More On Seth’s “Settler Derangement Syndrome”, and the calumny of “illegal settlements”

Israel is the only country to have its legitimacy confirmed by both the League of Nations, and the UN.

… and by the post-WW1 San Remo conference, which — with Arab acquiescence — awarded everything west of the Jordan to the Jews.

Unfortunately, Seth Freedman is much less of a problem in this respect than the government (past and present incarnations) of the UK which has tirelessly held this line and continues to do so. David Cameron and William Hague are even more vocal in their condemnations of “occupied land” and the settlements than were their Labour predecessors.

It’s arguable that the BBC, which never fails to insert the words “illegally occupied” and “contrary to international law” whenever the settlements and East Jerusalem are mentioned, has more influence worldwide and in forming opinion in the UK and all over the world than the British government, and certainly than Seth Freedman and the Guardian. How many people actually read Seth Freedman’s stuff? And of those, how many are not already of his outlook or rather more radically anti-Israel than he is?

He doesn’t need to get stoned. He just trots out the commonplaces of left liberal thinking.

The Seth’s of the world are the result of the failed left who honestly and truly believed that projecting their own needs and desires on the Arabs would make actually result in a change on their part.

The middle-east is a cruel part of the world, no less so than Africa and unfortunately the trappings of the West in Israel allows the free world to pretend that the Arab world can have the same moral and ethical code, forgetting the clear and present daily proof that might makes right.

The entire neighborhood operates on this principle and it really does guide the decision making process in the Arab world.
Consequently, there is never ever a hint of compromise, in fact the Arabs have managed to convince the West that there is NO Arab leader that can compromise and live.

Israel has to remember the neighborhood she’s in…..might makes right.
The planned TRANSFER of Arabs out of Yesha is what we need to be talking about.

Maximalist positions for maximalist positions.
There is no justification for ANY Israeli compromise if after all these years the Arabs still see us as a chicken bone stuck in their throat..

The only issue about the settlements is why aren’t there more of them!!!

It isn’t savagery, its the way of the Middle East and the Arab world, and if Israel expects to be a part of it and get the respect, she had better act accordingly.

Heaven only knows, we see the results of appeasement.

The Arabs have no reason to compromise, quite the contrary they are being given every reason not to.

Tosca’s recapitulation of the historical facts is compelling and overwhelming but as we all know, the West is convinced that the West Bank was ‘illegally’ occupied by Israel, and that the ‘settlements’ are the main stubling block preventing Israel and the Palestinian Authority from coming to a long-term peace agreement.

Indeed this misguided notion is so compelling that most left-leaning Zionists pay lip-service to it, in one way or another. Might certainly makes right as far as the UN is concerned, so the powerful Arab lobby has managed to win public support in spite of having a lesser legal title to Palestine than the Israelis. Their PR needs to be challenged and fought as much as the recent Gaza flotilla debacle.

Sometimes, it’s not the truth which wins out in the end, but the propaganda. The Jewish State is certainly the underdog as far as PR is concerned and there are many people in the West who would like nothing better than to see Jews become second-class citizens in ‘Palestine’ as elsewhere. It is of course necessary but not enough, for Israel to win the battles on the ground. She must also win the intellectual high ground by convincing public opinion that her cause is just.

I wonder if time is on ‘our’ side or theirs, and if it’s the latter, then I just hope that Israeli strategists have a brilliant plan up their sleeves.

I loathe traitors as much as I loathe the Guardian and child molesters.Then there are the anti-Israeli scum sucking low life posters who try with their dishonest self-righteous pieces of crap trying to portray Israel as an apartheid state.

These people seem to have a God given talent for turning common sense facts and the truth into a pile of lies and BS.

Misleading everyone and themselves,into believing their nonsensical malarkey.

The Mandate 1920
http://is.gd/dxY90

The Mandate 1923
http://is.gd/dxYbq

Pretzel
It sounds as if you don’t know what the San Remo Conference was and what its decisions were, when you make an astoundingly unrelated comment like the one at 7:47

@ Gerald Kreeve

I know full well what the San Remo Conference was about, ta very much. There is no way that the entire territory included in the British Mandate was “intended for Jews”.

smtx01

“For goodness sake man do you know how hatefilled you sound? and with nine recomendation too..Unbelievable!!

Hard comprimises must be made by both Israeli and Palestinian, there ARE moderates and pragmatists on both sides,Fayyad is One for a start.”

I can give you a long list of compromises that Israel has ALREADY made.
YOU provide the list of Arab compromises please.

It appears that peter1′s idea of “compromise” is Israel not incorporating present-day Jordan.

The reams of misinformation droned on by arabist apologists have spawned certain “truths” that are anything but.

The moderate Arab view- what is it? who holds it?

occupied palestine- what is it? any part of the totality that was the mandate that Israel possesses. Up to 1967 west of the green line was the demand, post 1967 east of the green line is the demand.

Israeli compromise- doesn’t exist, Israel has and continues to expand over the downtrodden palestinians…despite the giving away already of 97% of land captured….despite offering unilaterally to give away 97% of Judea and Samaria.

pre-67 borders aren’t negotiable- despite the fact that the Arabs INSISTED that the green line does not represent Final Borders.

The 2 state solution is the only road to Peace- There was no peace before there was even a consideration of “2 States”.

The settlers are the problem- if only there weren’t any settlers, there would be peace in the middle east.

What tosh….there was war before there was such a thing as a “settler”.
The PLO was conducting terrorist attacks before there was such a thing as a “settler”.

My previous comment:-
‘According to Tosca ‘The “Mandate for Palestine” document, ratified unanimously by all 51 members of the League of Nations in 1922, designated all land west of the Jordan river, Gaza, the Golan (23% of historic Palestine) to the future Jewish state, and called for “its close settlement by Jews” there.’

A google search yields the following:-
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp
There appear to be discrepencies.

Have you another reference to substantiate your claim?
(I only ask to gain understanding.)’

My further reading:-

If you go to the URL
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp
there is no reference to ‘its close settlement by Jews’.

So that was not quite right as I have now found the reference in Art.6 but…

Here is the preamble

‘The Council of the League of Nations:
‘Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
‘Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor 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, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
‘Whereas 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; and
‘Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
‘Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
‘Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
‘Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;’

On closer reading of the Mandate:-

‘ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.’

However:-

‘ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.’

No mention there of a distinct Jewish state nor of the precise territorial boundaries of Palestine.

Some comments above attempt to conflate Palestine and Tranjordan.

Here is the Wikipedia entry:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transjordan
‘The British administration in Jerusalem only ever covered the area west of the Jordan, while the area east of the Jordan was administered by the British representative in Ma’an, Captain Alex Kirkbride[7] until the arrival in November 1920 of Abdullah. The Mandate for Palestine, while specifying actions in support of Jewish immigration and political status, stated that in the territory to the east of the Jordan River, Britain could ‘postpone or withhold’ those articles of the Mandate concerning a Jewish National Home.[8]
In August 1922, the British government presented a memorandum to the League of Nations stating that Transjordan would be excluded from all the provisions dealing with Jewish settlement, and this memorandum was approved by the League on 12 August. From that point onwards, Britain administered the part west of the Jordan as Palestine, and the part east of the Jordan as Transjordan.[2] Technically they remained one mandate, but most official documents referred to them as if they were two separate mandates. In May 1923 Transjordan was granted a degree of independence with Abdullah as ruler and Harry St. John Philby as chief representative.[9]
Transjordan remained under British control until the first Anglo-Jordanian treaty was concluded in 1928. Transjordan became nominally independent, although the British still maintained a military presence and control of foreign affairs and retained some financial control over the kingdom. This failed to respond to Jordanian demands for a fully sovereign and independent state, a failure that led to widespread disaffection with the treaty among Jordanians, prompting them to seek a national conference (25 July 1928), the first of its kind, to examine the articles of the treaty and adopt a plan of political action.[4]
The borders and territory of Transjordan were not determined until after the Mandate came into effect. The borders in the east of the country were designed so as to aid the British in building an oil pipeline from their Mandate of Iraq through Transjordan to seaports in the Palestine Mandate.’

If our readers have better historical sources please provide them.
We can then proceed to examine debate the facts of the subsequent period.

‘The truth is out there’ aka 42

Richard Tebboth.
“No mention of a distinct Jewish State”.

‘Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

“National home for the Jewish people”

Now it was apparent this meant distinct Jewish State as every time the British gov’t came up with some type of partition plan as they kept carving Palestine up, they were showing an envisioned Jewish entity.

No distraction Richard – context, context, context.