Archive

Archive for the ‘Israel’ Category

International Law Explicitly Permits Jewish Settlements on the West Bank

August 14th, 2009 No comments

From Peter Hitchens, August 13, 2009:

…international law, though I am happy to discuss this with any reasonable person, all the way back to the Sanremo Accords and the original League of Nations Mandate, which designated the area now known as the West Bank for “close Jewish settlement”, and has not been superseded, so far as I know, by any multilateral treaty or plan put fairly to all sides. The West Bank remained so designated after the entire area east of the Jordan to the Iraqi borders (originally part of the proposed “National Home for the Jews”) was arbitrarily sliced off the Palestine Mandate to provide a consolation prize for Emir Abdullah.

I’d never heard this, so I checked. And in fact, international law does authorize Jewish settlements on the West Bank. From: League of Nations: The Mandate for Palestine, July 24, 1922:

Article 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.

Hitchens also has a good summary of the extreme views that the Arab countries hold and have always held of Israel, and how the Arabs do not consider the 1967 borders to have any legal validity whatsoever.

I would add that I am always amused by the enthusiasm which Israel’s enemies now show for the pre-1967 border of Israel. Their alleged enthusiasm for it now is a fake. Their real objective, as enshrined for decades in the policy documents and propaganda of the Arab world, (though in some cases tardily, reluctantly and insincerely shelved for Western consumption) is the end of the Jewish state altogether. Every Arab political figure in the area has on his wall a map of the region, a map from which Israel has entirely vanished. Hizbollah works for the extirpation of Israel, from just beyond its northern border. Hamas (a movement whose treatment of fellow Arabs who oppose it is extremely repressive and violent) continues to make no secret of this aim. Racialist filth and Judophobic slurry are taught to children in the Arab states and broadcast on Arab TV stations. And until they abandon this aim, and this muck, there can be no compromise. How can you compromise with people who teach tiny children to hate you, and whose aim is your utter destruction? Every concession would merely be a further step towards death, not a step towards peace.

I am old enough to recall that these enthusiasts were not so enthusiastic about the pre-1967 border before 1967, when it was the border of Israel. No Arab state accepted it as legitimate, let alone lawful. So why are they so keen on it now? I guarantee that if the 1967 border were to be restored tomorrow, the Arab campaign against Israel (backed elsewhere by our strange Israel-haters, who can only find one country on the map of the world to disapprove of) would continue unabated. At that stage, before 1967, the official policy of the Arab world was to ‘drive the Jews into the sea’. The 1967 border itself, a militarily indefensible and impractical frontier, was the cease-fire line at the end of the 1948 War, not an internationally agreed frontier between peaceful sovereign states. For most of its existence it was repeatedly violated.

PM2317561View of a concrete The 1948 war was itself caused by the Arab world’s rejection of the 1947 partition plan, which allocated Israel a much smaller territory even than the land enclosed in the supposedly sacred 1967 border. That rejection itself followed the similar rejection of the partition proposed by the 1937 Peel Commission, which was even less generous to the Jews than the UN would be ten years later.

Anti-Zionism

January 16th, 2009 No comments

From the WSJ:

That Explains It

  • “Here in Qatar, . . . we have a Starbucks, which serves coffee. They used to hang a sign on the doors of their shops: ‘We benefit our most important partner, which is Israel, we help in the education of students in Israel, we help build up the Israeli defense arsenal,’ and so on. . . . This Starbucks is Zionist.”–Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi on Al-Jazeera, Jan. 9 (via Middle East Media Research Institute)
  • “Seven Cups of Coffee a Day May Lead to Hallucinations”–headline, Bloomberg, Jan. 14
Categories: humor, Islam, Israel, judaism Tags:

Sodomy Laws and Pro-Israel Sentiment

January 4th, 2009 No comments

There is indeed an issue on which citizens split almost evenly yet the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions: the legality of homosexual acts. That’s my answer to a question of Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald:

Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where (a) citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet (b) the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice?

The split in favor of sodomy laws is 40-55 in the latest Gallup poll, as shown in the chart here, down from 49-46 in 2003. Support for sodomy laws has stayed around 40% since 1977. Opposition has bounced around a lot, from 43% in 1977 to 57% in 1986, back to around 42% in 1997, up to 60% in early 2003, down to 46% a few months later, and up to 55% now. But clearly voters are divided. I don’t hear any Democratic or Republican politicians calling for the return of sodomy laws, though (and it isn’t just the Supreme Court’s reversing itself on the issue; plenty of politicians oppose abortion).

Here’s more from Sullivan and Greenwald, for reference:

Andrew Sullivan, quoting Greenwald:

Leave aside the usual huffing and puffing. Can you answer this question for me:

Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where (a) citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet (b) the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice? More notably still, is there any other position, besides Israel, where (a) a party’s voters overwhelmingly embrace one position (Israel should not have attacked Gaza) but (b) that party’s leadership unanimously embraces the exact opposite position (Israel was absolutely right to attack Gaza and the U.S. must support Israel unequivocally)? Does that happen with any other issue?

From Greenwald:

Not only does Rasmussen find that Americans generally “are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip” (44-41%, with 15% undecided), but Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive — by a 24-point margin (31-55%). By stark constrast, Republicans, as one would expect (in light of their history of supporting virtually any proposed attack on Arabs and Muslims), overwhelmingly support the Israeli bombing campaign (62-27%).

Categories: homosexuality, Israel, politics Tags: