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)

Monday, 7 August 2017

David Singer: Trump, Israel, Jordan and Egypt Can Redress Obama-PLO Debacle

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

He writes:

President Trump continues to ponder the way forward to end the 100-years-old conflict between Arabs and Jews – as negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) – stalled since April 2014 – show no sign of being resumed.

Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap - endorsed by Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - were consigned to the graveyard of history after PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas unilaterally disbanded the Palestinian Authority on 3 January 2013.

White House Senior Advisor Jared Kushner has been quoted in an off-the-record discussion saying: 
"there may be no solution".
There may however be a solution should Jordan and Egypt – Israel’s immediate neighbours – agree to negotiate with Israel to end the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Filling this potentially explosive negotiating void with Jordan and Egypt will require Trump to first articulate:
1. the parameters and
 2. The fact-based framework
within which such new negotiations should actually be undertaken

The parameters should be restricted to resolving the competing Arab and Jewish claims to sovereignty in the remaining 5 per cent of the territory of the former Mandate for Palestine – Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), East Jerusalem and Gaza – where internationally-recognised sovereignty still remains undetermined (“the disputed territories”).

Conflicting narratives paralysing previous negotiations must be replaced by Trump with a different fact-based framework underpinning any new negotiations  including:

1. Jordan and Egypt:
· signatories to peace treaties with Israel in 1994 and 1979 respectively and
 · the last Arab States to occupy the disputed territories between 1948 and 1967
are the best Arab interlocutors to determine with Israel the allocation of sovereignty in the disputed territories.
2. The PLO Charter calling for the destruction of both Israel and Jordan disqualifies the PLO from participating in such new negotiations.
3. Hamas – designated as a terrorist organisation by Israel and banned in Jordan – must be excluded from these new negotiations.
4. The new negotiations are being undertaken to resolve the “Jewish-Arab conflict” that began in 1915 – not “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” that began in 1948
5. Sovereignty in the territory of the Mandate for Palestine has already been granted to Israel (17 per cent), Jordan (78 per cent) – with sovereignty in Judea and Samaria [West Bank], East Jerusalem and Gaza (5 per cent) still undetermined.
6. The Jewish people is legally entitled to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the disputed territories by close settlement under Article 6 of the 1922 Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter  subject to the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities living there being safeguarded.
7. Misleading and deceptive language referring to the disputed territories as “occupied territory” or “Occupied Palestinian Territories” fail to recognise that it was Jewish occupation in the disputed territories that was first abruptly ended in 1948 after every single Jew then living there was forcibly driven out by six invading Arab armies and not allowed to return until after the Six Day War in 1967.
Trump has a hard row to hoe in formulating this critical framework  but do it he must if there is to be any hope of advancing peace in the Middle East.

Such Trump-defined parameters and fact-based framework need to then be mutually agreed by Jordan, Egypt and Israel before formal negotiations can commence.

Any fanfare trumpeting yet another round of negotiations without such tripartite agreement will inevitably see those new negotiations being eventually buried alongside the graves housing the failed Oslo-Roadmap and stalled Israel-PLO negotiations.

Trump, Israel, Jordan and Egypt working together can certainly succeed where Obama and the PLO ignominiously failed.

26 comments:

  1. Once again, you support ceding Jewish land, all of which is critical to Israel's survival, to our enemies, Jordan & Egypt.

    You state, "The parameters should be restricted to resolving the competing Arab and Jewish claims to sovereignty in the remaining 5 per cent of the territory of the former Mandate for Palestine – Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), East Jerusalem and Gaza – where internationally-recognised sovereignty still remains undetermined (“the disputed territories”)".

    Aside from being dangerous, your statement contradicts itself. There are no Arab claims to any of the land to which you refer (a.k.a. J&S, East Jerusalem and Gaza) that need to be settled.
    All of the land you mention legally is Jewish by the very mandate to which you refer above and to the numerous other international treaties. Specifically, the San Remo Resolution which gave the Jewish people exclusive legal and political rights in Palestine. It is an immutable law which supersedes later U.N. resolutions.

    Security considerations & Israel's survival aside, I still can't understand why you would cede our land Jordan and Egypt under what you label a "different fact-based framework underpinning any new negotiations".

    More over, it remains an utter mystery why you deem them qualified to inherit Jewish land specifically "because they were the last Arab States to illegally "occupy" our land "between 1948 and 1967".

    Further, your belief that Jordan & Egypt "being signatories to peace treaties with Israel" qualifies them to have our historic, religious and legal homeland is inane, especially given the fragility of said peace treaties, specifically that with Jordan.

    In fact, giving any of our land to Jordan, whose own sovereignty currently is at risk would be no different to giving it to the Arab "Palestinians". To be certain, under your proposal, if it isn't Jordan who once again bars Jews from visiting the land we cede it, it is only a matter of time before we find on our border an irredentist, homophobic, misogynistic, muslim-majority tyranny vastly larger than that of gaza, which rapidly would become a bastion for Islamist terror.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't guarantee that David will respond to you, Noah, but I happened to stumble across a comment of yours on another blog in which you stated:
      "In my humble opinion never should we have returned Sinai in return for a very fragile peace to a nation that never could, nor ever will, be able to defeat us militarily. In fact, I believe we should exert our rights to the land extending to the Euphrates river as was our Kingdom under David." Do you still hold that extreme view? http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/yoris-news-clips/how-i-lost-my-liberal-view-of-reform-jews-and-started-to-fear-them/2013/06/10/2/
      If so, I very much doubt that you are ever going to see eye to eye with David.

      Delete
    2. Daphne

      I certainly do not intend to reply to Noah until he unreservedly withdraws and apologises for the insulting and offensive remarks about me made by him previously.

      Viewing the link to his "Euphrates comment" he seems to have an irresistible urge to repeat his comments over and over again (as he has been doing in responding to my articles on your site)

      Six comments made by him were respectively posted another six times, seven times, and two times each in relation to the other four comments.

      Can't apparently take his finger off the "Publish" button. Strange behaviour indeed.

      His extreme view of extending Jewish rights to land up to the Euphrates is quite extraordinary. No doubt that explains why he is so insistent on not ceding one inch of territory in Judea and Samaria since it would destroy his hopes of Jewish dominion up to the Euphrates.

      It would have been far more honest had he explained his true motives in not wanting to cede Jewish claims in any part of Judea and Samaria. His hidden agenda has been exposed. Thank you.

      Not returning Sinai? Suggesting Israel only got a very fragile peace? That peace has lasted 38 years.

      Noah is entitled to his views but you are correct in stating that I cannot see eye to eye with anyone who wants to extend Jewish sovereignty to the Euphrates - a recipe for ongoing conflict on a grand scale of a magnitude not seen before.

      I wonder how many people share Noah's extremist view.

      If you get flooded with positive responses then Israel and the Jewish people have a big problem with Jews sowing the seeds of their own destruction- not just Arabs who want to wipe Israel off the face of the map.

      Delete
    3. Daphne,

      I am not looking for a reply from David.
      I already know what it will be: More of the same in terms of his desire for Israeli concessions.

      In the quote above, I misspoke. Actually, our sovereignty shud extend from the Wadi al-Arish in Northern Sinai, which I believe is of what the torah refers to as the "River of Egypt or Eretz Mizraim", to the Euphrates. Further, currently, this is not politically feasible.

      However, I still maintain that we shud not have rewarded Egypt by returning it. Especially since we captured it twice in defensive wars ('56 & '67). More so, under our control there would be a better more stable peace and we would not need rely on the good faith of Egypt's fleeting leadership (e.g. one day the Brotherhood, the next al-Sisi). Certainly, the jihadist threat currently emanating from the Sinai under Egypt's control would not exist.

      Regarding Jordan, Article 25 of the Palestine Mandate did not / doesn't permit England to create a permanent Arab state in TransJordan. Under Article 6, which still holds today, that land still is legally (and historically) ours.

      It states, and I am sure Lawyer David will agree, that the the Mandatory Power (a.k.a. Britain) was to "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.

      Howard Grief, International legal expert and whom I greatly respect, has written a very extensive paper on the topic. It he explains at great length why legally Jordan (a.k.a. TransJordan) still belongs to the Jews. You can contact NATIV Online here (http://www.acpr.org.il/english-nativ/02-issue/grief-2.htm) or I can email you a copy.

      Other than for legal and security reasons, it is part of our ancestral homeland and currently is being ruled by non-indigenous Hashemites from the Arabian Peninsula. The Hashemites have absolutely no connection to the Levant and a lack of capacity to hold it peacefully.

      I don't believe most Zionists or supporters of Israel wud consider my views of annexing territory "extreme", as Lawyer David so eloquently put it. After all, we did annex the Golan Heights which is only 1,269 km from the Euphrates river.

      Thus, achieving Greater Israel as we held under David Ha Melech is not too unrealistic.

      As for Lawyer Davids conditions for replying, I never will retract my statements. Although, his non-reply above still seems very much like a reply.

      Delete
    4. Daphne [RESEND],

      I am not looking for a reply from David. I already know what it will be: More of the same in terms of his desire for Israeli concessions.

      In the quote above, I misspoke. Actually, our sovereignty shud extend from the Wadi al-Arish in Northern Sinai, which I believe is of what the torah refers to as the "River of Egypt or Eretz Mizraim", to the Euphrates. Currently, this is not politically feasible.

      However, I still maintain that we shud not have rewarded Egypt by returning it. Especially since we captured it twice in defensive wars ('56 & '67). More so, under our control there would be a better more stable peace and we would not need rely on the good faith of Egypt's fleeting leadership (e.g. one day the Brotherhood, the next al-Sisi). Certainly, the jihadist threat currently emanating from the Sinai under Egypt's control would not exist.

      Regarding Jordan, Article 25 of the Palestine Mandate did not / doesn't permit England to create a permanent Arab state in TransJordan. Under Article 6, which still holds today, that land still is legally (and historically) ours.

      It states, and I am sure Lawyer David will agree, that the the Mandatory Power (a.k.a. Britain) was to "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.

      Howard Grief, International legal expert and whom I greatly respect, has written a very extensive paper on the topic. It he explains at great length why legally Jordan (a.k.a. TransJordan) still belongs to the Jews. You can contact NATIV Online here (http://www.acpr.org.il/english-nativ/02-issue/grief-2.htm) or I can email you a copy.

      Other than for legal and security reasons, it is part of our ancestral homeland and currently is being ruled by non-indigenous Hashemites from the Arabian Peninsula. The Hashemites have absolutely no connection to the Levant and a lack of capacity to hold it peacefully.

      I don't believe most Zionists or supporters of Israel wud consider my views of annexing territory "extreme", as Lawyer David so eloquently put it. After all, we did annex the Golan Heights which is only 1,269 km from the Euphrates river.

      Thus, achieving Greater Israel as we held under David Ha Melech is not too unrealistic.

      As for Lawyer Davids conditions for replying, I never will retract my statements. Although, his non-reply above still seems very much like a reply.

      Delete
    5. Daphne [Last resend],

      I am not looking for a reply from David. I already know what it will be: More of the same in terms of his desire for Israeli concessions.

      In the quote above, I misspoke. Actually, our sovereignty shud extend from the Wadi al-Arish in Northern Sinai, which I believe is of what the torah refers to as the "River of Egypt or Eretz Mizraim", to the Euphrates. Currently, this is not politically feasible.

      However, I still maintain that we shud not have rewarded Egypt by returning it the Sinai. Especially since we captured it twice in defensive wars ('56 & '67). More so, under our control there would be a better more stable peace and we would not need rely on the good faith of Egypt's fleeting leadership (e.g. one day the Brotherhood, the next al-Sisi). Certainly, the jihadist threat currently emanating from the Sinai under Egypt's control would not exist.

      Regarding Jordan, Article 25 of the Palestine Mandate did not / doesn't permit England to create a permanent Arab state in TransJordan. Under Article 6, which still holds today, that land still is legally (and historically) ours.

      It states, and I am sure Lawyer David wud concur, that the the Mandatory Power (a.k.a. Britain) was to "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".

      Howard Grief, International legal expert and whom I greatly respect, has written a very extensive paper on the topic. It he explains at great length why legally Jordan (a.k.a. TransJordan) still belongs to the Jews. You can contact NATIV Online here (http://www.acpr.org.il/english-nativ/02-issue/grief-2.htm) or I can email you a copy.

      Other than for legal and security reasons, it is part of our ancestral homeland and currently is being ruled by non-indigenous Hashemites from the Arabian Peninsula. The Hashemites have absolutely no connection to the Levant and a lack of capacity to hold it peacefully.

      I don't believe most Zionists or supporters of Israel wud consider my views of annexing territory "extreme", as Lawyer David so eloquently put it. After all, we did annex the Golan Heights which is only 1,269 km from the Euphrates river.

      Thus, achieving Greater Israel as we held under David Ha Melech is not too unrealistic.

      As for Lawyer Davids conditions for replying, I never will retract my statements. Although, his non-reply above still seems very much like a reply.

      Delete
    6. Basically, if the Jews asserted our rights forcibly and stopped with the continuous concessions (e.g. Sinai, Oslo, Metal detectors on Har HaBayit), the world would be forced to accept our existence in any boundaries.

      Instead, constant concessions imbue weakness on our part and give the Arabs, the Europeans and all Jew haters hope and ammunition to continue fighting us.

      Peace will never come from weakness.

      Devarim 31:6 - Peace thru strength.

      Delete
    7. Daphne, do you still think my views on annexation, Sinai and Jordan are extreme?

      Delete
    8. I think the "Euphrates solution" is whacko, Noah. As for Sinai, I bear in mind the fact that Begin - not some loony lefty - gave it back and that there has been peace with Egypt ever since.

      Delete
    9. I am proposing peace for peace, not land for peace. Israel should not have and cannot cede any of its land, specifically J&S, just because it is hard to control.

      By foregoing its rights to any part of its ancestral land, including land acquired in defense of its existence, it is waiving its justification for existing, thereby losing the sole reason for the establishment of a Jewish state. Israel would be implying that it doesn't belong there.

      Regarding the Palestinian problem, on a practical level, a Palestinian state will bring Hamas or ISIS to Israel’s doorstep. The damage that Hezbollah could inflict on Israel from Lebanon is nothing compared to the destruction that a Palestinian state could wreak from the Green Line.

      I was only partially joking in regard to acquiring territory extending to the Euphrates. However, I am sure, Lawyer David would have been against annexing Golan in 1981 or prior to the Syrian Civil War was in favor of ceding it to Syria in return for a written "Peace". I am willing to bet that he, like John Kerry, even considered Assad a peace partner.

      I can't imagine that anyone still would hold that view after 5-years of civil war and destruction, and the acquisition of Syrian territory by ISIS, Russia, Iran and Hizballah, especially in Quneitra and Daraa near the Golan Heights. Clearly, the Golan Heights is a valuable buffer for Israel and its annexation has proven to be invaluable.

      As for Sinai, it offered Israel many benefits, specifically a buffer against Egypt just as the Golan Heights was to Syria.

      Today, under Egyptian control, Sinai is far from the buffer zone envisioned by the treaty. It has become a haven for transnational crime and Islamist militancy.

      Thanks to the treaty with Egypt, Sinai is a bastion of crime and terrorism full of non-state threats to Israel. The Multinational Force stationed there as per the Treaty, which includes nearly 700 American troops, is not capable of dealing with these threats.

      Aside from strategic depth, other benefits its annexation would have provided included, large oil reserves and unfettered access to the Suez canal.

      Unfortunately, the process begun by Begin of ceding land to enemies or "temporary" peace partners has spiraled out of control.

      Ariel Sharon too was "not some left wing loony" when he ceded Gaza to Hamas in 2005 in return for constant rocket fire, never ending wars and countless Jewish deaths.

      If allowed to continue, the insane process of land for "peace" it will imperil the long-term survival of Israel. I am not a religious person, though I believe in Elohim, but as per his word, the only way to bring real peace to Israel is through strength, not capitulation.

      Delete
    10. I am proposing peace for peace, not land for peace. Israel should not have and cannot cede any of its land, specifically J&S, just because it is hard to control.

      By foregoing its rights to any part of its ancestral land, including land acquired in defense of its existence, it is waiving its justification for existing, thereby losing the sole reason for the establishment of a Jewish state. Israel would be implying that it doesn't belong there.

      Regarding the Palestinian problem, on a practical level, a Palestinian state will bring Hamas or ISIS to Israel’s doorstep. The damage that Hezbollah could inflict on Israel from Lebanon is nothing compared to the destruction that a Palestinian state could wreak from the Green Line.

      I was only partially joking in regard to acquiring territory extending to the Euphrates. However, I am sure, Lawyer David would have been against annexing Golan in 1981 or prior to the Syrian Civil War was in favor of ceding it to Syria in return for a written "Peace". I am willing to bet that he, like John Kerry, even considered Assad a peace partner.

      I can't imagine that anyone still would hold that view after 5-years of civil war and destruction, and the acquisition of Syrian territory by ISIS, Russia, Iran and Hizballah, especially in Quneitra and Daraa near the Golan Heights. Clearly, the Golan Heights is a valuable buffer for Israel and its annexation has proven to be invaluable.

      As for Sinai, it offered Israel many benefits, specifically a buffer against Egypt just as the Golan Heights was to Syria.

      Today, under Egyptian control, Sinai is far from the buffer zone envisioned by the treaty. It has become a haven for transnational crime and Islamist militancy.

      Thanks to the treaty with Egypt, Sinai is a bastion of crime and terrorism full of non-state threats to Israel. The Multinational Force stationed there as per the Treaty, which includes nearly 700 American troops, is not capable of dealing with these threats.

      Aside from strategic depth, other benefits its annexation would have provided included, large oil reserves and unfettered access to the Suez canal.

      Unfortunately, the process begun by Begin of ceding land to enemies or "temporary" peace partners has spiraled out of control.

      Ariel Sharon too was "not some left wing loony" when he ceded Gaza to Hamas in 2005 in return for constant rocket fire, never ending wars and countless Jewish deaths.

      If allowed to continue, the insane process of land for "peace" it will imperil the long-term survival of Israel. I am not a religious person, though I believe in Elohim, but as per his word, the only way to bring real peace to Israel is through strength, not capitulation.

      Delete
    11. Daphne, not seeing my latest post.....

      Delete
    12. Daphne - My reply here still missing....

      Delete
    13. Hope they are on now, Noah. Blogger played up last evening.

      Delete
    14. Daphne

      You certainly are a very tolerant editor.

      What right does anyone posting a comment think he has to have it published or to pressure you to have it published or even claim to be entitled to be given an explanation as to why it was not published?

      I find Noah's conduct in this respect to be quite overbearing and I am surprised you tolerate it - including his continuing to post the same comment on more than one occasion.

      I must say I have never come across such behaviour from anyone else before.

      His claim that he "was only partially joking in regard to acquiring territory extending to the Euphrates" makes his conduct even more bizarre.

      Can you be half pregnant?

      He has secured a licence to say anything he likes with which I disagree by making false accusations against me which he refuses to withdraw although asked to do so on many occasions. I have made it clear that I do not intend to respond to any of his error-ridden comments until he does.

      They remain uncorrected and no doubt influence your readers who think they are correct because they have not been challenged by anyone.

      I'm very glad I took the position I did seeing how he continues to think it is his website - not yours.

      You are the publisher and it is of course your prerogative as to how you run your website.

      It doesn't have a good look at present with Noah seeming to control what he wants posted - not you.

      Delete
    15. I have explained to Noah in the past that I'm not always at hand to post comments, David. I certainly was taken aback by that "Euphrates solution" post of his I stumbled across, and certainly regard it as strange and dangerous. I wish Noah would apologise to you for targeting you in an ad hominem fashion.
      That, after all, is the only way that an exchange between you can proceed, and I certainly understand your outrage.

      Delete
    16. Daphne:

      Given Noah's behaviour maybe you should give thought to not publishing anything he sends you in future.

      Delete
    17. Daphne,

      I am sure you are not offended by my desire to see my posts.

      Based on David's reply or was that another non-reply, it appears he has nothing informational or educational to speak of.

      As such, he continues to rely on ad hominem attacks to cover up his inane positions or to quote you his "left wing loony" positions.

      Once again, I stand by my comments regarding David and will not retract them.

      Delete
    18. The thing is, Noah, that endless vituperation against David is intolerable; as a highly educated and respected ME analyst he can hardly be expected to overlook insulting descriptions of his contributions.

      Delete
    19. The guidelines regarding conduct for commenters are set out in the Disclaimer at the end of the sidebar. I cannot allow any further comments that contravene them.

      Delete
    20. Noah, I note the latest comment you have sent me, in which you state, inter alia: "My issue purely is with David's view of the solution to the conflict.... Unlike David, I don't believe that we should cede any of our land to the Arabs under any circumstances even that captured in defensive wars (e.g. Golan). Especially, when viewed in the context of history."
      I have omitted the rest because I don't want a tit-for-tat situation to continue on here.

      Delete
    21. Thank you Daphne, but let me add the following:

      My view of the conflict attempts to prevent obfuscation of the deep historical roots of the conflict in favor of a political settlement that offers only a partial redress for the millennia (if not 100 year) old conflict between Jews & Arabs focused solely on post-1967 realities (e.g. ceding land to Jordan or whichever Arab party).

      Thanks.

      Delete
  2. This article mentions "100-years-old conflict between Arabs and Jews" but does not mention that Islamic holy books (the Koran and Hadiths) have been attacking Jews for 1,400+ years.

    To better understand this, check out this video:

    Jews Are the Eternal Enemies of Muslims
    Regardless of the Occupation of Palestine
    :
    From MEMRI TV dot org * 2011 June 12

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=baS7PRiXcV4

    PS: I suggest that you copy this video to your computer, before Muslims can get it deleted from YouTube. I did!
    ___________________________
    Why Israel’s 1967 Borders are Undefendable:

    https://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2017/03/guest-post-why-1967-borders-are-suicide.html
    ___________________________
    Ancient Roman historians connected Jews with the Land of Israel:

    http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2016/05/guest-post-cornelius-tacticus.html

    https://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2017/02/guest-post-josephus-vs-muslim-liars.html
    ___________________________
    Why Muslims Hate Jews:

    https://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2016/12/guest-post-why-muslims-hate-jews.html

    http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2016/03/guest-post-famous-last-words.html

    https://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2017/01/guest-post-forgotten-oppression.html
    ___________________________
    American anti-Semitism:

    https://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2017/01/guest-post-seven-times-stronger.html

    https://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2017/01/guest-post-jewish-nyc-mayor.html
    ___________________________
    New York Times Erases Israel from Map:

    https://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2016/11/guest-post-nyt-erases-israel-from-map.html

    http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2016/03/guest-postnyt-vs-israel.html
    ___________________________
    How to Convict the New York Times
    of Unfair Bias Against Israel:


    https://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2016/11/guest-post-how-to-convict-new-york-times.html
    ___________________________

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr Cohen

    I refer to 1915 as the starting point of the current conflict since Arab propaganda seems to have convinced the world that the conflict started in 1948.

    Those 33 turbulent years between 1915 and 1948 cannot be allowed to be erased in any discusions to resolve the current conflict between Arabs and Jews.

    The PLO Charter has attempted to do just that - articles 19 and 20 declaring:
    "Article 19:

    The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations; particularly the right to self-determination.

    Article 20:

    The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."

    The West especially has swallowed this garbage hook, line and sinker. They have made their bed with Moslem murderers of Jews and they are paying the consequences right now in their own countries.

    Ignoring international law including the San Remo Conference, Treaty of Sevres, Treaty of Lausanne, Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter has seen the West surrender to Moslem fanatacism that now is rampant in its own democratic States.

    Instead of saying "we were fools to have been misled by this misleading and deceptive Arab propaganda" they keep on driving down the same road to disaster.

    Until they all say "let's go back to 1915 - not 1948 - and see what really happened in Palestine" the West will continue to rue the day they swallowed the poison pill the PLO placed in the PLO Charter.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David,

      If you believe what you write above, you would not advocate for "a different fact-based framework underpinning new negotiations by Israel with Jordan and Egypt over competing Arab and Jewish claims to sovereignty in the remaining 5 per cent of the territory of the former Mandate for Palestine in order to end the Jewish-Arab conflict".

      Instead of merely saying "we were fools to have been misled by this misleading and deceptive Arab propaganda", you would support continued Israeli control over all of J&S. Not only because of security concerns and that its our ancient biblical homeland, but because as you show it legally is ours (all of it).

      Recognizing that all of "Palestine" is ours, you would reject any proposal for its partition, such as the dangerous two state solution, which was proposed by the Peel Commission in 1937 and as you highlight by the UNGA under non-binding Res. 181 in 1947. The same two state solution, which to this day because of people like you refuses to go quietly into the night.

      Delete