19 March 2012

One-State, Two-State Suicide? Facts and Law Supporting Israeli Sovereignty Over Judea and Samaria

A lengthy piece by Wallace Edward Brand, JD,
in two parts, from Arutz Sheva
on Israeli Sovereignty Over Judea and Samaria.

A succinct exposition of facts and law in support of Israel's lawful exercise of sovereignty over East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria that Harvard and UCLA don't want to hear.

Background (part of letter by the author,
a Harvard and UCLA alumnus, to UCLA):

On March 3-4 there was a conference held at Harvard* on a one state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In effect it was a "one Arab majority state" solution. The panel consisted of Arab academics and Israel post modern revisionist who are apologists for terrorism. The other side or sides were completely missing. Harvard would not accept our request to be part of a panel or make a presentation.

A similar conference was held or is soon to be held at UCLA. A second conference is likely at Harvard sponsored by Professor Alan Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School on a "two state solution" to the Arab Israeli conflict.


There are in fact three sides. That last would be "a one lawful state West of the Jordan River" solution. These three sides are akin to a three legged stool. When only one or two sides is presented it makes for a strong presentation but not a very balanced one.

I have been trying to find out how this third side could be presented at UCLA and I have been told by all my contacts at UCLA that it is impossible. They tell me that UCLA is just too politically correct. So I am making a last effort. I have published information on the three sides in an on-line blog entitled "Middle East and Terrorism" and a conservative Israeli newspaper called "Arutz Sheva", and I hope, at the very least, that you will make the links available to students at UCLA so they have access to a balanced presentation to a solution for the Arab Israeli conflict

Following is part of Part I,

[...]
In 1917, in advance of the end of WWI, the British had drafted and published a policy for the disposition of the captured Ottoman lands in Palestine. [6] Britain and France were at that time following the “secret’ Sykes-Picot Agreement in their disposition of Ottoman Lands. But in recognition of the historic association of the Jews with Palestine, the Balfour Declaration, a British Policy approved it its Cabinet, provided for exclusive political or national rights in Palestine to be granted to the Jews.

The 1920 agreement of the WWI Allies at San Remo, on the terms of the Mandate turned what had been only a British Policy approved by the Cabinet, into International Law. Under Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, the rights were to be provided in trust, [7].

We know this because the Balfour policy had been attacked as antidemocratic, as giving sovereignty to the Jewish people who constituted only 60,000 of the total population of 600,000 in Palestine as of 1917.

Read all of Part I here


Following is part of Part II,

[...]
Balfour resigned as foreign secretary following the Paris Conference in 1919, but continued in the Cabinet as lord president of the council. In a memorandum addressed to new Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon, he stated that the Balfour Declaration contradicted the letters of the covenant (referring to the League Covenant) the Anglo-French Declaration, and the instructions to the King-Crane Commission. All of the other engagements contained pledges that the Arab or Muslim populations could establish national governments of their own choosing according to the principle of self-determination. Balfour explained: “… in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present (majority) inhabitants of the country though the American [King-Crane] Commission is going through the form of asking what they are.

Balfour stated explicitly to Curzon:
"The Four Great Powers [Britain, France, Italy and the United States] are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, and future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. In my opinion that is right." * * * * *

Balfour continued:
"I do not think that Zionism will hurt the Arabs, but they will never say they want it. Whatever be the future of Palestine it is not now an ‘independent nation’, nor is it yet on the way to become one. Whatever deference should be paid to the views of those living there, the Powers in their selection of a mandatory do not propose, as I understand the matter, to consult them.". . ."If Zionism is to influence the Jewish problem throughout the world, Palestine must be made available for the largest number of Jewish immigrants"

Read all of Part II here


More on One State or Two State Suicide:

Harvard Students Intermountain Jewish News
Debunking Harvard's 'One State Conference' Algemeiner
One State Solution? Aish
Topics and Presenters at the Harvard Conference

4 comments:

ninest123 Ninest said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ninest123 Ninest said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ninest123 Ninest said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ninest123 Ninest said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.