Sherman makes the case for full annexation

February 15, 2018 | 20 Comments »

Leave a Reply

20 Comments / 20 Comments

  1. @ Edgar G.:
    My Mother the Car. American sitcom
    A man finds his mother reincarnated as the family car.
    First episode date: September 14, 1965
    Final episode date: April 5, 1966

  2. @ Sebastien Zorn:

    I just looked it up, must have been a small village then, it only has 4800 inhabitants now. Probably named after MacKenzie King the PM at the time before and during The SHOAH, who wouldn’t allow the SS St. Louis to land. He was crazy, used to think that his dead mother talked to him through his dog, and got his advice that way………. Astonishing how long he lasted as PM. I think it was that he was doing what the people wanted..Keep Jews out.

  3. Eidelberg: Annexation, Settlement, Compensated Emigration, End the PA and Hamas.

    …the only rational policy for Israel’s government is to destroy the entire terrorist network in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. This done, the government must immediately incorporate Judea and Samaria into the State of Israel.

    Moreover, and as I have elsewhere elaborated, the government must institute a Homestead Act for extensive Jewish settlement of these areas. As for the Arabs living therein, they should receive financial and other incentives to emigrate, as tens of thousands have already done.

    There will be no Palestinian Arab State
    Israel is not the problem, the Arabs themselves do not want a state.

    Prof. Paul Eidelberg, 18/02/18 00:50

  4. @ Sebastien Zorn:

    I presume, that as a Jew, being smarter than others, she went on maternity or sick leave, THEN went to Canada, had her baby, and after a reasonable time for after birth care, came back to the states and reclaimed her job…….No..??? What part of Canada….?

  5. @ Edgar G.:
    I have another cousin who gave up a prestigious job, a government job, 30 years ago to move to Canada. For the Health care. Soon as she got pregnant, she upped and packed.

  6. @ Sebastien Zorn:

    I’m in both….. but am really in Canada.

    As they’d say in Owld Oirland, well. “Taych thim”…reminding me of the old song, Killaloe.

    “Shure I happent to get born,….at the time they cut the corn////, quite contagious to the town of Killaloe.”… “Where to taych us they’d a schame… And a French Mossoo he came, ..To instruct us in the game of Parley Voo.” etc.etc.

    Chorus…. Ye may talk about Ecartay…Ye may talk of Bonypartay… And anny other party and commong dee-portay Vooo”….. We larnt to sing it aisey…That song the Marshallaisey…Boolong Tooolong the Continong …We larnt at Killaloo…….”

    I’ll stop right here, I don’t want to go into reminiscences of Owld Oireland which is no more. All gone for ever.

  7. Not so easy if you have to go into a history and geography lesson just to state your position to anyone you meet because your audience doesn’t know these terms. Are you in Israel or Ireland right now?

  8. @ Sebastien Zorn:

    Well…according to the old song…”If you say potayto and I’ll say pataaato”…and later “if you say Tomayto, and I say Tomaaato”…… It’s all the same thing.

    What I’m really saying is that to write or say YESHA is a lot easier for me than Judaea and Samaria, which are Yehuda Shomron and Gaza. I never say “West Bank” as a mark of protest against the slipshod, easy adoption of the nomenclature of the Goyim. I write YESHA in capitals because it is a sort of acronym for Ye(huda) Sh(omron) and (G)aza. As I say it’s really a lot easier even than “West Bank” which are two words9even without Gaza). Economical Hebrew acronym YESHA is only one.

  9. @ Hugo Schmidt-Fischer:

    Slight re-distribution. To claim the Torah as our Title Deed is good and proper to “Jewish” Jews, but the Goyim, most of them laugh at this. Which is why I did not include it. I don’t expect Goyim to understand that Our Creator said, “Israel my First Born my bachur”.(chosen). did not mean that we should swagger around and shout “I’m the best.G-D says so”, but were only chosen for a specific task.. But unfortunately that’s how it has been often assumed…

    The first “deed” (I know it was not a regarded legal document) was the Balfour letter complete with Feisal’s endorsement and margin enhancements. Every one of the succeeding Treaties and Agreements already mentioned included this Declaration either in their Preamble -or Introduction- of the Document.

    It is a historical fact, that because of the failure of Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points to be accepted, he was not an official part of the International Group which comprised the unanimously united assembly which asserted the validity of all the aforementioned Treaties etc. BUT, the documents were sent to him personally before either/both decisions and enactments,and he scrutinised them all carefully, giving his full support to them..

    I am well aware of the chicanery pulled by Churchill in cavalierly handing the Palestinian Eastern Province of Trans-Jordan (it’s official name) to Abdullah, as it is all completely described in “Crossroads To Israel” by Christopher Sykes the son of Sir Mark Sykes. It is regarded as THE definite volume on the period it describes. I bought it in the middle 1960s when it appeared in a Penguin edit..

    Hugo, yes, Israel is “complicit” in having allowed the subsequent murderous orgies to take place by a mistaken “shyness” in declaring our legal status. You may think it was a proper thing for Ben Gurion to retreat from a bold assertion, but look what has happened to us since. I mean the horrific slaughter, the wars, the assassinations, the obscene murders of innocents. the 70 years of unbearable tensions somehow coped with..etc.etc. If we were able to drive the British to the edge, and retreat from Palestine,we could have overcome the world’s “surprise” at us claiming our legal rights.

    I have carefully read Gauthier, Grief and Ostroff, and I think BenZimra too. They are all exactingly clear and unambiguous. Perhaps their investigations were inspired by the inexplicable hesitancy of the Israel Govt. in coming forward boldly and claiming our Sovereignty over the Land. This had caused these rights to be overlooked by the International Community, and they needed to be set straight. I’m not aware that any of them did any good other than providing us with definitive legal grounds which are incontrovertible, and which can be called on if/when neccessary.

    There is also the Levy Report, commissioned by Netanyahu, but inexplicably never used.

  10. @ Sebastien Zorn:
    Fully understood.


    The claims really pertain to both banks of the river Jordan.

    The key attachment on the land is given by the pledge as defined in the Tora of Moses. San Remo, the history of presence for 4’000 are just complementary to that.

    Notwithstanding that Churchill on a sunny afternoon on a balcony overlooking the Nile, on the back of a napkin, lopped off 80% of the land of Israel. This betrayal by Britain must receive no formal recognition by Israel.

    So the Bible comes first, and San Remo is a modern affirmation of the earlier precedence. Annexation by no means absolves of the wider rightful claims Israel may have.

    In any event, Israel can annex. But the better formulation, quite similar as formulated by Ben Gurion should refer to the stronger claim, the historic rights. In addition, the pledge as given in the Bible should be mentioned.

    The annexation act should avoid specifying any tradeoffs, cementing the status as is today.

    Instead, Israel could state that based on God’s pledge, ancient biblical texts, a history of continuous Jewish presence and attachment to the country, retaliating against unwarranted aggression to its citizens, these territories occupied by Jordan for 19 years, have been repossessed.

    In recognition of the San Remo agreements, Israel is implementing full sovereignty to all the areas held by it.

  11. Corrections: If I don’t say, “Israel should annex the West Bank”, they will just look at me blankly. Haven’t you had that experience?

    Lay people, including many lawyers here, only believe what the MSM tell them, though only lawyers speak precisely.

  12. It’s sometimes easier just to say, “annex” instead of “assert or establish sovereignty” and “West Bank” instead of “Judea and Samaria,” which, in turn, is easier to say that “Yehuda and Shomron” much less “Yesha” for the simple reason that most of the passionately opinionated people. many of them Jews, who I have debated with, wouldn’t know what I was talking about otherwise. During the conflict with between Bibi and Obama over the Iran deal, I seriously had a debate with ultra-orthodox Jewish liberals, there are some, who asked what I meant by “Area C!”

    If I don’t say Israel should annex Area C, they will look at me blankly.

    When lawyers are talking amongst themselves it’s another story, of course.

    If the New York Slimes doesn’t print it, they never heard of it.

    Lay people speak imprecisely.

    Try telling a doctor you have a non-life-threatening allergy. No such thing, apparently. “Terms of Art.”

    “Endearments of the Art?

  13. No, never found any reason to doubt the fact of Israel’s sovereignty on the Holy Land. Though, I prefer to state San Remo was merely a ratification in modern law of what has been evident in history, and in indisputable facts on the ground of a strong connection of Jews living in the land, even during the era of diaspora.

    The legal entitlement was re-confirmed in modern times decisively by the San Remo Conference, and later ratified by those not part and parcel to it when it convened. San Remo was fully incorporated into the League of Nations and also adopted by those otherwise not yet disposed at the time such as Turkey which took another couple of years to accept its defeat first in Sèvres and finally at the treaty in Lausanne.

    The US as well had misgivings about the League of Nations but its parliament eventually validated the agreement on Palestine as outlined by San Remo. After approval by the Senate, Calvin Coolidge, possibly the best president the US had in the 20th century proclaimed the ratification in 1925.

    All legal bodywork of San Remo was assimilated into the later established UN, and formed a constituting element of that organization.

    Jacques Gauthier, Salomon Benzimra, Howard Grief and Maurice Ostroff have researched the legal background for decades, poring over the historic documents and came to the same conclusion.

    It is a case of Orwellian doublespeak to say otherwise. Akin to denying the Emperor is naked. There is no precedent for some of the allegations hurtled at Israel. They are simply wrong.

    Israel is complicit in this. Rather than confront the world, they lie low and hope the problem will eventually solve itself.

    In a way, that was a right strategy for a small country. As opposed to his detractors who wanted to either prolong the mandate or to go for a larger Israel, Ben Gurion accepted the UN compromise partition plan.

    Obviously, the facts were won out in the battlefield. But in the meantime, Israelis were able to travel with internationally accepted passports, the country was able to buy and sell goods, and time worked in Israel’s favor. I’m not sure if leaving the UN and defying everybody would have been a better strategy in the early days.

    On the other hand, Israel’s elites internalized the big lie denying Israel’s right to existence. Government should state its case more forcefully.

  14. @ Hugo Schmidt-Fischer:

    Hugo, have you ever found anywhere that there is a flaw in the San Remo The Sevres, The British Mandate, The Anglo-American, or Art. 80 of the U.N. Founding Charter. I’m asking you directly, because I feel you will answer me just as directly; nobody has ever answered me, yea or nay, and it bothers me sometimes that Israel does not blazon this all over the airwaves 24 hour a day (not literally of course) . Do they know of, or suspect a flaw…?

    For example why do they not point out the Anglo-American Treaty, UNANIMOUSLY passed in both Houses of Congress and endorsed and signed by 2 Presidents, Harding and Coolidge, into Irrevocable American Law, valid today. That the U.S. is breaking it’own laws by declaring that settlements are illegal etc.

    Yhis all really puzzles me.

  15. @ Edgar G.:

    Yes, annexation would fall short.

    Assert Israel’s sovereignty on all of Judea Samaria. Do not annex, as that would imply it was not yours before.

    Base the assertion on the Holy Bible, period. And as ratified in modern history by the League of Nations, a legal construct that was taken over in whole when the UN was constituted.

    Materially, the Jewish claim was embodied by the long continuous Jewish presence of over 4’000 years in Israel. As evidenced in recent millennia of thriving Jewish presence in Israel.

    Contiguous Jewish presence with the land of Israel for example, as evidenced by the codification in the 6th century of the Jerusalem Talmud, a legal system adhered to up to this day by Jews the world over, or in the 10th century in Tiberias by establishment of the cantillation marks and punctuation used by Jews in reciting the bible and articulating the Hebrew language until today, or by the rules spelt out in the 16th century in Safed, which guide Jewish observance until today.

    Formidable Jewish achievements forged in Israel especially during the last 2’000 years. A culture you may be proud of rightfully.

    And just to remind you lest you forget, without the cultural contribution of Jews to mankind, there would have been no American constitution, no freedom as we know today, and without America, Europeans would still be greeting each other with ‘Heil Hitler’.

    The rights to Judea are inalienable. This is no annexation by conquest, even though you had to fight for it. Just reassert the obvious and apply jurisdiction where it belongs.

  16. His interview is hardly worth talking about. He said nothing, more or less, that we are all fully steeped in, and was constantly cut off by the interviewer before finishing his points completely. A poor interview in my opinion. His 40 metres being “100 ft.”… He could just as easily made it correct at 130 ft.

    What I want to know and have asked MANY times on this site (no answer) is “why do we need to “annex” (an aggressive word). Why cannot we merely say that we are now extending our long-time ACTIVE Sovereign rights over the rest of our Land, The San Remo, British Mandate The Anglo-American UN Charter Art. 80..etc.etc…

    Is there a FLAW in those supposedly irrevocable International treaties….?? Someone knowledgeable please answer.

    The ONLY really only, knotty item is, that whereas the aforementioned irrevocable treaties mentioned civil and religious rights for the local Arabs, this was BEFORE Britain cut off Trans-Jordan Province to be for the Arabs, and they didn’t all go there. That was alright for a while, until the British during their Mandate, changed from Trustees to Rulers, and suppressed the Jews whilst supporting the Arabs, for political and racial reasons.

    So we have Arabs, who by their obscene actions for nearly 100 years have outraged our humanity, to the degree that we cannot live with them, unless they are confined in a Pale, under martial Law. This is not for a Jewish soul, so they HAVE to go. The obvious place, 5 miles away, is Jordan. Sherman did not mention Jordan not Mudar Zahran at all. He is cuddling his own Plan..Yet, the Zahran Plan would settle the major objectionable-to Jews -dilemma- and we are making no effort to bring all this to President Trump’s notice, he being the major backer of a 2 state etc.etc crap.

    And there is still Egypt, which might be bought off for a far smaller amount than Sherman’s Plan, and would place the YESHA Arabs under a rule strong enough to cause them to rue the day they first raised a hand against an Israeli.

    Someone please point out to me the defects in the 1920’s Treaties. I am fully aware of Feisal’s handwritten note in the margin, which fortunately has not come about, unless the British injustices against the Jews could cause it to become active..

  17. Excellent points. All valid. His interviewer incidentally, was not unkind, but I believe she had a hard time to wrap her mind around these ‘outlandish’ views. Not something they usually hear in the salons of Tel-Aviv’s budding skyscrapers or its fancy suburbs.

    Dr. sherman had only one mistake. It won’t change anything if you would invest USD 1 billion for diplomacy efforts. For once, check out the budget of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Israel invests a lot more today already. Money is not the issue. The problem is the message Israel’s diplomats are carrying out into the world.

    Israel’s politicians and emissaries are lobbying for the two state (-final) solution. Ambassadors are aiding the NIF, they are holding candle light vigils for Rabin rest his poor soul, and they are promoting more of Oslo. So handing them another billion will definitely not help.

    What is needed is a change of the message. But whether they are called Ruby Rivlin, Benny Begin or Zipi Livni, hapless children of revisionists of yore, the Israeli establishment has moved to the far left. Their parents are spinning in their graves. So you got to change the message first.

    Another thing is that much of the diplomatic effort is wasted anyhow. At the UN, in Europe or establishment US, nobody really cares about the plight of the Arabs. They are merely placeholders for latent anti-Semitic tendencies. The Arabs are proxies, conveniently carrying out where the Nazis left off.

    So save yourself a billion dollars. More diplomacy, better ‘Hazbara’ will not help. What is needed are actions. This is what the world respects.

  18. Yes, but you still will need walls and ghettos for the PA Arabs within Israel. The brainwashed maniacs of the PA must not be allowed to enter the rest of Israel, the PA will have to dismantled, and the Arabs will have to be placed under permanent martial law as they were in the first few years of Israel’s existence.
    I call it Apartheid plus compensated emigration. That is something worth fighting for. Only the Jews of Yesha should be integrated into the civil democratic system. Above all, the inflammatory mullahs, tv and radio stations, newspapers, music videos will have to be suppressed.
    Israel must learn to give the world the finger when it objects. That’s what the one percent should be for. Not to tout how democratic Israel to the murderers within, a thing which should be ended.
    And Israeli Arabs who identify with them and take up arms should lose their citizenship and their homes and be banished to guarded ghettos with their families.
    The PLO and its component organizations must be liquidated. And the Supreme Court …