The goal that informed all previous governments in the past – that Israel’s top goal should be to sign peace deals with our neighbors – is irrelevant
In testimony last week before the House committee in charge of State Department funding, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power acknowledged that the Obama administration intends to abandon the US’s 50 year policy of supporting Israel at the United Nations.
After going through the tired motions of pledging support for Israel, “when it matters,” Power refused to rule out the possibility that the US would support anti-Israel resolutions in the UN Security Council to limit Israeli sovereignty and control to the lands within the 1949 armistice lines – lines that are indefensible.
Such a move will be taken, she indicated, in order to midwife the establishment of a terrorist-supporting Palestinian state whose supposedly moderate leadership does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, calls daily for its destruction, and uses the UN to delegitimize the Jewish state.
In other words, the Obama administration intends to pin Israel into indefensible borders while establishing a state committed to its destruction.
In about a week, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s new government will be sworn in. The new government will have no grace period before it will be called upon to forge and implement policies to lead Israel through perhaps the most trying time in its history.
Clearly, developing the means to cope with our deteriorating relations with the US is one of the most urgent issues on the agenda. But it is not the only issue requiring the attention of our leaders.
Israel must quickly determine clear strategies for contending with the consequence of US’s strategic shift away from its allies, Iran’s nuclear project. It must also determine the principles that will guide its moves in contending with the regional instability engulfing or threatening to engulf our Arab neighbors.
As tempting as it may be to believe that all we need to do is wait out Obama, the fact is that we have no way of knowing how the US will behave once he has left office.
The Democratic Party has become far more radical under Obama’s leadership than it was before he came into office. Hillary Clinton may very well become the next president, particularly if Jeb Bush is the Republican nominee. And she has evinced no significant interest in moving the party back to the center.
As secretary of state during Obama’s first term in office, Clinton was a full partner in his foreign policy.
Although she appears less ideologically driven than Obama, there are many indications that her basic world view is the same as his.
Moreover, the world has changed since 2009. The Middle East is far more volatile and lethal. The US military is far less capable than it was before Obama slashed its budgets, removed its most successful commanders and subjected its troops to morale-destroying mantras of diversity and apologetics for Islamic terrorism.
In light of these changed circumstances, there are in essence two major principles that should guide our leaders today. First, we need to reduce our strategic dependence on the US. Second, we need to expand our policy of openly and unapologetically making the case for our positions to the American public.
On the first score, the need to limit our dependence on US security guarantees became painfully obvious during Operation Protective Edge last summer.
Obama’s interference in military-to-military cooperation between the Defense Ministry and the Pentagon, and his decision to implement an unofficial arms embargo on Israel in the middle of a war, was a shocking rebuke to the powerful voices inside the IDF General Staff and in policy circles that Israel can and must continue to trust the US to back it up in crises.
Our need to limit our dependence on the US to the greatest practicable degree will have consequences on everything from our domestic military production and development industries to intelligence and operational cooperation with the US and other governments.
It is imperative as well that we develop a plan to wean ourselves off of US military aid within the next three-five years.
Netanyahu’s critics continue to attack him for his decision to abandon the longstanding policy of settling disputes with the US administration through quiet diplomacy. They blame Netanyahu’s decision to publicly air Israel’s opposition to Obama’s nuclear diplomacy for the crisis in relations. But they are confusing cause and effect. Netanyahu had no choice.
Obama has made clear through both word and deed that he is completely committed to a policy of reaching a détente with Iran by enabling Iran to join the nuclear club. He will not voluntarily abandon this policy, which his closest aides have acknowledged is the signature policy of his second term.
Under these circumstances, it has long been clear that quiet diplomacy gets Israel nowhere. Open confrontation with the administration is the only way that Israel can hope to limit the damage the administration’s policies can cause. By publicly laying out its positions on issues in dispute, Israel can provide administration critics with legitimacy and maneuver room in their own critiques of Obama’s policies.
The public debate in the US regarding Obama’s policy of appeasing Iran was transformed by Netanyahu’s speech before the joint houses of Congress last month.
Before he came to town, most of the voices in the US warning against Obama’s nuclear diplomacy were dismissed as alarmist. Netanyahu’s speech changed the discourse in the US in a fundamental way.
Today, Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran is highly controversial and unpopular.
And this brings us to the second burning issue the next government will need to contend with immediately upon entering office: Iran.
Since word of Iran’s nuclear weapons program got out more than a decade ago, Israel has operated under the assumption that a sufficient number of members of the policy community in Washington were committed to a policy of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons to make the abandonment of that policy politically impossible. Netanyahu’s strategy for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program has centered on convincing those policy-makers to take action, whether through sanctions on Iran or through other means that would make it impossible for Obama to conclude a deal with Iran that would give the nuclear program an American seal of approval.
In recent weeks, we have seen the collapse of that assumption. The Senate’s feckless handling of Obama’s nuclear accommodation of the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism exposed Israel’s operating assumption as overly optimistic. So the policy must be updated.
An updated policy must be based on two understandings.
First, the US will not stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Second, due to Obama’s commitment to nuclear accommodation of Iran, at this point unless Iran’s nuclear installations are destroyed through military force, it will become a nuclear power. Israel’s survival will be compromised and a nuclear arms race throughout the region will ensue.
Given this reality, Israel’s public diplomacy should no longer be viewed as a means to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Rather, Israel should view it as a means to empower American lawmakers and others to stand with Israel in the event that it carries out military strikes against Iran’s nuclear weapons.
Open support for Israel by the US public and by politicians and media organs will make it more difficult for the administration to harm Israel in retribution for such action.
As for the strike itself, both the operational and diplomatic aspects of a military action must be calculated to make the most of the changing regional dynamics.
Last summer, in fighting Hamas in Gaza, Israel found itself acting in alliance with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates against Hamas, Qatar, Turkey and the US. The Arab states served as Israel’s blocking backs. They enabled Israel to withstand massive pressure from the administration that sought to coerce Israel into ending the fighting on Hamas’s terms.
In recent weeks, the media in Egypt and Saudi Arabia have expressed support for an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear installations. This support will be helpful in the aftermath of any such strike as well, and will again make it difficult for Obama to take revenge on Israel. Moreover, Israel must capitalize on these states’ opposition to Iran’s nuclear weapons program in order to convince them to provide operational support for Israeli forces attacking Iran.
This of course brings us to the third major issue on the next government’s agenda: formulating principles to govern our relations with the Arab world.
One thing is obvious. The goal that informed all previous governments in the past – that Israel’s top goal should be to sign peace deals with our neighbors – is irrelevant.
Our neighbors are all engulfed in wars or crises spurred by domestic opponents. These opponents have embraced al-Qaida and Islamic State and consequently, their domestic disputes with their leaders have been transformed into existential struggles between Islamic totalitarianism and regular authoritarianism.
Israel’s policy to date for handling these affairs has been to support the Egyptian military government and the Jordanians and to prevent Iranian proxies in Syria from directly attacking Israel. This policy is correct and should remain in place. But Israel also needs to adopt policies that will enable it to protect itself in the absence of friendly regimes in Amman and Cairo.
To this end, Israel must stabilize the situation with the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria. Israel must ensure that it has complete military control over these areas to prevent a spillover from Syria and to withstand the effect of a potential rise of jihadist forces in Jordan. As for Gaza, Israel must stop viewing Gaza, which behaves as a separate body politic from Judea and Samaria, as related to Judea and Samaria.
Gaza is a base for the global jihad and is a threat to Israel and Egypt alike. It has to be understood and treated as such.
In short, under the current circumstances, just as the notion of sitting down and signing a peace deal with Syria or Saudi Arabia is absurd, so the notion of reaching a peace deal with the Palestinians is a throwback to an entirely different time. Today the only way to keep the Palestinians of Judea and Samaria separated from the chaos and jihad in neighboring states is to make them part of Israel. As a preparatory step toward that goal, the next government must act to more fully integrate Arab Israelis into Israeli society.
To this end, Netanyahu would do well to appoint a Muslim Arab minister to his government charged with integrating the Arabs more fully into Israeli society.
The world has changed since 2009. America has changed. The Middle East has changed. Israel faces an array of challenges and threats it has never faced before. The next government must understand the dynamics of the situation and quickly forge policies based on the world as it is, not as it was or as we would like for it to be.
www.CarolineGlick.com
@ CuriousAmerican:
1) Apparently unlike you, I am less interested in historical precedent than in a nation’s power to carry out and enforce its own will. As for international legalistics, you already have read what I think of such nonsense. We, the white American nation, took this continent by force of national will, disposed of the Indian tribes accordingly, and we kept it that way. Because we had the repeating rifles, gatling guns, telegraph lines, railroads, and diseases against which the redskins had no bacteriological defenses. We are still the ones with the guns, and we aim to keep things that way. And who knows? Maybe — just maybe — we will get a government here that will reinforce the American will to power.
2) But just in case we get another government just like the talk-a-lot but do-little Washington administrations for more than the past half-century — and probably even if we get something better than that — Israel needs to balance their international friendships with China and Russia as well, so as to be far less dependent on the USA. One reason I like the Russians is that under their stronger tsars, such as Stalin and Putin, their policies tend to be more predictable then under weaklings such as Gorbachev and Yeltsin. If I have to choose between predictability and democracy, I’ll take predictability every time.
3) Like you, I have little patience for bullshit of any color. In any case, hasbarot work well for commercially marketing products and services. But Jews tend to imagine they can explain their way out of wars in which they either win through to victory or get massacred for standing around and weeping about how cruel the world is, instead of fighting their way out of the traps. I don’t think everybody else hates the Jews to the extent endlessly talked about in these blogs. But what I do think is that their audiences get bored easily, and probably just don’t give a damn what happens to complaining and sometimes whining Jews. And chances are, they are right. After all, I don’t really care what happened to the Armenians of eastern Turkey in April 1915, or the Indians at Wounded Knee in 1892. Because I am not an Armenian and I’m not related to any of the Indian tribes of the Great Plains. That’s the way I understand the world works, and I act accordingly.
Any arguments about any of this?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Precisely!
Your better claims are history, archeology, and the Bible. Jabotinsky would have agreed with you.
Mohammed died years before Islam reached Jerusalem. Therefore the furthest (al Aqsa) mosque is not in Israel. Therefore Al Quds is a fraud. I do not see why you should have to share the Mount with them.
In fact, the Al Aqsa story is so preposterous that it should not even be called al-Aqsa (the furthest) Mosque. It should be simply called the Southern Mosque, which is its location on the Mount.
Jews did not have to become Christian to become American. Loyalty does not require Judaism. However, they probably would not be agreeable to that.
I have been saying that for years. Martin Sherman and I have almost identical figures. Ted’s estimate is a bit lower.
China … maybe?! Russia. You got to be kidding.
Israeli hasbara is terrible. I cringe when I hear it. It is so counter-productive.
@ bernard ross:
You maybe right for the moment. I lived on the Golan when Labor was in power. Peres talked to several us at lunch one day and he told us for peace anything was possible when he was asked if the Golan could be given back to Syrians.
Then Menachem Begin became Prime Minister a couple of years later and the Golan Heights became an official part of Israel and not just occupied territory.
So things can change for the better.
Of all the commenters on Israpundit, I think I am the the only one who never argues Jewish national rights or Israeli sovereignty on the basis of 95 year-old promises made in long-forgotten conferences in some pleasant northern Italian resort community. Partly, that is because I have no belief in international law, and even less so in any promises made to us, the Jewish nation, by any collection of goyim, illustrious or otherwise. I say “partly” because the sum of my lifetime of experiences to date have reaffirmed my certainties that power trumps all other considerations of relations among sovereign commonwealths.
In view of the above-cited reasons, I never argue with CA and his rabbinical analyses of whatever came out of the San demo conference. Why do I call hem rabbinical? Because I have spent a lot of time reading the Soncino Chumash, which, in my judgement is true and authentic Judaism. But one thing I glance at occasionally but never read are the commentaries or citations of commentaries that this or that ignorant wannabe Rav over the centuries has used as arguments to show that he was he brightest Jew in the diaspora. From what I have seen of them, they mostly water down the original Chumash text. So I have come to think that CA would have done well in one of those yeshivot.
Back to basics:
1) Forget about all the Balfour, San Remo and other assorted unfulfilled promises of how the Ottoman Empire would be divided among the winners of the Great War, and coalesce the Jewish nation for the sole purpose of augmenting Jewish power. Because real power used for a constructive purpose always trumps and long outlasts paper promises. And for Jews, there shall never be any justice other than what they make for themselves, which is precisely what power is all about.
2) Judaize all parts of Area C, then either replace military rule with civil control or annex outright that land. That, along with stinger Israeli control of the Arab villages of Area B, and separely-negotiated local autonomy agreements with the leading hamulas of the Area A cities, will cause Fatah’s PA to wither and die.
3) Retake total control of the Gaza Strip after Fatah has been broken up, and repeat the above cited steps.
4) Re-eastablish full Jewish religious control over the mount of the great Temple of the Jewish nation, as befits the dignity of our nation. Begin regular weekly Jewish religious services on the mount itself. Then, announce to the Arabs that the Jewish nation shall hereafter share the use the existing building for those purposes. If our Moslem religious authorities refuse, inform them that the alternatives will be the disassembly of her present striation and its replacement by a suitable temple of the Jewish nation. I don’t really care about arguments that only some mashiach put in place by HaShem can rebuild the temple. As far as I am concerned, the sufficiently suitable mashiach could be a a suitably-trained team of architects and building designers, urban planners, and other functionaries.
5) Unless you seriously imagine all those Arabs left behind can be socially and sociologically revamped into loyal Israeli Jews, start a sustained process of moving as many of them as possible into counties outside Israel’s present or likely future borders. All that requires is money and will-power.
6) Develop closest-possible international relations with China and Russia. One day, you will need that to cover the bad bets you made on he international stability of the American Empire.
In any case, stop spouting the usual and meaningless legalistic bullshit and hasbarot that accompanies it, and get cracking on building and protecting Jewish national power.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Bear Klein Said:
this is now a thing of the past, with BB election any thought of annexing c is dead… a fairy tale which we once told at bedtime.
those that panicked and voted for BB, who supported Jewish settlement in YS, should have instead voted for Bennett. BB has clipped the wings of Jewish settlement in YS. Only the major existent blocks.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Like I said, dishonest: you have ignored most of my rebutals to your mantras. You just keep repeating your mantras like a robotic parrot. You have been soundly rebutted by myself and others for years but ignore the rebuttals. what is the legal position of an agreement that has been repeatedly breached and chock full of non performance?
CuriousAmerican Said:
who is appealing to san remo? where is that appeal being adjudicated? theoretical speculations on fantasy trials must take into account the corruption of the judge.
San Remo voting clause is dead primarily from breach and non performance but the acknowledgement and recognition upon which it and LON mandate were based survives. Legal rights have value only in so far as they are enforceable, just ask the Jews who were expelled from arab countries in the same conflict AFTER the advent of the GC. Did you forget, is this your oversight, was this oversight intentional? without addressing the jewish refugees there is no relevant argument of import…. only might makes right. Might makes right is the real driver of events not selectively applied “Law”.
israel gave the arabs voting rights and that is proving a failure wrt integration and common values. the hostile population in the PA and gaza who cleansed Jews must first pay for their cleansing before claiming rights on Jewish soil and then they must complete the population exchange by going to their JEW FREE areas that are currently under their local control (gaza, jordan, pa west bank) Either they complete the exchange or they cleansed the jews without paying the proper price as yet. Why are you not demanding that they pay for their cleansings or complete the exchange? It is absurd to talk about the rights of those who participated in the cleansings as jordanian citizens.
As their former citizenship is jordanian there is no obligation for israel to give them citizenship or rights, it is for Jordan to repatriate their colonists back home…. just like the europeans in zimbabwe.
The Palestinians and their allies have used war, terrorism, lies, changing history and now are playing law fare to get rid of the Jews in Israel.
Israel does not need to play by their rules or the rules of the UN. Israel should work to its own interests and annex its land.
We should issue laws that applicable to our interests and not what friends of our enemies or enemies determine we should do.
As Bennett says annex Area C now, yes people will scream and yell. They did this when Israel annexed the Golan in the 1980s. Who in Israel would reverse course on this and say this was not the right thing to do. When we look at Gaza we see this was a mistake.
Israel border is effectively to the Jordan River now and can not be retracted one inch.
None of which voided San Remo’s obligation to give NATIONAL voting rights to the Arabs.
Assuming the White Paper was litigated before the LON – WWII intervened – even had the LON voided British immigration restrictions, none of this would have voided Arab voting rights. All it would have done would have been to enlarge the Jewish electorate by immigration.
The LON Mandate carried over to the UN by Article 80; and the UN did not see fit to condemn Britain for continued post-war restrictions, so I do not know if the Yishuv would have won in the LON.
Hence, whatever the legality of the White Paper, any appeal to San Remo will carry the obligation of voting rights for Arabs, which you want to avoid.
Ergo, if you do not want the Arabs to vote, then do not appeal to San Remo. You have better arguments to use.
You get it. Very few do. Too many uphold San Remo, which fatal flaws led to the White Paper of 1939.
Absolutely! Absolutely correct!
Both Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Treaty have to be placed in the correct perspective, as political documents of their time, and in no way a prescription for present and future perspectives.
If you say nothing else in your life but you have said that then your life will have been worthwhile.
Argue from now on on the basis that what the Balfour Declaration should have said was that Jews have been repressed for 2000 years, that the conditions for that repression have not subsisted, and that therefore Jews must live alone in Israel, and others there as guests. NB Guests do not steal the cutlery!
In other words Balfour and San Remo are not programs to fight on or for, but are historical documents.
There never was a real “right wing”. It has never existed.
Israel and Jews need a new development but are incapable of taking it as things stand-It is a true crisis of leadership
correct me if I am wrong but it appears that the pro right wing settlement movement has been completely neutered by BB. Bennet appears to have absolutely no power to effect gov wrt YS land, settlement, etc. BB has taken complete control of all related issues. there is no longer any party with any significant power that is pro annexation of any part of YS other that the large blocks and that policy is no different from labor.
Those who voted for BB voted for the destruction of the right wing.
Furthermore, we can see what is important to BB in what he keeps. finance is usually an important gov ministry to keep in most countries but BB appears to not care about that ministry as he gives it to any ship passing in the night that got the votes. BB has now complete control of the negotiations, settlement policy, Jewish settlement rights, etc. I expect that we will now see small steps which coincide with the leftist positions on YS. My view is that BB agenda mirrors his understandings with the GCC and such understandings require a moving to the left. I don’t expect any major developments but small steps.
As for Jews, expect the same as his past admins: Fuggedaboutit
the religious sector invited into the coalition only care about their perks and privileges and will continue to do nothing for the interests of Jews wrt YS. I expect BB will give them what they want in return for support on his issues.
The fake “right wing” won but the real right wing is DEAD!
Settlement??????? FUGGEDABOUTIT!!!!
Levy report??????? never heard of it!
CuriousAmerican Said:
irrelvant, the promises of a proven swindler are meaningless. britain did not have that legal authority
CuriousAmerican Said:
irrelvant…. war by the arabs makes it moot.
why are you focusing on seeking consideration of legal clauses in the interest of those who breached all the material understandings that render those performances irrelevant?
I think you intend to confound and confuse jews by tying up their time and energy on matters irrelevant to their interests, directing them instead to the interests of their enemies. Lots of BDS supersessionist church trolls exhibit this behavior these days on internaet forums.
discussions of dead moot clauses in san remo is like discussion of the dead moot unga 181.
CuriousAmerican Said:
an absurd statement as the British 1939 WP was judged a violation of the LON mandate by the mandate commission and even if it was not it would merely illustrate an attempted swindle of a beneficiary by a trustee. You are a nasty pice of dishonest work.
CuriousAmerican Said:
LOL, the british referred to the Jewish homeland as Palestine, you know this.
CuriousAmerican Said:
the issue of interpretations of voting rights envisioned in a future state was made moot long ago when the arabs as a collective went to war. agreements are often breached, failed or moot according to whether the parties perform as envisioned or whether circumstances change. the mandate primarily failed in its vision because the parties, signatories and guarantors breached the agreements materially right up to this day. therefore your repeated attempts to try to focus Jews on arcane clauses long breached and irrelevant has a foul odor.
In all your legal musings on the subject I see nothing of the breaches of others, the expelled Jewish refugees and the effects of those breaches on the agreements, etc. Your long tirade is always about focusing the attention of jews on the interests of their enemies. This is the real issue in your posts. Frankly I dont give a damn and if they sit in a pile of rubble for centuries they well deserve it. I am interested in Jewish issues the arabs and their problems can suck salt. My view is that if they want peace they must first prove it or they must suffer in war, misery chaos.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Of course not. Balfour declaration san remo, LON mandate etc merely reflect the opinions of and agreements between men and nations? The 3 mentioned merely RECOGNIZE the inherent rights of the Jewish people to their historical homeland and created a structure to encourage and facilitate immigration and settlement in all of Palestine mandate territory. The agreements between foreign parties cannot be the source of Jewish rights. The agreements are between the parties involved and Israel is not a signatory to those documents. The declarations, treaties and agreements have been repeatedly breached by swindling trustees, signatories and guarantors alike.
There are basic principles of Law which I believe you intentionally ignore and cover up in your attempts here to focus attention of Jews on arab concerns rather than Jewish concerns: YOu ignore the following:
1- agreements made under duress are not legally binding.
2- breached clauses of agreements may render the clause null and void and the whole agreement null and void if the breach is material.
3- the PRIME DIRECTIVE, MISSION AND GOAL of the LON mandate was to facilitate and encourage the immigration and settlement of the Jews in all of Palestine. this is the top #1 priority superior to all other considerations.
4- One cannot under law benefit from a crime (e.g. british swindling and murder of beneficiary)
if yo continue to ignore these basic applicable principles in your toutings here, you must continue to be considered a disingenuous Uriah Heap.
CuriousAmerican Said:
On the contrary,
1-the breaches of britain, the signatories and the guarantors were material breaches and affected the contemplated demographics of the homeland.
2-The refusal of the arabs to live in peace and accept the mandate principles constituted a material breach which affected their rights under the mandate and san remo. their continued wars and alliances with arab nations who expelled Jews in the same conflict created a one sided transfer of jews which is not yet addressed by you in any of your entreaties for arabs. Your oversight and that of the other defamers maintains the status quo. when you address this glaring factor you will have a right to whine for arabs.
CuriousAmerican Said:
No fatal flaw… Israel’s sovereignty is self declared and relies not on whether those who recognized those rights changed their minds. the Jewish homeland and nation cannot rely on the dribblings of the foreigners who abused and slaughtered them for 2000 years. Reference to such documents is merely to show that the defamers are liars,saying one thing today and the opposite tomorrow.
CuriousAmerican Said:
It matters not what wizmann or ben gurion saw. the reasons for swindling are many and those swindling know how to twist meaning in documents and get others to validate them. it matters not.
CuriousAmerican Said:
the white paper of 1939 is the paper trail of the British agenda to murder Jews in order to thwart the trust, abuse their trusteeship in order to further their self interests in the ME. the Brits have yet to pay for this crime.
CuriousAmerican Said:
a good example of your dishonesty and attempts to fool Jews. Considering the extent of your research you must be aware of the mandate commission objection to the british white paper 1939 (the murder document). Britain was a trustee subordinate to the LON and NOT a supreme ruler of the jews. Its murders and swindles totally altered any prior understandings with the Jews. Also, the subsequent breaches of understandings by signatories and guarantors who defame Israel with notions of Jewish settlement being illegal or illegitimate are libels and dangerous incitements tantamount to attempted murders according to historic precedent.
Here is the problem
1) At San Remo, the British promised National Elections to Arabs.
2) By precedent, the Arabs had voted in the Ottoman parliament so to deny them the national vote was to prejudice their civil rights.
3) Debates in the British government dealt with this very issue, with the understanding that the Arabs would have to be given a NATIONAL SAY
4) The Yishuv was furious that so many Arabs were on the Legislative Council, which indicates it was more than local.
The British tried to rig the system so that Appointed British members of the council could prevent an Arab takeover, but the Arabs were furious at this trick, and demanded proportional representation.
By 1935, the British agreed that half the members of the council would be Arab, which terrified the Yishuv
Were this a local council, the Yishuv would not have been upset.
The Arabs were upset that 80% of the population was given only 50% of the council seats. Veto power, but not enough to override by a clear majority.
The Yishuv was furious that the Arabs were even given such power at all.
Initially the British tried to prevent the Arabs from touching immigration; but they could still touch other issues such as economic development ON A NATIONAL SCALE.
By 1935, the British by giving the Arabs a 50% membership had acceeded to Arab demands for a say at all levels, which is why the Yishuv went nuts.
THIS IS THE FATAL FLAW IN SAN REMO.
If you appeal to San Remo for Jewish rights, you have to concede San Remo’s Arab rights as well.
Therefore, were I you, I would avoid San Remo altogether.
Weizmann saw this flaw in San Remo at the very beginning.
You can’t downgrade civil rights to exclude voting. VOTING IS A CIVIL RIGHT!
Political rights are the right to secede or to redefine the state. But voting on a national level is a civil right.
Again, the classic case is the American Civil War.
The South had the civil right to vote against Lincoln – A NATIONAL VOTE
They did not have the political right to secede.
Or in your case.
Quebec has the right to vote in national elections. They do not have the right to secede apart from the Canadian Constitution.
The Arabs had the right to vote.
The British tried to limit by saying the Mandate constitution forbids redefining immigration; but that does not prevent a NATIONAL VOTE.
By 1935, the British even conceded Arab rights to modify immigration. The Yishuv agitated to stop elections at that point.
So, when I defend Israel, I do not appeal to San Remo.
I think it is fatal to the Israel side to vest too much importance on a flawed San Remo document. If one presses the point, the Arab side will call you on it.
Ted, that is not what San Remo said or what was done.
1) The British promised representation in a legislative council.
Democracy was promised at San Remo
If that was a “local” council, it would NOT have had that demographic. The choice of proportion indicates a NATIONAL,not a local, council.
In 1935, because of Arab unrest, it was proposed to give the Arabs 14 out of 28 members on the council … essentially a veto … though still less that the percentage of Arabs in the population at that time.
The Yishuv was furious.
It was shot down by the Yishuv. Had that council and voting rights been limited to local arrangements, the Yishuv would not have panicked.
NATIONAL VOTING WAS INTENDED, AND EVEN INTRODUCED.
However, the Arabs were furious that they were underrepresented, while the Yishuv was furious that the Jews were not given a control.
2) The Arabs had representatives in the Ottoman parliament prior to the war, so to reduce their vote would have prejudiced their civil rights.
The Arabs had the vote in NATIONAL elections.
Therefore to deny them a NATIONAL VOTE, according to San Remo would have been to prejudice their civil rights. Britain gave them a national vote, but disagreements between Arabs and the Yishuv caused the British to eventually stop setting elections.
3) The very demographic of the council indicated a national council
The very makeup of the 1923 council indicates a NATIONAL COUNCIL.
TO BE CLEAR:
I am not recommending that Israel enfranchise 2 Million hostile Arabs.
I am saying that San Remo insisted on full civil rights for the Arabs, which by definition, by historical record, and by Ottoman precedent demanded voting in a national election.
Therefore, if one appeals to San Remo, one introduces the very fatal requirement of enfranchising the Arabs.
Therefore I recommend that if one wants to assert Jewish rights, that San Remo be avoided, because while San Remo insists on Jewish rights, it also insists on Arab rights.
So I recommend ditching San Remo rather than giving the Arabs the vote.
If you do not want to give the Arabs the vote, then don’t appeal to a San Remo which did give the Arabs the vote.
You have better arguments in favor of your side than San Remo.
I know I am long winded but if you read me, you would have noted that I prefer Republics to democracies.
I am not saying Israel should be bound to a fatal San Remo.
Rather, I am saying the opposite. Ditch San Remo with its fatal flaws.
From reading this discussion some things I sensed are now becoming clearer. many have attacked Balfour (from all sides too) and I always thought that was confusionist. Every political actor has many sides. But one of the sides of Balfour was his British Christian attachment to the Bible thus to the Jews as a people. But inside of British politics Balfour and his friends were being eclipsed from an early stage, not just on this issue but on many issues. That did not make his initial thoughts and work invalid.
Perhaps the bourgeois world thought they would create a new world and end Antisemitism inside of the feeling created by World War 1 savagery. I insist that the essence of these declarations was to give political power in a state of their own to the Jewish people.
They were unable to carry it out. Could not ever carry it out.
No more than having got rid of pacifier Gadhafi they can block refugees from Libya and return them to Libya. Thus the Med fills with black bodies.
The lesson is that we are dealing with a bankrupt system that sometime has good intentions but always leads to total disaster.
As I speak to offset the lies of the leaders especially on Spanish unemployment there is a direct return to Francoism in Spain.
The esence of Balfour and San Remo is that the Jews control state power aka “political power”.
Sadly Arabs who are Muslims are ALWAYS the enemy of the Jews. They must not have political power. Only Jews must vote in ANY elections on that basis.
Sadly also this is not political theory it is even more common sense.
There are in fact no immutable laws except the law which states that you must not be killed in your own land. This after all was what the Balfour Declaration and the clauses pertaining to the Jewish Homeland in Paris in 1919 was trying to say. It was the reaction of the bourgeois (capitalist) world to the peculiar situation of the Jews. This also was at least part of the Zionist dream, to create a space on earth on which the Jews would not be killed to order, as had been happening under Christianity (the Crusades as example) and under Islam (laws of dhimmitude are in essence the laws of Al Capone)
All the top brains who have studied these legal formulations under discussion here insist that political rights versus civil rights have the above as content. A situation must be brought about in which the Jewish people on a particular space of earth’s land have total political power. That certainly is my view and I follow in the path of Leon Trotsky because that was his view in the Thirties. That Jews would have a Homeland which was Palestine and that this Homeland would be both DEFENSIBLE and DEFENDED.
This is precisely where reality runs into conflict with the legal and doctrinaire formulations of CA.
The reality (Muslim Jew Hatred) runs into conflict with “democratic” formulations. The “democratic” formulations as always run into conflict with reality and lead always to bloodbath.
It is also called common sense. If you hand political power, that is political power over the state, to your enemiers then blood of Jews flows.
In essence this was also the issues in the recent election in Israel. The battle was over who would have their hand on state power.
Obama was involved in that battle and you can immediately sense the danger of bloodbath when both George W. Bush and Obama have through their pursuits of “democracy” actually caused bloodbath. Similarly the very touchstone of democracy the well paid Red Cross at the borders offering silver blankets to refugees (such magnanimity flashed back into Africa) actually caused the filling of the Mediterranean with black bodies.
Lenin and Trotsky were condemned in every parliament in the world when in April 1917 they returned to Russia and called for the Russian workers to not trust the democracy of Kerensky. They were right. Kerensky would have led to the butchering of the Russian working class/peasantry and much blood would have run, including Jewish blood. The democracy of Kerensky meant blood being spilt.
The democracy of democracy lovers like Dayan in 1967 post victory have (everybody now sees) caused much blood to flow. Had Dayan been decisive and said now we will create an Israel where only Jews will live and others like Arabs will certainly be welcome BUT AS GUEST then things today would be much different.
CA I spit on your “democracy”! It is just silly to hand power to your enemy. Keep power away from your enemy.
The Yishuv would not have cared were it only local matters. But the Yishuv protested it.
That is not a local, but a national election. The British tried to rig it so that the Arabs could not undo the mandate.
By 1935, the British were willing to cede half the council to the Arabs, and the Yishuv was furious. Had it been local, the Yishuv would not have been so upset.
I stand by my point. Civil rights = voting rights. The Arabs could vote in the Ottoman parliament. So San Remo said they had to have representation in the Mandate on a National Level, which is why the Yishuv lobbied against the 1935 Council.
When the Muslims + Christian were made half the council, the Yishuv went ballistic.
This indicates that a NATIONAL vote was in mind.
@ CuriousAmerican:There is a difference in having voting rights in a municipality (because they are not national rights) and voting rights in National elections. But that is not the only distinction. During the mandate, the British Civil Administration was in charge. Any voting rights that the residence had had to do with local matters. The residents could not run the Mandate. Besides San Remo predates the Mandate.
Ben Gurion’s Declaration of Independence was a political statement which does not make law or obligations. Only the Knesset can do that and the Knesset has only extended voting rights to citizens. I do not know who in Israel is entitled to citizenship. I don’t think it is enough to be born here to non-Israeli parents. But the Arabs in Jerusalem when it was annexed were given a path to citizenship. The Illegal aliens are not entitled to citizenship just because they live here. So if we were to extend Israel law to the territories, I don’t know if we would have to pass new legislation against citizenship or would need legislation to create the path.
@ CuriousAmerican:You ignored that civil rights do not include voting rights. Voting rights are considered political rights.
Addendum:
Think about it. San Remo gave the trust over to Britain which promised in 1939 to deliver a Palestinian state with a 1/3rd Jewish majority in ten years.
The White Paper (1939) promised that in 1949 Britain would deliver an Arab state with Jews fixed at only 1/3rd the population. Read it.
In 1947, the UN Security Council never ratified the partition, so the partition was only a non-binding recommendation, thus leaving the White Paper of 1939 as the last legal operating document, with the Palestinians promised an Arab State in 1949.
What this meant was that … if one accepts San Remo … then the White Paper of 1939 stands.
The Palestinians remained primarily quiet during WWII because they thought the British had caved in.
Most of the terrorism from 1939-45 was from the Irgun or Stern.
With the White Paper of 1939 ratified by the British Parliament, and given that the UN recommendation was superfluous, Ben Gurion when he made his declaration of Independence did so with disregard to San Remo.
The only way Ben Gurion could proclaim Israel was to ignore San Remo.
San Remo was so flawed that Ben Gurion had to ignore it.
That was the end result of San Remo … A Palestinian state.
You should not rely on San Remo
The question here is not whether Israel has a right to exist. We both agree that Israel has a right to exist.
The question is: Does that right to exist stem from San Remo?, as so many aver.
The answer I proffer is that San Remo is too flawed to serve as the foundation for Israel. Israel must appeal to other reasons.
As for British duplicity … Well, that has been Britain’s hallmark for centuries. But San Remo was more than Britain. France, Italy, and the League of Nations signed on to it.
If Britain did not exercise her fiduciary responsiblities properly that does not negate that San Remo gave voting rights to the Arabs.
This is the fatal flaw in those who use San Remo/International Law as the justification for Israel. Jabotinsky never based his brand of Zionism on San Remo.
Chaim Weizmann saw the flaws, and lobbied to get Britain to commit to a stronger covenant. Britain would not, preferring a duplicitously vague arrangement.
Weizmann saw that, unless San Remo stated clearly on paper that Jewish rights had absolute precedence over Arab rights, the Arabs could unravel the committment, which is exactly what happened.
This led to the White Paper of 1939.
Israel has other, stronger and better, arguments to make her case than San Remo.
That is a philosophically consistent approach. Try selling it to an uneducated populace.
You and I both know that the American Founding Fathers believed liberty was only available to those capable of maintaining it.
By that standard, 90% of the planet is unworthy of liberty, which is patently evident in that so many nations devolve back to tyranny, once freed from external control.
So far only West European peoples, the Jews, and the Japanese and South Koreans seem to have mastered liberty.
It is a valid line of reasoning, but it will never sell to a public which thinks good governments are democratic, when the truth is: good governments are constitutional republics, ideally with a democratic franchise, but not necessarily so.
Still, Israel portrays itself as a democracy, which may be setting itself up for failure.
Those Arabs who act as enemy aliens have no rights. Israel can enact citizenship requirements in any territory it annexes. In the USA you must swear loyalty to the state before becoming a citizen with voting rights.
.
Israel can enact its own requirements for residency and for voting rights. Under the circumstances they need to be very restrictive as democracy is not a suicide pact. It needs to be made incumbent upon anyone not Jewish and not married to a Jew to show that they are loyal and not a danger to the state before they have any voting rights and full citizenship. Further anyone showing they are a danger or potential danger to Israel will be required to leave the country.
Ted Belman Said:
Is this a declaration of the state or a declaration of Ben gurions personal views? Is Israel a prisoner of Ben Gurions words?
Even if the state so declared, the circumstances have changed. Hope for such a state has dwindled to almost zero. The Israeli Arabs have not embraced this hopeful perspective of hopeful Jews. a change of circumstances is a usual legal condition for the abrogation of treaties and agreements. Practically speaking the perspectives of the PA, gaza and Israeli arabs are quite similar and it is just a matter of degree and circumstances which separate them.
I know of no democracy that has not modified or suspended democratic principles under threat. it has become abundantly clear, save for a very few of which Israelis fawn over, that Israeli arabs and pals DO NOT wish to live in harmony in a Jewish state NOR outside as a neighbor of a Jewish state.
Therefore, any prior references become moot and irrelevant. As for international law its only value is as a strategy, a tactic to thwart the forces aligned against the jews and to give excuses to those who wish to continue relations with Jews. Like cyberwar it is a weapon to be used in self interest and self defense. The actual application of “international Law” under the current circumstances is a total farce reminiscent of the “Emperors new clothes” and should be ignored, despised, spat upon and guffawed at with every opportunity. Those that seek respect for its institutions and behavior are beyond contempt. The only thing one can reasonably derive from today’s application of “international law” is that “Alice in Wonderland” makes a great deal more sense.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Irrelevant… civil rights are curtailed for dangerous persons, criminals, lunatics and rabid dogs. every civilized society abridges freedoms for such persons. In this case the whole culture exhibits sick behaviors and is dangerous. Discussions of san remo are meaningless in the light of folks sending their toddlers to Jew killing simmer training camps. Its an irrelevant diversion from the real issues, the first of which is the protection of Jews from rabid dogs.
CuriousAmerican Said:
whatever the british offered is irrelevant as they have already proven to swindle the benificiary of the trust and to collaborate with their hashemite stooges to ethnically cleanse Israel of Jews in the Jordan invasion.
CuriousAmerican Said:
the lunatics, rabid dogs, dangerous persons and criminals are indeed consigned to a state of non-enfranchised denizens… instead of san remo study san quentin. there is no international law claim there is de facto control. International law is moot and proven unenforceable in relation to Jews and Israel. Law that is not uniformly enforced need not be observed. Instead of stalking Jews with irrelevant claptrap get your pets, bds churches, euros and the internationals to honor their agreements with the Jews and stop killing Jews
CuriousAmerican Said:
you must ask PA why they do not allow them to vote. there is no need to “defend” and such defenses are irrelevant whereas facts on the ground rule.
CuriousAmerican Said:
3 folks with little following. DUH???? The pay them to leave has, as you have been shown repeatedly, limited application, limited projection of success, too costly related to other solutions. When devising solutions you must start with the status quo to see if the prognosis logically projects a satisfactory and better result. The fact is that your high costing “solution” guarantees no peace and has as much opposition from all involved as the status quo. The best solutions are unilateral ones which can be applied by Israel alone and have NO dependence on others for their success. The only proven benefit for Israel from pals are those who are in the arab nations. Therefore, getting them across the border is the prime goal. Start with criminals, anti semites,etc. use every excuse to get them across… a bus drive and the cost of gas. It is proven that once across the border their existence is positive in that it destabilizes surrounding enemies, a two fer. Same with those in europe, help the smugglers expand.
CuriousAmerican Said:
most folks would have examined why your suggestions are rejected.
a logical statement; therefore I wonder how Caroline strayed so far from it in her conclusion:
Normally I would be very amused at this absurd reasoning and sudden jump to a hopey dreamy faith COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY divorced from the very facts she posited as the premise for her conclusion:
Based on analysis of her observed facts Caroline has reached conclusion which she then uses as the basis of her advice.
she concluded that peace is absurd with the pals so her remedy and solution to this problem is that if you cannot even live in peace with your neighbor then you should invite him into your home.. This jump should appear patently absurd and is in defiance of both logic and observable fact over decades. she observes that they want no peace, that they continue to pursue war, that they teach their children to hate Jews and kill them and from all this she concludes that the solution is to invite them into her house where presumably they will throw away their blood lusting habits and then a peace in the home will break out…. a peace that eluded all when the the threat was outside. A more logical conclusion would be to keep them at arms length, keep them leashed until you can push them even further away.
and how doe she expect to accomplish this gargantuan task of completely changing the culture of the enemy after inviting the rabid dog into the house?
In other words, after decades of utter failure at integration with most Israeli arabs refusing to participate or envision living in harmony in a Jewish nations, she concludes that the culture of the enemy is likely to be changed by Israeli gov attmpts to integrate them more fully??????????
Really, is this an adult conclusion. This sounds like a leap of faith, an obama hopey dreamy moment. she leaves the world of fact to arrive at a conclusion based on hopey dreamy that is completely unsupported by prior facts. this seems to be a Jewish problem: refusing to accept facts,living in denial that they are trying to kill you, finding a couple of folks out of millions that are not trying to kill you and then giving them medals for acting normally. DUHH?????? the couple of folks not trying to kill you are the abnormal examples of the culture.
If one accepts facts and where they lead, the conclusions necessary to survival are distasteful and do not fulfill the Jews self image, their hopey dreamy view of themselves.
Fact: Israeli arabs overwhelmingly do not want to live in a Jewish state under Jewish values. Even less so Gaza and PA arabs.
Fact: Gaza and PA train their toddlers in jew hate and jew killing
Fact: there is no evidence to support that giving more freedom leads to a satisfactory mitigation in those hatreds, habits and behaviors.
Conclusion: As with any rabid dog, lunatic, dangerous persons one does not invite them into the home but instead incarcerates, supervises, leashes and curtails their freedoms until a more permanent solution can be found. This means the dog pound, the jail, the asylum. If some see gaza as a jail then it is a jail which is too lax in that it does not stop the inmates from killing jews and sending their toddlers to jew killing summer camps. If anything, the leashes on the lunatics are way too lax.
One does not integrate with proven rabid dogs, lunatics and dangerous criminals… one separates. DUH????????????
Jews hate this conclusion because it does not fortify their hopey dreamy side but helps to stay out of Auschwitz.
Any notions of release from jail or supervision and military rule must be based on tried and true common sense principles: The inmate, patient, rabid dog or lunatic must FIRST prove that they are not a danger to society.
For most common sense people, unlike the abuse hardened Jews, the mere fact of holocaust denial, jew killing summer camp, etc would at a parole hearing immediately disqualify the inmate from freedom.
Jews must accept that these insane lunatics and worthless nutters must be leashed until they can prove FIRST that they are not a danger.
Treaties, understandings, arrangements are all moot in the light of the disgusting behavior that these folks exhibit towards Jews. Jews must be insane to consider to let them into the house or to lessen the leash too loosely.
It appears that Caroline is afflicted with the same sickness as CA and most others who arrive at what they think is a solution:
the “only way” disease which afflicts the myopic who have fallen in love with their own ideas.
This “separation” from EXTERNAL chaos presupposes that the one being separated is a healthy creature to start with and only needs to be kept away from the diseased ones outside. The problem is that the pals are already afflicted with a lesser case of the same disease and integrating them with the jews merely brings the disease into the home.
I know that my words can offend some, but Jews need to be offended if they wish to avoid their own weakness for following instructions which lead to the chambers. It is foolish to ignore the sick culture of the arabs, patronizing with falsehood.
Treaties, law, agreements etc…. ALL are subject to change of circumstances and the need to survive.
Preclude collective rights, but voting is an individual right.
Again, the Southerners in 1860, had the right, as individuals to vote against Lincoln, which they did. They did not have the right, as a collective, to secede.
Voting is individual. Secession is political, and collective.
We can argue about whether the South was right or wrong; but even if the Arab did not have collective rights, the Arab had individual rights, which included voting. The British promised it, and for a while granted it, until the Yishuv asked its withdrawal.
This was the fatal flaw in San Remo.
Weizmann, who was brilliant, immediately saw the problem, and wanted the British to insert a stronger wording to ensure a Jewish hierarchy of rights; but the British knew full well that such an honest statement would give rise to immediate Arab rebellion. So to prevent Arab outrage, they gave a more equitable wording to the Mandate.
But that compromised equitable wording is fatal.
The fact is: There was no way that the Jewish people could enter the land without armed force protecting them. Joshua did not take the land except by sword, and he had divine mandate. What makes you think that Israel could do it better than Joshua? This is hubris.
In this context, Jewish sovereignty and democracy were/are conflicting principles.
This does not void Israel’s right to exist, but it does mean that a decision has to be made which raison d’etre is more important.
Israel has right now
A) 1.8 Million enfranchised citizens.
B) 2.0+ Million disenfranchised Arabs in Judea and Samaria who have no say in the Israeli government which rules over their borders.
C) 1.7 Million Gazans, whose sea borders, and two of its land borders are controlled by Israel. Moreover, captured Hamas insurgents are tried for belonging to an illegal organization, which indicates that Israel is imposing Israeli law, and by extension: sovereignty, over Gaza – since Hamas is not illegal by Gazan law.
That is 5.5 Million Arab only one-third of whom have the vote, even though Israel controls their borders, and imposes Israeli law over much of their lives – otherwise captured Hamas insurgents would be considered enemy combatants rather than belonging to an illegal organization.
Were Israel to grant all Arabs the vote, then that 5.5 Million plus the Israeli left would sink the Zionist project. And everyone knows this.
Israel therefore is faced with the obvious:
Israel can be democratic or Jewish, but it cannot be both. NOT EVEN AT THIS TIME!
Israel has to assert its right to the land apart from San Remo or run into this fatal contradiction.
Weizmann admitted the flaw.
The British admitted the flaw, but unlike Weizmann, were duplicitous about it.
The Yishuv knew about the flaw, which is why they insisted the British withdraw elections after 1935.
Everybody acknowledge an Arab right to vote … but the Yishuv finally sought to get it overruled, as it would have sunk the Zionist project.
Basically, at this point in time, Ted, Israel has to decide whether Jewishness or democracy is the higher goal.
If five million diaspora Jews were to land in Israel tomorrow, the franchised could safely be extended to Arabs in Judea and Samaria, but at this time, it is not possible.
This is not politically correct, but it is the truth.
Sorry, Ted. The Ottomans had elections. There were voting incidents in Acre. There were questions of fraud, but the Arabs did have voting right.
They had voting rights prior to 1914. The Young Turk revolution democratized the Ottoman realm. They had elections.
Besides, civil rights, as determined by the San Remo Mandate, would, of necessity, be civil rights as interpreted by a Western understanding, which would include voting rights.
You are taking a very narrow reading; but even under that narrow reading, the Arabs had elected representation.
Au contraire:
Political Rights are the rights to form a nation. In 1860, during the American elections, the South had the CIVIL RIGHT to vote against Lincoln, but they did not have the POLITICAL RIGHT to secede when they lost the election.
VOTING IS A CIVIL RIGHT!
As for the Arabs, by 1914, the Arabs had elected representatives in the Ottoman Parliament.
A) Hence, by civil rights, San Remo intended voting rights.
For the Arabs had voting rights, even before WWI.
2) The British had promised voting rights to the Arabs in order to get sanction for the San Remo Mandate
By every measure of legal definition, voting in the national government which rules over one is a civil right. In the case of San Remo, it was promised to the Arab.
3) The British did indeed give voting rights to Arab Males over 25
By 1935, when Arab resistance was getting stronger, the Yishuv pressured the British to stop elections – knowing the Arab electorate would have torpedoed the Zionist project. But those elections were promised under San Remo which promised civil rights.
San Remo made two conflicting promises:
1) A right of return to the Jews
2) Civil rights [which included voting] and which included a British promise to allow Arab voting, and representation in a legislative council.
2a) The Ottomans even had Arab voting. So this was not a novel introduction
These were contradictory principles, which is San Remo’s fatal flaw.
Israel is sovereign to be sure.
But Israel cannot claim San Remo as its justification under International Law if Israel violates the conditions of San Remo, which conditions required enfranchised Arabs. For Israel to do so is legal ledgerdemain, and sleight of hand.
This is why I never use San Remo as justification for Israel, it is a two-edged sword.
Israel is going to have to assert its right to the land apart from San Remo.
That may not be hard to do.
But to assert that the powers intended a disenfranchised Arab electorate is ridiculous. You can easily find comments from the British on how the war was fought to ensure democratic principles.
Israel should start with a plan similar to the following which will not require either Arab or Jew to move from their homes unless they want to:
1. Implement Levy Report
2. Annex Area C or minimally all Jewish Towns in Judah and Samaria plus the Jordan Valley. Israel can hold a referendum in Area C before Annexing it in its entirety.
3. Implement a program to help Arabs who want to voluntarily sell their property in East Jerusalem plus Area C. Help them relocate overseas.
4. Put out an offer that Israel will be willing to allow the Palestinians in Areas A/B demilitarized self government, however Israel will maintain security functions. Israel Arrangement can be similar San Marino and Italy. Israel will be willing to negotiate a peace treaty based on Areas A/B but not based on the 1967 as they are irrelevant.
If the Palestinians do not accept but this is as the basis for talks. This would allow for all options open to Israel in the future if they refuse to talk on this basis, including annexing Area A/B.
Howard Grief z”l
Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel and Palestine under International Law
My friend Salomon Benzimra, who wrote, “The Jewish Peoples right to the Land of Israel” emailed me as follows:
Ted is right CA WRONG on San Remo but issue is different and is only jews live in israel. Rest live as guests.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Wikepedia provides
Thus the right to vote is a “political right” as opposed to a “civil right”.
When San Remo provided that the creation of the Jewish National Home was to be without prejudice to the “civil and religious rights” of the others, the civil rights must be interpreted as they then were. If civil rights has now come to mean many more rights, they are not entitled to them. They are only entitled to them as they then were. I doubt that the Arabs had the right to vote in the Ottoman elections if there were elections.
Thus, as long as the “civil rights” were not prejudiced (or diminished), Israel was free to be sovereign. Israel has no obligation to enlarge the civil rights according to San Remo.
Having said that, once any country is sovereign they can do what they want regardless of the qualifiers when created. That’s the meaning of sovereignty.
@ ArnoldHarris:
Good shabbos!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=K7maoNGTL2w
Netanyahu’s new government should try to ascertain, as soon as possible, what tradeoffs in the great power game are needed to get China, or Russia, or both, to veto any anti-Israel resolution brought up for a vote in the UNO.
Remember, unless and until the UNO is reorganized, on the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China have permanent veto powers over Security Council resolutions. The UK and France are no longer significant international powers. But they both will vote with the Arabs against the Jews. This time, too, so will the USA. That leaves only Russia and China.
If you think the UNO and their resolutions have any significance, than figure out what is need to buy the support of the other two powers. Remember, there is no such thing as international ethics or even justice when applied to the rights of Jews. So act accordingly. Which also means, get cracking now, while there still may be a little time.
That’s strategy #1A.
Strategy #1B is to prepare for instant annexation of all Area C, de-recognition of the Palestine Authority by Israel, and rapid, secret, and separate local autonomy negotiations with the leading hamulas of the Arab-populated cities in Shomron and Yehuda.
Strategy #2 is to take over Area B and begin treated the estimated 440 big and little villages therein under the same rules that have been applied to Area C since the Oslo Agreement.
Strategy #3 is to obliterate Hamas with a full-scale military invasion of the Gaza Strip by Zahal. Trap and kill the leaders of Hamas, simply by destroying every building in which they take refuge. Then split the Gaza Strip into a number of smaller administrative districts. One of these should be the Gush Katif area, in which all the 18 settlements abandoned by Sharon should be rebuilt and annexed immediately to Israel. The other parts of the Gaza Strip should be ruled autonomously by the local leading tribes and hamulas, as described above for Area A of Shomron and Yehuda.
Strategy #4 should begin a long-term process of relocating non-citizen Arabs to any and all other countries where Jewish money can be made to talk.
Anything about the above not clear? Go consult your rabbi.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Ted, just checked again
All males over 25 were given the right to vote in Palestine.
The British tried to rig the 1923 election by fixing
Arabs (who were 88T% of the population ) to only 44%
of the council. 10 were appointed by the British, and
two were Jewish.
The Arabs, seeing that it was rigged, boycotted the first election.
In 1935 a second election was to occur with this distribution:
This was more demographically fair, but not by much.
But with Arabs being half of the council, the Yishuv now sank the council.
They wanted a majority on the council, which was hard to defend when, at that time, they were a clear minority.
Still, though never delivered, the promise of an Arab franchise was central to San Remo.
The Arabs seeing that they could not assert a democratic means to change the Mandatory practices, took up arms.
I am in favor of Israel, but like Jabotinsky, I admit that Israel was imposed by force. There was no way the Arabs would every accept the imposition of what they saw as foreign colonists.
This is why I support Israel, but disagree with the narrative. Israel has a right to the land, but that right could only have been asserted by violence.
I know many of the Zionists, at that time, tried to paint a peaceable motive to Zionism; but Jabotinsky called them out.
To wit: Since the intention was to overrule the will of the majority of the local natives, there is no way that Israel could come to fruition apart from violence.
This is why the Zionists sought a European power to protect them in the interim – because they knew that apart from European rifles, the Arabs would never agree to become a majority in the land of their birth.
Joshua took Israel by violence and so would the Zionists. There was no other way.
This does not invalidate Israel.
I support Israel … I just do not support its historic official narrative.
THIS IS WHY I WARN EVERYONE ABOUT SAN REMO!
Ted, San Remo required that civil rights be extended to the Arabs, so if Israel uses San Remo as its justification for sovereignty, then civil rights must follow.
That included voting. The British offered voting to the Arabs, as they understood voting as a civil right. The historical precedent – and the common sense understanding – is to extend the franchise.
The British would later backtrack when they realized that the Arabs would vote out the Jewish state. But that was an illegal negation of the British promise. San Remo was conditioned on a promise of Arab voting.
If San Remo is your foundation, voting must follow.
NOW GIVING 1.8 MILLION HOSTILE ARABS THE VOTE WOULD BE SUICIDAL.
Hence, Sherman’s plan must be pressed and pressed and pressed to the detriment of Glick’s.
However, the Arabs cannot be consigned to the state of non-enfranchised denizens (using denizan in its legal sense) — San Remo requires otherwise. If you forego San Remo, then you forego Israel’s International Law claim to Judea and Samaria.
Besides, how would one cleanly defend that an Arab from Jaffa can vote, but an Arab from Ramallah cannot.
One could set up a federal system, like the USA where geographic location enters into the mix, but that geographical requirement could be circumvented by movement. The Arab from Ramallah merely moves to Jaffa to get the vote.
This is why I keep saying: SAN REMO IS A TWO EDGED SWORD. IT CUTS BOTH WAYS! ACCORDING TO SAN REMO JEWISH RIGHTS COME WITH THE ACCESSION OF TOTAL ARAB CIVIL RIGHTS!
Dr. Eugene Kontorovich suggests adding a requirement of national service, which is acceptable, if one is willing to disenfranchise a million or so Haredi as well. Good luck with that!
There is no way out of it.
Sherman’s way is the only method. He is not the only one recommending it. Feiglin recommends it.
I have recommended similar to all who will listen, and too often to those who will not.
Either that, or slowly start to enfranchise the Arabs in Judea and Samaria.
Caroline Glick is focused correctly on Judea and Samaria in terms of planning for the day the pa officially collapses, although I would argue the process is firmly in place as I type now.
However, Caroline has a vested interest in a particular solution to this conundrum, her book, which has received mixed reviews. One problem with her book, in my opinion, is a less then exhaustive study on mechanisms her plan will provide to a community who have consistently shown their unshakeable call for ISRAEL to be dismantled while pocketing any and all concessions and using any acquired advantage to wage war. A good example is what became of the money making enterprises in Gaza greenhouses. Giving these sworn enemies an option of citizenship, which will, no matter what conditions Glick conditions such a move upon will result in a realization of the right of return. Glick’s book, by Middle East standards is no longer new, it is old. Caroline needs to open up to different options. She is beginning to sound like a broken record.
@ Ted Belman: Sherman is not making fast progress with his humanitarian approach so will these Arabs be free to travel all over Israel with permanent residency (without voting rights?
Caroline emphasizes:
What she is calling for is the termination of the PA and the extension of Israeli law to the Jordan R. Although I am against giving citizenship to another 1.8 million Arabs, I support the extension of Israeli law.