The political consensus that the Jewish state is reflects the world’s animosity towards it, rather than any legal fact. The territory is disputed, and Israel’s claim to it is strong.
Anyone wanting a 2 state solution, such as myself, must agree that Israel keeps, and controls all land and border crossings with "Palestine" and it's Arab neighbours, such as Jordan and Egypt, to prevent (weapons) smuggling into Palestine, and terrorist fleeing into neighbouring states.
I hope you can explain at least to yourself why you need a twenty-third Arab state, which is not only unable to prevent arms smuggling, but will even organize this smuggling itself. Why do you want another bad, undemocratic, backward, corrupt state that hates all its neighbors? There are so few problems in this world and you want one more anti-Israel voice in the UN? What can this state give to the world?
Or do you think that this will simply be fair? (I’ll say right away, this is the stupidest answer)
You are right in all points, Viktor! However, the current system is unsustainable! However, having failed to expel the Palestinians when Israel conquered the West bank and Gaza strip, as the Soviets did to the Germans in WWII, they now become a perpetual problem for Israel, as it is. If, however, a Palestinian State existed, they are certainly going to continuo tom attack Israel.
And when they do, with each attack by a Palestinian State, Israel could then legally annex parts of such state and expel the residents, piece by piece, until they give up attacks oin Israel, or, worst case senario, they are all gone for good.
Excellent presentation. Largely consistent with @EVKontorovich. Omits the first land for peace transfer which was the carving out of Transjordan in 1922. In lasting peace, the area will NOT be Judenrein. Expansion of settlements should be an incentive for Palestinians to directly negotiate a lasting peace, including borders. The 2020 Peace proposal might be a useful starting point. Given ongoing incitement, there's no reason for Israel to trade land or otherwise reduce its borders. Israel's security is paramount. Limited contiguity of an eventual Palestinian entity is sufficient.
Whether the territory is occupied or captured, Israel remains in violation of its international obligations. If the territory is occupied, Israel is required by Article 73 of the UN Charter to administer the occupied territory to the utmost interest of the inhabitants (it is not). If the territory is captured, then it needs to incorporate the citizens of the captured territory into the nation (it will not).
The new "disputed" category is a legal fiction invented for the sole purpose of allowing Israel to dodge any of its customary international law obligations in order to do pretty much whatever it wants to the Palestinians, which in this case means carving out chunks of the West Bank and confining the Palestinians to ever-shrinking cantons where they will remain a stateless and disenfranchised people so that Israeli sovereignty can be extended to the entirety of the West Bank, a plan Netanyahu has not even attempted to dress up in a polite fiction.
No. The legal fiction is labelling it occupied. A double standard when applied to Israel and no where else. See EV Kontorovich. The separate Palestinian entity was Transjordan created in 1922.
"No where else", really? It sure seems to me like Crimea, Donetsk and Kherson are occupied. No doubt Russia could spin you a fiction that these territories used to be part of the Soviet Union, to which it is the successor state, making these territories merely "disputed"... but hopefully we're all able to see that as the bullshit that it is. If you have a specific article by Kontorovich that you're referencing I'll read it but I would imagine he has a personal interest in his argument taking off because he's literally a settler.
The fact that Transjordan may have illegally occupied a territory in the past doesn't mean that it's not occupied today, and the fact that the territory was temporarily uncontrolled by any "state" is meaningless in practice: any number of African territories were occupied and colonized by European powers prior to achieving formal "statehood", which didn't make them any less occupied or colonized, the difference being that the Europeans have mostly left by now.
Western Sahara: The Western Sahara essentially constitutes a colony of Morocco in the sense that colonial administration of Spanish Sahara was transferred to administration by Morocco without the Western Sahara ever having constituted an occupied part of Morocco, and the area should be treated according to the will of its inhabitants after referendums are held.
Cyprus: As the coup in Cyprus was orchestrated with the intent of incorporating Cyprus into Greece, it constituted an aggressive move on the part of Greece justifying some level of Turkish response which may well have justified the occupation of territory. Since the Greek junta has long since ceased to exist, the occupation should be dissolved according to the will of the inhabitants of Northern Cyprus.
Americans in Syria: This seems illegal and can only be vaguely justified on "humanitarian" grounds or the fairly poor claim that the SFA is the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.
Taiwan: The wishes of the people in Taiwan should be respected.
Hawaii: Most premodern annexation was de facto legalized when modern systems of statehood and international law was formally established, or else most large states would disintegrate and the world would rocked by war in the pursuit of a thousand revanchist claims. Hawaiians seem to want to be part of the United States in the present day and have all the rights of other American citizens, though I think the wishes of the residents of Hawaii should be respected if they ever should decide to secede.
Lebanon: Hezbollah should have disarmed under UNSCR 1701, and paramilitaries are almost always bad, but assuming elections in Lebanon represent the will of the people they've been in government for a while now and it's not clear they can be accurately described as occupying the country (though this is questionable given that elections held under the aegis of active paramilitaries are not always trustworthy).
Taylor Force Act: I'm not sure to what degree the Palestinian Authority is in compliance with the standards but in any case this looks like an issue of American domestic law.
---
I'm not exactly sure what the purpose of all these questions are but in general I am in favor of self-determination, with the large caveats that it should not be used to reward states for engaging in settlement or ethnic cleansing, and should not be used to fragment historically recognized states. Where territories are occupied, they should be governed according to UN Charter Article 73 (with the interests of the inhabitants in mind) with the ultimate goal being the return of self-determination to the occupied territory, or, where such is impracticable, the incorporation of the territory and its inhabitants as first-class citizens of the incorporating nations.
In 1948 the British trained, armed and led army of a brand new state created in the eastern part of mandated Palestine crossed the Jordan and invaded Judea and Jerusalem. They expelled all the Jews and, with British approval, annexed the whole area, keeping it Jew free until 1967 when they lost it after attacking Israel. They didn't even try to create an entity called Palestine.
“On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine.” Wikipedia
Wikipedia is notoriously inaccurate and often very biased, as proponents of one point of view can have everything they have written changed by proponents of the other. The system allows lies of every sort to be promoted as truth and fact.
There’s a reason that teachers and professors consistently prohibit students from citing or even just using it as a reference when writing papers.
I don’t know if this particular statement is true or not, but I would certainly not take Wikipedia’s word for it.
Benny Morris said we should have given it back to Jordan after we won it from them so the Palestinians would live under their rule. I think I agree w that.
So that Jordan would be tempted to fire long-range guns at Tel Aviv? Or so that Jordanian tanks could cut off the north of Israel from the south in two hours?
Jordan agreed to peace with Israel not because it fell in love with the Jews, but because it saw the pointlessness of war with Israel. By giving Judea and Samaria to Jordan, war with Israel would make sense for Jordan.
Benny Morris is just a historian, and not the best at it. I hope he is smart enough to correct the mistakes he made years ago.
The UN is trying to stack the deck to lend credence to the push for the two state solution centered on the much larger West Bank connected with Gaza. I’m not buying it. I stand fast with Israel. Use the boundary based on the old British Mandate as the foundation for Israel’s new border. Additional territory such as the annexed Golan Heights stays within that new boundary.
You know, we wouldn't have problems like this if we had a One World Government…
This is excellent! Highly educational and eye opening!
Anyone wanting a 2 state solution, such as myself, must agree that Israel keeps, and controls all land and border crossings with "Palestine" and it's Arab neighbours, such as Jordan and Egypt, to prevent (weapons) smuggling into Palestine, and terrorist fleeing into neighbouring states.
I hope you can explain at least to yourself why you need a twenty-third Arab state, which is not only unable to prevent arms smuggling, but will even organize this smuggling itself. Why do you want another bad, undemocratic, backward, corrupt state that hates all its neighbors? There are so few problems in this world and you want one more anti-Israel voice in the UN? What can this state give to the world?
Or do you think that this will simply be fair? (I’ll say right away, this is the stupidest answer)
You are right in all points, Viktor! However, the current system is unsustainable! However, having failed to expel the Palestinians when Israel conquered the West bank and Gaza strip, as the Soviets did to the Germans in WWII, they now become a perpetual problem for Israel, as it is. If, however, a Palestinian State existed, they are certainly going to continuo tom attack Israel.
And when they do, with each attack by a Palestinian State, Israel could then legally annex parts of such state and expel the residents, piece by piece, until they give up attacks oin Israel, or, worst case senario, they are all gone for good.
It will do Israel’s cause good if remedial actions could be taken regarding illegal encroachment by setlers on established property of non-jews.
Excellent presentation. Largely consistent with @EVKontorovich. Omits the first land for peace transfer which was the carving out of Transjordan in 1922. In lasting peace, the area will NOT be Judenrein. Expansion of settlements should be an incentive for Palestinians to directly negotiate a lasting peace, including borders. The 2020 Peace proposal might be a useful starting point. Given ongoing incitement, there's no reason for Israel to trade land or otherwise reduce its borders. Israel's security is paramount. Limited contiguity of an eventual Palestinian entity is sufficient.
Dude, it's not the International Criminal Court which is in charge but the International Court of Justice!
Whether the territory is occupied or captured, Israel remains in violation of its international obligations. If the territory is occupied, Israel is required by Article 73 of the UN Charter to administer the occupied territory to the utmost interest of the inhabitants (it is not). If the territory is captured, then it needs to incorporate the citizens of the captured territory into the nation (it will not).
The new "disputed" category is a legal fiction invented for the sole purpose of allowing Israel to dodge any of its customary international law obligations in order to do pretty much whatever it wants to the Palestinians, which in this case means carving out chunks of the West Bank and confining the Palestinians to ever-shrinking cantons where they will remain a stateless and disenfranchised people so that Israeli sovereignty can be extended to the entirety of the West Bank, a plan Netanyahu has not even attempted to dress up in a polite fiction.
No. The legal fiction is labelling it occupied. A double standard when applied to Israel and no where else. See EV Kontorovich. The separate Palestinian entity was Transjordan created in 1922.
"No where else", really? It sure seems to me like Crimea, Donetsk and Kherson are occupied. No doubt Russia could spin you a fiction that these territories used to be part of the Soviet Union, to which it is the successor state, making these territories merely "disputed"... but hopefully we're all able to see that as the bullshit that it is. If you have a specific article by Kontorovich that you're referencing I'll read it but I would imagine he has a personal interest in his argument taking off because he's literally a settler.
The fact that Transjordan may have illegally occupied a territory in the past doesn't mean that it's not occupied today, and the fact that the territory was temporarily uncontrolled by any "state" is meaningless in practice: any number of African territories were occupied and colonized by European powers prior to achieving formal "statehood", which didn't make them any less occupied or colonized, the difference being that the Europeans have mostly left by now.
Those cases, and others, are all factually different. Well worth watching.
Need not agree with his politics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0ZTi-53t88&t=10s&ab_channel=JBS
Western Sahara: The Western Sahara essentially constitutes a colony of Morocco in the sense that colonial administration of Spanish Sahara was transferred to administration by Morocco without the Western Sahara ever having constituted an occupied part of Morocco, and the area should be treated according to the will of its inhabitants after referendums are held.
Cyprus: As the coup in Cyprus was orchestrated with the intent of incorporating Cyprus into Greece, it constituted an aggressive move on the part of Greece justifying some level of Turkish response which may well have justified the occupation of territory. Since the Greek junta has long since ceased to exist, the occupation should be dissolved according to the will of the inhabitants of Northern Cyprus.
Americans in Syria: This seems illegal and can only be vaguely justified on "humanitarian" grounds or the fairly poor claim that the SFA is the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.
Taiwan: The wishes of the people in Taiwan should be respected.
Hawaii: Most premodern annexation was de facto legalized when modern systems of statehood and international law was formally established, or else most large states would disintegrate and the world would rocked by war in the pursuit of a thousand revanchist claims. Hawaiians seem to want to be part of the United States in the present day and have all the rights of other American citizens, though I think the wishes of the residents of Hawaii should be respected if they ever should decide to secede.
Lebanon: Hezbollah should have disarmed under UNSCR 1701, and paramilitaries are almost always bad, but assuming elections in Lebanon represent the will of the people they've been in government for a while now and it's not clear they can be accurately described as occupying the country (though this is questionable given that elections held under the aegis of active paramilitaries are not always trustworthy).
Taylor Force Act: I'm not sure to what degree the Palestinian Authority is in compliance with the standards but in any case this looks like an issue of American domestic law.
---
I'm not exactly sure what the purpose of all these questions are but in general I am in favor of self-determination, with the large caveats that it should not be used to reward states for engaging in settlement or ethnic cleansing, and should not be used to fragment historically recognized states. Where territories are occupied, they should be governed according to UN Charter Article 73 (with the interests of the inhabitants in mind) with the ultimate goal being the return of self-determination to the occupied territory, or, where such is impracticable, the incorporation of the territory and its inhabitants as first-class citizens of the incorporating nations.
In 1948 the British trained, armed and led army of a brand new state created in the eastern part of mandated Palestine crossed the Jordan and invaded Judea and Jerusalem. They expelled all the Jews and, with British approval, annexed the whole area, keeping it Jew free until 1967 when they lost it after attacking Israel. They didn't even try to create an entity called Palestine.
“On 31 July 1988, King Hussein announced the severance of all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine.” Wikipedia
Wikipedia is notoriously inaccurate and often very biased, as proponents of one point of view can have everything they have written changed by proponents of the other. The system allows lies of every sort to be promoted as truth and fact.
There’s a reason that teachers and professors consistently prohibit students from citing or even just using it as a reference when writing papers.
I don’t know if this particular statement is true or not, but I would certainly not take Wikipedia’s word for it.
Benny Morris said we should have given it back to Jordan after we won it from them so the Palestinians would live under their rule. I think I agree w that.
So that Jordan would be tempted to fire long-range guns at Tel Aviv? Or so that Jordanian tanks could cut off the north of Israel from the south in two hours?
Jordan agreed to peace with Israel not because it fell in love with the Jews, but because it saw the pointlessness of war with Israel. By giving Judea and Samaria to Jordan, war with Israel would make sense for Jordan.
Benny Morris is just a historian, and not the best at it. I hope he is smart enough to correct the mistakes he made years ago.
The UN is trying to stack the deck to lend credence to the push for the two state solution centered on the much larger West Bank connected with Gaza. I’m not buying it. I stand fast with Israel. Use the boundary based on the old British Mandate as the foundation for Israel’s new border. Additional territory such as the annexed Golan Heights stays within that new boundary.
Precisely!
Great piece! I am sharing this widely.