Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 10 (since 2012-02-22 18:19:21)

Harvard Law School, JD 1957 Both my late wife and myself. I am a retired lawyer with an interest in the engineering, economics, and law of electric energy and the electric power fuel cell; also, since 9/11 in the history of the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict

Showing comments 10 - 1

  • Dispatch from Gaza: Trump's trip will bring 'less than zero' to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations
  • Trump 'has no business being president' because he would be 'neutral' to Israel -- Clinton tells AIPAC
    • The Jewish People have had the right to settle in Palestine west of the Jordan since 1920 when the Allied Principal War Powers of WWI recognized their ownership. The collective rights to political self-determination in Palestine had been won in a defensive war and the Principal War Powers recognized the appropriateness of their ownership by the Jewish People, implicity rejecting the Arab Claim for them at the Paris Peace Talks. Exercise of the right of self-government was deferred until two conditions were met that would be necessary for the Jewish People to administer a democratic government and to protect its people from foreign aggression.

  • To my fellow Israelis: We can stop this
  • 'This land is ours. All of it is ours': Meet the Netanyahu cabinet members focused on fighting BDS & annexing the West Bank
    • God did give it to us. But the WWI Allies recognized it is ours because of our long association with it -- some 3,700 years. ,
      The Jewish People didn't want immediate statehood in 1920 so they got it placed in trust for them until they were a population majority and ca[able of exercising sovereignty. The British discussed this in a memorandum by Arnold Toynbee and Lewis Namier officially published by the British Foreign Office as an explanation of the Balfour Declaration. The Americans adopted the same view in their proposal of January 21, 1919 at the Paris Peace Talks.
      It is right that Palestine should become a Jewish state, if the Jews, being given the full opportunity, make it such. It was the cradle and home of their vital race, which has made large spiritual contributions to mankind, and is the only land in which they can hope to find a home of their own; they being in this last respect unique among significant peoples.
      At present, however, the Jews form barely a sixth of the total population of 700,000 in Palestine, and whether they are to form a majority, or even a plurality, of the population in the future state remains uncertain. Palestine, in short, is far from being a Jewish country now. England, as mandatory, can be relied on to give the Jews the privileged position they should have without sacrificing the rights of non-Jews.
      The Allies won the land from the Ottoman Empire in a defensive war and the Ottomans ceded it to the Palestine Mandatory in the Treaty of Sevres, confirmed in major part in The treaty of Lausanne. The trust created by the Allies permitted the Jews to settle immediately and provided that the trust res of the collective political rights to self-determination would vest when the Jews attained a population majority and capability to exercise sovereignty. It did so partly in 1948 and partly in 1967 MK Hotovely recently recounted some of this history to a group of students from the Harvard Law School disabusing them of the notion that the Palestinian Arab residents of the West Bank ever had a state..

  • Denial of Palestinian self-determination in the 40s haunts U.S. policy to this day
    • The Mandates for Syria and Mesopotamia were for the purpose of preparing the people of those territories for self-rule. Compare those mandates with the mandate for Palestine. At the time, the Jews were only a 10% minority of the population of all Palestine, although it had been a majority in the Jerusalem area since 1863. The Balfour Declaratiion, adopted word for word in the San Remo Resolution was to permit the Jews to settle in all Palestine, but defer their right to establish a state and administer it until the Jews attained a population majority where they were to rule, and also the capability of exercising sovereignty. This was intended to avoid an anti-democratic government. They did this by placing the collective political rights in trust i.e. the Palestine Mandate. In 1948 those conditions were met within the Armistice line and in 1967 in the remainder of Palestine west of the Jordan. The national home commenced in 1922 was intended to be the prelude of a Jewish state. See: The Jewish People were recognized as owning the right to self-determination because of their historic association with Palestine.

    • Woodrow Wilson's Committee of Inquiry found that it was the Jewish People who should be entitled to self-determination in Palestine. The briefing papers of the American Diplomats at the Paris Peace Talks provided for a plan in which the Jewish People first got the right to settle in Palestine - as a matter of right according to Winston Churchill -- and got the right to establish a government and rule when 1. they had attained a majority in the area in which they would rule, and 2. when they were capable of exercising sovereignty. This was the policy adopted at San Remo in 1920. They qualified for these two factors within the Green Line in 1948 and in all of Palestine west of the Jordan in 1967.

  • 'NYT' sees end of 2SS in Levy report, Munayyer sees Israel's growing int'l isolation
    • There has never been a Palestinian State nor a unique Palestinian People. The Allied Principal War Powers won the subject territories in a defensive war and recognized the Jewish People as deserving of the collective rights to political self-determination in it. Because in 1922 the Jews were only one sixth of the population of the territory of palestine, they created a trust and placed the collective political rights in it. The beneficial interest was to vest when the Jews became a population majority in Palestine west of the Jordan but the Jews could commence settlling immediately on the effectiveness of the Mandate. . Self government was deferred in Palestie until the Jews had met the foregoing conditions.

    • On April 25, 1920 the WWI Allies at San Remo granted to the Jews exclusive political rights to Palestine, but in trust so that the grant of sovereignty would not be antidemocratic. That was because at that time, while the Jews had had a plurality of population in Jerusalem since 1845 and a majority since 1863, in all of Palestine they were only 60,000 out of 600,000. The British policy in the Balfour Declaration was chosen as the guiding principle of the grant. Many had opposed the Balfour policy on the grounds that it would be antidemocratic to place a 10% minority in charge of a country. The British Foreign Office issued a memo agreeing in concept with them, but stating that as to be applied the antidemocratic argument would be imaginary. The mandate had been defined as a trust and guardianship by Article 22 of the League Covenant. And the trust res, the exclusive political rights to Palestine were to be placed in trust, not to vest to the Jews until that had attained a population majority.

      With the knowledge that these political rights had been conveyed to the mandatory power or truste, England, in article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres, the Arabs have been trying to take them away from the Jews for the last 92 years. When the Mafia, in the US, attempts to take property from others by threats of violence and actual violence as the Arabs have over this period, we refer to those acts as acts of extortion.

      The view that the grant at San Remo could form the basis for a one lawful Jewish majority state in Palestine west of the Jordan River was known to me even before the publication of the Levy Report. But its entrance into the marketplace of ideas was beset with difficulty. It was blocked at a Harvard conference in March 3,4, 2012 and from a UCLA conference on May 15th, 2012. The first conference has been described by Professor Alan Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School as an anti-semitic and anti-Zionist Hatefest. The panel was exclusively for Arab intellectuals such as Sara Makdisi and Post Zionism history revisionists such as Illan Pappe. Tlhe May 15th conference at UCLA was also erroneously labed a debate but was a debate between two extreme Arabs, Reza Asland and Hussein Ibish. This story is told at the following URL:

      Professor Berman at Brown University has been critical of the Levy Report. He said that the consensus was that the Levy Report was wrong, and the views in it had been adopted just by a small minority of lawyers representing special interests. His article in the Israel Times is entitled San Remo in Shilo [sic]. You can find my reply in the following URL:

  • Israeli gov't study declares West Bank not occupied, Earth flat
    • It is not "occupied" within the meaning of the 4th Hague Convention nor the 4th Geneva Convention because it is not engaged in a belligerent occupation. In 1967 it was liberated by the Jewish People who have owned it since 1920, first as beneficial owners, and later exercising legal dominion over it. The 4th Geneva Convention only covers territory of "another...". When we retook Washington, DC from the British in 1812, that was a military occupation but the land wasn't occupied by the American forces, They had liberated it. When you occupy land belonging to you, you liberate it.
      It was territory that was liberated. Prior to 1967 it was occupied by the British who had legal dominion over it as trustee under the Palestine Mandate for the Jewish People who were cestui que trust (beneficiaries) and then illegally occupied by the Jordanians who won it in an aggressive war. Not even the states who were members of the Arab League recognized Jordan's sovereignty over the West Bank of Palestine.

  • You won't have Ethan Bronner to kick around anymore . . .
    • "Ethan's deep familiarity with Israel, his unerring sense of fairness, and his nose for what is really new in an exhaustively charted territory distinguished his work. . . "
      What nonsense. This is what he wrote today:

      Commentators on the left and the right stuck to their scripts, with the left asserting that the country’s treatment of the Palestinians. . . . .[has] made it isolated and stagnant

      Bronner has always been a slave to a "poetic truth" The Narrative of Perpetual "Palestinian" Victimhood.
      "Poetic truths like that are marvelous because no facts and no reason can ever penetrate. Supporters of Israel are up against a poetic truth. We keep hitting it with all the facts. We keep hitting it with obvious logic and reason. And we are so obvious and conspicuously right that we assume it is going to have an impact and it never does."
      Shelby Steele,

Showing comments 10 - 1