Israeli army came to resemble its American counterpart in terms of inefficiency, skyrocketing costs, and the lack of training and daring spirit.
Con’t:
Con’t: Ans. to Narvey;
America has no business aiding Israel. The attempts to achieve for Israel closer ties with the US are a disservice to Jewish people. America will never-ever pursue Jewish interests as they are irrelevant to US voters and establishment alike. America embargoed weapons shipments to Israel during the Independence War, threatened intervention on Egypt’s behalf in the 1956 war, had operational plans for landing its troops in Sinai to defend Egypt in 1967, barred Israel from preemption in 1973 – and only shipped Israel weapons after we won the war – forced Israel to abandon Sinai, and now pushes us into the suicidal peace process. America gives more aid to Egypt and Palestine than Israel, fought for Kuwait but never for Israel, and spent more in Iraq than the total aid to Israel since inception.
That is only natural, as we cannot expect America to care about the Jewish state. Why would the WASP establishment care, if Jews don’t? Polls indicate that American Jews overwhelmingly support the peace process and oppose the war with Iran. No one hates Israel like many American Jews: they want to prove to their Gentile friends that they are not too Jewish, and so they side with Arabs. They are trying to show that Jews are exactly like others; but the Jewish state is not like other states. And so most American Jews support “democratic” Israel where Arabs enjoy equal rights with Jews: that is, the right to breed and vote the Jewish state out of existence.
The support Israel now enjoys from America is a self-delusion. The US vetoed many UN resolutions which condemned Israel. But the very likelihood of such vetoes allows other UNSC members to behave more radically: they vote pro-Left and pro-Arab, knowing that the resolution won’t pass. The US vetoes keep Israel in the UN while a stream of empty anti-Israeli resolutions would have forced Israel out of that barbarian conference, and end Israeli adherence to the UN-sponsored nonsense such as the 1956 borders. The UN fails to enforce sanctions against Iran, an international pariah; the chance of effective sanctions against Israel is infinitesimal. If Israel doesn’t follow South Africa’s path of decades-long oppression of aborigines, but ends the Arab demographic problem swiftly and ruthlessly, in a few years there would be no prospect of sanctions.
From 1948 to 1972, Israel survived while having no official sponsor. We played with France, Germany, America, even the Soviet forefront Romania, and survived. Arab loyalty is non-existent and allegiance – prohibitively expensive; many countries would find it cheaper to buy regional influence by aiding Israel than the Arabs. America aids Israel to control her, and to brandish that control before Arabs extracting concessions from them. The control over Israel gives America great leverage in relations with every Arab country; aid to Israel is an excellent investment. Not only the US, but other countries, too, realize that and would ally themselves with Israel. In the show of absurd loyalty, Israel sticks to America, but America sells her at every corner – for oil.
Russia cannot give Israel much aid, but can supply advanced weapons much cheaper than America, and provide excellent support in the UN. Russia’s military credibility among Arabs is much higher than America’s; Arabs don’t hesitate terrorizing the American pawn, but would shrink from attacking Russia’s client state.
There is also France, boiling with imperial ambitions but unable to vie the Arab states away from America. Through an alliance with France, Israel can extract diplomatic support and considerable aid from the EU.
And there are China and India.
Israel pays with real concessions for the fictional American support. The US needs to show the Arab clients its power over Israel, and kicks her around just for the fun of it: witness the squabble over a few dozen hamlets frightfully dubbed “illegal outposts.” As if the Arab attacks on Israel from 1929 onwards have anything to do with those hamlets erected as a protest against the Oslo capitulation. American politicians sell Israel to placate Arabs, such as by boosting the peace process after the Iraqi debacle. The Carter-Rice ilk uses Israel to vindicate their silly theories, and Clinton pushed for the peace process to cover his deviatory conduct. If not for US pressure, Israeli governments wouldn’t even think of giving the Arabs Judea and Samaria and partitioning Jerusalem.
Incidentally, our tactical goals partially agree with a major aim of American anti-Semites: divestment from Israel. For utterly different reasons we, too believe that Israel must abandon the US aid and live on her own. Financial responsibility would signify the return to Israel’s fundamental political doctrine: Only the IDF is responsible for Israel’s safety. Israel doesn’t need Star Wars weapons to extinguish Palestinian terrorism; good old napalm would do. Israel need not cutting-edge weapons against regular Arab armies: nuclear bombs are good enough.
Rough, self-reliant, arrogant Israel has a good chance for a lasting armistice with neighboring Arabs. Israel the American client has no chance for lasting peace.
We have already tried relying on Assyria.
Narvey:
As the successive US Administrations employ the Old Europe’s cynical and corrupt approach to politics, their policies are twofold: pro-Israeli and anti-Jewish. US Administrations need Israel the bully to push Muslims into cooperation with America. But since the US politics lost the last shreds of morality, it works against everything that is Jewish in Israel. Thus the US demands destruction of Jewish villages, accepting Arab occupation of Judea and Samaria, and abandoning Jerusalem to Palestinians.
It is very different with American people. Public support for Israel in America is very high. Common Americans accept the Jewish right to Jerusalem and Judea, and agree to the overwhelming use of Israel’s force against the Arabs. Jews and Americans have much in common, though not the absurdities trumpeted by Jewish Diaspora barons.
Democracy is not central to Jews and Americans alike. Both nations are values-oriented.
Narvey: the Christian topic is complicated, I will reply later