We are bombarded constantly with the claims of alleged Israeli brutality and unfairness towards the Arabs in the Administered Territories, known historically as Judea and Samaria.
Howard Grief, author of the exhaustive work entitled, “The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law“, on the San Remo Conference, “The San Remo Resolution converted the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917 from a mere statement of British policy expressing sympathy with the goal of the Zionist movement to create a Jewish state into a binding act of international law that required specific fulfillment by Britain of this object in active cooperation with the Jewish people….The term “Jewish National Home” was defined to mean a state by the British government at the Cabinet session which approved the Balfour Declaration on October 31, 1917….It was absurd to imagine that this phrase could be used to indicate that only a part of Palestine was reserved for the future Jewish National Home, since both were created simultaneously and used interchangeably, with the term “Palestine” pointing out the geographical location of the future independent Jewish state.” Link for more reading here.
Below is the map of the original British Mandate, which committed Britain legally to the job of facilitating the creation of a national homeland for the Jewish people, a comittment which they later reneged, thus violating international law, because it was no longer in the British national interest to keep their word, what with the increasing need for Middle Eastern (Arab) oil.
The British illegally backed out of this commitment. The World Zionist Organization proposed a significantly scaled down map. However, in the end, the Yishuv (Jewish community living in Eretz Israel prior to statehood) had to settle for the following UN Partition Plan. It was a hard pill to swallow, and has been dubbed “Auschwitz borders”, but the Jewish community accepted it, grateful for some corner of the earth to call their own. The Arab world rejected this plan and went to war shortly after Israel was re-born. In fact, Ben-Gurion could hear the beginnings of war as he declared Israel’s independence.
Look at the map below, from The Israeli Committe Against (Arab) House Demolitions (ICAHD). They don’t trouble themselves with Jewish home demolitions, which go on constantly, often in the dead of night against Jewish homes on legally purchased Jewish land; nor were they around during the Gush Katif expulsions, except perhaps to cheer on the destroyers; nor do they object or demonstrate against the current defacto restrictions against Jews building in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. Treating two populations living in the same region in such a radically different manner without cause (to prevent terrorism) is against international law.
Seems pretty darn unfair, doesn’t it?
Except, when one looks at the broad overview. See the map below, which demonstrates the real truth of the matter. Consider just how small the nation of Israel is, compared to the vastness of the entire Muslim empire. Then read some good history books (written by bona fide, scholarly and objective historians). And as you read, compare these maps. The Jewish people have been willing to compromise and settle for less and less and less. It seems to never satisfy the Arab/Muslim world, or to bring peace. That is because the conflict is not about land or political rights. Land and political rights are strawman arguments put out there to confuse those who don’t look at the total picture.
Glezele Vayne’s top six recommended organizations that deserve the Zionist dollar:
by Maayana Miskin
As memorials continue for former Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin, who was assassinated 15 years ago, a former “proud Leftist” is calling to end accusations that right-wing incitement preceded Rabin’s death. Popular entertainer and media personality Dudu Elharar told Arutz Sheva’s Hebrew-language news service that “Rabin is spinning in his grave” over finger-pointing by the political Left.
Many on the Left have accused nationalists of calling for violence against Rabin and other politicians in the days of the Oslo Accords, shortly before the killing. Elharar tells a different story.
“Until 1992 I voted for Meretz, and in 1996 I voted for Labor… I was in the ‘peace camp,’ I was a proud leftist, I saw the right-wing protests of the time through a leftist’s eyes, and I can tell you that there was no incitement. Not even a hint of incitement,” he stated.
The use of the term “incitement” to demonize the Right is itself a form of incitement, he said.
Precisely. — Commentary from Glezele Vayne
From Glezele Vayne
Op-Ed by David HaIvri
The borders of the State of Israel have never been determined by our leadership based on an understanding of our national interests. Rather, the borders of the state came about by chance, as a result of wars forced upon us by the Arab countries who banded together to annihilate us in 1948 and then again in 1967. The de-facto borders of the State of Israel are the result of the territory lost by the Arabs in those wars.
The so called “pre-1967” borders had no resemblance to the suggested UN Partition Plan of 1947, a plan that was denied by all Arab countries and – ironically-embraced by the Jewish leadership. At the time, they were happy just to be acknowledged in any way, and to receive any part of our historic homeland.
Arab residents of areas that were captured by the Israeli army in that first war in 1948 were granted full Israeli citizenship. They have since been granted all benefits awarded to Jewish Israelis and are expected to fulfill some civil obligations, but not all. They are exempt from military or national service, but benefit from university scholarships and representation in the Knesset. They enjoy the full extent of Israel’s democratic nature, who some take advantage of in an extreme way when they use their freedom of speech to defame the very State that grants them those freedoms and rights.
The areas captured by Israel in 1967 were never officially annexed by the State of Israel. The Arab residents were not incorporated officially into the State of Israel as citizens. Rather, their municipal services are provided by the Civil Administration, a subdivision of the Israeli government. Acting schizophrenically manner, Israel on the one hand refrained from annexing the area captured from Jordan, while on the other hand it invested major resources in developing and settling Jews in communities built throughout the region.
Since the 1977 Camp David Accords the Israeli leadership has been debating different forms of autonomy to be granted to the Arab population in areas captured from Egypt and Jordan in 1967. This debate has evolved into the presently popular concept of a “Two State” solution. At the basis of the theory of the Two State Solution is the establishment of a new Arab country called Palestine, which would be located on the territory captured from Egypt and Jordan.
This concept was tested when Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and it failed terribly. All Jewish communities, homes and businesses were destroyed and the Jewish residents were displaced. The local “Palestinian” population elected their own government through democratic elections. The Islamic party Hamas won those elections and have been firing rockets into Israelis cities ever since. Not only has this development been a disaster in terms of the relations between Israel and the Arab population of Gaza (many of whom worked for Israeli employers before the change of government), but also for the local Arab population whose standard of living has deteriorated dramatically as a result.
Cross-posted at Avid Editor’s Insights
Arab mother strapping suicide bomb belt to child: Israel Universe Headlines April 2003