Israel must stress its legal right to settle J&S

See alsoArabs don’t want 2 states by Dan Calic
Facts speak for themselves: Arabs don’t accept vision of two sovereign states

By Ted Belman

In Marin Sherman’s excellent article, The Price of Moderation, he argues that supporters of two-state solution have sown seeds for the de-legitimization of Israel.

    “…The maximum that any government of Israel will be ready to offer the Palestinians … is much less than the minimum that any Palestinian leader can accept.”

    Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, Febuary 2009

The foregoing citation from the former chairman of Israel’s National Security Council underscores the essential futility of pursuing what has become to be regarded as the sine qua non for a resolution of the Palestinian issue and hence a lasting Middle East Peace – and by implication for eradicating the basic cause of friction between the West and Islam: The two state solution.

[..] The point that many well-intentioned pro-Israeli advocates seem be to missing is that it is precisely “moderate supporters of the two-state solution” that have in large measure sown the seeds for the de-legitimization of Israel. While initially this contention may appear somewhat counter-intuitive, the logic behind it is unassailable. For, once the legitimacy of a Palestinian state is conceded, the de-legitimization of Israel cannot be avoided. The chain of reasoning for this is clear:

    If the legitimacy of a Palestinian state is accepted, then necessarily any measures incompatible with its viability are illegitimate. However, Israel’s minimum security requirements necessarily obviate the viability of Palestinian state.


March 7, 2011 | 5 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

5 Comments / 5 Comments

  1. “Jewish liberals will say it is more important that Palestinian-Arabs have a homeland of their own, than it is that the Jewish homeland be complete.”

    If that line of argument were sincere on their part — and I don’t think it is, it’s a pretense, but even if it were sincere — it would fall on its keister, were anybody to bring up the little matter that a Palestinian-Arab state already exists:

    The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is a Palestinian Arab state, and has been one, now, for 64 years — two years LONGER than the Palestinian Jewish state. The Hashemite Kingdom is a Palestinian Arab state—-not only by

    • history (misbegotten) and

    • geography (elementary), but also by

    • demography (undeniable), and indeed by

    • “law” (codified)

    —and has been a Palestinian Arab state for as long as it has been a state (albeit, like virtually all Arab states, a racist one). Consider:

    • Jordan contains nearly 80 percent of the territory of Mandate Palestine—-78 percent, to be precise.

    • Jordan’s army, her overall citizenry and her managerial-entrepreneurial class—-as well as her executive elites—-are all 70 percent (or more) comprised of “Palestinians.”

    • Over twice as many Palestine Arabs reside on the spacious & fertile East Bank plateaus of the River Jordan as live in the Israeli heartland’s unincorporated, West Bank provinces.

    • Jordanian nationality code explicitly entitles any Palestinian to Jordanian citizenship—-unless that Palestinian is a Jewish Palestinian (that part also is explicit).

    • It constitutes a capital crime [a hanging offense, boys & girls] for any Jordanian citizen to sell land in Jordan to a Jew—-to any Jew.

    By any reasonable reckoning—-and quiet though the matter’s kept—-the Kingdom of Jordan is in actuality a Palestinian Arab state; and a state, moreover, of Palestinian Arabs. . . . Take a good look at the official Jordanian flag some time; then have yourself a gander at the “Palestinian” one. [It’s an instant education all unto itself.] Anybody who tells you the Palestinians are ‘entitled’ to a state—-and this, merely because they ‘don’t have one’—-is either a liar or an ignoramous.

    And, no, the state of the Palestinians that is located east of the River isn’t free (What Arab state is free?)-—but it surely is independent, and it is, for the foreseeable future, theirs: notwithstanding the dubious legitimacy of the acquisition’s provenance.

    In the end, these things always come down to blood, rivers of it. No argument will ever substitute for the clear declaration:

    “We’re through being jewed down.

    “It’s ours, and we’re keeping it.

    “By any means necessary.”

  2. The unassailable Jewish right to the lands west of the Jordan River pre-existed not only the League of Nations, but the nations constituting the League of Nations. What the San Remo Resolution, the Mandate Palestine and Article 80 of the UN Charter accomplished was to conform international law with the pre-existing right of the Jewish people to “own” their own land.

    That said, it is at least as important to repeatedly emphasize the physical danger an Arab state poses to Israel and that creation of such a state will more likely lead to war than peace. The limitation of the rights argument is that Jewish liberals will say it is more important that Palestinian-Arabs have a homeland of their own, than it is that the Jewish homeland be complete. In other words, according to the Land for Peace delusionists, since Israel is big enough within its 1967 borders, we should show the world what beacons of morality Jews are and share.

    Because the Land for Peace delusionists want to share the land of our homeland with the Arabs, they have spent decades promoting the lie that the Arabs want to share that part of the “Realm of Islam” west of the Jordan River with us Jews. The military argument thus has two thrusts. One is the hardcore strategic danger of having a hostile force commanding the territory that dominates 70% of your population, industry and commerce. The other is that the Arab passion to see Israel annihilated has never ended, and if given the land to launch an existential attack against Israel, that passion will only become stronger.

  3. If Israel hadn’t been (repeatedly)attacked by her nutty, hateful neighbors in the first place then she would never have been in a position to obtain “their” land. They put Israel in that position and then whine for going on near 50 years about it when they lose.

  4. The Sherman article’s final remark is indeed (and in more than one way) the bottom line:

    “The Jews must realize that they can either be master of all the land west of the Jordan or none of it – and sooner that the better.”

  5. This comment was on YNERT

    Congratulations Mr. Sherman for mentioning that Prof. Eugene Rostow was indeed the author of UN resolution 242. He was indeed under-secretary of state, but also dean of the school of law at Yale. Most important of all, and nobody has ever mentioned it, are his articles concerning the so called “settlements”. In an article with as title “Are the settlements legal ?” and published in October 1991, he wrote: ….”The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish People to “close settlement” in the whole of the Mandated territory. It was provided that local conditions might require Great Britain to “pospone” or “withhold” Jewish settlements in what is now Jordan. This was done in 1922. But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine West of the Jordan river, that is, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter…..” Incredible isn’it? Written by the author of U.N. Resolution 242 ! Ever seen an Israeli leader using the above arguments ?