Even Reform American rabbis are fanatical about Jerusalem

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 68 Comments

Here’s a Reform group, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, attacking the Kairos document, issued by Palestinian Christians last year. One point I need to land on: The rabbis say at the start that they seek "an end to the occupation of Palestinians lands" and then in a footnote state, "We define such ‘Palestinian lands’ as land in Israel’s hands since the Six-Day War of 1967 that was not part of Israel before that time and which has not been annexed by Israel."

That legalistic statement means that the Reform rabbis regard East Jerusalem as Israel’s, which contradicts international law and global consensus, not to mention Herzl’s explicit promises to the Sultan and the Pope and all partition designs (which extraterritorialized Jerusalem). If you believe in Partition (and I am agnostic), you can’t believe in Jews holding Jerusalem. The Reform rabbis’ statement is a reflection of how far right the American Jewish community has drifted on Jerusalem out of some religious fervor. Who will check this spirit?

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

68 Responses

  1. annie
    May 15, 2010, 11:27 am

    This moment in history calls for sober, honest, and nuanced voices coming especially from involved religious leaders who understand the necessity of compromise and who can speak truth to power on both sides.

    ha ha ha, this pretty much eliminates them because any sober voice speaking truth to power would have to start by acknowledging thus far there has been no indication either israelis or palestinians will relinguish jerusalem.

  2. pabelmont
    May 15, 2010, 1:15 pm

    What’s it mean, “an end to the occupation of Palestinians lands” (excluding “anneded” lands ) ?

    Minimally it means, remove Israeli troops and settlers from these places, leaving THE OCCUPATION within the annexed lands.

    It’s a good idea. A good start. Israel out of Gaza and out of most of West Bank, leaving Israel as belligerent occupier of the so-called, purported, “annexed lands”.

    I wonder if the Rabbis think of it that way, that is, think of it as:
    [1] immediate Israeli pull out of troops and settlers and wall
    [2] no more shenanigans like in Gaza, with troops controlling boundaries
    (i.e., end of occupation means what it says, not a fake, as presently in Gaza)
    [3] NO ISRAELI OWNERSHIP OF ANNEXED LANDS, MERELY CONTINUING OCCUPATION AND STRIFE AND HUMAN-RIGHTS ISSUES

  3. DavidSiden
    May 15, 2010, 2:01 pm

    Where is Jerusalem mentioned in the Koran

    • Shmuel
      May 15, 2010, 2:27 pm

      Only 669 times in Jewish Scripture? Hah! 814 times in Christian Scripture! Restore the House of Anjou – Kings of Jerusalem, Counts of Jaffa and Ascalon – forthwith! Montjoie ! Saint-Denis !

      • MRW
        May 15, 2010, 2:58 pm

        Jerusalem is Al-Quds in Arabic. [Like Al-Quds University in Jerusalem]

        It was also known as the ‘Noble, Sacred place’ in the al-Qur’an (Koran) — you can look all this up yourself online — because Jerusalem was the place that Muslims bowed towards before they changed it later to where Mohammed wrote the al-Qur’an: Mecca.

        And where is one place it’s mentioned, at least? Try searching for Isra’ and Mi’raj.

      • demize
        May 15, 2010, 3:05 pm

        Ravanchiste! Might as well bring back The Knights Hospitallers seems lotsa people are getting hurt and need care.

      • demize
        May 15, 2010, 3:07 pm

        Revanchiste. Goddammit! Edit post button please.

      • MHughes976
        May 15, 2010, 3:35 pm

        I think they’re still around, known in Britain as the St.John’s Ambulance Brigade, often providing first aid at sporting events. The Queen is their patron, I think. Which is a poor recompense for depriving them of Malta, which they had kept out of the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists.

      • demize
        May 15, 2010, 3:50 pm

        That’s interesting to know MH.976 Malta seems to be the base of operations for several Catholic Military orders if I’m not mistaken. Its all very esoteric.

      • Shmuel
        May 15, 2010, 4:15 pm

        I think they’re still around, known in Britain as the St.John’s Ambulance Brigade, often providing first aid at sporting events.

        In Canada too.

        But don’t worry about the Knights of Malta. They have a cool hill in Rome (top of the Aventine) over which they get to fly their sovereign flag, and rather nice digs in the Borgo Santo Spirito just behind St. Peter’s.

    • potsherd
      May 15, 2010, 2:36 pm

      There is a town in Illinois called Zion. I assume that this gives Zionists the right to drive in with tanks, expel the residents by force and move in. After all, the name is mentioned in the Bible.

      • MRW
        May 15, 2010, 2:59 pm

        Dont forget Utah. There is even a Moab there, so the original Jews must be somewhere around the corner, doncha think?

      • demize
        May 15, 2010, 3:09 pm

        Hey Babylon LI. Is just filled with Iraqi refugees. Oh its not? Never mind.

    • Sumud
      May 15, 2010, 4:21 pm

      Genius DS!

      Now you just have to sell that to the UN and EVERY other country in the world other than Israel – since none of those parties recognise Israel’s annexation of Occupied East Jerusalem.

    • sammy
      May 15, 2010, 9:11 pm

      @DavidSiden

      Ursalim is mentioned in the Amarna letters as the city of Salem, a Ugaritic deity. Jerusalem however is not mentioned in the five books of Moses or the Pentateuch.

  4. DavidSiden
    May 15, 2010, 2:02 pm

    link to israelnationalnews.com
    One Nation’s Capital Forever.
    This is the best article on Jerusalem.

    • Shmuel
      May 15, 2010, 2:32 pm

      One Nation’s Capital Forever

      Absolutely. The eternal capital of all Christendom.

  5. DavidSiden
    May 15, 2010, 2:56 pm

    potsherd, there is a town in Texas called Palestine.
    So the Palestinians think they have the right to blow up buses, malls, disco’s, pizzerias cause the Koran gives them that right.

    • demize
      May 15, 2010, 3:12 pm

      Beer here, getcha ice cold beer here, shards of the one true cross,gettem while the gettins good!

      • Mooser
        May 16, 2010, 11:25 am

        “Don’t crowd folks, there’s plenty for all, and as soon as Bubba get’s the chainsaw started, we’ll cut up another one.”

  6. MHughes976
    May 15, 2010, 3:18 pm

    I can’t bring up the Reform Rabbis’ statement – I suppose there’s a rush to look at it now that Phil has drawn attention.
    But I think that in any event the tone rather than merely the number of Biblical allusions to Jerusalem should be considered. The index to my (very respectable, I tell you) Eerdmans Commentary under ‘Jerusalem as God’s city’ begins with ‘denounced by prophets/destruction as punishment/destruction prophesied/female personification’ (this heading beginning with Isaiah’s likening of Jerusalem to a prostitute.) This isn’t the whole story, but is enough to remind us that the critical, ambivalent attitude to Jerusalem found in the Christian scriptures, to which Shmuel refers us, is a literary continuation (authentic in its way) of what is found in the Jewish scriptures themselves.
    I think Shmuel is being a bit too generous (thanks anyway!) to us Christians. We are supposed to await the special delivery of an improved model from on high.

    • Shmuel
      May 15, 2010, 4:20 pm

      I think Shmuel is being a bit too generous (thanks anyway!) to us Christians.

      No, really, you can have it ;-)

      We are supposed to await the special delivery of an improved model from on high.

      Typical Christian cop out. No real leaders since Edward I.

      • Avi
        May 15, 2010, 5:17 pm

        No, really, you can have it ;-)

        Good one {chuckle}.

        {Clears throat, puts on a serious face} Seriously though, you can have it.

      • Mooser
        May 16, 2010, 10:33 am

        Wow, the humor around here takes a turn for the humorous, not to mention getting more erudite when I am not among those present.

  7. Colin Murray
    May 15, 2010, 3:41 pm

    Is this hangup about Judaizing every square inch of Jerusalem the reason that ostensibly mainstream respectable institutions like CCAR share membership in the CPMJO (Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations) with the likes of JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security) and ‘The American Friends of Likud’? And no, Dorothy, JINSA is not in Israel.

    The inability of American Jewish institutions to sever relations with extremists, to avoid what appears to me a practically autonomic response to ‘circle the wagons’ against any and all criticism is a serious long-term threat to their continued respectability. ‘Circle the wagons’ was a necessary survival response in the past. It is counterproductive and self-defeating now that American elites in politics, business, law, etc are visibly seen to be (and are) just as Jewish as Gentile.

  8. Elliot
    May 15, 2010, 4:26 pm

    The American Reform movement is the temple of PEP. In the 1970s the Union for Reform Judaism declared settlements kosher. The Land of Settlers records how Ariel Sharon lacked the legal instrument to settle Israeli Jews on the West Bank. The Reform movement’s backing was crucial in winning over another body.
    Similarly today, the Reform movement by its silence on Gaza and Jerusalem is providing moral support for Netanyahu’s policies.
    In return, the Reform rabbis get to meet with the top brass when they make their pilgrimages and get to preach about Israel as an American Jewish value.

    • Shmuel
      May 15, 2010, 4:37 pm

      In return, the Reform rabbis get to meet with the top brass when they make their pilgrimages and get to preach about Israel as an American Jewish value.

      You lost me. Why is preaching about Israel as an American Jewish value in their interest? And meeting with Israeli muckamucks may be nice (in a creepy sort of way), but it’s hardly selling one’s soul for.

      • Shmuel
        May 15, 2010, 4:39 pm

        Should read: hardly worth selling one’s soul for

      • Elliot
        May 15, 2010, 4:54 pm

        Why is preaching about Israel as an American Jewish value in their interest?

        You’d have to ask them how this works for them.
        My take on it is: non-Orthodox American Jews need a Jewish idea to unify them and to work for. Or at least, so think the rabbis and other leaders. Israel is perfect for the job: we can all agree on that. Israel is far enough away so that we don’t need to get caught up in minutae of ideology and internal conflict. It combines tribal loyalty with Jewish values. We can fight for the right of women to pray with men at the Western Wall, we can support Jewish dog shelters, Jewish old age homes — everything there (that isn’t Arab) is Jewish.
        When you come to temple you will read and hear about how the Reform movement is doing God’s work in supporting Israel and what you can do to support that work.
        Apparently, this works for the Jews in the pews too.

      • Mooser
        May 16, 2010, 10:51 am

        You pegged it Eliot! And how could it be otherwise? When you take away Israel from Judaism, almost all you have left is religion.
        Okay, I’m gonna stick my skinny Jewish neck out here; as we know, or ziocainistas are always accusing us Israel-criticisers of being “assimilationist” or even the aposty of being “Christians” or something. It seems to me that, as usual, they are projecting hard!
        This is how it seems to me: Judaism is a tough row to hoe. Being a Jew is no fun. We started out with all the advantages, and then things went downhill as we failed God, failed to keep His commandments, proved ourselves incapable of eschewing adultery and whoring after false Gods. As a result God turned His face from us, withdrew His protection, and we ended up in a hard spot. And there we have been, simply waiting, and hoping, while everybody takes a kick at us. Either that or all those people kicking us are more powerful than God? I don’t think so. So that works out, but where does that leave us? Especially when you compare it to religions which claim to have conquered sin and death, and stand ready to impose God’s kingdom on earth, waiting for the second Coming.
        Judaism has nothing equivalent, nothing so dynamic, nothing so empowering, nothing which aligns one’s soul with God in the call for action. (I happen to like being a Jew, to me it makes a hell of a lot more sense, but that’s just me)
        Anyway, Judaism has nothing like that, except Zionism. Zionism is “muscular Christianity” of Judaism. Not to mention, Zionism is our big play to finally join the white race. Can even Reform Jews overlook an opportunity like that?

        And that’s the best I can do on one cup of coffee

      • Mooser
        May 16, 2010, 10:54 am

        “aposty”

        You know, they got this neat thing called “spell-check”… apostasy (If, of course, that’s the word I want.)

  9. pabelmont
    May 15, 2010, 5:49 pm

    The reform rabbis who love Israel probably love the idea, the flag, the rallying cry, the quasi-patriotism. And ignore the uncomfortable realities.

    My mother (arch anti-religious Jewish background) used to joke that the last time Jesus’s name was mentioned in the Unitarian Church was when the handyman hit his thumb with a hammer. Meaning: a religion can get lost from its nominal principles.

    Why Jews want to be Jews beats me. I don’t. I married a Christian, indeed a Christian Palestinian. A very good pianist, and music is MY religion (or at least my practice). But if you want to “be” a Jew, you gotta believe something or do something about it. But what?

    I guess the Reform Jews feel a need, and maybe even more so their Rabbis feel a need to have a SOMETHING at the CORE and since the mere IDEA of Israel seems not to be enough (as it may have been when NEXT YEAR was less likely to be fulfillable), the MERE IDEA has been substituted for the REALITY (both permitting and requiring that the reality be studiously ignored).

    And, of course, giving up ISRAEL as a belief would also mean giving up HOLOCAUST as a justification. “We are a people because Hitler made us one and Hitler made us require Israel, so we do require Israel, and therefore Israel can do no wrong.”

    Ask the rabbis what they believe Israel (or any other country) is FORBIDDEN to do and then see how it squares up with the reality.

    • Mooser
      May 16, 2010, 11:05 am

      “Why Jews want to be Jews beats me. “

      Bite your tongue! And when the Evil Eye comes looking for you cause you said that, I am gonna point and say “He’s right over there!”

      It’s Sunday , chump, and a couple of the best reasons in the world to be Jewish are staining copies of the New York Times all over America this morning!

      Besides, there’s one thing you can’t escape; Judaism just flat makes sense, it conforms to an observed reality. You pray and you pray, and the answer comes back “Don’t call Me, I’ll call you. ” Compare that to Christianity: “Have your agent call My agent” Who can deal with that?

  10. Elliot
    May 15, 2010, 5:58 pm

    Why Jews want to be Jews beats me. I don’t. I married a Christian, indeed a Christian Palestinian. A very good pianist, and music is MY religion (or at least my practice). But if you want to “be” a Jew, you gotta believe something or do something about it.

    As a Jew, I’d say how Christian of you. First the assumption that it makes sense to remain a Christian being Jewish demands an explanation.
    Secondly, the assumption that the framework of being a Jew is belief. IMHO, that’s very Christian.
    Being Jewish is being part of a culture, one expression of which is religious.
    In previous generation Reform Judaism stood for a commitment to social justice in a religious and community setting. That’s still true for many Reform rabbis and Jews. Except, of course for I/P.
    Reform Judaism is the temple of PEP.

    • Elliot
      May 15, 2010, 6:31 pm

      damn word slipped away from me…should read:
      that it makes sense to remain a Christian, while choosing to be a Jew needs explaining.

      • Mooser
        May 16, 2010, 11:08 am

        “Being Jewish is being part of a culture, one expression of which is religious.”

        Man, I feel sorry for you. Mistaking the fleeting, variable, commercial, and artificial with the real is a serious mistake. And what do you do if you’re poor, and can’t afford culture?

  11. lyn117
    May 15, 2010, 8:28 pm

    From the rabbis:

    Israel’s existential struggle in the face of massive invasions and …

    When was Israel massively invaded? Only maybe the Egyptian incursion in 1948, which was before “the borders” had been established to be invaded. Israel hadn’t declared its borders, it hasn’t yet declared its borders, and most of the fighting in 1948 took place outside the territory designated for a Jewish state by the UN partition plan. That statement kind of eliminates the rabbis idea of themselves participating in speaking truth to anyone.

    Among its many failings, Kairos: Echoes supersessionist language of the Christian past, since rejected by most mainstream Christian denominations, referring to the Torah absent Christian revelation as, in the words of the Christian Scriptures, “a dead letter.”

    Where do they get that? The Kairos document only condemns fundamentalists religion, meaning I think literal interpretations of the bible. Most of the condemnations of fundamentalism in it refer explicitly to Christian fundamentalism.

    Sadly, this document also rejects or ignores more than a half a century of Jewish-Christian rapprochement and takes its place among other Christian documents which, throughout history, have intended to delegitimize the Jewish people’s continuing Covenant with God, particularly by arguing that our Covenant has been superseded by Jesus and Christianity.

    Insists that the document’s explicit supercessionism and inherent anti-Semitism prevent Kairos from providing a legitimate framework for interfaith dialogue and understanding;

    I read this to say that that Christianity itself is anti-Semitic – when they say Christian documents including this one “have intended to delegitimize the Jewish people’s continuing Covenant with God, particularly by arguing that our Covenant has been superseded by Jesus and Christianity.” But isn’t that Christian theology, the idea that the old testament was superseded by the new? The rabbis are insisting Christians ascribe to the religious belief that Jews have a continuing Covenant with God, but why should rabbis be defining Christian beliefs regarding covenants anyway? I have no objection to rabbis having a believing that they have a covenant with God, but I heartily would object to anyone requiring me to believe they have such a covenant. Speaking as an atheist myself.

    Therefore, the Central Conference of American Rabbis:
    … a lot of obfuscations and mythistory …
    Labels as theologically hypocritical and historically dishonest the assertion that the Palestinian people’s historic presence on the land establishes its right of return,14 but that the Jewish people’s historic presence, dating back 3000 years, does not establish that very same right;
    … some feelgood stuff

    The rabbis are saying that all Jews, all over the world, lived in what’s now Israel? Could we maybe sit these rabbis in a room with only Shlomo Sand’s book? Double ditto on my previous comment, that the rabbis have excluded themselves as qualified to speak truth to anyone.

  12. Elliot
    May 15, 2010, 10:24 pm

    Lynn:
    Where do they get that? The Kairos document only condemns fundamentalists religion, meaning I think literal interpretations of the bible. Most of the condemnations of fundamentalism in it refer explicitly to Christian fundamentalism.
    Well said! The CCAR line was a cheap shot.
    Also spot on regarding the “supersessionist” argument (gotta love religious jargon). Furthermore, even if you reject the principle that every rleigion has the right to define itself in its own terms, Rabbinic Judaism itself is “supersessionist”! The Rabbis of the early Christian period substantially re-interpreted the Bible. The Mishnah and Talmud are, in significant ways, radical works. The Reform rabbis take their intellectual dishonesty to the point of absurdity: the invention of Reform Judaism (and subsequent re-inventions) are inherently supersessionist with regard to traditional Jews.
    Ultimately, the Kairos document uses the religious language of the oppressed; the CCAR document opts for the condescensions of the powerful.

  13. Elliot
    May 15, 2010, 10:46 pm

    The CCAR’s critique of the Kairos document is riddled with lies. Here’s one example:

    2. While opposing and negating the applicability of scriptural texts, historical presence, and theological discourse to justify the existence of a Jewish state,[4] does exactly that in making its case for a Palestinian State. [5]

    The offending Kairos section (referenced as footnote #5) reads:

    2.3.1 God sent the patriarchs, the prophets and the apostles to this land so that
    they might carry forth a universal mission to the world. Today we constitute three
    religions in this land, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Our land is God’s land, as is the
    case with all countries in the world. It is holy inasmuch as God is present in it, for God
    alone is holy and sanctifier. It is the duty of those of us who live here, to respect the
    will of God for this land. It is our duty to liberate it from the evil of injustice and war.
    It is God’s land and therefore it must be a land of reconciliation, peace and love. This
    is indeed possible. God has put us here as two peoples, and God gives us the capacity,
    if we have the will, to live together and establish in it justice and peace, making it in
    reality God’s land: “The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it, the world, and those
    who live in it” (Ps. 24:1).

    Compare this beautiful language with CCAR’s 1937 platform on the subject of Palestine:

    We regard it as our historic task to cooperate with all men in the establishment of the kingdom of God, of universal brotherhood, Justice, truth and peace on earth. This is our Messianic goal.

    The old Reform Jews were closer to today’s Palestinian Christians than the current Reform rabbis.

  14. Julian
    May 16, 2010, 7:01 am

    “If you believe in Partition (and I am agnostic), you can’t believe in Jews holding Jerusalem.”

    “Agnostic” in the sense of Israel not existing? That is long over.
    Jews holding Jerusalem is the fairest solution. The Arabs defiled and destroyed Jewish holy sites when they controlled Jerusalem. They proved themselves unable rule Jerusalem.

    • Avi
      May 16, 2010, 8:40 am

      The Arabs defiled and destroyed Jewish holy sites when they controlled Jerusalem.

      Defiled, eh? Is that so? Pray tell which Jewish holy sites did they destroy?

      They proved themselves unable rule Jerusalem

      .

      Unlike the previous centuries when they actually allowed Jews to return to Jerusalem after the crusaders had driven every Jew and Muslim out.

      What exactly do you think your function is in this world, to be a liar and a con? Is that how you make it through life?

      • thankgodimatheist
        May 16, 2010, 9:19 am

        to be a liar and a con?

        For a moment I thought you were using the French word “con” which also could be befitting. Con= Very widely used for moron but originally means c..t.

  15. Julian
    May 16, 2010, 8:31 am

    “In 1920, the San Remo Conference determined that the legal title to the Land of Israel – including Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria belonged to the Jewish people. The San Remo resolutions were incorporated into international law through the mandates issued by the League of Nations and their legal force has never been cancelled or superseded by any subsequent treaty or binding international resolution.”
    link to carolineglick.com
    Jerusalem belongs to Israel. If they decide to partition it and give part of it over to the Arabs like Olmert proposed that’s their decision. It’s unlikely that it will bring peace.

    • Shmuel
      May 16, 2010, 8:35 am

      Concerned with international law now, are we? No picking and choosing allowed. Let’s start with the right of refugees to return to their homes.

      • Chaos4700
        May 16, 2010, 8:50 am

        Julian’s an American neoconservative. The idea of him calling on international law now is like having Mengele press a case in court for medical patents.

    • Chaos4700
      May 16, 2010, 8:48 am

      And who exactly are “the Jewish people?” Should we ask Shlomo Sands? I understand he’s done a comprehensive academic study on the topic.

      • Mooser
        May 16, 2010, 11:30 am

        “And who exactly are “the Jewish people?””

        C’mon, there’s no difficulty answering that question. You simply answer with another question: “What have you done for Israel, lately?”

    • MRW
      May 16, 2010, 9:14 am

      Ooooo. Time for Richard Witty to give Julian his lecture on the UN and international law.

    • thankgodimatheist
      May 16, 2010, 9:29 am

      ““In 1920, the San Remo Conference determined that the legal title to the Land of Israel”

      Isn’t it amazing that some folks sit somewhere in 1920 and decide what belongs to whom in far away lands where the overwhelming majority in those lands live and have been living there for at the very restricted least, for more than a 1300 years? Do those people have a say at all? Are they entitled to anything? Do they have rights to anything that those dudes in San Remo all of a sudden decide to strip them of? What kind of horseshit is this?

      • Chaos4700
        May 16, 2010, 9:37 am

        The kind of horseshit we supposedly left behind after WW2, the Geneva Conventions and the formation of the UN.

      • yonira
        May 16, 2010, 12:51 pm

        not %100 sure, but I think San Remo was before WWII.

      • Shmuel
        May 16, 2010, 9:39 am

        It is amazing, TGIA, but J’s assertion is also false. The San Remo Conference did no such thing, but rather agreed:

        (a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the process-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine

        The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

      • thankgodimatheist
        May 16, 2010, 9:59 am

        “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”

        Sounds more like it now! Thanks Shmuel, I was suspecting as much. Julian is such a shameless liar and a bullshitter. My tfooh of the week.

      • demize
        May 16, 2010, 2:13 pm

        What is “tfooh”? I’ve heard you use that before.

      • thankgodimatheist
        May 16, 2010, 8:37 pm

        “What is “tfooh”?”

        Tfooh, tfeh, tfeeh, tfoh, are all admissable. A transliteration of a sound an Arab would make expressing extreme disgust. A spit without actually spitting.

    • MRW
      May 16, 2010, 9:37 am

      Not to mention that the “Land of Israel” did not exist in 1920.

      The League of Nations was only two years old in 1920, had no army and navy, had no ability to create international law, and Carolyn Glick got all of this from Harold Grief’s book The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law, Jerusalem, Mazo Publishers, 2008, and Grief’s Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel and Palestine under International Law, Shaarei Tikva, Ariel Center for Policy Research, 2003.

      And all of this was dumped into an entire Wikipedia category as if it had the force of truth.

      By comparison, The Geneva Conventions are international law.

    • MRW
      May 16, 2010, 9:45 am

      And if you want to read the actual text of The British Mandate For Palestine San Remo Conference, April 24, 1920, here you go:
      link to mtholyoke.edu

      in which it states;

      and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of 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 non-Jewish communities in Palestine

      • thankgodimatheist
        May 16, 2010, 10:03 am

        Thanks MRW
        Coinincidentally you and Shmuel posted the same rebuttal/text. Thanks to both of you.

      • thankgodimatheist
        May 16, 2010, 10:06 am

        And bonne nuit to all.

    • potsherd
      May 16, 2010, 10:15 am

      So now someone named Caroline Glick is the final arbiter on international law. Good to know.

      • Shmuel
        May 16, 2010, 10:26 am

        Caroline Glick is an American-Israeli neocon who writes for the JPost and likes to flaunt a couple of academic feathers. She also espouses the doctrine so eloquently expressed by our dear departed 3e: international law is just one of many instruments that may be used to further “national interests”.

    • lareineblanche
      May 16, 2010, 10:27 am

      link to carolineglick.com
      Why is it that people think that if it’s written on some website that it’s authoritative or true? In any case all these “experts” that are cited in favor of Israel’s policies seem to have the same taste for gaudiness and pseudo-scholarship. I found myself automatically looking for the links to “Refinance your loans in easy installments” and “Healing crystals” on this one.
      Those defending Israel really have their work cut out for them…

  16. Mooser
    May 16, 2010, 11:20 am

    Shmuel, when you first popped up here (or came to my attention, but really, is there any difference?) I probably sent in some mawkish flattery saying I was happy someone (among many others, of course) with actual experience in the area was commenting.
    I have since changed my mind about you. As far as I can see now, you are essential to this place! (Among many others, of course) Or as they say in Yiddish: e-frickin-sential!
    I know posts from you have appeared on the main page, but I am very glad you still follow and contribute to the comments. The mixture of personal and academic knowledge is very valuable, when combined, of coss, with humane principles. And baby, you’re “all three”!

    • MRW
      May 16, 2010, 11:38 am

      But you’re still our mascot, Moose. Don’t forget that.

    • MRW
      May 16, 2010, 11:39 am

      And in charge of the ‘frickin’ Yiddish.

    • Shmuel
      May 16, 2010, 12:34 pm

      Thanks for the encouragement, Mooser. I’ll have to keep posting now :-)

    • demize
      May 16, 2010, 2:16 pm

      Its the same in Ladino. Who’d a thunk it. But yeah good stuff!

Leave a Reply