The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Palestine - intellectual ignorance insults Israel > Comments

Palestine - intellectual ignorance insults Israel : Comments

By David Singer, published 9/3/2011

Novelist Ian McEwan should stick to fiction, judging on his knowledge of the Palestinian situation.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
# jeremy

In reply to your queries:

1. I gave you my evidence. Give me yours.

2. I detailed Israel's historical claim to the West Bank as you asked. That claim was recognized by the unanimous vote of the League of Nations which also provided that the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish commnunities living there were not to be prejudiced.

Those living in the remaining 0.001% never accepted the umpire's verdict. That is their entitlement but they have no one but themselves to blame for the consequences of that decision and the subsequent events that led to the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.

Sorry to disappoint you but the Jews did accept the Partition plan.

3. The right of Jews to return and settle in Palestine in 1920 was prescribed under the Mandate - a legally binding document in international law providing for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home there. The Arabs living in Palestine had no political rights under the Mandate - only civil and religious rights that were to be protected.

The right of Arabs to return and settle in former Palestine in 2011 is designed to destroy the Jewish National Home and with it the political rights created in the Jewish people in international law.

4. Good - we agree on something

5. So why do you object to Jews returning to live on land which currently has no internationally recognized sovereign owner and which they have the legal right to do so under the Mandate and article 80?

Six Arab armies invaded Palestine in 1948 causing the Arab refugee problem. They perpetuated the problem by failing to take responsibility for the integration and rehabilitation of the refugees within their own Arab societies.

6. Ceding one's claim to 95% of the territory is more than "a part". It is a substantial concession.

7. My last remark was made in response to your personal attack on me in your last paragraph. Shooting the messenger and ignoring the message is a favourite tactic of those with no real answers to rebut my claims.
Posted by david singer, Friday, 11 March 2011 2:52:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

point 1 - I haven't purported to give you anything which should convince you or anyone else - I don't have it to hand. You haven't given me anything either - just a bald statement.

What event(s) / dates are you talking about?

point 2 Where in the Mandate does it say what you say it does ? (Quote it - paragraph numbers, page numbers etc). Why (if this requires explanation) does it mean what you say it does?

My previous question - does the Mandate specify the boundaries of this future Jewish state - would also appropriately be answered by specifically giving the source. (The blurb says you're a lawyer - aren't you used to answering questions like mine by citing a specific portion of a document in such a way that someone else can look it up?)

points 3,5,6 depend on this one.

What do you mean about the Jews accepting the partition plan - they're occupying territory far in excess of that specified in the partition plan?

I note you say "the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities living there were not to be prejudiced"

Would you say that preventing them from living there at all is consistent with this requirement?
Posted by jeremy, Friday, 11 March 2011 4:20:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1. My "bald statement" was preceded by the following statement in my article:

"Operation Cast Lead occurred only after a cease fire between Israel and Hamas had been breached between November 2008 - December 19, 2008 when 170 mortars, 255 Qassams, and 5 Grads had been indiscriminately fired upon Israel's civilian population centres from Gaza.(http://idfspokesperson.com/2009/01/03/rocket-statistics-3-jan-2009/)"

Now please supply the evidence for your contention.

2. It is obvious you have never read the Mandate. I suggest you do before commenting further. It contains 28 articles. You may then appreciate this conflict has been raging for 90 years.

3. The Mandate spoke of reconstituting the Jewish National Home "in Palestine" - 78% of which was comprised in Transjordan. Three months later the Jewish National Home provisions were postponed or witheld from applying in Transjordan - which subsequently became an independent sovereign Arab state in 1946.

The Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter are the definitive legal documents establishing vested legal rights in the Jewish people to have their own national home in Palestine.

4. You are becoming tedious. The Jews accepted the UN Plan. The Arabs rejected it and sent six armies to invade Palestine and wipe out the nascent Jewish State. Israel ended up with more than the 55% allocated to it in the UN Plan. The Palestinian Arabs ended up with nothing - Egypt and Jordan occupied the residue until their loss to Israel in 1967. No Arabs wanted to establish a new state there during those 19 years when it could have happened with the stroke of an Arab League pen.

5. Those Arabs who no longer live in Israel have forfeited the protections afforded them under the Mandate. Those 1 million Arabs who now live in Israel have those rights protected - as well as equal political rights with the Jewish majority.

Had the Arabs shown the slightest interest in accepting the League of Nations decision - the history of Palestine would have been very different. Saying "no" to every proposal over the last 70 years has got them nowhere. Will they ever learn to compromise?
Posted by david singer, Friday, 11 March 2011 6:53:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For anyone interested in the facts on this - here's some information that
Singer found it too "tedious" to provide.
(Tedious for me, too, to give Singer the benefit of the doubt - that he might
be right - find he can't be bothered to reference his claims,
I do all this research, and find nothing that contradicts
my previous general understanding of the situation).

The British Mandate for Palestine:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Palestine_Mandate.html

Preamble:
... the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it
being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the
civil and religious rights of existing non­Jewish communities in Palestine, ...

Its boundaries are not specified
(note that the Mandate covered the area later called
TransJordan (now Jordan) as well as Palestine, see
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_overview.php)

The boundaries, apparently not fixed until the UN Partition Plan.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/partition.html
Boundaries: each state was roughly to be half of Palestine.
(see http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_un_role.php)
Also (yet again!) in Chapter 2,

2. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the
ground of race, religion, language or sex.
3. All persons within the jurisdiction of the State shall be entitled to equal
protection of the laws.

Of course in addition to any "legal claim" arising from the League of Nations
Mandate and the later specification of boundaries for the Jewish state,
there are plenty of subsequent UN resolutions which surely also
create "legal claims" just as much as the Mandate did.
Eg UN SCR 242 which required Israel to withdraw from territories
occupied in 1967.
So if Singer is right about Israel's legal claim to that land
then I guess UN SCR 242 extinguished that claim.

Likewise the recent (attempted) UN SCR,
declaring Israel's West Bank settlements illegal.
(see http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37572&Cr=palestin&Cr1)
That's a lot of governments which don't see the legality of Israel's
claim to the West Bank the way Singer does.
Posted by jeremy, Saturday, 12 March 2011 10:45:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#jeremy

Glad you supposedly found nothing to contradict your general understanding of the situation.

Please then - answer these questions:

1.What is your view on Article 6 of the Mandate which states:

"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."

Does this article give Jews the legal right to settle in the West Bank on State lands and lands not required for public purposes?

2.You correctly state the Mandate included Jordan.

Do you agree Jordan comprised 78% of the Mandate and not one Jew lives there today because their right to do so was withheld by Great Britain with League of Nations approval just three months after the Mandate was promulgated.?

Do you agree that such right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home was not withheld in the West Bank and Gaza?

3. The UN Plan only recommended - not fixed - the boundaries of the Jewish State. Had the Arabs accepted the plan there would be no continuing conflict in 2011.

Is this your general understanding?

4. UN Security Council resolution 242 did not require Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied in 1967. Israel has already withdrawn from over 90% of those territories. Israel is only required to withdraw to "secure and recognized boundaries"

Is this your general understanding?

5. Yes - many Governments don't see the legality of Israel's claim in the West Bank the way I do.

Does that make them right or do you think there is another possible alternative legal argument based on the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter that could prevail - especially after you have now read the Mandate which those Governments studiously ignore?

6. By the way - I am still waiting for your evidence that Israel breached the ceasefire with Hamas.
Posted by david singer, Sunday, 13 March 2011 9:42:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

1 & 2. I can't see anything in the Mandate giving Jews a right to establish a
state in any part of the Mandate that they chose - that's my point about the
boundaries not (so far as I could see) being fixed until much later.

3 (first sentence) I wasn't aware of that - when/how did the boundaries get
_fixed_?

My point still remains - if the correct legal position was that the
Jews had a right to establish a Jewish state wherever they chose within the
Mandate territories, what was the UN doing in 1947 specifying boundaries
(whether recommending them or fixing them). Ie, if you're right, it doesn't
make sense for the UN to have been voting on boundaries.

4. No, but I'm not going to dispute it either.

Re all the above - you still haven't said anything to indicate that
the Mandate means that the Jews had a right to establish a Jewish state
wherever they chose within the Mandate territories.

5. My view is primarily based on evaluating what you (and others who have
mounted not totally dissimilar arguments) have said. But it's nice to see that
many governments agree.

6. I am heartily sick of this issue.
You'll keep on waiting if you're not prepared to give the dates of the
events you're referring to, as I've repeatedly requested.
If you do, I'll then hunt for the information I believe I've read.
If I find it I will compare the date of the breach alleged in that material
with the date you have given. If it is earlier I will communicate it to you.
Got it?

BTW - you said at one point that
Those Arabs who no longer live in Israel have forfeited the protections
afforded them under the Mandate
How, precisely ?
Posted by jeremy, Sunday, 13 March 2011 4:05:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy