Thursday, March 15, 2012

It is time to annex Judea and Samaria

From a comment on Mordechai Kedar's article on Gaza, dated 15 March 2012, by "Salubrious":
...It is the Soviet dezinformatsia that invented the Palestinian Arab People and the notion that they had a passion for self government. If you look closely at the preamble of the 1964 charter of the PLO drafted in Moscow, you will see its reference to the Palestinian Arab People for the very first time that that collective noun has been employed to describe Arabs local to Palestine. It also asserts they have a passion for self government.
So it was that the Arab-Israeli conflict commencing as a product of religious jihad, was reframed into a conflict caused by secular nationalism that Arabs in Palestine had formerly found to be too abstract to be of interest in the 20s according to Professor Porath. To get new membership in the Arab Executive that was anti-Ziionistic but not nationalistic, Haj Amin al Husseini spread the false rumor that the Jews were taking over Al Aqsa mosque and got a massacre instead of new members. Jihad is not a foreign ideology nor is Islam.

It is time to annex Judea and Samaria... This would result in a lawful one state solution that surprisingly would not result in an Arab majority and therefore not risk the loss of Israel's Western values.
...[This] solution based on the San Remo Agreement of 1920 and the quick annexation of Judea and Samaria would not lose Israel its majority. It would still have a majority as the Arab population in the West Bank is much smaller than that reported in PA statistics. Some say this is because they want to get more welfare from the UNRWA. Requiring Muslims, Christians and Jews to take a oath of fealty before being awarded citizenship would likely result in retaining a comfortable margin. The rest might remain as permanent residents unless they violated the law. Annexation would be lawful because of the grant at San Remo of political rights to the Jews, intended to vest when the Jews were in the majority according to Arnold Toynebee and Winston Churchill if the Arabs position at UNSCOP is to be believed.
Then there is Jordan. It was part of what was granted in 1920 but taken away in 1922. But England was then a fiduciary, having those political rights in trust according to Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant.
Read those first two paragraphs of Article 22 and you will be convicned it unmistakeable that the designed of what was called a "mandate" was based on the British legal concepts of trust and guardianship. And England violated its fiduciary relationship when it gave Transjordan to Abdullah for its own political reasons*. But Israel gave up the Jews rights to TransJordan in 1994 in exchange for a quitclaim to CisJordan [the entire region between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean]**....

*see The San Remo Convention 1920, which was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, and came into operation in September 1923:

** see Annex 1 of the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty of 1994:

It is agreed that, in accordance with Article 3 of the Treaty, the international boundary between the two states consists of the following sectors:

  • The Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers
  • The Dead Sea
  • The Emek Ha'arva/Wadi Araba
  • The Gulf of Aqaba...

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

...Article 5.

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power....
Post a Comment