What did Bush mean? by YISRAEL MEDAD

The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition ^ | 17 Tamuz 5762, Thursday Jun. 27, 2002 (02:35) | YISRAEL MEDAD

[Phil V.]

What did Bush mean? by YISRAEL MEDAD

---

Jun. 27, 2002

---

In his speech on Monday, US President George W. Bush made one direct reference to the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and another oblique one.

In one passage of his address, he stated that "Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop." This is a bit unclear. Did he mean a "provisional" stop, such as in a provisional Palestinian state a la Secretary of State Colin Powell?

Is this a halt that is to be temporary, or part of the final resolution of the conflict?

Are the communities to be allowed, at a future date, to begin natural development once again, or must they remain fixed at the current situation?
In another passage, he touched on the core issues that divide Israel and the Palestinians and insisted that if there is to be real peace, these issues must be resolved. In this context, he said that "the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended...with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognized borders."

Again, this is unclear. Must the Jewish civilian presence in these areas be banned and the communities dismantled? Would the president be amenable to Jews living in Samaria as they do in Ohio?

And if he does accept the immoral and unjust Palestinian stance that their territory must be emptied of Jews, would he accept a more permanent resolution of the conflict that would permit Israel to move its Arab population into the new Palestine?

Obviously, the question of the legality of the Jewish residential communities in areas beyond Israel's former "Green Line" border is one that simply will not go away. Arabs are insistent that international law prohibits the existence of Jewish communities in the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

In truth, international law supports those villages, agricultural communities and municipalities.

WHAT BUSH may not be aware of is that the text of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 had been approved by a previous United States president, Woodrow Wilson, prior to its publication. Indeed, the Inquiry Commission established by Wilson affirmed that "Palestine should become a Jewish State" and that "Palestine...was the cradle and home of their vital race," a succinct statement of the essence of the principle of self-determination, a principle the Arabs have absconded with as if applicable only to their cause.

That declaration, issued by the British government and later to serve as the basis for the League of Nations Mandate approved in 1922, refers on one hand to "a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine" while on the other, it refers to "non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

The distinction is neither coincidental nor unintentional. National and historical rights are recognized clearly in the context of the Jewish people only. The assumption that the land in question, "belonged" to an Arab people (there were no Palestinians to speak of at the time), was, and is, textually unsupported. What was included in the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate were the "civil and religious rights" of non-specified "non-Jewish communities." Again, no "Arabs."

Furthermore, the Mandate acknowledges that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." In Article 6, the administration apparatus of the Mandate the temporary form of government was charged with facilitating and encouraging "close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and wastelands not required for public purposes." Well, it seems that international recognition of "settlements" and settlement activity is over 80 years old.

Bush should also be apprised that the US House of Representatives and the Senate adopted resolutions supporting the Mandate, on June 30, 1922, and May 3, 1922, respectively. Indeed, president Warren G. Harding signed a proclamation on September 21, 1922, which stated that "the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People...and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected." These Congressional resolutions and League of Nations decisions reflect what the international community knew then, and needs to be reminded of again today, that group national rights in these territories were intended to belong to the Jewish people. This surely does not negate responsibility for the protection of property and civil rights of individual non-Jews. But there is a difference between the two rights.

This difference is crucial and it is my assumption that Bush's references in his remarks on the question of a continued Jewish presence throughout our historic homeland were based on misinformation that was provided to his speechwriters. What he asks of Israel, if applied to residency in the United States, would probably be struck down by the Supreme Court as an illegal policy.

The president should review the facts. He must know that no "law" can ban a Jew from living in those places where his religion and cultural/national identity were shaped for thousands of years. Such a ban would not serve the region's stability, nor would it advance the cause of genuine peace.

The writer lives in Shiloh in Samaria and is a spokesperson for the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip.

---

[Phil V.]

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, 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."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

[vance]

Since the Palestinians are incapable of doing what the President asks, to give up terrorism, all other points are moot. How can there be democracy among the Palestinians? There are no democratic Muslim countries. Bush is just throwing bones to the Arabs, and setting conditions that won't be met. Anyone with a brain can see that.

[Phil V.]

Lord Balfour might have just as plausibly declared:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in The World the World Holiday of Christmas, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that Santa will side down each and every chimney, distribute appropriate goodies, making no mess and that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Christian communities anywhere in the World, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Christians in any country of the world."

[liberalism=failure]

So let me see, if I didn't want any Jews living in my neighborhood I would (rightly) be called a bigot.

BUT if I were Palestinian and didn't want any Jews living in my neighborhood, it would be just fine.

sounds like a double standard to me

[John Locke]

And what if those Jews were illegally squatting in your dining room? What if they not only claimed the right to be there, but also told you their "natural expansion" would continue into your living room, kitchen, and bedroom, and eventually they would throw you out of your home completely?

That's what is happening to the Palestinians. The selttlements are illegal, and there will be no peace until they are removed.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

Since the Palestinians are incapable of doing what the President asks, to give up terrorism, all other points are moot. How can there be democracy among the Palestinians? There are no democratic Muslim countries. Bush is just throwing bones to the Arabs, and setting conditions that won't be met. Anyone with a brain can see that.

You are correct.........however.......Bush implied, very subtly, that if the Palestinians and other tinhorn dictatorships in the Middle East didn't reform themselves, then the civilized world, led by America, will impose democracy on them just as was done to Japan and Germany after 1945.

Afghanistan was the first domino to fall. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia will follow in rapid succession. Freedom is an irresistable force that even the communist Soviet Union could not withstand.

Compared to the Soviet Union, Islamist arabs are unorganized as a dominant force and may be picked off one by one.

The only limiting factor is the DESIRE and the WILL of the American people to bring about the required changes.

After Sept. 11, that question is moot!!!

[monkeyshine]

In what way are the settlements illegal? Because some people at the UN says so? Nonsense.

Jews moved there perfectly legally (and many were there for centuries) before the war in 1948. After the war, they were kicked out. In 1967, they recaptured the land and have reasserted their right to live there.

It is not Palestinian land until the Palestinians declare their independence. They have refused to accept every offer made to them going back to the 1930's, and refuse to do so today.

[maro]

What's your point? The Jews have been kicked out of any number of Arab countries. Where were you then? Why does the world continue to begrudge them that little sliver of desert, which doesn't even have any oil under it. Yeah, sure, civil rights for the Palestinians, and all that, but as long as they are blowing up little girls (theirs and those of the Jews), screw them. If you seek justice, you must first do justice.

[libertylover]

Does anyone know if a person living in an Israeli settlement is subject to Israeli law or PA law?

Before the Israelis allowed settlement, maybe they should have annexed the land won in the wars.

[eclectic]

You can say that again. Only there is no need to throw bones, it should be BOMBS

[weikel]

Palestinians=Anti American muslim arab terrorist. Yes it is that simple. Siding with them convinces the Arabs terrorism works. It is that simple.

[FITZ]

That's what is happening to the Palestinians. The selttlements are illegal, and there will be no peace until they are removed.

So what's going on in India? The Hindus have already allowed their country to be divided up into India, Pakistan, and Bangledesh and the Muslims still cause problems to them. There will be no peace until the Israelis are allowed to do what they have to do. Peace through strength.

[FITZ]

Anyhow there were Jews in the Middle East long before Muslims ever existed. It's not "Arabs" against the Jews because Christian Arabs aren't attacking Israelis, it's all about Islam.

[goldstategop]

The U.S government and people supported the objectives of the Zionist movement out of sympathy with Jewish aspirations and in support of the Wilsonian ideal of self determination for peoples who then did not have a sovereign existence. What is all the more ironic today is the Palestinians seek self determination, not to secure the blessings of it for themselves and their people but to destroy it for the Jews. It is this background that should be kept in mind and nothing in the Bible, in international law, or in the precepts of natural justice forbid Jews from living where they wish, certainly not in the cradle of their birth as a nation. I reject any provision of the President's plan incompatible with the above principles and with the League Of Nations Mandate affirmed by the U.S, which is still in force.

[Phil V.]

What is all the more ironic today is the Palestinians seek self determination, . . .

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine . . .

What is all the more ironic today is that we are being told that the indigenous population(Muslims, Christians, Jews) of the region known to Lord Balfour as "Palestine" ought not be referred to as Palestinians simply because it was a region as opposed to a nation. It is not uncommon to hear the term "the Nation of Islam". Do we hear of the "Nation of Judaism"?

FROM a Jerusalem Post article . . .

Judaism, however, has never seen itself as a religion in the Christian sense. Indeed, you will not even find the term "religion" in the Bible. What you will find are endless references to Am or Bnei Yisrael (the nation or children of Israel) - because this is how Judaism has always seen itself: as a nation, not a religion.

[liberalism=failure]

...there will be no peace until they are removed.

That's right. There will be no peace until they (the evil, murderous, hatemongering, Palestinians) are removed.

[liberalism=failure]

What is all the more ironic today is the Palestinians seek self determination, not to secure the blessings of it for themselves and their people but to destroy it for the Jews.

exactly

[monkeyshine]

The "ingidenous" population, as you call it, is and was quite small. The vast majority of the Arabs, Christians and Jews living there descended from immigrants to the land after 1850.

Of course, the Jews were also descended from people who immigrated there some 3000 years ago, but were then kicked out, only to return again after 1850. That's the difference.

[vance]

You have taken the material from the Jerusalem Post out of context.

Why do you have such contempt for Judaism???

From the Webster's Dictionary

Main Entry: Ju·da·ism Pronunciation: 'jü-d&-"i-z&m, 'jü-dE-, 'jü-(")dA-, British also 'jü-"di-z&m Function: noun Date: 14th century 1 : a religion developed among the ancient Hebrews and characterized by belief in one transcendent God who has revealed himself to Abraham, Moses, and the Hebrew prophets and by a religious life in accordance with Scriptures and rabbinic traditions 2 : conformity to Jewish rites, ceremonies, and practices 3 : the cultural, social, and religious beliefs and practices of the Jews 4 : the whole body of Jews : the Jewish people

[Alouette]

And what if those Jews were illegally squatting in your dining room? What if they not only claimed the right to be there, but also told you their "natural expansion" would continue into your living room, kitchen, and bedroom, and eventually they would throw you out of your home completely?

There are 200,000 Jews living in the West Bank. There are about 3 million Palestinians. The Jews built settlements on empty land, not where people were already living. They did not move into anyone's existing home, except in "Avraham Avinu" neighborhood Hebron, where they moved into homes THAT WERE OWNED BY JEWS, built on LAND THAT WAS OWNED BY JEWS.

There are 1.2 million Arabs living in Israel as Israeli citizens with full civil rights. Why can't 200,000 Jews live in Palestine as Palestinian citizens with full civil rights?