Paul

Of course the law is not perfect and does not always succeed in correcting perceived injustices.

That is why the law is frequently abolished or changed.

Judges often get it very wrong. That is why there are Appeal Courts.

So what are you suggesting should replace the rule of law and respect for the rule of law?

No use carping if you cannot come up with a more attractive substitute.

Paul:

You state:
“If the State of Palestine is illegal and is put aside Egypt and Jordan still have no role in negotiations by virtue of them having signed peace agreements with Israel and renouncing claims to Gaza, Judea and Samaria”

This is incorrect.

Article 3(2) of the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty states:
“The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.”

You further state:
“Lastly and crucially, the point I have made before and you keep ignoring. Jordan does not want any more Palestinian Arabs.”

Please point out where I have ever ignored this comment.

There are lots of things Israel did not want during the aborted Oslo and Roadmap negotiations but were forced by American pressure to accept.

What is good for Israel must equally apply to Jordan. America needs to pressure Jordan to come to the negotiating table and not take “no” for an answer.

The incentive for Jordan to do so is growing each day as Islamic State spreads its wings in Syria, Iraq and Libya. Jordan could be next on the list. It needs to secure Israel and America to come to its aid if this occurs. Sitting at the negotiating table opposite Israel to resolve sovereignty in Judea and Samaria will certainly help – as well as assurances that military and financial aid will be forthcoming to resist any Islamic State advance.

Any solution between Israel and Jordan would mean that virtually every Jew and Arab would continue to live where he presently resides.

Those West Bank Arabs coming under Jordanian rule would once again regain their Jordanian citizenship.

Now isn’t that preferable to expulsion?

Eleonora,

The facts of life are that not everyone is trying to appease someone.

Only Israel is the appeaser and the one that capitulates to terrorists demands, be it the EU, Arabs or Obama.

Israel once held all the cards but has squandered the lot through stupidity.

And by the way you are not going to knock any sense into people who are frank in their stated determination to exterminate you. The quicker everyone, in particular Israel, wakes up to this fact only then is there a possible solution.

Both Gil and David have valid points in a difficult “mess”. I still can’t see why Israel can’t stand together as a nation and it’s leaders fight for what is right. How /why do the EU, Bedouin, Arabs, Hamas, PLO, PA, Isis, Bush, Obama, UN, terrorist etc. the list is endless, get away with it. Everyone is trying to appease someone and no one is standing for what is right. I’m trying to work on a “Smart Bomb” to drop and knock some sense into everyone. Guess that’s too much to ask so… why don’t we get rid of all Muslims world wide as they seem to be creating worldwide death, destruction and havoc. Even in my little neck of the woods/world Muslims are taking over, there’s no escaping them. We all have our comments but none have a solution…. yet!

In your chiding of Evelyn, you confuse respect for the law with respect for lawyers.

Please also bear in mind that there were judges in Nazi Germany and in the USSR. In Nazi Germany laws were unjust to Jews and judges were state functionaries; neither the judges nor the laws deserved respect. USSR laws were great on paper, but the judges were party hacks who deserved no respect. There still are laws in mohammedan lands that violate human rights and judges who are vindictive and gutless servants of the ruling clique.

Evelyn’s points were apt; the Israeli High Court deserves no respect, nor does the Attorney-General whose decisions are based on their political perspectives. They are also using the “progressive” elites as their role models and play up (or down) to them showing utter contempt for Jewish Israelis, the former interventionist judge, Barak being a prime example of that sort.

Israel is a secular society, but it is based on Jewish principles. The judges of the Jewish state disregard Deuteronomy 16:19 which enjoins judges to judge fairly and not show partiality.

Thanks for your correction of the relevant UNSC resolution.

Your comments raise as many questions as they answer.

If, as you point out the PA has ceased to exist, then of course Oslo and the Road Map are dead. At the same time, if there is a state of Palestine, whose territory is determined, then the EU may not be acting illegally, but the establishment of the State of Palestine by-passed point 3 of UNSC 242 calls on the Secretary-General to appoint a Special Representative “to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement”, i.e. peace via negotiations. As far as I can see the EU, the UNGA and the PA have all acted illegally.

But there is of course more. The negotiations as you rightly point out were to be between the belligerents: principally Israel, Egypt and Jordan. But the three “Nos” of Khartoun in 1967, in effect rejected UNSC 242, hence insisting that Israel abide by them was and remains biassed. Further, as UNSC 242 was a Chapter VI rather than a Chapter VII resolution, it may be international law, but it may not be imposed by force.

And one other minor point: the resolution called on all belligerents to make peace and apart from Egypt and Jordan other 1967 belligerent Arab states are still at war with Israel so, as far as I can see, Israel has no obligations to any state until all make peace.

There are two further points. The State of Palestine has not been declared the successor state of Egypt and Jordan so it has not real standing apart from failing to meet the criteria of a state set out in the Montevideo treaty. And the illegitimate successor state is failing to abide by UNSC 242, 1(ii) which calls for the cessation of all claims and states of belligerency.

And now to the flaws in your argument. If a State of Palestine has been created, neither Egypt nor Jordan has any role in the negotiations. If the State of Palestine is illegal and is put aside Egypt and Jordan still have no role in negotiations by virtue of them having signed peace agreements with Israel and renouncing claims to Gaza, Judea and Samaria. This was further reinforced by Jordan’s revoking if its citizenship to the Arabs residing in Judea and Samaria. In short, David, reintroducing the illegal occupiers of Gaza, Judea and Samaria into the “peace process” would be as illegal as was the creation of the Pally statelet. It also crucially ignores a point made by Prof. Kontorovich, that once the Brits created Trans-Jordan, the international boundary of the Jewish state is the Jordan River. Consequently, the creation or the refusal to create a foreign state within its borders is the sole discretion of Israel.

Lastly and crucially, the point I have made before and you keep ignoring. Jordan does not want any more Palestinian Arabs. About three quarters of Jordanians are such Arabs and the are hostile to the Hashemite Bedouin rulers the Brits imposed on them. The Kingdom of Jordan is unstable and is in no position to take on its Arab “brothers” in supplanting the State of Palestine which they support in their anti-Jewish jihad and which they have coerced the international to also support. The Jordan path is as much of a dead end as was the Road Map. Forget it.

The only real path is for Israel and the local Arabs to agree or for Israel to apply the Sudetenland solution: expel a hostile minority. Syria is a good site for the Pallies and taking in Arab Christians,Yazidis and some endangered Kurds would be a very fair solution.

Paul

You ask the following question:
” if the EU illegalities render the Oslo process void and the Road Map a dead end, what of UNSC 242 and 343, which the PA serially violates?”

My answer:

Firstly I think you mean Resolution 338 – not 343.

Secondly – UNSC 242 and 338 still remain the only international legally binding provisions setting out the following principles necessary to end the Jewish-Arab conflict:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Additionally the Security Council affirmed the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Since Resolution 242 was passed – Israel has withdrawn from over 90% of the territories it occupied in the 1967 War and has made offers in 2000/1 and 2007 to withdraw from over 90% of the remaining 10% in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) – an area smaller than Delaware – that Israel has occupied since 1967 and Jordan occupied between 1948-1967

The PA was disbanded in January 2013 – which seems to have escaped everyone’s attention – especially the Quartet’s.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/20131810252183781.html

Jordan and Israel remain the legal successors to the Mandate for Palestine (which included Judea and Samaria) and they have enjoyed a signed peace treaty since 1994.

Egypt and Israel have had a signed a peace treaty since 1979.

Jordan occupies 76.9% of former Palestine, Israel 17% of former Palestine – whilst Judea and Samaria and Gaza make up the remaining 6%.

Jordan and Israel are now – and since the disbandment of the PA in 2013 – have been the obvious parties – along with Egypt – to resolve this long standing dispute which is now close to 100 years old.

The Quartet – Russia, America, the EU and the UN – should now get off their high horses and redeem their conspicuous failures over the last 20 years to resolve the Jewish-Arab conflict the subject of Resolution 242 – by calling for direct negotiations to be undertaken between Jordan and Israel and possibly Egypt to replace the failed negotiating processes undertaken pursuant to he Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

Trying to create a new Arab State between Israel, Jordan and Egypt for the first time ever in recorded history as envisaged in the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap was never contemplated by Resolution 242 – and has now finally proved to be an aberration that never had any chance of succeeding.

If the Quartet applied a small fraction of the time it wasted on the Israel-PA negotiations in mediating new negotiations between Israel, Jordan and possibly Egypt – maybe the hopes and expectations of Resolutions 242 could be realised in a very short time.

Such negotiations involve drawing new boundary lines between Israel, Jordan and Egypt – three States at peace with each other – and endorsement of the final boundaries by all Arab League member States and recognition of the State of Israel within those agreed boundaries.

That is what Resolution 242 was designed to achieve – and can still achieve – once Jordan and Israel face each other in direct negotiations.

David,

I won’t lose any sleep over it.

I sympathise both with David’s view and Gil’s frustration.

Where David errs is in basing his impeccable argument on mere trifles like legality, justice and openness in democratic government. We Jews should never delude ourselves that justice, justice shall ye seek operates in real life apart, to some extent, to this quest we impose on ourselves.

The EU is hostile to the nation state of the Jews because it want peace with their violent supremicist mohammedan imports and peace with their oil producers and potential markets. They also are hostile because Israel’s existence forever brands them as callous sadistic murderers and thieves, false to their faith and the social ideals they give lip service to.

Expecting an EU whose policies are formed by unelected technocrats who run the continent like the Politburo ran the USSR, failing to inform member states how funds are spent, is entirely unrealistic.

I share Gil’s frustration at Israeli “leaders”. When Netanyahu fails to adopt the Levy Report, pursues a two state solution and is too diplomatic to tell the Islamophile POTUS to pull his head in and pursue policies in favour of the US (and Israel) and not Iran and ISIS, we have a problem. We have problems too with Israeli generals like Ya’alon who care more for the residents of Gaza than their Arab brother and wants to give the PA control over crossings to facilitate the entry of material that will be used against Israel.

We Jews have a problem in having a conscience and wanting to treat others fairly. We forget that no good deed goes unpunished, particularly in the ME. We need to relearn that in addition to being fair (and fearless) we need to amend the psalm to “Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear no evil, for I am the biggest bastard in the valley”; it worked very well before 1967.

So my hat off to both of you. Just one question however: if the EU illegalities render the Oslo process void and the Road Map a dead end, what of UNSC 242 and 343, which the PA serially violates?

David,

Why is it that in any discussion to an alternative Government, people like yourself keep rushing to the defence of the so called “vibrant democracy” that is supposed to be Israel and in defence of the status quo always suggesting if people want North Korea, Iran or Islamic State as the alternatives? As if that’s all there is.

The so called “vibrant democracy” that is Israel today is a shambles, with absurd meaningless coalitions, where the electorate haven’t a clue as to who they’re voting for apart from those at the top of each list, with not one politician representing a geographic electorate who he or she is accountable to and can thus be thrown out if need be.

Obviously Evelyn Rosenbaum and countless others like her no longer feel that this Government or its institutions, like the courts, any longer “protect her and every citizen of Israel”.

The disarray that is Israel today is a disaster caused by spineless, non pro-active, capitulating leadership that is impacting on all fronts from the leftist court system to the leftist indoctrinated defence heirarchy.

So David, who are you to advise Evelyn to “Think again.”

Finally, in the last few sentences of you article you state:
“The Quartet has been totally compromised – the peace process and its intricate negotiating structure irretrievably ended.
Back to the drawing board for yet another new proposal……”

This clearly indicates to me you still have not seen the light.
There is no longer any board to draw on.
It’s over, Kaput.
The Arab world will not now, not ever, make peace with Israel and Israel would be insane to again expect any new piece of paper to mean anything. People like yourself should face this hard reality.

The end result is a looming military confrontation and Israel better not be distracted but be pro-active.

The time for Israel to get up off its knees has arrived.