Israpundit » Blog Archive » Israel’s never-ending battle.

May 5, 2008

Israel’s never-ending battle.

By Ted Belman (amended)

As the West ups the pressure on Israel to capitulate to Arab demands and return to the armistice lines, it is important to remember that all of Judea and Samaria were held in trust for the Jewish state from the signing of the Palestine Mandate in 1922, if not earlier from the time the San Remo Conference awarded these lands to the Jews.

Throughout the thirties and forties the Arabs, with the Support of Great Britain, the Mandatory Power charged with the responsibilities of holding the land for the Jews, tried to thwart the intent of the Mandate and prevent the Jewish state from coming into being. Even the US helped in this endeavour. In 1947, UNGA Resolution 181, recommended a detailed plan for the Partition of Palestine knowing full well that such a resolution was contrary to the sacred trust for the Jews set out in the Mandate.

Howard Grief in his article Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel and Palestine under International Law, comments

Anglo-American Convention of December 3, 1924. This imposed a solemn obligation on the US government to protest any British violation of this treaty, which had repeated every word, jot and tittle of the Mandate Charter in the preamble of the Convention, regardless of whether the violation affected American rights or those of the Jewish people. Yet when the White Paper was issued in the year of 1939, the US government did not lift a finger to point out the blaring illegalities contained in the new statement of British policy that smashed to smithereens the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate, and brought immense joy to the Arab side.

Ben Gurion, knowing, how the winds had been blowing, decided that a half a loaf was better than no loaf and went for the deal. The Arabs didn’t and invaded Israel instead. The War ended in an Armistice Agreement. Neither Res 181 nor this agreement vitiated the sacred trust and Jewish rights to Judea and Samaria and Gaza.

While the West maintained its policy of preventing Israel from expanding these lines by forcing Israel to retreat in ‘56 from Sinai and negotiating Res 242 in ‘67 requiring Israel to return from territories occupied to secure borders, the Arabs continued in their efforts to erase the Jewish state.

By accepting Res 242, many argue that Israel relinguished its rights to keep all the land described in the Mandate. Others dispute this interpretation and continue to argue that the Mandate still applies. Afterall, Res 242 was silent on the question of the Mandate and simply gave Israel the right to remain in occupation until they had negotiated “secure and recognized borders”. It is noteworthy that no restriction was put on Jewish settlement of these lands as permitted by the Mandate. Myths and Facts has produced a very important presentation “Mandate for Palestine: The legal Aspects of Jewish Rights” confirming Israel’s right to Judea and Samaria.

Be that as it may, the government of Israel chose not to claim all the land as was its right, with the exception of Jerusalem and The Golan which it annexed.

Nevertheless the west is not supporting Israel in any of its positions demanding that it share Jerusalem and return to “negotiated” borders near the armistice line. In time it will demand that Israel cede the Golan too.

Two years ago, I set out the case against the US inThe conspiracy to shrink Israel.

Although Bush is on record of leaving it to the parties to negotiate borders, only Israel is pressed to capitulate and the PA is allowed to be as inflexible as it wants. Under these circumstances, if Israel isn’t allowed to say “no”, her right to negotiate is vitiated.

So now the West is getting ready to force Israel to accept the Arab demands. Unfortunately many Jews in Israel and the US support such a move. But the majority don’t.

Refugees

In a fair world the refugees would have been resettled in the fifties when Jordan was in occupation. That was more of an occupation than that of the Israel’s because Jordan had no legal claim to the land. Did Jordan welcome back the refugees? NO. Did the west resettle them elsewhere? No. Thus the West was fully complicit in supporting the “right of return” as the solution.

At the Madrid Conference a Refugee Working Group was set up to try to resolve the plight of Palestinian refugees. The Arabs were adamantly opposed to resettlement of the refugees elsewhere. When Canada’s Minister John Manley, sat as Chair of the RWG, he announced that Canada would accept a certain number of refugees and had similar commitments from others. He said,

“We are prepared to receive refugees. We are prepared to contribute to an international fund to assist with resettlement in support of a peace agreement.”

The Palestinians burned him in effigy and said, “We refuse resettlement of refugees.” That was the end of the RWG.

An article in EretzYisroel.org, Palestinian Refugees, Invited to leave in 1948 clearly presents the history of this issue. The quote I like best is the one by Syria’s Prime Minister, Khaled Al-Azm, after the 1948 war.

Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees… while it is we who made them leave…. We brought disaster upon … Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave…. We have rendered them dispossessed…. We have accustomed them to begging…. We have participated in lowering their moral and social level…. Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon … men, women and children-all this in the service of political purposes …. [36

Commentary Magazine just published an article by Ephraim Karsh entitled 1948, Israel, and the Palestinians— The True Story

This claim of premeditated dispossession and the consequent creation of the longstanding Palestinian “refugee problem” forms, indeed, the central plank in the bill of particulars pressed by Israel’s alleged victims and their Western supporters. It is a charge that has hardly gone undisputed. As early as the mid-1950’s, the eminent American historian J.C. Hurewitz undertook a systematic refutation, and his findings were abundantly confirmed by later generations of scholars and writers. Even Benny Morris, the most influential of Israel’s revisionist “new historians,” and one who went out of his way to establish the case for Israel’s “original sin,” grudgingly stipulated that there was no “design” to displace the Palestinian Arabs.

The recent declassification of millions of documents from the period of the British Mandate (1920-1948) and Israel’s early days, documents untapped by earlier generations of writers and ignored or distorted by the “new historians,” paint a much more definitive picture of the historical record. They reveal that the claim of dispossession is not only completely unfounded but the inverse of the truth. What follows is based on fresh research into these documents, which contain many facts and data hitherto unreported.

It makes for interesting reading.

The Arabs will never make peace with Israel. Why should they. With the use of the peace process and the support of the West, they keep chipping away at the state of Israel.

Israel must put an end to it.

ADDENDUM

After posting my article I cam across a strikingly similar one by Caroline Glick written six years ago, entitled Washington won’t let Israel win. She essentially says the same thing that I do, namely that the US is committed to moving Israel back to the greenline with minor changes.

Throughout this history, the US has justified denying its democratic ally the fruits of its military victories against despotic aggressors “in the interests of peace.”

Never having to worry about losing irrevocably in their wars against Israel, rogue states like Syria, Iraq, and Iran ostentatiously build up non-conventional capabilities to destroy Israel. For their part, supposedly moderate regimes, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are free to inspire as much anti-Israeli and anti-American sentiment as they wish, knowing there will never be a serious price to pay, even if this hatred foments a war they will lose.

Great minds think alike.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 2:17 pm |

10 Comments

Our American friends are not only ours. America is also the friend of Wahhabite Saudi Arabia, totalitarian Egypt, the Al Jazeera state of Qatar, Bedouin Jordan, Islamist Kuwait, terrorist Iraq, and just about every other enemy of Israel. Even Russia would be a more reliable and attractive imperial master for Israel than is the US. Our American friends sell immense quantities of advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia, provide $1.4 billion annual aid to Egypt, fought for Kuwait, and spent more in Iraq in the four years than given to Israel in forty years. The US plays it nice: vetoes the UN’s empty proclamations against Israel, scorns Ahmadinejad for genuine anti-Israeli feelings of all Muslims.Then she professes to be our friend and staunch ally?

The American establishment needs Israel conflicting with Muslim states. The states threatened by Israel appeal to the US for protection and arbitration. Such policy doesn’t require the absence of peace treaties between Israel and Muslims. America has it both ways in the case of Egypt: the peacemaker’s laurels of pressing Israel and Egypt into the peace agreement, and afterwards – of the power broker who arms both Israel and Egypt and oversees their hostile relations. Dog barks when feels insecure; Israel in the 8-mile-wide Road Map borders will be permanently insecure, thus hysterical. The peace agreement with Arabs would make Israel so narrow that she would not be able to afford war. Israel was very relaxed after 1967, enjoying a great depth of defense in Sinai. Ludicrously narrow Israel, surrounded by the Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon, Hamas-run Palestine, saturated with Russian missiles Syria, and Iraqi-controlled Jordan – such Israel will brandish her weapons to steer the enemies away. The enemies will be afraid and spiral the arms race and lean to America. It is soothing to believe that the US foreign policy establishment is stupid; no, it is devilish.

Only the stupid Jews imagine that the US Administration seeks Israeli benefit in the peace process.

Comment by yamit82 — May 3, 2008 @ 7:51 am

Email received

Ted, you are right on every point.

What this situation shows us is that Moshe Dayan was not exaggerating when he said, “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.”

Shouldn’t neighbouring Arab states, notably Syria and Lebanon, experience some of the danger Gen. Dayan was talking about?

The one member of the present Israeli cabinet who shares Dayan’s views on Israeli security, it seems to me, is Ehud Barak. As defence minister he has so far been quite restrained but in the past he has been capable of the required mad-dog posture. Bombing the Syrian reactor site was a good step in that direction. Sterilizing security zones in South Lebanon and the Gaza Strip would be another - clearly the way to halt those pathetic Islamist rocket attacks.

Thanks again for your IsraPunditry,

Comment by Ted Belman — May 3, 2008 @ 3:39 pm

Email received.

I read your writings faithfully, for they express pretty well all the things I feel and agree with. But do they reach the minds of those who are prejudiced against Israel and/or the Jews? I know that when I start to read something anti-Semitic or an article about the sad state of the “Palestinian people”, my blood starts to boil and I stop reading, for fear of increasing my blood pressure. Surely for those who live to vilify Israel and our people, the reaction would be the same as that when reading one of your articles, don’t you think? Is it a case of preaching to the already-converted, or are words such as yours and, say, Daniel Pipes’, being really heard by anyone who isn’t already on the same side as you and I? I hope they ARE being heard, but I am pessimistic about this.

Comment by Ted Belman — May 3, 2008 @ 4:06 pm

Suzie Dym, a leading activist in Israel writes

brilliant, very very nice ted
many many thx indeed for focussing on the 3 main issues which are
a. j & s
b. j & s
c. j & s
cannot thank u enough

if i may be so chutzpadik as to make one more request…it is my firm conviction that the problem must be solved at both ends of the seesaw, that is both israel and usa. because to be fair to israel - there was initially much more of an inclination in israel to keep j & s however there was an unending barrage of rhetoric over several decades in usa in the other directions and so i feel israeli leadership slowly got ground down on this issue,

and another thing — if you could possible emphasize — is that even if goi is not insisting on rights in all of j & s — or more correctly is not consistent in doing so — nonetheless there is a large population of jews or israelis who are absoltuely determined to hang onto these rights and these individuals deserve our full support because they are far more desirable than the terrorist elements who are trying to replace them.

and even with respect to GOI — since goi’s faulty position is to a large extent a response to the usa’s negative position — we are ALL to blame for the goi’s position until such time as the usa retracts its original position according to which nobody wearing a yarmulke is welcome on the westbank. in diplomatese “yarmulka” is termed “settlement activity”.

see e.g. from some leftie site:

The George W. Bush Administration

“Settlement activity must stop. And it has not stopped to our satisfaction.” Secretary Colin Powell — September 21, 2003

“Israel has got responsibilities. Israel must deal with the settlements. Israel must make sure there is a contiguous territory that the Palestinians can call home.” President Bush – June 3, 2003

“Our position on settlements, I think, has been very consistent, very clear. The secretary expressed it not too long ago. He said settlement activity has severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope, preempts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations, and in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and prosperity. The U.S. has long opposed settlement activity and, consistent with the report of the Mitchell Committee, settlement activity must stop.”

Mr. Richard Boucher, U.S. Department of State –Daily Press Briefing — November 25, 2002

“Our opposition to the settlements is political. Washington feels that Israel would be better protected and more accepted inside borders where there are no settlements, so a decision on their future must be accepted on the basis of their feasibility. It is a fact that we have opposed the settlements for decades and you continue to build them and we have done nothing untoward to you [in response]. If Israel wants, it can even expand to the borders promised in the Bible. The question is whether it is able to do so from a security and political standpoint.” Daniel Kurtzer, U.S. Ambassador to Israel — May 29, 2002 – Ha’aretz

“Something has to be done about the problem of the settlements, the settlements continue to grow and continue to expand. . . .It’s not going to go away.”

Secretary of State Colin Powell — NBC’s Meet the Press –May 1, 2002

“Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries, consistent with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338.” President Bush’s Rose Garden Address – April 4, 2002

“During the half-century of its existence, Israel has had the strong support of the United States. In international forums, the United States has at times cast the only vote on Israel’s behalf. Yet, even in such a close relationship there are some difficulties. Prominent among those differences is the U.S. government’s long-standing opposition to the Government of Israel’s policies and practices regarding settlements.” …..“The GOI should freeze all settlement activity, including the “natural growth” of existing settlements. The kind of security cooperation desired by the GOI cannot for long co-exist with settlement activity described very recently by the European Union as causing “great concern” and by the United States as “provocative.” The Mitchell Report – April 30, 2001

The Clinton Administration

“The Israeli people also must understand that . . . the settlement enterprise and building bypass roads in the heart of what they already know will one day be part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the Oslo commitment that both sides negotiate a compromise.”

President Clinton’s farewell address to the Middle East — January 7, 2001

“We write you because we are concerned that unilateral actions, such as expansion of settlements, would be strongly counterproductive to the goal of a negotiated solution and, if carried forward, could halt progress made by the peace process over the last two decades. Such a tragic result would threaten the security of Israel, the Palestinians, friendly Arab states, and undermine U.S. interests in the Middle East.” Excerpt from a letter written to H.E. Benjamin Netanyahu on December 14, 1996. The letter was signed by: James A. Baker III (Former Secretary of State), Zbigniew Brzezinski (Former National Security Adviser), Frank C. Carlucci (Former National Security Adviser), Lawrence S. Eagleburger (Former Secretary of State), Richard Fairbanks (Former Middle East Peace Negotiator), Brent Scowcroft (Former National Security Adviser), Robert S. Straus (Former Middle East Peace Negotiator), Cyrus R. Vance (Former Secretary of State).

The George H.W. Bush Administration

“The United States believes that no party should take unilateral actions that seek to predetermine issues that can only be reached through negotiations. In this regard the United States has opposed, and will continue to oppose, settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967 which remain an obstacle to peace.”

US Letter of Assurances to the Palestinians on the terms of the Madrid Peace Conference excerpts — 24 October 1991

“Every time I have gone to Israel in connection with the peace process on each of my trips I have been met with the announcement of new settlement activity. This does violate United States policy. It is the first thing that Arabs–Arab governments—the first thing that Palestinians in the territories—whose situation is really quite desperate—the first thing they raise when we talk to them. I don’t think there is any greater obstacle to peace than settlement activity that continues not only unabated but at an advanced pace.”

U.S. Secretary of State James Baker – May 22, 1991

When President Bush was asked about Baker’s criticism of Israel’s settlement policy, he told reporters, “Secretary Baker was speaking for this administration, and I strongly support what he said. . .It would make a big contribution to peace if these settlements would stop. That’s what the secretary was trying to say. . .and I’m one hundred percent for him.”

“My position is that the foreign policy of the United States says we do not believe there should be new settlements in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem. And I will conduct that policy as if it’s firm, which it is, and I will be shaped in whatever decisions we make to see whether people can comply with that policy. And that’s our strongly held view.”

President George H.W. Bush, press conference –March 3, 1990

“Since the end of the 1967 war, the U.S. has regarded Israel as the occupying power in the occupied territories, which includes the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The U.S. considers Israel’s occupation to be governed by the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the 1949 Geneva Conventions concerning the protection of civilian populations under military occupation.” Thomas Pickering, US Ambassador to the United Nations — November 27, 1989

The Reagan Administration

In Reagan’s view, Israeli settlement was not illegal, but merely “ill-advised” and “unnecessarily provocative.”

“The Reagan Plan states that ‘the United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transition period (5 years after Palestinian election for a self-governing authority). Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlements freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be fee and fairly negotiated.” Reagan Plan –September 1982

The Carter Administration

“Our position on the settlements is very clear. We do not think they are legal.” President Carter — April 1980 interview

“U.S. Policy toward the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is unequivocal and has long been a matter of public record. We consider it to be contrary to international law and an impediment to the successful conclusion of the Middle East peace process…Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention is, in my judgment, and has been in judgment of each of the legal advisors of the State Department for many, many years, to be. . .that [settlements] are illegal and that [the Convention] applies to the territories.” Secretary of State Cyrus Vance before House Ctee. on Foreign Affairs — March 21, 1980

The Ford Administration

“Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the convention and cannot be considered to have prejudged the outcome of future negotiations between the parties on the locations of the borders of states by the Middle East. Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors.” William Scranton, US Ambassador to the United Nations, UN Security Council — March 23, 1976

The Nixon Administration

“The expropriation or confiscation of land, the construction of housing on such land, the demolition or confiscation of buildings, including those having historic or religious significance, and the application of Israeli law to occupied portions of the city are detrimental to our common interests in [Jerusalem]. The United States considers that the part of Jerusalem that came under the control of Israel in the June war, like other areas occupied by Israel, is governing the rights and obligations of an occupying Power. Among the provisions of international law which bind Israel, as they would bind any occupier, are the provisions that the occupier has no right to make changes in laws or in administration other than those which are temporarily necessitated by his security interests, and that an occupier may not confiscate or destroy private property. The pattern of behavior authorized under the Geneva Convention and international law is clear: the occupier must maintain the occupied area as intact and unaltered as possible, without interfering with the customary life of the area, and any changes must be necessitated by the immediate needs of the occupation.” Charles Yost, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, UN Security Council — July 1, 1969

The Johnson Administration

“Although we have expressed our views to the Foreign Ministry and are confident there can be little doubt among GOI leaders as to our continuing opposition to any Israeli settlements in the occupied areas, we believe it would be timely and useful for the Embassy to restate in strongest terms the US position on this question.

You should refer to Prime Minister Eshkol’s Knesset statement and our awareness of internal Israeli pressures for settling civilians in occupied areas. The GOI is aware of our continuing concern that nothing be done in the occupied areas which might prejudice the search for a peace settlement. By setting up civilian or quasi-civilian outposts in the occupied areas the GOI adds serious complications to the eventual task of drawing up a peace settlement. Further, the transfer of civilians to occupied areas, whether or not in settlements which are under military control, is contrary to Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, which states ‘The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.’ ” “Airgram from the Department of State to the Embassy in Israel,” in Smith, Louis J. (Ed.). Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-1968, V. 20, Arab-Israeli Dispute 1967-1968. DC: 2001.

Comment by Ted Belman — May 3, 2008 @ 4:30 pm

email received

Are you familiar with Pierre van Passenns book, THE FORGOTTEN ALLY? I think you will find it very useful. It is written in 1943 and he recounts the British Colonial Office;’s campaign against the Jewish people.

Comment by Ted Belman — May 3, 2008 @ 4:59 pm

Email received

Excellent piece thanks-don

Comment by Ted Belman — May 3, 2008 @ 5:00 pm

Email received

I am recieving your very interesting articles. But you should understand that the maim problem of a Jewish state is that Geniles are hating Jews. This hate is not fulfilled generally not by discover talk but dirty manipulations to push us to the corner. To stand against these pressures it is neede a faith in G-D. Our leaders are missing this. Accept of that the nations all over around us are remembering that we claim the land according the Bible. But they see that we are speaking A and doing B

Comment by Ted Belman — May 3, 2008 @ 5:02 pm

Email received

I am a Israelite grafted in.
I have a love for Israel even though I live in Wisconsin and I am a Vietnam vet.
If I was young I would come to Israel and fight for Israel.
I am very mad and jealous that our government is back stabbing Israel in the back.
From the Euphrates river to the north to the Nile to the south , from the sea to the Jordon river, this is GOD’S land.
God has been quiet and watching.. He’s waiting .. I wouldn’t want to be against him but for him. Bush and all his idiots will soon have their socks blown off when the time comes. 4 countries of arabs will come against Israel, but I have no fears that God wills step in at this time.
Dick

Comment by Ted Belman — May 3, 2008 @ 5:03 pm

The issue is not one of legitimacy. I think the west wants commerce
with the Arab world and is being pragmatic. Whatever the Arabs want
to the west will accept.

For the Jews the big question is what to do with 2-3 million Arabs.
We can say they should be paid to move to Jordan, but that’s not
practical and absorption seems very risky. It’s rather moot since
the Arabs want no part of the Jews under any conditions or
circumstances. We tried unilateral withdrawal and that proved to
have been the worst of all strategies.

I’m afraid we will have to face long periods of asymmetrical wars in
which Jewish boys die for the same land over and over again. We have
got to find Israeli leadership capable of standing up to the
Arabists in Europe and Washington. It’s the price of a Jewish state.

From my own point of view, I believe that there will be severe,
structural shortages in the flow of conventional oil and it will
take 20- 30 years for the industrial world to accommodate to these
shortages. This will be a period of chaos in world markets,
regional wars over resources, particularly oil, and hyper inflation.
We will be lucky to avoid a world war. In the end the influence of
the Arabs will be sharply reduced because the developed world will
have moved on. Let’s hope.

Comment by Fred — May 3, 2008 @ 5:05 pm

e book…

I see, man!…

Trackback by e book — May 27, 2008 @ 3:48 am

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2005-2008 by Domain Owner. Some Rights Reserved. All views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the site owner or the rest of its participants.

Israpundit is proudly powered by WordPress using a theme designed by someone no longer associated with this site. Technical support provided by Andrew L. Jaffee.

In case you care, this page loaded using 66 queries in 0.565 seconds.