Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind. (Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)

We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.
(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America, Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.... For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last. (Friends of Israel Initiative)

Friday, 6 January 2017

David Singer: Anti-Israel Security Council Resolution 2334 violates UN Charter

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 violates Article 80 of the United Nations Charter and accordingly is illegal in international law.

Any attempt by the Security Council to enforce Resolution 2334 or to pass any new Resolutions based on Resolution 2334 will also be illegal.

Article 80 preserves the legal rights vested in the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home within 22 per cent of the territory comprised in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine (“Mandate”). That territory includes what is known today as Area "C" located in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and East Jerusalem (“disputed areas").

Resolution 2334 seeks to erase and annul – not preserve – those vested Jewish legal rights in the disputed areas by:
1. Claiming that Jews now presently living – or seeking in the future to live – in the disputed areas constitutes "a flagrant violation under international law" – when in fact their right to live there is sanctioned by Article 6 of the Mandate and Article 80.
2. Alleging that the right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the disputed areas requires the consent of any other party.
3. Calling on all States to discriminate between Jews living in the disputed areas and Jews living in Israel.
4. Discouraging Jews from living in the disputed areas when Article 6 of the Mandate specifically encourages close Jewish settlement in the disputed areas.
The questionable legality of Resolution 2334 needs to be urgently resolved by the Security Council itself seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) under Article 96(a) of the United Nations Charter.

The General Assembly so acted when it sought an advisory opinion in 2003 from the ICJ on the legality of the security barrier erected by Israel.

That decision was fundamentally flawed because contrary to Article 65 (2) of the ICJ Statute - two vital documents – the Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 – were not included in the dossier of documents submitted to the ICJ for consideration by then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan – an omission never explained until today.

Give the ICJ half the documents and you will only get half a judgement.

Indeed the Egyptian Judge sitting on that case – Justice El Araby – cautioned in his judgement:
“The international legal status of the Palestinian Territory (paras. 70-71 of the Advisory Opinion), in my view, merits more comprehensive treatment. A historical survey is relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly, for it serves as the background to understanding the legal status of the Palestinian Territory on the one hand and underlines the special and continuing responsibility of the General Assembly on the other. This may appear as academic, without relevance to the present events. The present is however determined by the accumulation of past events and no reasonable and fair concern for the future can possibly disregard a firm grasp of past events. In particular, when on more than one occasion, the rule of law was consistently side-stepped. The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date, is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain.”
The Security Council needs to ensure that this time round the Mandate and Article 80 are put centre stage before the ICJ to consider when ruling on the legality of Resolution 2334. Justice for the Jewish People – and the standing, integrity and reputation of the United Nations – demands nothing less.

The Security Council cannot act in violation of the UN Charter – nor countenance any suggestion of illegality in its dealings with member States.

That is a certain recipe for absolute disaster.

32 comments:

  1. David Singer based his article on the convenient, but biased and wrong interpretation on the article 6 of the Mandate. This is a desperate attempt to rescue the difficult position the Israel found itself in. The article 6 allows for Jewish immigration "...while...the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced ... ". This is clearly not the case when the land is basically taken from Palestinians. Besides...the article 6 ( dated 1922) was necessary prior to establishment of the Israel as a country.

    ART. 6
    The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous

    Thank you for printing the text of Article 6.

    Please detail the reasons for your claim that my interpretation is biased and wrong.

    What indeed is your interpretation?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous: Israel has bent over backwards to ensure that settlements are not placed, knowingly, on privately owned lands where the ownership title is intact. Most of the lands in Judea and Samaria don't fall into this category, however. They are public (ex-Ottoman) "State" lands, suitable for settlement as per Art. 6.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I disagree with David Singer that US House of Rep. Resolution 11 was very pro Israel.

    Resolution 11, does condemn the Economic & Political warfare waged against Israel by UNSC Res 2334.

    However, as highlighted by Caroline Glick, it "distinguishes between the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (e.g. the Kotel) & the rest of Judea & Samaria".

    "In other words, US House of Reps. Res. 11 is based on the proposition that 2334 is bad not because it was the worst antisemitic act of 2016" denying the Jews our Gd given right to all of Israel.

    Rather, "the congressional resolution rejects 2334 because it harms the chance of Israel & the PLO reaching a negotiated peace that will lead to the establishment of a "Palestinian" Arab state" and expulsion of Jews from J&S.

    Certainly, we do not want or need another neo-fascist antisemitic Arab terrorist state on Israel's border nor do we want to give up our rights to ALL of the land.....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Noah F

    I have not even mentioned House of Rep Resolution 11 in this article nor expressed any view that it was pro-Israel or anti-Israel.

    I am mystified by your response. Please enlighten me and quote the section of my article you are relying on in making your comment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. David Singer
    Sorry David.
    I was referring to your later article entitled "Congress rebuffs Obama and Kerry for abandoning American Policy on Israel".
    There, you imply that Congress has fully rebuked UNSC Res. 2334 & has restored its commitment to the Bush parameters / letter (2005).
    However, Congress' rebuke merely refers to East Jerusalem & not to the vast portion of J&S, nor to Resolution 242 and it is in the context of maintaining the two-state solution, not preserving our right to all of the land.
    Basically, its not a very firm rebuke.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Noah
    I used the word "rebuff" not "rebuke"
    I never imply anything. What you read is what you get.
    Please don't presume to put words in my mouth that I did not write or utter.
    I never suggested that the Congress has restored its commitment to the Bush parameters/letter (2004 - incorrectly stated by you as 2005). I did call for the Congress to reaffirm those commitments and I hope that happens very soon.
    Congress did call for the repeal or fndamental alteration of Resolution 2334. Did that somehow escape your notice?

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. David [RESEND W/ EDIT].

    Is there really a difference between "rebuff" and "rebuke"? As I understand, the former is just a softer form of the later. Are you not getting tangled in semantics?

    Anyway, my point is that while congress did oppose UNSC Res. 2334, it was not because it was anti-Semitic nor because we have legal title and indigenous rights to the land.

    Rather, congress opposed it because they believe it impedes a 2-state solution (which we all know is garbage).

    Thus, MY question is can, as you say, "America stand tall and proud that its commitments to Israel, such as the 2004 Bush Letter, Resolution 242, etc. will be honoured once again"?

    Especially, given that Resolution 11 only acknowledges our ties to the old city of Jerusalem, but supports the "pro-PLO position of forcible expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Noah

      Semantics has played a major role in failing to resolve the Jewish-Arab conflict. One word can make a huge difference.

      For example Resolution 2334 and Congress Resolution 11 refer to "the two democratic states solution".

      John Kerry only talks about "the two-state solution"

      He used that term 29 times in his 28 December speech. Why did he leave out the word "democratic" on each occasion?

      There is a huge difference in these two solutions.

      The Arab propagandists have exploited semantics brilliantly so that Judea and Samaria have now been called the West Bank since 1950 - blotting out names used for 3000 years.

      Get the drift? Words count in this conflict.

      In answer to your specific question: YES with one qualification - I am referring only to the Bush-Congress endorsed commitments. The rest of your question referring to "Resolution 242 etc" is meaningless. "Resolution 242 etc" are not Presidential Congress endorsed commitments made to Israel.

      Let us see Trump first reaffirm the Bush Congress endorsed commitments.

      Do you want to see Trump take action to reaffirm the Bush commitments? If not - why?

      Delete
    2. I disagree with your take on S/RES/242.

      The USA voted in favor of and had a significant role in drafting S/RES/242 (1967) which supports a “negotiated” withdrawal from “territories,” not “the territories” to “secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”.

      Further, it stipulates, as did the Bush letter, that Israel is not required to concede sovereign land in exchange for any land it retains under a future peace accord.

      More so, it has been the basis of almost every previous Arab Israeli peace initiative since the Six-Day War beginning with the Rogers Plan of 1969 and including the Bush Letter.

      In fact, President Bush specifically affirmed that the Israeli-Palestinian borders should emerge from negotiations based on S/RES/242.

      Resolution 2334, has attempted to negate Article 80 of the UN Charter and S/RES/242 both of which guarantee that J&S areas are sovereign Jewish land and/or that negotiations between the parties are required to make a final determination of the status of such land.

      Delete
    3. Regarding your last question, not only would I like to see reaffirmation of President Bush's commitments, but I would like Trump to go further.

      I believe that the 2-State Solution in its current form is dead and has always been a hoax.

      However, I worry that the Arabs pose a demographic threat despite research I have read to the contrary.

      As such, I believe that to secure Israel's long-term survival as the Jewish State, it alone needs to decide its borders, etc.

      Thus, in addition to moving the Embassy to Jerusalem, I would like Trump to allow Israel to act unilaterally to create a solution to the Arab "Palestinian" problem whatever it may be.

      However, it should be such that our interests take precedence over all other considerations.

      Delete
    4. Finally, as per my original post, I still do not believe the US Congress has done nearly enough to counter UNSC Resolution 2334 does not impact Jewish rights to J&S.

      As mentioned, House Res. 11 limits our sovereignty to the Jewish Quarter and both the pending Senate Resolution and the former one aim to uphold the perilous 2-State Solution (in current form) at our expense.

      Even the Bush Letter, which you hold so dear, speaks numerous times of "the need to establish a viable, contiguous, independent and sovereign Palestinian state".

      In fact, like John Kerry and the Paris Conference, the Bush letter never mentions the term 'Democratic' in relation to a Palestinian State.

      Thus, the importance of UNSC Resolution 242 as the basis for any solution can not be understated.

      Israel must be able to dictate its borders as deemed necessary and must never be required to return to the armisitice lines of 1949.

      Delete
    5. Noah
      1. Your post 13.1.17 at 16.10

      Resolution 242 is a commitment made by the Security Council that does not need to be reaffirmed because it remains binding on all UN member States.

      On the other hand the Bush-Congress commitments to Israel need to be reaffirmed by Trump because they were American commitments trashed by Obama and Kerry.

      Take one step at a time.

      Establish what commitments there are first – American and UN - then agree on what those commitments mean.

      2. Your post 13.1.2017 at 16:22

      The Jews have always been prepared to negotiate and have agreed to many proposals to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict over the past 100 years which the Arabs have always rejected.

      Yet the Jews still express the wish to negotiate.

      Resolution 2334 will certainly be a disincentive to Israel continuing any further negotiations.

      When you tell Jews that the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, the Kotel, the Hurva Synagogue and the Mount of Olives is “Palestinian territory occupied since 1967” – then calling off all further negotiations becomes a distinct possibility.

      If that happens - UN Security Council Resolution 2334 will be the catalyst.

      3. Your post 13 January 2017 at 22:00

      Of course Congress has not done enough. It needs to reaffirm the Bush commitments to Israel

      When you quote the Bush letter it would help if you didn’t leave out what does not suit your argument.

      The Bush letter which I hold so dear actually said this:
      “As you know, the United States supports the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent, so that the Palestinian people can build their own future in accordance with my vision set forth in June 2002 and with the path set forth in the roadmap. “

      The vision set out in accordance with Bush’s speech in June 2002 said this:
      “A Palestinian state will never be created by terror -- it will be built through reform. And reform must be more than cosmetic change, or veiled attempt to preserve the status quo. True reform will require entirely new political and economic institutions, based on democracy, market economics and action against terrorism.”

      Get it – “based on democracy” – the same vision as articulated in Resolution 2334

      When the Bush Roadmap was presented in 2003 it said:
      “A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors.”

      There it is again – the term “democratic”

      So whilst the 2004 Bush letter did mention the word “democratic” – it is abundantly clear that that was what Bush meant having regard to his 2002 letter and the 2003 Roadmap.

      That is what Resolution 2234 also says.

      Kerry and the other Paris Conference attendees need to utter that magic word “democratic” if they are to have any credibility as they all whine and dine in Paris.

      Delete
    6. [RE-POST - CORRECTION]
      Finally, as per my original post, I still do not believe the US Congress has done nearly enough to counter UNSC Resolution 2334 which aims to eliminate Jewish rights to J&S.

      As mentioned, House Res. 11 restricts our sovereignty to the Jewish Quarter. Both the pending Senate Resolution and the aforementioned one aim to uphold the perilous 2-State Solution (in current form) at our expense.

      Even the Bush Letter, which you hold so dear, speaks numerous times of "the need to establish a viable, contiguous, independent and sovereign Palestinian state".

      In fact, like the infamous John Kerry and the framework of the Paris Peace Conference, the Bush Letter never mentions the term 'Democratic' in relation to a Palestinian State.

      Thus, the importance of UNSC Resolution 242 as the basis for any solution can not be understated.

      Israel must be able to dictate its borders as deemed necessary and must never be required to return to the armisitice lines of 1949.

      Delete
  10. Noah, I deleted the replaced comment for clarity, so that David reads only the update.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Daphne,
    I replied to David, but don't see them posted.
    Thanks,
    Noah

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think everything is on now, Noah. I would never knowingly "snub" you. Your comments are much appreciated. I have no idea where you are located, but bear in mind I'm in Australia, and that might explain a time lapse. I do try to post comments as sppeedily as I can, but of course sometimes I'm not in range of a device.

      Delete
    2. By "time lapse" I of course mean that it is my night time when comments in the northern hemisphere are received. And I meant "speedily" ...!

      Delete
    3. Not implying you would "snub" me. Just letting you know I posted and there might be a glitch.

      I am based in Jakarta, but constantly traveling throughout Indonesia, Thailand and S.E. Asia.

      Hence, I thought there may be a connection issue.

      Delete
    4. FYI - I am a big fan of yours, Daphne.
      I try to read you every day (been doing it for quite some time).

      Delete
  12. Noah
    Just so there is no misunderstanding you state:
    "In fact, like the infamous John Kerry and the framework of the Paris Peace Conference, the Bush Letter never mentions the term 'Democratic' in relation to a Palestinian State."


    My following response to that incorrect statement of yours is:

    The Bush letter actually said this:
    “As you know, the United States supports the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent, so that the Palestinian people can build their own future in accordance with my vision set forth in June 2002 and with the path set forth in the roadmap. “

    In addition it said this:
    "the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap."

    The vision referred to by Bush was set out in accordance with Bush’s speech in June 2002 which said this:
    “A Palestinian state will never be created by terror -- it will be built through reform. And reform must be more than cosmetic change, or veiled attempt to preserve the status quo. True reform will require entirely new political and economic institutions, based on democracy, market economics and action against terrorism.”

    Get it – “based on democracy” – the same vision as articulated in Resolution 2334

    When the Bush Roadmap was presented in 2003 it said:
    “A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors.”

    There it is again – the term “democratic”

    So whilst the 2004 Bush letter did not expressly mention the word “democratic state” – it is abundantly clear that that was what Bush meant having regard to his 2002 letter and the 2003 Roadmap.

    Besides which the Bush letter also stated:
    "Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister."

    Will you now agree that you have misinterpreted Bush's letter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. [REPOST / CORRECTION]

      No. Quite the contrary.

      Indeed, as you state, President Bush in his 2004 Letter does refer to his Roadmap, which calls for "the emergence of an independent, 'democratic', and viable Palestinian state.

      However, in the next sentence of the Roadmap, as part of his "vision", he called for such a settlement to be based on the Arab / Saudi Peace Initiative, which if implemented would require Israel to 1) accept responsibility for the conflict, 2) withdraw to the indefensible Green Line and 3) commit demographic suicide with the acceptance of millions of Arab terrorists in return for 'normalization' of relations with the Arab world, whatever that implies.

      Among the Roadmaps many flaws, it focuses on the speedy establishment of a "Palestinian" state, not ending terrorism and incitement. At the same time, it required Israel immediately to renounce its rights to J&S.

      Similarly, his 2002 speech calls for "Palestinian" reform based on democracy, market economics, and action against terrorism".

      However, he did not make American support conditional on the above. Not only did he place responsibility for "Palestinian" suffering on Israel , but he insisted that "Israeli settlement activity in the 'Occupied' territories must stop". In other words, he accepted the Arab narrative that Israel has no rights to J&S.

      His Letter to Sharon is no less ambiguous in regard to Israel's rights to J&S and "Palestinian" statehood. In it, his only reference to "Settlements" are in the context of an Israeli withdrawal from J&S and Gaza. Instead, he permits Israel to keep "existing major population centers", the meaning of which I am uncertain.

      Delete
  13. However, in the next sentence of the Roadmap, he called for such a settlement to be based on the Arab / Saudi Peace Initiative, which if implemented would require Israel to 1) accept responsibility for the conflict, 2) withdraw to the indefensible Green Line and 3) commit demographic suicide with the acceptance of millions of Arab terrorists in return for 'normalization' of relations with the Arab world, whatever that implies.

    Among the Roadmaps many flaws, it focuses on the speedy establishment of a "Palestinian" state, not ending terrorism and incitement. At the same time, it required Israel immediately to renounce its rights to J&S.

    Similarly, his 2002 speech calls for "Palestinian" reform based on democracy, market economics, and action against terrorism".

    However, he did not make American support conditional on the above. Not only did he place responsibility for "Palestinian" suffering on Israel , but he insisted that "Israeli settlement activity in the 'Occupied' territories must stop". In other words, he accepted the Arab narrative that Israel has no rights to J&S.

    His Letter to Sharon is no less ambiguous in regard to Israel's rights to J&S and "Palestinian" statehood. In it, his only reference to "Settlements" are in the context of an Israeli withdrawal from J&S and Gaza. Instead, he permits Israel to keep "existing major population centers", the meaning of which I am uncertain.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Noah F

    You do not seem to want to understand what I am trying to explain to you. So at the risk of repeating myself let me state:

    What needs to be done is first agree on what the parameters of any negotiations are going to be. Negotiations in isolation without an end goal mean nothing.

    So my view is that we need to first establish those parameters which I maintain currently are:
    1. The Oslo Accords
    2. The Bush Roadmap with the 14 reservations made by Israel

    When both parties are agreed these constitute the framework for the negotiations then negotiations under those parameters can begin to have some meaning

    What those documents mean and how they are interpreted by both sides is the next step.

    That those negotiations extending over the last 13 years have gone nowhere is that the PLO has never accepted Israel's 14 reservations to the Roadmap. That is the PLO's perfect right to argue and Israel's to maintain. You get a logjam and the negotiations inevitably break down.

    Enter Resolution 2334 which urges:

    "the intensification and acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967; and underscores in this regard the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative, the initiative of France for the convening of an international peace conference, the recent efforts of the Quartet, as well as the efforts of Egypt and the Russian Federation;"

    These are very different parameters to what Israel and the PLO have been negotiating on for the last 23 years.

    Israel is perfectly entitled to tell the Security Council it rejects the Security Council imposing negotiations on the basis of these new parameters that depart from what has been the negotiating parameters so far.

    When the parameters for negotiations are agreed on - then what they mean or how they are interpreted by the parties has to be established.

    If they can't agree then the negotiations will again break down.(continued next comment ...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't want negotiations. I want Israel to act unilaterally as it deems fit.

      Delete
  15. (continued from comment above)
    I am not going to waste my time arguing with your interpretation of documents that may or may not be the parameters for any new negotiations or the resumption of stalled resumptions.

    The Bush-Congress endorsed commitments signal the negotiating positions it would support Israel taking in any negotiations. That is important why they be reaffirmed by Trump. What they mean or how one would interpret them is irrelevant until they are reaffirmed.

    You have now agreed with me that it is important for those Bush commitments to be reaffirmed by Trump.

    Take a deep breath and let us see what transpires in Paris tomorrow.

    At the moment there are no negotiations, the PLO are unlikely to return to the negotiations that have been stalled since 2014 and the parameters for negotiations under Resolution 2334 have been rejected by Israel.

    What is known is that "the two-state solution" has been interpreted by the Bush Roadmap, the Bush-Congress endorsed commitments and now Resolution 2334 to envision two democratic States living side by side in peace and security.

    That is an advance.

    The PLO and Hamas should be fielding questions from CNN and Fox on how and when they intend to create a democratic State of Palestine. They have failed to do so for the last 13 years.

    Focus on this critical issue.You are an obvious activist. Spend your time pursuing answers to this question - because whilst the PLO and Hamas and even Kerry and - I think - the Paris Conference fail to answer it - the two state solution is dead.

    Another two-state solution - negotiations between Israel and Jordan to allocate sovereignty of Judea and Samaria between their two respective States - looms as the most likely set of negotiations to follow the spectacular failure of negotiations between Israel and the PLO.

    I have been advocating this solution for almost 40 years. Perhaps the UN Security Council might soon wake up and take a long hard look at this solution.

    Resolution 2334 was a huge mistake that has exacerbated the Arab-Jewish conflict rather than positively contributing to resolving that conflict which has now raged for almost 100 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David,

      I agree that this back and forth is a waste of time, but do appreciate your replies.

      Quickly, as I am running out:

      A few clarifications:

      1. I don't recall stating that "the Bush Letter" should be reconfirmed. If I did, I was referring to the commitment not to return to the Green Line.

      However, I would like clarification that this commitment is not limited to major "population centers".

      2. I do not believe in "Mutually agreed changes" to the border.

      3. Instead, I believe Israel should be able to act unilaterally without Arab "Palestinian" consent and dictate its future borders. That includes, but does not require, potential collaboration with other Arab states.

      4. Finally, I would like a new resolution in Congress to that effect and a UNSC resolution cancelling Res. 2334 and a resolution upholding Res. 242 (repeat).

      Delete
    2. David.

      Just got thru your entire reply (instead of piecemeal).
      Thank you for the clarification.
      I understand your point of view.
      To summarize, you would like to see negotiations based on OSLO & Roadmap, but the Arabs have been recalcitrant and Res. 2334 doesn't help move them to negotiate (at least in a positive or realistic manner).

      I would like to see Israel act unilaterally (at least without the Palestinians) with agreement by the US.
      Israel alone should determine its borders.
      I agree that this may involve Jordan.
      However, the land is ours and we decide.
      If I didn't fear the demographic threat (a threat that if not prevalent today will loom long into the future) I would advocate annexing it all.
      However, I think its best to never accept a large majority of Arabs.
      In fact, I think we should kick many of them out, specifically those who refuse to swear an oath, those who incite, those who throw rocks, those who are guilty of any anti-Israel act..

      Delete
  16. Noah

    I advised you early on not to twist my words and you are at it again. What you suggest is my point of view is NOT my point of view.

    As for your own words -"I don't recall stating that the Bush letter should be reaffirmed"

    This is what you said:
    "Regarding your last question, not only would I like to see reaffirmation of President Bush's commitments, but I would like Trump to go further."

    This conversation is closed. I have better things to do with my time than deal with someone who cannot remember what he wrote.

    ReplyDelete