FAQs: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Q: The UN does not agree that Israel has a right to be in the West Bank. How can you say Israel does have that right which is in defiance of the United Nations?
A: Israel's borders under international law were determined more than twenty years prior to the establishment of the United Nations. The UN adopted the Mandate for Palestine in 1945. These borders remain the legal borders, and they include all of Judea and Samaria (the land the Jordanians called the West Bank in 1948) as well as all of Jerusalem.
Despite the many UN resolutions against Israel, no legal action has or can revoke Israel's legal title to the land.
Q: What exactly are Israel's legal borders under International law?
A: Israel's legal borders are based on land that was controlled by the Jewish people during the First and Second Temple. The language used at San Remo and in the border convention is "From Dan to Beersheba," the description used for the National borders many times throughout the Bible. By the time the borders were delineated in the December 1920 Franco-British Boundary Convention, the British and French managed to cut significant amounts of land from the borders, in violation of previous agreements of the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers who were the disposing agents of the land under international law.
However, the borders administered by the Mandate clearly set all of Judea and Samaria (the WEst Bank), Jerusalem, Gaza, and Trans-Jordan as part of the Jewish National Home of Palestine, with all the rights of close settlement.
Q: The UN has never recognized Israel's annexation of Jerusalem. Isn't this proof that Israel has no right to be on this Palestinian land?
The Mandate is clearly international law. It has never been challenged. Jerusalem is within the borders (and the heart) of the Mandate. Whether Israel annexes Jerusalem does not change the law. Legal title to Jerusalem belongs to Israel. Any UN resolutions subsequently passed does not change the border. That is not within the authority or jurisdiction of the United Nations.
Q: Your organization states that one of its goals is to stop the Obama administration from pressuring Israel to freeze settlement construction and give up land. Do you think the President of the United States will actually change his foreign policy because of the demands of an Israeli grass roots organization?
The US signed a treaty with Great Britain in 1924. The 1924 Anglo-American Treaty listed the rights of American citizens living in Palestine under the Mandate. Included in that treaty was the text of the Mandate, including the prohibition against ceding Jewish National land and stating the rights of Jewish settlement anywhere in Palestine.
Though the treaty itself expired with the Mandate midnight, May 15, 1948, the rights granted by the treaty are still in force. These rights are guaranteed through the treaty. The US Constitution (Article VI Clause 2) calls a treaty the "Supreme Law of the Land." The Constitution authorizes the courts to force the executive officers and legislators to abide by the country's treaties. The President cannot ignore a court ruling. If he would do so, he would be held in contempt of court. He could no longer serve as president.
The President does not have the authority to adopt a foreign policy that violates existing treaties.
Q: In 1947, the UN partitioned Palestine into two States. Israel accepted resolution 181. Shouldn't the UN defined borders be accepted as international law?
The Partition Plan (General Assembly Resolution 181) is a plan, not a law. It was a bilateral agreement. The Jews agreed, but the Arabs did not. Unilateral acceptance of a bilateral deal invalidates the deal. With the deal being invalid, the land would stay in the hands of whomever holds the title-the Jewish National Home.
The Zionists accepted the Partition Plan under duress. Hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors were in displaced persons camps in Europe, and Jewish leaders were desperate to bring them home without delay. Accepting the Partition seemed to be the only way to get the British with their illegal White Paper immigration restrictions out of the Holy Land. Once the duress was off, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion disavowed any obligation to the Partition Plan.
Q: How can you claim the entire Cis-Jordan (the land west of the Jordan River)belongs to Israel? The Palestine Mandate never designated the whole mandated territory, nor its whole Cis-Jordan part to become the Jewish homeland. Doing so would have contradicted its own reservations regarding the rights of the non-Jewish population, in making them subservient to the minority Jewish population.
A: Actually, the Mandate does grant to the Jewish National Home all of Cis-Jordan (the land west of the Jordan River) and Trans-Jordan (today the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). There is no mention whatsoever in the Mandate about establishing an Arab state in Palestine. The Mandate, however, does protect the civil and religious rights of non-Jews living in Palestine. Those rights are individual;not collective. In other words, it grants them the rights of any minority living in a democratic state, but not the right to have their own autonomous country. There are regions in the United States that have an Hispanic majority. This does not entitle the Hispanic community to have their own independent Hispanic state.
It was realized from the start that the Mandate for Palestine was different. In order to end the Mandate, Jews were to become the majority in Palestine. This was expected to take around a decade to achieve. The British as administrators of the Mandate, were obligated to assist with Jewish immigration. Unfortunately, the British did not carry out their obligation with due diligence, they violated their obligations by passing illegal laws limiting Jewish immigration, while ignoring illegal Arab immigration.
The Mandate system created three Arab states (Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria). The Mandate for Palestine was solely to establish the Jewish state of Palestine, which was renamed the State of Israel in 1948.
The Arab delegation at the 1919 Paris Conference, under the leadership of Emir Feisal I, fully supported the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, and said the Arabs had no claims for Palestine as part of the Arab Nation.
Q: The mandate does not grant the Jews a state-it only grants them a homeland, a place where they can immigrate and settle under the governance of the Mandatory Great Britain. How can you say the Mandate is for the express purpose of establishing a Jewish country in Palestine?
A: Actually, the Mandate does grant the Jews a state. The terminology "Jewish National Home" was borrowed from wording from a declaration at the first Zionist Congress. The French also tried to make the argument that "Jewish National Home" did not mean a country. They were afraid that a Bolshevik state would arise in the Middle East, and they wanted to control the Roman Catholic sites in Palestine. The British reminded the French that a state was indeed the intent of the Supreme Council of the Principle Allied Powers.
You use the description, "...under the governance of the Mandatory Great Britain." you are forgetting, the British were only authorized to govern Palestine for the purpose of fulfilling the obligations of the Mandate. The end goal of the Mandate was the reconstitution of an independent Jewish state called Palestine. Once the Jewish State was established, the British could not legally govern the Jewish National Home.
Furthermore, the Mandate for Palestine was part of the Mandate System. The only purpose of the Mandate system was to set up governments. The only beneficiary named in the Mandate is the Jewish National Home. There is no one else who could be the recipient of Palestine according to the Mandate. It cannot mean a Jewish cultural center. There is no reason to set an act of international law to establish a "cultural center." Indeed, if the intent was to set up a country club instead of a country, why would the Mandate list borders, rights of settlement, assistance for immigration and citizenship, and all the systems needed for governing?
Q: Didn't the United Nations, the successor organization of the League of Nations overturn the Mandate?
A: No. The United Nations never overturned the Mandate. You may hear propaganda that claims otherwise, but the Mandate itself was fulfilled and expired as of midnight, May 14/15, 1948. What allowed the Mandate to expire was the establishment of the Jewish State and the British receiving the UN's authority to turn over its authority in Palestine. The rights of the Mandate are still law. Though the Mandate itself ended, the UN never canceled nor has the authority to cancel the mandated rights.
Q: How do you explain why the alleged objectives of the Mandate are
still applicable, but the newer objectives of the UN are void?
A: The rights granted by the Mandate are international law and are permanent. They were granted by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers. The British (who were members of the Principal Allied Powers) captured Palestine from the Turks. Until the 1919 Geneva Conventions, right of conquest was international law.
So, the Supreme Council agreed that they would not keep the lands captured from the Turkish and German empires for themselves, but rather set up rightful governments in these lands.
Neither the League of Nations nor the United Nations has the right to make countries or change the law. Even though the United Nations Security Council's resolutions are considered international law, the Security Council must base their resolutions on existing law. If the resolutions violate existing law, the resolutions cannot be legally binding.
Q: If Justice Now! brings legal action to force the United Nations to recognize existing international law, as you claim, can't the UN nullify the San Remo Resolution and the borders from the Mandate?
A: Two No's to this question: First, No, the UN Treaty Manual will not let them do this. Secondly, No, the doctrine of estoppel keeps the United Nations from doing this legally. That is not to say that they cannot do it politically, as they have done in the past. The Law is unique.... The UN could do anything (legally or not) and then the State of Israel could do nothing about this issue, and it would
go unresolved.
Q: Israel signed the Road Map to Peace with the Palestinian Autority. How can you expect the world to respect Israel's treaty rights when Israel is not honoring the rights of the Palestinians via the Road Map?
A: The first question that needs to be asked is what is the Road Map to Peace? The Second question that needs to be asked, is what exactly is a treaty? This is a long complex question. Click here for the detailed
answer.
Q: The UN does not agree that Israel has a right to be in the West Bank. How can you say Israel does have that right which is in defiance of the United Nations?
A: Israel's borders under international law were determined more than twenty years prior to the establishment of the United Nations. The UN adopted the Mandate for Palestine in 1945. These borders remain the legal borders, and they include all of Judea and Samaria (the land the Jordanians called the West Bank in 1948) as well as all of Jerusalem.
Despite the many UN resolutions against Israel, no legal action has or can revoke Israel's legal title to the land.
Q: What exactly are Israel's legal borders under International law?
A: Israel's legal borders are based on land that was controlled by the Jewish people during the First and Second Temple. The language used at San Remo and in the border convention is "From Dan to Beersheba," the description used for the National borders many times throughout the Bible. By the time the borders were delineated in the December 1920 Franco-British Boundary Convention, the British and French managed to cut significant amounts of land from the borders, in violation of previous agreements of the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers who were the disposing agents of the land under international law.
However, the borders administered by the Mandate clearly set all of Judea and Samaria (the WEst Bank), Jerusalem, Gaza, and Trans-Jordan as part of the Jewish National Home of Palestine, with all the rights of close settlement.
Q: The UN has never recognized Israel's annexation of Jerusalem. Isn't this proof that Israel has no right to be on this Palestinian land?
The Mandate is clearly international law. It has never been challenged. Jerusalem is within the borders (and the heart) of the Mandate. Whether Israel annexes Jerusalem does not change the law. Legal title to Jerusalem belongs to Israel. Any UN resolutions subsequently passed does not change the border. That is not within the authority or jurisdiction of the United Nations.
Q: Your organization states that one of its goals is to stop the Obama administration from pressuring Israel to freeze settlement construction and give up land. Do you think the President of the United States will actually change his foreign policy because of the demands of an Israeli grass roots organization?
The US signed a treaty with Great Britain in 1924. The 1924 Anglo-American Treaty listed the rights of American citizens living in Palestine under the Mandate. Included in that treaty was the text of the Mandate, including the prohibition against ceding Jewish National land and stating the rights of Jewish settlement anywhere in Palestine.
Though the treaty itself expired with the Mandate midnight, May 15, 1948, the rights granted by the treaty are still in force. These rights are guaranteed through the treaty. The US Constitution (Article VI Clause 2) calls a treaty the "Supreme Law of the Land." The Constitution authorizes the courts to force the executive officers and legislators to abide by the country's treaties. The President cannot ignore a court ruling. If he would do so, he would be held in contempt of court. He could no longer serve as president.
The President does not have the authority to adopt a foreign policy that violates existing treaties.
Q: In 1947, the UN partitioned Palestine into two States. Israel accepted resolution 181. Shouldn't the UN defined borders be accepted as international law?
The Partition Plan (General Assembly Resolution 181) is a plan, not a law. It was a bilateral agreement. The Jews agreed, but the Arabs did not. Unilateral acceptance of a bilateral deal invalidates the deal. With the deal being invalid, the land would stay in the hands of whomever holds the title-the Jewish National Home.
The Zionists accepted the Partition Plan under duress. Hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors were in displaced persons camps in Europe, and Jewish leaders were desperate to bring them home without delay. Accepting the Partition seemed to be the only way to get the British with their illegal White Paper immigration restrictions out of the Holy Land. Once the duress was off, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion disavowed any obligation to the Partition Plan.
Q: How can you claim the entire Cis-Jordan (the land west of the Jordan River)belongs to Israel? The Palestine Mandate never designated the whole mandated territory, nor its whole Cis-Jordan part to become the Jewish homeland. Doing so would have contradicted its own reservations regarding the rights of the non-Jewish population, in making them subservient to the minority Jewish population.
A: Actually, the Mandate does grant to the Jewish National Home all of Cis-Jordan (the land west of the Jordan River) and Trans-Jordan (today the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). There is no mention whatsoever in the Mandate about establishing an Arab state in Palestine. The Mandate, however, does protect the civil and religious rights of non-Jews living in Palestine. Those rights are individual;not collective. In other words, it grants them the rights of any minority living in a democratic state, but not the right to have their own autonomous country. There are regions in the United States that have an Hispanic majority. This does not entitle the Hispanic community to have their own independent Hispanic state.
It was realized from the start that the Mandate for Palestine was different. In order to end the Mandate, Jews were to become the majority in Palestine. This was expected to take around a decade to achieve. The British as administrators of the Mandate, were obligated to assist with Jewish immigration. Unfortunately, the British did not carry out their obligation with due diligence, they violated their obligations by passing illegal laws limiting Jewish immigration, while ignoring illegal Arab immigration.
The Mandate system created three Arab states (Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria). The Mandate for Palestine was solely to establish the Jewish state of Palestine, which was renamed the State of Israel in 1948.
The Arab delegation at the 1919 Paris Conference, under the leadership of Emir Feisal I, fully supported the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, and said the Arabs had no claims for Palestine as part of the Arab Nation.
Q: The mandate does not grant the Jews a state-it only grants them a homeland, a place where they can immigrate and settle under the governance of the Mandatory Great Britain. How can you say the Mandate is for the express purpose of establishing a Jewish country in Palestine?
A: Actually, the Mandate does grant the Jews a state. The terminology "Jewish National Home" was borrowed from wording from a declaration at the first Zionist Congress. The French also tried to make the argument that "Jewish National Home" did not mean a country. They were afraid that a Bolshevik state would arise in the Middle East, and they wanted to control the Roman Catholic sites in Palestine. The British reminded the French that a state was indeed the intent of the Supreme Council of the Principle Allied Powers.
You use the description, "...under the governance of the Mandatory Great Britain." you are forgetting, the British were only authorized to govern Palestine for the purpose of fulfilling the obligations of the Mandate. The end goal of the Mandate was the reconstitution of an independent Jewish state called Palestine. Once the Jewish State was established, the British could not legally govern the Jewish National Home.
Furthermore, the Mandate for Palestine was part of the Mandate System. The only purpose of the Mandate system was to set up governments. The only beneficiary named in the Mandate is the Jewish National Home. There is no one else who could be the recipient of Palestine according to the Mandate. It cannot mean a Jewish cultural center. There is no reason to set an act of international law to establish a "cultural center." Indeed, if the intent was to set up a country club instead of a country, why would the Mandate list borders, rights of settlement, assistance for immigration and citizenship, and all the systems needed for governing?
Q: Didn't the United Nations, the successor organization of the League of Nations overturn the Mandate?
A: No. The United Nations never overturned the Mandate. You may hear propaganda that claims otherwise, but the Mandate itself was fulfilled and expired as of midnight, May 14/15, 1948. What allowed the Mandate to expire was the establishment of the Jewish State and the British receiving the UN's authority to turn over its authority in Palestine. The rights of the Mandate are still law. Though the Mandate itself ended, the UN never canceled nor has the authority to cancel the mandated rights.
Q: How do you explain why the alleged objectives of the Mandate are
still applicable, but the newer objectives of the UN are void?
A: The rights granted by the Mandate are international law and are permanent. They were granted by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers. The British (who were members of the Principal Allied Powers) captured Palestine from the Turks. Until the 1919 Geneva Conventions, right of conquest was international law.
So, the Supreme Council agreed that they would not keep the lands captured from the Turkish and German empires for themselves, but rather set up rightful governments in these lands.
Neither the League of Nations nor the United Nations has the right to make countries or change the law. Even though the United Nations Security Council's resolutions are considered international law, the Security Council must base their resolutions on existing law. If the resolutions violate existing law, the resolutions cannot be legally binding.
Q: If Justice Now! brings legal action to force the United Nations to recognize existing international law, as you claim, can't the UN nullify the San Remo Resolution and the borders from the Mandate?
A: Two No's to this question: First, No, the UN Treaty Manual will not let them do this. Secondly, No, the doctrine of estoppel keeps the United Nations from doing this legally. That is not to say that they cannot do it politically, as they have done in the past. The Law is unique.... The UN could do anything (legally or not) and then the State of Israel could do nothing about this issue, and it would
go unresolved.
Q: Israel signed the Road Map to Peace with the Palestinian Autority. How can you expect the world to respect Israel's treaty rights when Israel is not honoring the rights of the Palestinians via the Road Map?
A: The first question that needs to be asked is what is the Road Map to Peace? The Second question that needs to be asked, is what exactly is a treaty? This is a long complex question. Click here for the detailed
answer.
Israel's U.S. ambassador: No one will dictate Israel's borders
ReplyDeleteMichael Oren speaks at event marking 25 years since establishment of Free Trade agreement between Israel and the U.S.
By Natasha Mozgovaya
Tags: Middle East peace Michael Oren
Israel's ambassador to the United States Michael Oren remarked on Tuesday that Israel would not allow anyone to dictate its borders.
Ambassador Michael Oren.
Photo by: Natasha Mozgovaya
"Like Ben-Gurion, Netanyahu will not allow the United Nations, or any other organization, to dictate our borders. They will be determined through negotiations," he said in Washington during an event at the Chamber of commerce celebrating 25 years since the establishment of the Free Trade agreement between the U.S. and Israel.
In September, Israel entered into U.S.-sponsored direct peace negotiations with the Palestinians, which subsequently broke down in the wake of the expiration of a temporary Israeli moratorium on construction in West Bank settlements. As part of the negotiations, Palestinian negotiators have demanded the establishment of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders.
"Today, too, Israel is blessed with principled and courageous leadership. While facing terrorist groups sworn to destroy every last one of us - women, children, senior citizens - and some 60,000 Hamas and Hezbollah rockets pointed directly at our homes; with so-called human rights organizations and boycott movements and campus coalitions denying our right to defend ourselves and even our right to exist, and with Iranian leaders swearing to wipe us off the map and striving to produce the nuclear means for doing that…. With all of those challenges, the Israeli government under PM Benjamin Netanyahu has not for a nanosecond reduced its commitment to peace," Oren said.
"But not a peace at any price," he added. "Not a peace that will impair Israel’s security or impugn its identity as the nation state of the Jewish people.
As Netanyahu said last year in his Bar-Ilan speech, he will not allow any future Palestinian state to become another Lebanon or Gaza."
Speaking about Israel's economic achievements, Oren went on to say that "you may also have heard that 2010 was Israel’s biggest tourism year ever, breaking last year’s record by 27 percent, or that Israel’s thriving film industry has produced two Oscar Best Foreign Picture nominations in the last two years. You might have heard that Israel's wine industry, more than 140 wineries strong, has surpassed the 30 million bottle a year mark with annual export increase of 25 percent - to France - or that Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer has now been named the most successful National Bank Governor in the world."
Obama, Ackerman wrong on Israel's borders
ReplyDeleteLiz Berney, esq. . Tuesday, June 28, 2011 8:32 pm
Two items in last week’s Great Neck News rightfully denounced Obama’s May 19, 2011 speech, focusing on Obama’s call for Israel to retreat to indefensible, nine-miles-narrow pre-1967 borders (with some “swaps”).
Larry Penner’s excellent article rightly condemned Obama’s borders demand and Congressman Ackerman’s shameful praise of Obama’s appalling speech.
North Hempstead Town leaders’ Resolution In Defense of Israel’s Borders aptly noted that Obama’ speech called into question the legitimacy of Israel’s completely lawful present-day borders, and flies in the face of Israel’s historical reality and present-day security needs. It’s good to see (most) people on both sides of the political fence standing up to Obama.
Sadly, there is even more to condemn: Obama’s May 19, 2011 speech demonstrated our president’s longstanding anti-Israel hostility and agenda. This two-part article explores Obama’s agenda and recent speech in depth.
On May 3, 2011, the Hamas terrorist organization and Fatah (the Palestinian Authority’s governing party) signed a unity pact in Cairo, brokered by the new, Muslim-Brotherhood-influenced Egyptian regime. Hamas-Fatah unity means that Israel surely has no “peace partner” to negotiate with. The pact also means that a Palestinian state would surely be a terrorist nation, dedicated to destroying Israel and the West. Both Fatah and Hamas’s charters call for violent destruction of Israel, and Hamas’s charter Article 7 calls for the murder of every Jew.
Yet, on May 19, 2011, before the ink was dry on the treacherous Hamas-Fatah agreement, President Obama pressed for a “contiguous” Palestinian State; exhorted Israel to retreat to indefensible borders – and to then deal with even further Palestinian demands (including a so-called “right of return”); lied about the reason for Palestinian demands at the United Nations; pledged billions of our tax dollars in loan forgiveness and loan guarantees to the disquieting new Egyptian regime; demanded regime change from friendly allies; and failed to confront America’s and Israel’s enemies.
Unfortunately, Obama’s latest push for concessions that endanger Israel’s existence, immediately after the announcement of Hamas-Fatah unity, did not surprise Obama-watchers. In May 2008 (before his presidential election), Obama stated in a New York Times interview that Hamas and Hezbollah have legitimate claims.
During his second day in office (while announcing a pro-Palestinian appointment), Obama stated that the “Arab peace initiative” (also known as the “API” or “Saudi peace initiative”) was “constructive.”
The Obama administration has consistently supported the API anti-Israel game plan, notwithstanding Obama’s occasional bouts of empty language professing concern for Israel’s security. In a Charlie Rose interview (on 1/6/10), Obama’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, stated that “full implementation of the Arab peace initiative” is “the objective set forth by the president [Obama] and the Secretary of State.”
At a March 2009 Brookings Institute diplomatic conference, Mitchell stated that the API will be incorporated into the Obama administration’s Middle East policy and marketed by the U.S. State Department. The White House press release about Obama’s April 2, 2009 London meeting with Saudi King Abdullah stated: “The President reiterated his appreciation for Saudi Arabia’s leadership in promoting the Arab Peace Initiative.” During his June 2009 Cairo speech, Obama called the API “an important beginning.”
What is the API? In a nutshell, Israel gives up everything in exchange for an impossible-to-enforce promise of “normal relations” (not peace or recognition). The API requires Israel to retreat to indefensible pre-1967-war borders (sound familiar?), resulting in displacement of 600,000 Jews from their homes; grants 4 million Arabs who never lived in Israel “rights of return” to live in Israel and overrun the country (also sound familiar?); insists that Palestinians will not be settled in Arab countries; grants a Palestinian state whose capital is Jerusalem; and requires Israel to withdraw from the strategically essential Golan Heights, thereby displacing another 30,000 Jews and rendering Israel’s northern border indefensible. In sum, the API is a plan for Israel’s destruction.
ReplyDelete(Another variant is Yasser Arafat’s “plan of phases.” On September 13, 1993, the very same day that Arafat and Yitzchak Rabin shook hands on the White House lawn to celebrate the Oslo accord – which was supposed to bring Palestinian-Israeli “peace in our time” – Arafat declared in Arabic, in a pre-taped interview on Jordanian television (broadcast into Israel): “Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do it in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel.”)
Obama’s actions have been consistent with his “objective of full implementation of the API.” During Operation Cast Lead, Obama refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to defend herself from Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza. Just days after taking office, Obama issued an Executive Order authorizing payment of $20.3 million for “migration needs” of “Gaza conflict victims.” (Presidential Determination 2009-15, Jan. 27, 2009)
He thus declared Palestinians and Hamas the victims, and used our tax dollars to bring Hamas-connected individuals from Gaza to America. This was followed by Obama pledging $900 million of our tax dollars to Gaza (on 2/23/09); partially lifting sanctions on Syria; sending the Palestinian Authority almost a billion of aid each year; constantly pressuring Israel not to build homes in Jerusalem or the West Bank and to withdraw from the Golan; vowing during his April 2009 speech in Turkey to pursue the goals of a Palestinian state and Syrian-Israeli agreement; refusing to confront Iran’s leadership; refusing to allow a vote on Iranian sanctions for a year; authorizing American training of the Palestinian police force (training which has been used to murder Israelis); exhorting Israel and American Jewish leaders that Israel has not taken real steps for peace and that they should “search their souls about whether Israel is serious about peace,” while refusing to hold the Palestinians accountable for their intransigence and incitement; failing to condemn Muslim slaughters of Christians; blaming Israeli “occupation” for causing Palestinian “suffering” during his 2009 Cairo speech; calling Israeli settlements “illegitimate” during his Cairo and U.N. speeches; and conditioning continuing U.S. support for Israel on Israel’s recognition of supposed legitimate Palestinian claims during Obama’s U.N. speech – to name a few.
Obama’s May 19, 2011 speech followed the same API game plan. The speech was even worse than many people realize. For instance, Obama did much more than simply imply that unsecure pre-1967 lines should be the framework for negotiating future borders. Obama said that the “United States” believes that the “result” of negotiations should be the (indefensible) 1967 borders with some swaps. In other words, Obama declared that such borders are U.S. policy – an extreme anti-Israel position.
ReplyDelete“Pre-1967 borders” refers to the 1949 Armistice lines, where the war stopped after six Arab countries invaded Israel and seized existing Jewish homes and synagogues and historic Jewish areas, including land promised to Israel by the Balfour Declaration and San Remo conference. Obama’s position reverses all prior U.S. policy. Former President Bush’s 2004 letter to former Israeli prime minister Sharon declared: “[I]t is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.” President Bush’s letter also noted that such a retreat was not feasible due to the presence of “major Israeli population centers” beyond the 1949 lines.
Alarmingly, Obama’s May 19 speech also characterized Israel’s territorial retreat and the establishment of a Palestinian State as a first step, which would not be enough: issues of Palestinian refugees and Jerusalem would still be outstanding and then require resolution. Obama’s statement gave credibility to Palestinian claims to Jerusalem and a so-called Palestinian “right of return” to overrun all of Israel. Obama’s proposed phased steps are also reminiscent of the API and Yasser Arafat’s “plan of phases” to destroy Israel.
(Obama’s Orwellian phrasing of a phases plan was: “Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair.”)
It would of course be suicidal for Israel to “move forward now” on giving up more territory, retreating to indefensible borders and permitting a terrorist Palestinian state, and to then have to contend with millions of Palestinians also demanding to move to homes in Israel that they never lived in, thereby destroying Israel. Obama’s apparent support for such phased concessions and a Palestinian “right of return” reverses prior U.S. policy.
These article was originally published in the Great Neck News, Williston Times and New Hyde Park Courier. The author, Liz Berney, Esq., is a leadership member of RJC and formerly ran for Congress in New York's 5th Congressional District.
http://www.theislandnow.com/article_d7abc3ae-9e7f-11e0-b419-001cc4c002e0.html