why they [State Department and White House spokespeople, and anyone who aspires to be president, including the current incumbent] believe U.S. taxpayers should continue to subsidize settlement construction. And make no mistake: Because money is fungible, that is exactly what our aid package does. The 2SS [Two State Solution] has been the stated goal of U.S. policy under the past three presidents, yet U.S. policy actively subverts that objective, to the mutual detriment of Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans alike.
Well, I could reply that "policy" is not necessarily legal or even moral and so therefore, it could be (and it is) quite legal and quite moral to support Jewish residency rights in the territory international law wished become the Jewish national home with the express right of facilitating close Jewish settlement:
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
That was from Article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate. And take note: Arabe per say are not distinguished but a rather general formulation of non-definition is used. That means while all rights for all are to be protected, the country is Jewish for the Jews primarily.
Whether or not legal, read me here. And there are many others (and here).
I left a comment there, which reads in part:
...take note: Arabs per say are not distinguished but a rather general formulation of non-definition is used. That means while all rights for all are to be protected, the country is Jewish for the Jews primarily.
I could add that since the Arabs of that territory accepted and were repeatedly offered plans of territorial compromise and partition (Transjordan 1922; Peel 1937; Woodhead 1938; St. James Conference 1939; UN 1947; Oslo 1993) as well as autonomy (Begin 1978) and rejected all and since 1920 have been engaged in terror against civilians as well as ethnic cleansing of Jews from their homes centuries old (Hebron, Gaza, etc.) and since all ther plans have failed (Disengagement 2005), from a practical perspective, 2SS is plain out-of-it.
And the fact that "Palestine"would be practicing apartheid, for even Tom Friedman admits only Muslims or Christians could live there, why support that idea? If Arabs can live in Jordan and a future "Palestine" but Jews not, but Arabs not only live in Israel but get to be judges, parliamentarians, diplomats, soldiers, etc. and even spies and subversives there, why not support the idea of Jews in Shiloh (where I live) or Hebron, Bet El or Ofra (where my daughter & grandchildren live)?
^
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment