RNC resolution calls for one state (on God-given lands)

US Politics
on 39 Comments
Costa
Costa

Looks like the election this year will be between two-state Dems and one-state Republicans. Fascinating. Mitchell Plitnick reports (thanks to Paul Mutter):

Last week in New Orleans, the Republican National Committee officially adopted a resolution supporting a one-state solution in Israel-Palestine.

This news came to me via a very trusted source, but both I and my source were puzzled by the fact that we could find nothing in the media confirming this. I called the RNC, but they would neither confirm nor deny.

So, I contacted Cindy Costa, the RNC’s National Committeewoman from South Carolina who was listed as the sponsor of the resolution. Here’s our e-mail exchange:

Me: Dear Ms. Costa,
I am a correspondent for several web-based news outlets, including Inter Press Service. I received the resolution below today, and would like to write an article about it. I just wanted to check with you that this was in fact an officially adopted RNC resolution. Can you please let me know? Thanks.

Costa: Yes it was adopted unanimously by the RNC last Friday at our winter meeting in New Orleans.  Cindy

So, that seems pretty clear. I reprint the entire text of the resolution below (and I sent it fully to Ms. Costa so she could confirm the full text), but the key passage is this one:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the members of this body support Israel in their natural and God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon their own lands, recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others; and that peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people.

I don’t see how anyone could read that as anything but a statement in support of a one-state solution.

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

39 Responses

  1. mudder
    January 19, 2012, 12:36 pm

    The key passage was copied word-for-word from the Alan Clemmons resolution.

  2. Shmuel
    January 19, 2012, 12:36 pm

    The precise wording used in the South Carolina state legislature resolution you picked up on here: link to mondoweiss.net

    They said they were going to pass it on, and they did.

  3. MarkF
    January 19, 2012, 12:40 pm

    “I don’t see how anyone could read that as anything but a statement in support of a one-state solution.”

    I can. These folks don’t have, what is it they said Speedy Gonzalez had? Oh yeah, ze brains…

    Remember, they came out with a statement that the Republicans were “friends of the negro”, then sent out a correction because they mistakenly didn’t capitalize the word Negro.

    I can’t wait for the “clarification”……

  4. dbroncos
    January 19, 2012, 12:40 pm

    “…peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people.”

    Great idea! Top that DNC.

  5. mudder
    January 19, 2012, 12:44 pm

    Alan Clemmons tweets

    My SC Stands With #Israel Resolution has been adopted as an #RNC Resolution! @ActForIsrael @ZOA_Campus #tcot #gop link to lockerz.com

  6. William Burns
    January 19, 2012, 12:46 pm

    The “one law” clause would also require the abolition of religiously-based personal status law, quite a radical move in the context of Israel.

    • Hostage
      January 19, 2012, 9:01 pm

      The “one law” clause would also require the abolition of religiously-based personal status law, quite a radical move in the context of Israel.

      But the religiously based personal status law isn’t a system of separate laws or the result of a conflict of Israeli and Palestinian laws.

      • William Burns
        January 29, 2012, 3:32 pm

        Halakha for the Jews, Sharia for the Muslims, sounds like separate laws to me.

      • Hostage
        January 29, 2012, 4:15 pm

        Nope, the same Palestine Order in Council 1922 allowed the civil courts to consult with “competent jurists” of the religious courts regarding an individual’s personal status. A minority rights agreement in the UN partition plan, the 1948 Transition Law, and subsequent Knesset bills have retained that system and added new ecclesiastical courts and nationalities for foreigners, i.e. civil courts exercise jurisdiction in such cases according to “the law of his nationality”. But it is still derived from one law:

        Palestine Order in Council
        Jurisdiction in personal status.
        47. The Civil Courts shall further have jurisdiction, subject to the provisions contained in this Part of this Order, in matters of personal status as defined in Article 51 of persons in Palestine. Such jurisdiction shall be exercised in conformity with any law, Ordinances or regulations that may here after be applied or enacted and subject thereto according to the personal law applicable.

        Religious Courts.
        Jurisdiction of Religious Courts.
        Definition of Personal Status.
        51. Subject to the provisions of Articles 64 to 67 inclusive Jurisdiction In Matters Of Personal Status Shall Be Exercised In Accordance With The Provisions Of This Part By The Courts Of The Religious Communities Established And Exercising Jurisdiction At The Date Of This Order. For The Purpose Of These Provisions Matters Of Personal Status Mean Suits Regarding Marriage Or Divorce, Alimony, Maintenance, Guardianship, Legitimation And Adoption Of Minors, Inhibition From Dealing With Property Of Persons Who Are Legally Incompetent, Successions, Wills And Legacies, And The Administration Of The Property Of Absent Persons.
        Where in any civil or criminal cause brought before the Civil Court a question of personal status incidentally arises, the determination of which is necessary for the purposes of the cause, the Civil Court may determine the question, and may to that end take the opinion, by such means as may seem most convenient, of a competent jurist having knowledge of the personal law applicable.
        link to unispal.un.org

      • William Burns
        January 29, 2012, 4:33 pm

        Right, separate systems of personal status law based on religious communities, not “one law for all people.”

      • Hostage
        January 29, 2012, 5:42 pm

        Right, separate systems of personal status law based on religious communities, not “one law for all people.”

        Nope one law which says the civil courts may consult the religious courts. The Supreme Court has overruled them on conversions done by reform and conservative movements overseas, & etc. So the civil courts have clashed with the religious courts from time to time.

      • William Burns
        January 29, 2012, 8:24 pm

        “inclusive Jurisdiction In Matters Of Personal Status Shall Be Exercised In Accordance With The Provisions Of This Part By The Courts Of The Religious Communities Established And Exercising Jurisdiction At The Date Of This Order. ”
        Inclusive Jurisdiction shall be Exercised, not “advice shall be given on request”

      • Hostage
        January 30, 2012, 3:54 am

        Inclusive Jurisdiction shall be Exercised, not “advice shall be given on request”

        Yes but you trimmed off the parts which say that it is the civil courts that have the final say and jurisdiction in personal status. Immediately following the extract that you cited it actually does say they may (not shall) take the opinion of the religious courts into consideration:

        Where in any civil or criminal cause brought before the Civil Court a question of personal status incidentally arises, the determination of which is necessary for the purposes of the cause, the Civil Court may determine the question, and may to that end take the opinion, by such means as may seem most convenient, of a competent jurist having knowledge of the personal law applicable.

      • William Burns
        January 30, 2012, 8:13 am

        “Personal status INCIDENTALLY arises,” in other words a case about non-personal status issues to which personal status is relevant.

        Neither one of us is changing the other person’s mind, so I’m willing to give you the last word if you want it.

      • Hostage
        January 30, 2012, 12:41 pm

        “Personal status INCIDENTALLY arises,” in other words a case about non-personal status issues to which personal status is relevant.

        You still haven’t shown that article 47 and 57 are not one law. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but it also permits state law to govern personal status within certain constitutional bounds. It specifically mentions the States (Article 4), state courts (Article 6, Clause 2); state legislatures (Article 5); and Powers of the States and People (10th Amendment). The Supreme Court (Article 3) has decided that Congress and the President lack power under Articles 1 & 2 to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity in federal court unless the states have expressly waived immunity in connection with one or more of the delegations of power contained in the Constitution itself. See for example:
        Alden v Maine
        link to law.cornell.edu
        Medellín v. Texas
        link to supreme.justia.com

        In theory, so long as a Jewish or Islamic religious arbitration panel conforms to the particular state requirements for alternate dispute-resolution methods, the parties to a contract could agree to be bound by its decisions. Those agreements and decisions may even be enforced by the secular courts of a state if a dispute subsequently arises, e.g.
        link to forward.com
        link to jlaw.com
        link to thefreelibrary.com…-a0119614362

  7. American
    January 19, 2012, 12:54 pm

    “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the members of this body support Israel in their natural and God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon their own lands, recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others; and that peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people.”

    When I read this I see it saying that the Palestine land “is’ Israel’s , that they have a God given right to encompass ALL of it. The Greater Israel meme.

    The other weirdness is, as usual, that a US political party thinks the foreign country of Israel belongs in their platform.
    It would be weird, but less so, if they were calling for succession of states from the union.

    • piotr
      January 21, 2012, 11:39 am

      I tried to find online Republican source, and I only got a newsletter to Illinois Republicans which mentioned several resolutions of the winter meeting in New Orleans, including >>Substantive policy issues were also discussed at our winter meeting. Two were particularly important: “Resolution Exposing United Nation Agenda 21” and “Resolution Supporting Taiwan’ Freedom and America’s Moral Leadership”. I co-sponsored both resolutions which the RNC passed unanimously.<< as wrote Demetra Demonte, an Illinois member of RNC. (Non-substative policy issues were penalizing Florida delegation for moving primaries.)

      Republicans clearly do not care about those resolutions. RNC website is extremely skimpy on issues and includes NOTHING on foreign policy. Something is implicit in "Issues/National Defence" but applying Aristotelian logic to it will not illuminate (Aristoteles was a heathen anyway). I mean, we won the cold war because of the vision and leadership of Ronald Reagan so now we have to do something like "maintaining robust defense against threats arising from nuclear proliferation". So it sounds rather sanguine about possible Iranian nukes: we will just maintain robust defense. Then there is something convoluted about alliances which may or may not pertain to Israel, and they show text as image so I cannot cut and paste that drivel (good for you, I guess, fellow commenters).

  8. eljay
    January 19, 2012, 1:04 pm

    >> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the members of this body support Israel in their natural and God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon their own lands, recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others …

    Is this what “enough Israel” looks like?

  9. mudder
    January 19, 2012, 1:07 pm

    The CNN Belief Blog has a profile of Costa and her upbringing, religious beliefs, influence, and support for Romney.

  10. mudder
    January 19, 2012, 1:49 pm

    Cindy Costa and Alan Clemmons together in Israel, where they met MKs and Netanyahu.

  11. David Samel
    January 19, 2012, 1:53 pm

    It seems to me that the two-staters in Congress, and in Israel for that matter, understand the necessity for the two-state fig leaf, the promise of a future Palestinian State where they will one day enjoy self-government. Of course, that promise will be delayed indefinitely, but the illusion of its future creation provides a (false) rationale for consideration of Israel as a democracy: Israel’s rule over four million stateless Palestinians is only “temporary,” that is, 45 years old but to be ended some decade in the future.

    Apparently, proponents of these resolutions declaring or at least implying Israel’s right to sovereignty over the entire river-to-sea area do not understand the consequences of their position. If Israel, as a Jewish State, is to assert permanent rule over the area, either the Palestinians will have to be forcibly dispossessed or permanently disenfrachised. Needless to say, they cannot directly promote either of these positions. Where are they going with this? Do Bibi & Co. approve of such talk, or do they think it may lead to “dangerous” demands for full equality of citizenship for the ethnically-challenged?

    • seafoid
      January 19, 2012, 5:38 pm

      Israel has abadoned even the fig leaf of 2 states. The political reality in Israel is that the country

      a can’t afford to give up the occupation
      b has a population 80% of whom have life experience of nothing other than Greater Israel
      c has dreadful demographic trends between settlers and Haredim, the 2 most important politically and most freeloading economically and they aren’t going to give up YESHA and their privileges without massive doses of violence

  12. FreddyV
    January 19, 2012, 2:05 pm

    This is a total crap.

    Christian Zionists are waking up to the idea that support for what Israel does don’t sit well with their Bibles, so they’re trying to make their obscurantism valid.

  13. DICKERSON3870
    January 19, 2012, 2:25 pm

    RE: “Looks like the election this year will be between two-state Dems and one-state Republicans.” ~ Weiss

    FROM ELLIOTT ABRAMS, 04/08/09:

    (excerpt)…Is current and recent settlement construction creating insurmountable barriers to peace? A simple test shows that it is not. Ten years ago, in the Camp David talks, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat approximately 94 percent of the West Bank, with a land swap to make up half of the 6 percent Israel would keep. According to news reports, just three months ago, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered 93 percent, with a one-to-one land swap. In the end, under the January 2009 offer, Palestinians would have received an area equal to 98 to 98.5 percent of the West Bank (depending on which press report you read), while 10 years ago they were offered 97 percent. Ten years of settlement activity would have resulted in a larger area for the Palestinian state. . .

    SOURCE – link to washingtonpost.com

    P.S. Ergo, the ‘Abrams Principle’ stands for the proposition that more Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank will ultimately result in a larger area for the Palestinian state. That’s why I say, “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” with the settlement actvity; so as to result in the largest Palestinian state possible (from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River)! “Let Right Be Done.”

    • Woody Tanaka
      January 19, 2012, 3:17 pm

      The only problem is that Abrams (and those who Zionists and Zio-symps who push this argument) assumes that the key issue is how much land the Israelis are going to be permitted to steal. It’s not.

  14. Dan Crowther
    January 19, 2012, 2:52 pm

    It’s funny, well not “funny” — but I remember watching an interview with Baruch Marzel in which he says, “the leftists are the racists, they’re the ones who want two states, we are for one!” — of course, the “state” he means is really a kingdom, and I can’t imagine non-jews would have very many rights etc. but again, here is the right wing sort of “out-lefting” the left….

  15. Bumblebye
    January 19, 2012, 4:36 pm

    “governed under one law for all people.”
    Israel won’t like that resolution at all unless that’s removed!
    It’s the key quote for those who are 1ss.

  16. Charon
    January 19, 2012, 4:39 pm

    I’m beginning to realize that several of Israel’s largest American supporters (I’m referring to the Christians mainly) probably know next to nothing about Israel/Palestine, the occupation, or what the ‘peace process’ intended to accomplish. They probably don’t really realize what a two state solution is either. They never bothered to look into it, to them it is just words. Like the folks going around citing fear over “Sharia Law” without even knowing what it means.

    How many non-Jewish Israel supporters (and maybe even some of the Jewish Israel supporters) would be okay with this outcome: Palestinians peacefully denounce authority over disputed territory, ending the occupation, and allowing Israeli sovereignty over Palestinian lands as long as they are allowed to become Israeli citizens themselves. The one-state solution, just worded differently.

    I have a feeling a lot of these fundies would be okay with it so long as it’s called Israel. (which with equal rights in a democracy wouldn’t necessarily stay Israel due to Palestinian majority). I know for a fact that some people think that Palestinians are Israelis and the conflict is regarding control over the land. If only that were the case.

    • FreddyV
      January 19, 2012, 7:33 pm

      @Charon:

      ‘I have a feeling a lot of these fundies would be okay with it so long as it’s called Israel.’

      The fact is, these fundies are either blissfully ignorant and just listen to whatever their pastors spout off, or they’re very aware that their interpretation of the Bible demands that as many live in Israel as possible during the ‘end times’ (for some reason, we’re always living in the ‘end times’ according to them) When the end times come, 2/3rds of those living in the ‘land’ will be slaughtered in order for Jesus to return. This is why so many Christian organisations assist with Jews making Aliyah.

      This interpretation comes from Zechariah 13:8

      8 In the whole land,” declares the LORD,
      “two-thirds will be struck down and perish;
      yet one-third will be left in it.

      This is a real world expectation for these people and this belief has an estimated 50 million US adherents (AIPAC and the Israel Lobby are the money, but where do the votes come from? I think this is one area that Mondo really misses a trick) whether they understand the full ambition for their Biblical interpretation or not.

      It is anti Antisemitism in it’s purest form.

      So in answer to your question. No. fundies don’t give a crap about Israel and I suppose it would sit nicely with them for one State called Israel in which the 2/3rds are heathen Arabs. I’m sure they can bend their theology to suit quite nicely.

  17. seafoid
    January 19, 2012, 5:34 pm

    The Republicans are all over the place

    Perry on infidelity

    link to youtube.com

    and on redemption, FFS
    link to youtube.com

    And what is with all the Texas BS? His English is quite poor as well.
    God works in mysterious ways.

  18. Koshiro
    January 19, 2012, 6:01 pm

    Is it possible that this is the result of stupidity rather than design? That, like our man Santorum, they do not actually realize that there is a difference in status between the WB and Israel proper? That they actually think that all who live between the river and the sea are Israelis?

  19. split
    January 19, 2012, 6:09 pm

    She went on an ass-kissing trip to Israel got her marching orders and working hard to subdue this country to foreign interest – They make me sick ,…

    “Cindy Costa, Republican National Committee Woman for S.C. and a founding member of the National Republican Conservative Caucus, is working with caucus members to encourage similar resolutions across the nation”

    I wonder who’s paying for this trip ,…

    “An expanded visit to Israel during the next six months is planned for additional S.C. representatives, their wives and staff members”

    http://www.journalscene.com/news/Local-woman-key-to-S-C–leaders-meeting-with-Israeli-officials

    • mudder
      January 19, 2012, 9:09 pm

      SC State Rep Garry Smith, who accompanied Clemmons and Costa on the trip, says there are eight similar resolutions across the nation.

      I wonder when lobby will wake up on its warship and see that a few cannons are loose.

  20. RoHa
    January 19, 2012, 7:56 pm

    “God-given”?

    These people are nuts.

  21. Richard Witty
    January 20, 2012, 8:15 am

    I think the text is intentionally vague on the one-state reference, and does not clearly indicate that.

    But, a number of republican presidential candidates individually have spoken in that light, and all have spoken about less accountability towards Israel from the US (including Ron Paul, but in very different ways).

    They do effectively sanction Israeli expansion, and do not seem to realize the implications for Israel. They imagine that Israel will benefit by that absence of accountability, and Netanyahu actively encourages it, grossly and directly interfering in another country’s election.

    • Chaos4700
      January 20, 2012, 9:03 am

      How is that different from the Democratic position? Obama’s administration subsidizes both the settlement enterprise, and the use of force against civilians.

      • Hostage
        January 20, 2012, 10:49 am

        The weasel wording employed doesn’t necessarily imply anything more than an endorsement of God and the status quo in the territory that the State of Israel lawfully governs under the terms of the 1949 armistice agreements. Of course, it’s intended to be deliberately ambiguous and provocative – just like many of the other sophomoric things you’ll find in our political party platforms in the USA.

        In practice there’s no daylight between the Republicans and Democrats. The career members of the bureaucracy in the Executive branch inject an element of sanity, whenever they can. They protect the Presidential powers and try to keep the US out of hot water with the international community of States. You can get a sense of just how far Obama is willing to be pushed around from the oral arguments of the Solicitor General in the MBZ v. Clinton case link to supremecourt.gov

  22. mudder
    January 20, 2012, 2:14 pm

    According to Buzzfeed, the Republican party is distancing itself from the RNC resolution:

    Republican National Committee spokesman Sean Spicer said the resolution — passed, among other eclectic measures at its Winter Meeting last week in New Orleans — does not bind the party or represent its position.

    “The only thing that matters is what’s in our platform,” he said, referring to the quadrennial document shaped at Republican National Conventions in presidential years, and negotiated with some care.

    “The platform of the Republican party is the defining document. It lays out clearly where the party stands on key issues,” Spicer said.

    The 2008 GOP platform supports a two-state solution.

Leave a Reply