104 thoughts on “Turkey Lays Down Gauntlet to Israel, Will Provide Armed Escort for Future Turkish Gaza Flotillas – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. The Israel/Turkey situation must be defused. The circuit breaker is for the Israelis to talk to the Turks. Pronto. The brinksmanship on the high seas must be prevented. The USA offered Turkey to host an international peace conference in Istanbul that they were to facilitate between Israel and the Palestinians six weeks ago, but it didn’t do the trick. The problem is there is a huge deficit in trust between various parties. This can be healed however. The Turks are a very proud people who have empathy for the plight of the Palestinians. I also maintain however that if the right diplomatic moves are done then it is possible for people in Turkey to get along quite nicely with people in the State of Israel. The Turks fought vicious battles against the ANZAC’s in WWI. Now Australia and Turkey are on very good terms. A saying on a shrine at Gallipoli is apt…

    “Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives, you are now in the soil of a friendly country, therefore, rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side in this country of ours. You, the mothers, who sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are at peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.”

    – Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, 1934

  2. “My money? Israel folds. Israel doesn’t like facing long odds. It prefers a sure thing like fighting poorly armed Hamas militants to fighting a well-armed nation whose population is ten times larger than its own.”

    Unfortunately or fortunately,depending on your point of view Israel will not fold and unfortunately you choose to describe the conflict as if it was a game of “chicken” in which Israel is afraid to play.

    Also unfortunately, Avigdor Liberman is as big a fool as Erdogan and feels very much at home playing “chicken” without considering the dangers inherent in this path of brinkmanship.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4119984,00.html

    When problems are solved through brinkmanship, the outcome is rarely optimal. While disregarding the inherent dangers and ignoring the path of compromise and willingness to engage in collaborative dialogue, it is difficult for leaders to see the full range of options and to be creative about alternative approaches.
    Any fool can fight, but it takes real courage for a man to admit that he has made a mistake and take corrective action.
    Mustafa Kemal Ataturk,a true leader, must turn in his grave when he sees the foolish behavior of Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

    1. When problems are solved through brinkmanship, the outcome is rarely optimal.

      Israel is violating a UN Security Council resolution on humanitarian aid shipments.

      Here for example is what the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague) had to say:

      The events aboard the flotilla were very serious and have captured the world’s attention, but they should not be viewed in isolation. They arise from the unacceptable and unsustainable situation in Gaza, which is a cause of public concern here in the United Kingdom and around the world. It has long been the view of the British Government-including the previous Government-that restrictions on Gaza should be lifted, a view confirmed in United Nations Security Council resolution 1860, which called for

      “sustained delivery of humanitarian aid”

      and called on states to

      “to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation”.

      The fact that that has not happened is a tragedy. It is essential that there be unfettered access not only to meet the humanitarian needs of the people of Gaza, but to enable the reconstruction of homes and livelihoods and permit trade to take place. The Palestinian economy, whether in Gaza or on the west bank, is an essential part of a viable Palestinian state which I hope will one day live alongside Israel in peace and security.

      http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100602/debtext/100602-0004.htm

      In the Security Council Gerard Araud (France) said the human toll of the operation had led his country to believe that there had been an unjustifiable and disproportionate use of force, which it condemned. But, before it drew any conclusions, it must know the facts, and full light should be shed through an in-depth investigation, which must be independent, credible and in line with international standards, and conducted immediately. The incident was a reminder of the need to re-establish humanitarian access to Gaza under resolution 1860 (2009), and France called for a lifting of the unsustainable and illegal Gaza blockade. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/sc9940.doc.htm

      1. In a statement after the vote on resolution 1860,
        Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom (Mr.David Miliband), said the Council had been brought together by the gravity of the situation existing in Gaza….. The Council was also brought together by the vision of security and dignity for Palestinians and Israelis both. There was a clear consensus on an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire and on the humanitarian need of the people in Gaza through aid and opening of the border crossings, as well as on security for Israel through an end to arms smuggling and on the need for a political process going forward.

        Also in a statement after the vote on resolution 1860,
        GABRIELA SHALEV ( Israel) said that Israel, when in left Gaza in 2005, had hoped it would never have to return. However, after eight years of continuous rocket attacks by the Hamas terrorist organization, Hamas’ refusal to extend the period of calm, and its smuggling of weapons during that period, had left Israel with no choice but to act in self-defence. Responsibility for the current hostilities lay squarely with Hamas. The international community must focus its attention on the cessation of Hamas’ terrorist activities. Any arrangement must be fully respected and secured, including the total cessation of rocket fire and smuggling, in order to be durable and to allow the possibility of lasting peace.

        http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/sc9567.doc.htm

        May the good people of Gaza enjoy attain their right to unfettered self determination and may the good people of Israel attain their right to live securely, free from hostile terrorist activities.

        1. may the good people of Israel attain their right to live securely,

          It is axiomatic that the right to exist does not imply any excuse or justification for the State which, in order to protect and preserve its existence, commits unjust acts towards others.

          Under the terms of the Oslo Accords, Israel was required to treat the West Bank and Gaza as one territory for political, economic, legal and other purposes. Instead, Israel chose to build a 60-kilometer fence around the Gaza Strip shortly after the Accords were concluded and to pursue a policy of illegally limiting the freedom of movement of the Palestinians living there through policies and practices resembling a concentration camp. The ICJ had already noted that the limitations on freedom of movement were not justified on the basis of self-defense or necessity in its 2004 advisory opinion. Article 25 of the UN Declaration on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts [ http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft%20articles/9_6_2001.pdf ] bars a defense of necessity if the State making the claim has contributed to the situation of necessity.

          1. “It is axiomatic that the right to exist does not imply any excuse or justification for the State which, in order to protect and preserve its existence, commits unjust acts towards others.”

            True, I agree but who is to say which of Israel’s acts in her defense were unjust and which state, in order to protect and preserve its existence, has not at some stage, committed unjust acts towards others.

            “…. Instead, Israel chose to build a 60-kilometer fence around the Gaza Strip shortly after the Accords were concluded and to pursue a policy of illegally limiting the freedom of movement of the Palestinians…”

            After the Accords were concluded the Palestinian Authority,whether by inability or design failed to curb terrorism and unilaterally increased the ranks of its armed security personnel from 9,000 to 16,000 thus incurring the cautionary reaction of the Israelis.
            In fairness to the Palestinians I quote Amos Oz……”I maintain that Oslo was not given even a day’s grace. Immediately, even before the ink was dry, the one side planned jihad and the brainwashing for jihad, while the other planned settlements. Therefore, I don’t think Oslo failed, because Oslo was never tried.”

            Haver,(חבר) let us put past failures behind us, recriminations do not pay dividends.The question remains,what can be done now and in the future to both enable Palestinian self determination and reasonable Israeli security.

          2. After the Accords were concluded the Palestinian Authority,whether by inability or design failed to curb terrorism and unilaterally increased the ranks of its armed security personnel from 9,000 to 16,000 thus incurring the cautionary reaction of the Israelis

            No, I object to such statements which put the onus on 1 side & don’t acknowledge the “contributions” of the other to failure as well. You provide no proof that the PA was responsible in any way for terror acts or whether it could’ve stopped them but didn’t. I also fail to see how the PA increasing its security forces within the PA’s territory is of concern to Israel. If those forces were used to harm Israel’s interests or attack Israel that might be a justifiable. But I see no evidence that this happened in a systemic way. YOu also neglect Israeli provocations & acts of terror during the same period by settlers & the IDF & intelligence operatives during that period such as targeted killings & the like, which turned Palestinians against the [fake] “peace process.”

          3. True, I agree but who is to say which of Israel’s acts in her defense were unjust

            The international community of states. They have already designated certain acts as crimes against humanity for which no statute of limitations applies. The community declared Israel’s construction of the Wall illegal and obtained a very detailed advisory opinion from the competent international court that spelled-out exactly what remedial actions are required, including dismantling the wall and payment of compensation.

            The Barrier and related measures are targeted at Palestinians as a racial group, not just at individual suspected terrorists.The Court stated that with the exception of Israeli citizens, Israel was systematically violating the basic human rights of the inhabitants of the Occupied Territories. The Court cited illegal interference by the government of Israel with the Palestinian’s national right to self-determination, land confiscations, house demolitions, the creation of ethnic enclaves, and restrictions on movement and access to supplies of water, food, education, health care, work, and an adequate standard of living. The Court also noted that Palestinians had been displaced in violation of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Gaza Fact Finding Mission and several UN Rapporteurs subsequently noted that in the movement and access policy there has been a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin . The fact finding missions also noted that a Court could reasonably conclude that the crime of persecution as a form of crime against humanity had been committed. All of those things happen to be constituent acts of apartheid that are enumerated in article 2 of an international suppression convention.

            Now Israel is treating offers or humanitarian relief by Geneva Convention states and humanitarian organizations as hostile or belligerent acts in violation of the Geneva protocols.

            The Jerusalem Post recently reported that Germany has agreed to compensate Moroccan Jews whose freedom of movement was curtailed by the Axis powers and the Vichy regime during WWII. http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=218113

            That is inline with the Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (2005) http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/remedy.htm

          4. After the Accords were concluded the Palestinian Authority,whether by inability or design failed to curb terrorism and unilaterally increased the ranks of its armed security personnel from 9,000 to 16,000 thus incurring the cautionary reaction of the Israelis

            Ariel Sharon was challenged prior to the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza about the rocket and mortar attacks. He said that line of argument was irrelevant and that the IDF forces stationed there had tried to prevent them unsuccessfully for many years. The Palestinian Security Forces have never been organized, manned, trained, or equipped as well as the IDF.

            The de facto government has been able to impose cease fires on the other militias, but it could do a much better job if the IDF would stop targeting their police force as if they were combatants.

          5. “The Barrier and related measures are targeted at Palestinians as a racial group, not just at individual suspected terrorists.”

            Not true. Palestinians can still cross at legal crossing points, if they have valid documents allowing them to enter Israel.

            “The community declared Israel’s construction of the Wall illegal and obtained a very detailed advisory opinion from the competent international court that spelled-out exactly what remedial actions are required, including dismantling the wall and payment of compensation.”

            That would still leave the Jews with one thing they wouldn’t have if the Wall had not been built in the first place: those Jews who would have been killed in terrorist incursions are still alive. Would the international “community” like to “remedy” that too?

          6. Palestinians can still cross at legal crossing points, if they have valid documents allowing them to enter Israel.

            Not quite true either. In theory they may cross, if the checkpoint is open & if the whim of the soldier occupying it allows them to enter. Checkpoints are often closed, soldiers often refuse entry for capricious reasons.

            The Wall serves no security purpose since Palestinians may cross into Israel at numerous points w/o any hindrance fr. the Wall. You know this so pls. stop arguing points that are simply unsupported except in the minds of Israel’s most ardent supporters.

          7. “The Barrier and related measures are targeted at Palestinians as a racial group, not just at individual suspected terrorists.”

            Not true. Palestinians can still cross at legal crossing points, if they have valid documents allowing them to enter Israel.

            That incorrectly assumes that the destination is question is Israel, and not a place of residence located in the seam zone. In these instances Palestinians need to obtain a permit just to live in their own homes. It also ignores the fact that terrorists can attack Israelis at points where there is no wall and Israeli government statistics which show that the majority of suicide bombers had gained entry through a checkpoint..

            One UN fact finding mission noted:

            “Checkpoints are not so much a security measure for ensuring that would-be suicide bombers do not enter Israel, but rather the institutionalization of the humiliation of the Palestinian people. Similarly, a curfew is not simply a restriction on leaving one’s home. It is the imprisonment of the people within their own homes. Unable to go to work, to buy food, to go to school, to visit hospitals or to bury their dead, they are confined within the walls of their own homes while the IDF patrols their streets. Statistics of checkpoints and curfews cannot accurately portray the obscenity of the situation.”

            Another fact finding report noted:

            In the West Bank, Israel has long imposed a system of restrictions on movement. Movement is restricted by a combination of physical obstacles, such as roadblocks, checkpoints and the Wall, and administrative measures, such as identity cards, permits, assigned residence, laws on family reunification, and policies on the right to enter from abroad and the right of return for refugees. Palestinians are denied access to areas expropriated for the building of the Wall and its infrastructure, for use by settlements, buffer zones, military bases and military training zones, and the roads built to connect these places. Many of these roads are “Israeli only” and forbidden for Palestinian use. Tens of thousands of Palestinians today are subject to a travel ban imposed by Israel, preventing them from travelling abroad. A number of witnesses and experts invited by the Mission to meet in Amman and participate in the hearings in Geneva could not meet the Mission owing to this travel ban.

  3. I think that the key issue here is Israel’s inability to behave in accordance with basic norms that are observed by most nations that are democratic – either nominally so, or in reality.

    Look, for example, at the apology recently issued by my own country for the murder of an Iraqi civilian in 2003. Obviously, it doesn’t mean a lot since this one innocent Iraqi is among hundreds of thousands who have been needlessly killed. However, because the UK is a country that does not suffer delusions of grandeur and insecurities, it costs us nothing to admit when we do wrong – particularly when the facts are so clear that we cannot avoid the admission. We loose nothing by showing the world that we can apologise for wrongdoing. It’s adult behaviour and, I would suggest, it increases our prestige.

    Israel, on the other hand is literally incapable of doing wrong. The murder of nine Turkish civilians is not only perfectly acceptable in the minds of Israel’s power elite but, further, it is Turkey that is in the wrong. Everything for Israel is zero-sum. You either accept – absolutely and without reservation – the actions of the Israeli army or, you are an enemy.

    It also seems that the idea of a Muslim country that refuses to be ground into the dust – physically, economically or diplomatically – is inherently offensive to Israel. Imagine if it were nine Israelis murdered by a foreign power. Who doubts that Israel would unleash Hell in return? It seems, however, that Muslims must consent to being you-know-whatted-on from great heights or risks being labelled as extreme.

    The idea that Turkish military vessels should accompany any future flotilla to Gaza is the absolute minimum that should be expected by any country that is interested in its dignity. But it seems, much to Israel’s chagrin, that the days of Muslim humiliation at the hands of foreigners and their own governments, is at an end.

    (I would add the example of the disgraceful Syrian regime that attacks its own people with all force available to it but did not raise an eyebrow, let alone a gun, when Israel attacked it numerous times in recent years).

    I think that what we’re witnessing in the Middle East is a return to a more natural balance of power, commensurate with the relative sizes of the states concerned. The Arab Spring, and the ascendancy of Turkey have changed the region forever. Israel must find a way to simply be a state among states and cease to throw its weight around the region as the brat prince of international relations.

    1. “Everything for Israel is zero-sum”….there is a degree of truth in what you say, Israel needs to be more capable of objective self analysis and self criticism.
      “The murder of nine Turkish civilians…” what court of law has determined that they were murdered.
      “Look, for example, at the apology recently issued by my own country……However , because the UK is a country that does not suffer delusions of grandeur and insecurities…..”

      If you wish to compare the Israel with the U.K.,then perhaps you should do so by comparing apples to apples. Let us take the example of the Queen’s closest ex-dominion part of which was annexed to the U.K. , namely Ireland.
      England ruled Ireland for 700 years during which time she was directly responsible for the death by starvation of approximately 1,000,000 people from 1845 to 1852.
      Another example, from March 1920, under a policy of sanctioned “official reprisals” by her majesty’s government for IRA terrorist attacks the “Black and Tans” (RIC Auxiliary division)
      waged a brutal and murderous campaign again the Irish civilian population, burning and sacking many small towns and villages including the city of Cork.
      Going further afield let’s take the case of the “British Expedition to Tibet”(1903~1904)
      …”the expedition fought its way to Gyantse and eventually captured the heart of Tibet, Lhasa. The Dalai Lama fled to safety first in Mongolia and later in China; but thousands of Tibetans armed with antiquated muzzle-loaders and swords were mown down by modern rifles and Maxim machine guns. The mission was recognized as a military expedition by the British Indian government, “who issued a war medal for it.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_expedition_to_Tibet

      The British Empire was the cause of much suffering throughout the world and through its policy of “divide and rule” that Empire sowed the seeds of many more conflicts left in it’s wake.
      So perhaps the U.K. has in fact suffered from more that it’s fair share of delusions of grandeur
      and insecurities.

      1. This is WAY off-topic. Try to stay closer to home, please. And if you’re trying to say that because Imperial England inflicted much suffering on the world while it was an imperial power & that somehow this disqualifies it fr making statements on behalf of more humane treatment of Gazans, I find that thinking objectionable. England is no longer an imperial power & has as much right as any other country to appeal for an end to the siege, etc.

        1. Yes, it is way off topic and Yes Britain has the same rights as anybody else and probably more rights than many to comment on the plight of the population of Gaza.
          We are indebted to England,and not only for the language that we now use. We are indebted to England, home of the Magna Carta and a mother of democracy
          (although she is a constitutional monarchy) for spreading the idea of individual rights throughout her empire ( although it rarely gave many of those same rights to the people of that empire) and for her courage in fighting Germany.
          Her dignity in that dark period serves as an example to all.

          But let “na Sasanaigh”(the English) not forget their past when they take the moral high ground.

    2. “The idea that Turkish military vessels should accompany any future flotilla to Gaza is the absolute minimum that should be expected by any country that is interested in its dignity.”

      Perhaps Israel should reciprocate. In the past the Israelis have helped Turkey against the Kurds. Maybe it is now time for the Israelis to see the error of their ways and do something to compensate the Turkish Kurds for the grievous injustice they have done them in the past – by giving them “aid”.

      I know Richard – off-topic, rule violation… hasbara… etc

      1. Perhaps Israel should reciprocate.

        Actually that would be a bad idea. It’s a violation of Article 70 of the 1st Additional Protocol and customary international law to treat offers of relief shipments as a belligerent or hostile act. It is a definite no-no to attack a relief convoy that is being escorted by a neutral protecting power.

        The PKK organization is on the US terror list. So, Israel could end-up on the State Department list of States that Sponsor Terrorism. FYI, 4 of the 9 people who were murdered on the Mavi Marmara were ethnic Kurds and thirteen and a half million Kurds voted for Erdogan in the last election.

        1. If “It’s a violation of Article 70 of the 1st Additional Protocol and customary international law to treat offers of relief shipments as a belligerent or hostile act” then Turkey could NOT take it as a hostile act if Israel were to offer such relief to the Kurds.

          Similarly if “It is a definite no-no to attack a relief convoy that is being escorted by a neutral protecting power” then if Israel WERE to escort such a convoy, the Turks could not legally attack such a convoy.

          “The PKK organization is on the US terror list.”

          Time for that to be reviewed.

          1. If “It’s a violation of Article 70 of the 1st Additional Protocol and customary international law to treat offers of relief shipments as a belligerent or hostile act” then Turkey could NOT take it as a hostile act if Israel were to offer such relief to the Kurds.

            I was referring to reports like this one:

            According to a report in Yedioth Ahronoth, Lieberman assembled a team in charge of retaliating against Turkey. According to the report, the team recommended to Lieberman that Israel should cooperate with the terrorist organization PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) and even consider supplying it with weapons.

            “The PKK organization is on the US terror list.”

            Time for that to be reviewed.

            The review was just completed and the list was released on August 18, 2011. See Outlawed PKK remains on America’s terrorist list

            If “It’s a violation of Article 70 of the 1st Additional Protocol and customary international law to treat offers of relief shipments as a belligerent or hostile act”

            Here is a link to the official commentary on article 70. The decisions in Security Council resolution 1860 are also binding on all member states in accordance with Articles 24 and 25 of the UN Charter. These are particularly relevant:

            “2. Calls for the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment;

            “3. Welcomes the initiatives aimed at creating and opening humanitarian corridors and other mechanisms for the sustained delivery of humanitarian aid;

            “4. Calls on Member States to support international efforts to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation in Gaza,

          2. “was referring to reports like this one:”

            Just read the article. It’s not a refutation of my point that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander re the Kurds – as long as the aid is humanitarian and does not include weapons (and of course the same applies to “relief” for Gaza).

            “The review was just completed and the list was released on August 18, 2011.”

            A pragmatic American decision to keep the Turks onside. However the aid doesn’t have be given to the PKK. It would be for the Kurdish PEOPLE – just as Gaza aid is intended for the people and not for Hamas

            “Here is a link to the official commentary on article 70.”

            I didn’t use the conditional to dispute your premise. I was merely pointing out that the rule protects hypothetical aid to Turkish Kurds as much as it protects aid to Gaza – the fact that the PKK and Hamas are terrorist organizations notwithstanding.

            Finally, Para 3a of Article 70 provides for the right to search – which is all Israel sought to do.

          3. Israel is not going to give humanitarian aid to the Kurds. After all, they’re not under siege like Gaza & so don’t need it quite as badly. You & I both know that Lieberman is talking of giving guns & ammo to the Turks. Though I suppose if Israel had a real sense of poetry & irony it might give such humanitarian aid to the Kurds. But alas, Bibi is very low in the irony & poetry dept.

          4. the right to search – which is all Israel sought to do.

            Please, why do you piss on our backs & try to make us think it’s rain? Israel merely sought to search the Mavi Marmara? It assaulted the ship. Further it assaulted all the other ships in the flotilla which never raised a finger against the attackers. All ships were confiscated & all passengers were detained & million of dollars worth of personal property stolen. This is a SEARCH???

          5. Just read the article. It’s not a refutation of my point that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander re the Kurds

            The meeting in the Foreign Ministry wasn’t convened in response to a Security Council resolution calling for the unimpeded provision and distribution of aid to the Kurds and welcoming the initiatives of members aimed at creating and opening humanitarian corridors to them.

            Finally, Para 3a of Article 70 provides for the right to search – which is all Israel sought to do.

            Not at all. Israel does not permit vessels to go on their way to the coasts of the blockaded belligerent after they are searched at Ashdod. See 2. ‘ Consignments not to be diverted ‘ in the commentary on Article 60 of the Geneva Convention: “The word “divert” must be understood in its broadest sense, as covering a change of destination of any kind” – and the official commentary on Article 102.3 of the San Remo Manual. and the plain requirement in the commentary on Article 103.2 for “transit through the blockade”. Israel has closed naval corridors of relief and diverts everything through its land closure regime mechanism. Humanitarian relief shipments are also inspected for prohibited food items, which have nothing to do with intercepting weapons shipments.

            Israel’s obligation to lift the blockade and allow passage of humanitarian shipments had been triggered by the Security Council call to open humanitarian corridors and to provide unrestricted flow and by the reports of lack of adequate supplies of water, food, shelter and malnutrition among the needy segments of the society from the ICRC and UNRWA.

          6. “Not at all. Israel does not permit vessels to go on their way to the coasts of the blockaded belligerent after they are searched at Ashdod… Israel has closed naval corridors of relief and diverts everything through its land closure regime mechanism. ”

            No matter how widely you interpret the word “divert” it pertains to the humanitarian aid reaching its intended destination – not the route by which it gets there.

          7. Initially, u contended all Israel sought to do was inspect cargo. Now u change the argument claiming Israel has the right to interdict & seize the cargo & ship & kidnap the passengers & steal their personal property. An awfully broad interpretation of international law I think.

          8. No matter how widely you interpret the word “divert” it pertains to the humanitarian aid reaching its intended destination – not the route by which it gets there.

            The Palmer Inquiry pointed out that the land closure regime and the blockade are separate issues under the provisions of the governing international law.

            The San Remo manual commentary that I cited explicitly states that the vessels have to be permitted transit through the blockade and that they must be permitted to reach the coast of the blockaded belligerent. Try reading that again, because no matter how you interpret that, it doesn’t mean Ashdod or El-Arish. The overland route from those ports has nothing to do with the laws of naval warfare or the naval blockade. FYI, use of the port in Gaza eliminates the $30,000 per-ship port fee that the authorities in Egypt have been known to charge for accommodating the flotilla vessels.

  4. Silverstein says:”It prefers a sure thing like fighting poorly armed Hamas militants to fighting a well-armed nation whose population is ten times larger than its own.”

    Like Israel did in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, you mean?

    1. No right-minded person would believe that the peasant conscripts of the so-called ‘armies’ that Israel faced in those ‘wars’ amounted to anything that could be described as a credible fighting force.

      Some of those people had never seen electric lightbulbs before.

      1. Omar says: “No right-minded person would believe that the peasant conscripts of the so-called ‘armies’ that Israel faced in those ‘wars’ amounted to anything that could be described as a credible fighting force”.

        What about the British-officered “Arab Legion”?
        BTW – why do you put the word “wars” in quotation marks? Weren’t they wars, in your eyes?

        1. What about the British-officered “Arab Legion”? What indeed.

          Why the quotation marks? Because I don’t regard what happened in 1948 as a war. Or anything since. And if the Israelis had any sense of embarrassment, they wouldn’t either.

          These shambolic attempts by Arab regimes to deflect criticism away from their own atrocious governance were no more wars than if my grandmother attempted to stave off an armed gang with her purse.

          Cling to your admiration for the Lions of Judah, though. We all need a national myth to cling to. Read Benedict Anderson.

          1. Omar, your reply to my comment is a complete non sequitur. What, precisely, is your point?

            Perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to your definition of “war”?

            BTW – I suggest that it is you and the others who subscribe to the myth of a “Palestinian people” who should be reading Benedict Anderson.

          2. the myth of a “Palestinian people”

            That’s a major comment rule violation. You WILL read them. You now will be moderated until you’ve proved you’ve read & understood them. Yr next violation will cause you to lose yr privileges.

          3. It is to your credit Omar that you recognize that some of the actions of Arab states against Israel were “shambolic attempts by Arab regimes to deflect criticism away from their own atrocious governance.” However, it is a well-documented fact that 6000 Israelis died in the 1948 war. That’s one in every hundred of the Jewish population. To say that an armed conflict in which a country loses one in every hundred is NOT a war is surely an insult to the dead.

            And before you come back to point out that there were heavy casualties on the Arab side were also very high – that merely proves my point. It WAS a war.

          4. However, it is a well-documented fact that 6000 Israelis died in the 1948 war.

            Any military historian can tell you that 5000 Legionaries without an air force had no hope of holding even a fraction of the former mandate. The British mandatory administration had been fighting a loosing battle against the Jewish militias with a force of about 100,000, including the Legion’s garrisons in the Gaza Strip. FYI, according to Flapan, Tal, Morris, et al, 60 percent of those casualties were incurred in fighting beyond the boundaries of the proposed Jewish state. So you are talking about the state of Israel’s first foreign war.

            The Jewish Agency had purposely built watchtower and stockade forts along confrontation lines beyond the areas of any of the partition proposals. Plan D called for the militias to link-up those outlying settlements in the new Arab state with other Jewish population centers. It was territorial aggrandizement pure and simple.

            The works of Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Mary Wilson, Eugene Rogan, and other revisionist historians outline a modus vivendi agreement between Abdullah and the Yishuv. Those works are taught in most Israeli university courses on the history, political science, and sociology. See for example “Doubting the Yishuv-Hashemite Agreement” starting on page 7 of “Refabricating 1948”, by Benny Morris, Journal of Palestine Studies http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/debates/Morris,%20Refabricating%201948.pdf Archival materials reveal that the parties had negotiated the non-belligerent partition of Palestine between themselves, and that initially they had agreed to abide by the terms of the UN resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transjordan

            John Baggot Glubb, the commander of the Arab Legion, wrote that British Foreign Secretary Bevin had given the green light for the Arab Legion to occupy the territory allocated to the Arab state. The Prime Minister of Transjordan explained that Abdullah had received hundreds of petitions from Palestinian notables requesting protection upon the withdrawal of the British forces. Eugene Rogan says that those petitions, from nearly every town and village in Palestine, are preserved in “The Hashemite Documents: The Papers of Abdullah bin al-Husayn, volume V: Palestine 1948 (Amman 1995)”. See Chapter 5, Jordan and 1948, in “The war for Palestine: rewriting the history of 1948”, By Eugene L. Rogan, and Avi Shlaim, Cambridge University Press, 2001.

            The General Assembly resolution reflected a doctrine of customary international law know as “Uti Possidetis”. The primary aim of the doctrine is securing respect for the territorial or administrative boundaries inherited by colonial peoples at the moment when independence is achieved in order to avoid internecine slaughter. Palestine provides a good example of the things that can go wrong when basic doctrines are ignored.

            Sir Arthur Creech Jones, assured Moshe Shertok that Abdullah might enter the Arab portions of Palestine, but that the British led and subsidized Arab Legion would not seek to penetrate Jewish areas of Palestine. Shertok told Secretary Marshall that Colonel Goldy of the Arab Legion had made contact with the Haganah in order to coordinate their respective military plans and “avoid clashes without appearing to betray the Arab cause.”
            http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=940

            The Jewish Agency wasn’t concerned about being betrayed. Under Secretary Lovett reported that the Jewish Agency was no longer interested in a truce, but counted on the “behind the barn deal” with Abdullah.
            http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=973

          1. “Any military historian can tell you that 5000 Legionaries without an air force had no hope of holding even a fraction of the former mandate.”

            Not sure what this has to do with my response to Omar about the casualty level proving that it was a real war (contra to his perverse assertions).

            “according to Flapan, Tal, Morris, et al, 60 percent of those casualties were incurred in fighting beyond the boundaries of the proposed Jewish state.”

            Israel wouldn’t be the first state to go beyond its borders to engage an encroaching enemy and they won’t be the last.

            “John Baggot Glubb, the commander of the Arab Legion, wrote that British Foreign Secretary Bevin had given the green light for the Arab Legion to occupy the territory allocated to the Arab state.”

            Bevin had no authority to do so. The original mandate prohibited the Mandatory power from unilateral disposition of any part of the mandated territory and the Partition Plan prohibited the Mandatory from doing anything to impede or prevent the implementation of the plan.

            “The Prime Minister of Transjordan explained that Abdullah had received hundreds of petitions from Palestinian notables requesting protection upon the withdrawal of the British forces.”

            That would no doubt also explain the result of the Jericho Conference which effectively endorsed and ratified the subsequent formal Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. However, what is interesting is that the only two countries to recognize the West bank annexation that resulted from the Jordanian action were Britain and Pakistan. The rest of the world did NOT recognize it The reason I mention this is because in your other postings you have set great store by the opinions of the international community.

          2. Bevin had no authority to do so.The original mandate prohibited the Mandatory power from unilateral disposition of any part of the mandated territory and the Partition Plan prohibited the Mandatory from doing anything to impede or prevent the implementation of the plan.

            There was nothing unitlateral about it. The same Allied Powers behind the San Remo resolution issued the Tripartite Declaration Regarding the Armistice Borders and each of them recognized the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan. See for example Memorandum of Conversation, between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Mr. Abdel Monem Rifai, Counselor, Jordan Legation in Washington, June 5, 1950 which documents the US recognition of the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan, in Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), Page 921

            Jewish leaders held discussions with US officials in which they suggested a final settlement involving a union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan. For example:
            *Dr Goldmann, Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. The Near East and Africa, Volume VII, Page 680-681
            *Mr. Shertok, Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume V, Part 2, Page 945
            *Rabbi Silver, Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (in two parts),Volume V, Part 2, Page 900
            *Mr. Ben Gurion Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume VI, Page 927

            The meeting with Bevin and the Prime minister of Transjordan took place in February of 1948 while the Legion was still garrisoned in Palestine. The British government had rights under a mutual defense treaty with Transjordan to conduct foreign relations on its behalf and to obtain assistance from its armed forces. That’s why the Legion had permanent garrisons in Rafah and Gaza. The terms of the Partition Plan were a multilateral agreement that called for the Mandatory to progressively turn the territory over to the control of Jewish and Arab authorities when it withdrew.

            Transjordan had attempted to join the United Nations in 1946, but the President of the Security Council and other member states said that it was still a part of a joint League of Nations mandate that had not been legally terminated and that its status could only be determined when the UN addressed the question of Palestine as a whole. See the Minutes of the 57th Session of the Security Council, S/PV.57 pages 100-101 (pdf file pgs 3-4 of 52) http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.57

            The US State Department had received a long detailed legal argument from Rabbis Wise and Silver objecting to independence of Transjordan. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. General, the United Nations Volume I, (1946), 411 page 411

            Chaim Weizmann personally lobbied President Truman and said it was imperative that the Transjordanian port of Aqaba be included in the Jewish state. A few days before the November 29, 1947 decision on partition, U.S. Secretary of State Marshall noted frequent references had been made by the other members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine regarding the desirability of the Jewish State having both the Negev and the Transjordanian Port of Aqaba. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1947. The Near East and Africa Volume V, page 1255

            Truman telephoned the US UN delegation and told them he supported Weizmann’s position (page 1271.

            So, Transjordan’s status under the joint mandate had not been altered in any way by the treaty agreements between the United Kingdom and the Emirate of Transjordan. See League of Nations, Official Journal, 1928, p. 1574, and Marjorie M. Whiteman (ed), Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 631.

            Ernest A. Gross, a senior U.S. State Department legal adviser, authored a memorandum for the United States government titled ”Recognition of New States and Governments in Palestine”, dated 11 May 1948. He noted that Transjordan was one of the communities liberated from the Ottoman Empire by the mandate (page 963) and said that “The Arab and Jewish communities will be legally entitled on May 15, 1948 (the date of expiry of the British Mandate) to proclaim states and organize governments in the areas of Palestine occupied by the respective communities.” Gross also said “the law of nations recognizes an inherent right of people lacking the agencies and institutions of social and political control to organize a state and operate a government.” The memo is contained in the Foreign Relations of the United States 1948, volume 5, part 2, starting at page 960.

            Nothing in the General Assembly resolution precluded the Arabs of the former mandate from forming a union on their own between Arab Palestine and Transjordan after they were emancipated from international tutelage.

            On 9 May UN Representative Austin advised the US Secretary of State that the French representative, Mr. Parodi, had called a meeting of the British, Belgian, and American, representatives to discuss the situation regarding possible action which the Security Council might be called upon to take following May 15. He said that as of May 15 they would be faced by declarations two states of Palestine coupled with the entrance of Abdullah. Regarding the latter, two ideas were current. The first is that if Abdullah moved beyond his own frontier it might constitute an “act of aggression”. The second idea was that if he entered on invitation of the Arab population of Palestine his act might not constitute aggression. Parodi said he was inclined to the second theory and thought a conclusion to that effect would avoid endless argument. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948, Volume V, Part 2, page 946.

            After the Deir Yassin massacre the Jewish militias were viewed as the aggressors and the Security Council expected Abdullah to enter Palestine. An internal US State Department memo stated:

            Military operations after May 15 will probably be undertaken by
            the Haganah with the assistance of the Jewish terrorist organizations Irgun and Stern. Copies of Consul General Wasson’s excellent reports, as set forth in his telegram 530 of May 3, are attached, and provide the estimate of the British General Officer Commanding as to the probable course of military events after British withdrawal on May 15.
            .
            If these predictions come true, we shall find ourselves in the UN confronted by a very anomalous situation. The Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by
            the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership. The question which will confront the SC in scarcely ten days’ time will be whether Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council.
            .
            The situation may be made more difficult and less clear-cut if, as is probable, Arab armies from outside Palestine cross the frontier to aid their disorganized and demoralized brethren who will be the objects of Jewish attack. In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside Palestine which is the cause of Arab counter-attack. . . .

            . . .Given this almost intolerable situation, the wisest course of action might be for the United States and Great Britain, with the assistance of France, to undertake immediate diplomatic action seeking to work out a modus vivendi between Abdullah of Transjordan and the Jewish Agency. This modus vivendi would call for, in effect, a de facto partition of Palestine along the lines traced by Sir Arthur Creech Jones in his remark to Ambassador Parodi on May 2, as indicated on Page 3
            of USUN’s telegram [549], May 2,2 which has been drawn to your attention. page 894

          3. “There was nothing unitlateral about it. The same Allied Powers behind the San Remo resolution issued the Tripartite Declaration Regarding the Armistice Borders and each of them recognized the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan”

            The Tripartite Declaration neither sanctioned the use of force that had created the boundaries in the first place nor recognized the sovereignty of those countries over the territory within those boundaries. Paragraph 3 merely stated that the parties must not use force to change those boundaries. The other paragraphs were a framework to allow the three countries involved (i.e. not the whole world) to supply arms to both sides.

            “The British government had rights under a mutual defense treaty with Transjordan to conduct foreign relations on its behalf and to obtain assistance from its armed forces.”

            Such an agreement was subordinate to Britain’s obligations under the Mandate and the Partition Plan.

            “The terms of the Partition Plan were a multilateral agreement that called for the Mandatory to progressively turn the territory over to the control of Jewish and Arab authorities when it withdrew.”

            Arab authorities – not a de facto foreign country.

            “Nothing in the General Assembly resolution precluded the Arabs of the former mandate from forming a union on their own between Arab Palestine and Transjordan after they were emancipated from international tutelage.”

            I don’t dispute their right to form a voluntary union. But neither the international community nor the Arab world recognized it. Moreover it is questionable how “voluntary” it was given that it was formed at the behest of tribal elders not a democratic electorate. Indeed women didn’t even have the vote in Jordan until 1975. (That incidentally was why Israel came in for so much flack in 1974 when they allowed women in the West Bank to vote in municipal elections.)

          4. Bevin had no authority to do so. The original mandate prohibited the Mandatory power from unilateral disposition of any part of the mandated territory and the Partition Plan prohibited the Mandatory from doing anything to impede or prevent the implementation of the plan.

            The UN partition plan was not a unilateral disposition and it terminated the mandate. Nothing in the partition plan prohibited the mandatory from permitting the inhabitants to organize their own militias or arrange for assistance from other states in securing in the areas allocated to their respective states once they were emancipated from international tutelage. You act like the Jews were the only people that was granted independence.

            However, what is interesting is that the only two countries to recognize the West bank annexation that resulted from the Jordanian action were Britain and Pakistan. The rest of the world did NOT recognize it

            That is a Jewish bedtime story. I notice you didn’t mention recognition of the territory that Israel seized beyond the lines laid down in the partition plan. The Foreign Relations of the United States series is the official documentary historical record of major U.S. foreign policy decisions that have been declassified and edited for publication. I gave you a link to the Memorandum of Conversation, between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Mr. Abdel Monem Rifai, Counselor, Jordan Legation in Washington, June 5, 1950 which documents the US recognition of the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan, and recognition of Jordanian sovereignty over the new area in Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), Page 921

            A Chapter seven UN Security Council resolution 62 directed the parties to establish permanent armistice lines of demarcation. Another Chapter seven resolution 73 ordered them to observe and execute the agreements pending a final negotiated settlement. Under the customary rules governing international recognition, Israel granted “Jordan” the rights of a normal state to govern the area when it signed the armistice agreement:

            Once the decision has been taken to recognize an insurgent government as belligerent, the legal consequences of the decision are not limited to its concession of belligerent rights. So long as it maintains an independent existence, the insurgent government is considered to have all the normal rights and liabilities of a State. Its legal position is not merely that of a military occupant as defined by the Hague Convention No. IV, of 1907. — See Ti-chiang Chen, “The international law of recognition, with special reference to practice in Great Britain and the United States”, Nabu Press, 2010, page 307-308.

            That’s why the UN never complained when either party extended their domestic laws to the territory that would have otherwise been considered “occupied” under the Hague rules.

            The charter of the United Nations codified many principles of customary international which are reflected in General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) “Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations” It provides that:Every State… has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

          5. “The UN partition plan was not a unilateral disposition and it terminated the mandate.”

            I never said it was. I said that the Mandate (and the Partitition Plan) precluded unilateral action by the mandatory power (i.e. Britain) that conflicted with the Mandate and Partition Plan respectively. (Britain in fact abstained on the Partition Plan.)

            “Nothing in the partition plan prohibited the mandatory from permitting the inhabitants to organize their own militias or arrange for assistance from other states in securing in the areas allocated to their respective states once they were emancipated from international tutelage.”

            The Arab Legion was invited in by the British, not the Palestinian Arabs. Given that the Arab Legion was a militia of a foreign country that was territorially contiguous with Palestine, with clear conflicting territorial interests of its own, inviting them in could reasonably be construed as a breach of the Resolution 181:

            “2. …The mandatory Power shall not take any action to prevent, obstruct or delay the implementation by the Commission of the measures recommended by the General Assembly.”

            Regarding your point about inviting in foreign militias, Para 8. of the Partition Plan resolution stated that:

            “The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall, within the shortest time possible, recruit an armed militia from the residents of that State, sufficient in number to maintain internal order and to prevent frontier clashes.

            This armed militia in each State shall, for operational purposes, be under the command of Jewish or Arab officers resident in that State…”

            The command of the Arab Legion was not resident in Palestine.

            “Once the decision has been taken to recognize an insurgent government as belligerent, the legal consequences of the decision are not limited to its concession of belligerent rights. So long as it maintains an independent existence, the insurgent government is considered to have all the normal rights and liabilities of a State.”

            The Jordanian government was the government of a foreign state not an independent entity. They simply occupied a territory and attached it to their country.

          6. The Arab Legion was invited in by the British, not the Palestinian Arabs.

            The Arab Legion had been deployed in Palestine since the 1936-39 Arab Revolt. The very nature of a mandate permits the mandatory power to make decisions affecting the area even in the absence of the inhabitants’ consent; that is the very raison d’ˆetre of a mandate.

            In any event the Arab Higher Committee reported to the Security Council that it had solicited the assistance of Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Trans-Jordan, in order to reinstate peace and order in Palestine. “Their purpose and task is one of pacification and not of invasion.” See S/775, 24 May 1948 In addition, the Prime Minister of Transjordan cited petitions, from nearly every town and village in Palestine during the February 1948 meeting with Bevin. The petitions were published in “The Hashemite Documents: The Papers of Abdullah bin al-Husayn, volume V: Palestine 1948 (Amman 1995)” and are cited in Chapter 5, Jordan and 1948, in “The war for Palestine: rewriting the history of 1948″, By Eugene L. Rogan, and Avi Shlaim, Cambridge University Press, 2001.

            The decision of the Jericho Congress was ratified by an overwhelming majority of Palestinians in the subsequent elections. Secretary of State Acheson stated at his April 26, 1950 press conference that

            “The elections which were held on the 11th were on the basis of the incorporation of Arab Palestine into the Hashemite Kingdom. Those elections have taken place and this action of the parliament will be to ratify that decision. Now, our American attitude is that we have no objection whatever to the union of peoples mutually desirous of this new relationship.” See Marjorie M. Whiteman (editor), Digest of International Law, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963), page 1167.

            Given that the Arab Legion was a militia of a foreign country … …inviting them in could reasonably be construed as a breach of the Resolution 181

            You cited provisions of the resolution that were applicable during the transition period that began on 29 November 1947 and ended when the mandate was terminated by the British.

            The Jordanian (sic) government was the government of a foreign state not an independent entity. They simply occupied a territory and attached it to their country.

            I provided you with links to the minutes of the Security Council meeting and State Department FRUS which illustrate that Transjordan was not a foreign state and that its international status had not been decided. The Jewish Agency claimed that Transjordan was an indivisible part of the Mandate and that the boundary was an interstate or administrative, but not an international one. See for example “Mandate is Indivisible Jewish Agency Objects to Severance of T.-J.”, Palestine Post Apr 9, 1946, page 3.

            Despite the fact that Herbert Samuel arranged for the districts of Maan and Aqaba to be annexed to Transjordan from Hedjaz in 1925, the (Russian-born) Jewish Agency spokesmen usually tried to portray Abdullah as a “foreigner”. Of course, he and all of the Ottoman subjects that were habitually resident in the territory acquired citizenship by operation of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne. I also provided you with links which illustrate that the Jewish Agency and Zionist leaders had attempted to acquire territory from Transjordan under the terms of the General Assembly’s Partition Plan and that the members of the Security Council did not consider Abdullah’s entry into Palestine as an act of aggression.

            Article 80 of the UN Charter was limited in scope to trusteeships (i.e. “nothing in this Chapter”). It did not prevent the General Assembly and the Mandatory from terminating mandates. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that, when the Mandate came to an end, the rights acquired under the mandate also came to an end. One of its Supreme Court Justices said that even if Israel had been a ”successor” of Mandated Palestine, even then it would not be burdened by obligations acquired in relation to any part of Palestine or its inhabitants who remained outside the boundaries of the new State. See for example CApp 41/49 Simshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory LTD. v. Attorney-General

          7. “The Arab Legion had been deployed in Palestine since the 1936-39 Arab Revolt.”

            You haven’t addressed the issue of the fact that they were not locally commanded (as required if their deployment was to conform to Resolution 181).

            “The very nature of a mandate permits the mandatory power to make decisions affecting the area even in the absence of the inhabitants’ consent; that is the very raison d’ˆetre of a mandate.”

            Without the INHABITANT’s consent, yes. But not contra to the rules laid down by the authority that issued the Mandate.

            “The decision of the Jericho Congress was ratified by an overwhelming majority of Palestinians in the subsequent elections.”

            Only male voters – despite the fact that Resolution 181 required that women have the vote in both states in former Mandatory Palestine.

            “I provided you with links to the minutes of the Security Council meeting and State Department FRUS which illustrate that Transjordan was not a foreign state and that its international status had not been decided.”

            The fact that Transjordan’s application to join the UN was blocked (by the Security Council, not the General Assembly – and thus by only a fraction of the UN’s total membership) does not alter the fact that Transjordan became a de jure independent state in May 1946 when the League of Nations was formally wound up and replaced by the UN.

            Moreover the fact that Resolution 181 made no provision for Transjordan suggests that it’s status was done and dusted, even if SOME parties disputed that (and even – paradoxically – if those parties included Israel).

            Which leads right back to my point that the Arab legion was answerable to a foreign power that was territorially contiguous and thus had a conflict of interest. (That is why when the UN sends peacekeeping forces to an area, it sends forces from countries far-removed from the area.) If the British needed assistance in the maintenance of order in Palestine, why did they refuse to allow UN forces into the Mandated territory prior to the British withdrawal?

          8. You haven’t addressed the issue of the fact that they were not locally commanded (as required if their deployment was to conform to Resolution 181)

            Of course I did. I provided you with citations to the League of Nations, Official Journal, 1928, p. 1574, and Marjorie M. Whiteman (ed), Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 631.

            Both of those sources explain that the treaty between the UK and Transjordan did not effect the status of the Mandate. The Legion remained subordinate to the British High Commissioner in Jerusalem, who had been delegated full powers of administration under the mandate.

            Resolution 181 was comprised of a plan for Economic Union, a Minority Protection Plan, and a Plan of Partition. The Security Council refused to adopted the latter for action and referred the matter back to a special session of the General Assembly. It relieved the UN Palestine Commission of its responsibilities under resolution 181 (II) in accordance with section III of resolution 186 (S-2), May 14, 1948 and appointed a UN Mediator to find another peaceful solution to the situation. The Mediator eventually accepted the armistice agreements on behalf on the UN organization signed by the new political entities Israel and Jordan. The latter had already been formed by a union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan.

            BTW, the UN Commission would never have simply appointed Vaad Leumi and the Jewish Agency as the provisional government of the nearly 500,000 Arab inhabitants of the proposed “Jewish” state without providing for their equal representation. The Jewish militias were not raised and organized in accordance with the terms of resolution 181(II) that you mentioned. The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was not in-line with the details of the UN transition plan you mentioned in connection with the raising of the Arab militias, much less the unauthorized military campaigns, like Deir Yassin, that were carried-out well beyond the boundaries of the Jewish state.

            Without the INHABITANT’s consent, yes. But not contra to the rules laid down by the authority that issued the Mandate.

            The Council of the League of Nations and the Permanent Mandates Commission had approved of the use of armed forces from Transjordan, the India colony, and etc. to maintain law and order in Palestine.

            Only male voters – despite the fact that Resolution 181 required that women have the vote in both states in former Mandatory Palestine.

            The ICJ and PCIJ have always ruled that resolutions of the Council of the League of Nations, like the Mandates, and resolutions of the General Assembly are merely recommendations – and that they are only binding on parties concerned under the terms of their own acceptance of the Covenant, UN Charter, or other explicit agreement. The Jewish Agency and the representatives of the Provisional Government of Israel explicitly agreed to accept the terms of resolution 181, but the Palestinians initially refused. The Arabs accepted the map from the partition plan the same day that the UN recognized Israel as part of the Lausanne protocol. Palestine made a declaration in-line with resolution 181(II) in 1988 accepting the minority protection plan. That would cover the 17,000 Jewish refugees and their properties.

            FYI, in the Kosovo case, the United States claimed that even Security Council resolutions are not legally binding on non-member states. Only signatories of the UN Charter have agreed to permit the Security Council to act on their behalf in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter.

            Once the mandate was terminated by the General Assembly, the Palestinian and Trans-Jordanian communities had the right under customary international law to establish their own form of government(s). I provided you with a link to a US State Department advisory opinion to that effect. So yes, I’ve already addressed these points.

            Transjordan became a de jure independent state in May 1946 when the League of Nations was formally wound up and replaced by the UN.

            No, the terms of the mandate required the establishment of self-governing institutions. So the existence of an independent government was completely irrelevant to the continued application of most favored nation treaties and the LoN policy of the Open Door. See for example the proclamation of General De Gaulle to that effect in regard to the Independence of Syria and Lebanon.

            The terms for ending a joint LoN mandate regime were laid down in a resolution adopted by of the Council of the League of Nations and accepted by the mandataries on September 4, 1931. No portion of the territory under a mandate could be emancipated unless all of the territory was emancipated. It was agreed that membership in the League of Nations would also terminate any mandate. Even though the organization was open to crown colonies and other dependencies, like the UN, it did not admit states under international tutelage. See Luther Harris Evans, “The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758, American Society of International Law http://www.jstor.org/pss/2189582

            The ICJ confirmed that the General Assembly could terminate a mandate in the Namibia case. The Council of the League of Nations could terminate a mandate, but Japan and Italy were occupied/enemy states in 1946. So only a meeting of the remaining LoN Assembly states was convened. It merely welcomed the British plans for the future emancipation of Transjordan.

            The Anglo-American treaty, also known as the Palestine Mandate Convention, permitted the US to delay any unilateral British action to terminate the mandate. Prior to the adoption of resolution 181(II), The U.S. adopted the policy that formal termination of the mandate with respect to Transjordan would follow the earlier precedent established by the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon. That meant termination would generally be recognized upon the admission of Transjordan into the United Nations as a fully independent country. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. The Near East and Africa Volume VII (1946), page 798

            The United States declined to recognize the All-Palestine Government when it was announced. It said that it had been established without consulting the wishes of Arab Palestinians and that it was associated with a war time enemy, the Mufti. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 2, page 1448.

            Truman accepted Bernadotte’s proposal for the Palestinian union with Transjordan. Bernadotte’s diary said the Mufti had lost credibility on account of his unrealistic predictions regarding the defeat of the Jewish militias. Bernadotte said “It would seem as though in existing circumstances most of the Palestinian Arabs would be quite content to be incorporated in Transjordan.” see Folke Bernadotte, “To Jerusalem”, Hodder and Stoughton, 1951, pages 112-13.

            Truman ordered that http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1949v06&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=702“>Israel and Transjordan should be granted de jure recognition on the same same day.

            The Transjordanian Government agreed to the unification on December 7, 1948, and on December 13 the Transjordanian parliament approved the creation of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The change of status was reflected by the adoption of this new official name on 21 January 1949. See Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements, Vol. 4, Edmund Jan Osmanczyk, and Anthony Mango, Routledge, 3rd edition, 2004, ISBN 0-415-93924-0, page 2354

            A few days later, Israel and Transjordan were granted de jure recognition by the US on January 31, 1949.

          9. ” ‘You haven’t addressed the issue of the fact that they were not locally commanded (as required if their deployment was to conform to Resolution 181)’

            “Of course I did. I provided you with citations … The Legion remained subordinate to the British High Commissioner in Jerusalem, who had been delegated full powers of administration under the mandate.”

            Only on paper. In practice the Legion was answerable to Glubb Pasha and ultimately King Abdullah – neither of whom were resident in the designated area of the Palestinian Arab State.

            “The Jewish militias were not raised and organized in accordance with the terms of resolution 181(II) that you mentioned.”

            In what respect?

            “The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was not in-line with the details of the UN transition plan you mentioned in connection with the raising of the Arab militias,”

            The State of Israel established a democratic legislature based on proportional representation and universal suffrage (including voting rights for women) – all of which was in accordance with the Partition Plan.

            “much less the unauthorized military campaigns, like Deir Yassin, that were carried-out well beyond the boundaries of the Jewish state.”

            The capture of Deir Yassin was necessary to open the road to Jerusalem to prevent it from being besieged by the Arab Legion and annexed to Transjordan. The vast majority of inhabitants of Jerusalem were Jewish and needed to be protected. The fact that Jews were expelled from the eastern part of Jerusalem that fell to the Arab legion and that the synagogues of eastern Jerusalem destroyed, showed how necessary such defensive action was. The CONDUCT of the Etzel-Lehi forces that attacked Deir Yassin deserves condemnation, but the underlying decision to capture the area was legitimate.

            “The Council of the League of Nations and the Permanent Mandates Commission had approved of the use of armed forces from Transjordan, the India colony, and etc. to maintain law and order in Palestine.”

            The LoN no longer existed by the time these events occurred and any approval it issued was superceded by the UN and its resolutions. Moreover the Arab Legion was not attempting to maintain law and order. It was attempting to capture territory for Transjordan.

            “The Jewish Agency and the representatives of the Provisional Government of Israel explicitly agreed to accept the terms of resolution 181, but the Palestinians initially refused.”

            True – and a point well worth remembering. However if the Palestinians didn’t accept the terms, they cannot claim the benefits either.

            “Once the mandate was terminated by the General Assembly, the Palestinian and Trans-Jordanian communities had the right under customary international law to establish their own form of government(s).”

            Except that it was not “the Palestinian and Trans-Jordanian communities” that established the form of government but only the male portion of those communities. The female portion never consented initially (or were given the chance to consent) to their disenfranchisement – a state of affairs that did not end until 1975, after the Israelis embarrassed the Jordanians into joining the 20th century.

            “No, the terms of the mandate required the establishment of self-governing institutions. So the existence of an independent government was completely irrelevant…”

            Not sure what the difference “self-governing institutions” and “independent government” is. How much more independent did it have to be?

            I won’t address you irrelevant arguments as to what the US recognized, as the US position is the view of one particular country.

          10. I won’t address you irrelevant arguments as to what the US recognized, as the US position is the view of one particular country.

            Like you conveniently ignored the Armistice Agreements, UN Security Council resolutions 62 & 73, and the Trilateral Declaration on the Armistice Borders by the US, UK, and France?

            The United States had negotiated international conventions that contained the texts of the LoN Mandates. The US, the UK, and France were the remaining “Allied Powers” mentioned in the preamble of the Mandate. They had reserved the power to themselves to lay down borders where ever wished under the terms of the mandates and Article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles. It stipulated that Germany was required to recognize the dispositions made concerning the territories of the former Ottoman Empire, “and to recognize the new States within their frontiers as there laid down.” The other Central powers and the treaty articles that required them to recognize the new states were:
            *Bulgaria Article 60 of the Treaty of Neuilly;
            *Hungary Article 74 (2) of The Treaty of Trianon
            *Austria Article 90 of The Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye

            The entire Security Council condemned the IDF raid in the Hebron area of Es-Sammu as a premeditated attack on “Jordanian territory” in resolution 228 (1966). The General Assembly and ICJ considered the construction of the wall illegal wherever it deviated from the Green Line and entered Arab Palestine in accordance with Resolution ES-10/14 (2003) and 15 (2004).

            In letter to David Ben-Gurion published by Reuters on January 9, 1968 French President De Gaulle explained that he was convinced that Israel had ignored his warnings and overstepped the bounds of moderation by taking possession of Jerusalem, and so much Jordanian territory. All of that is incompatible with non-recognition of the annexation of the West Bank and recognition of belligerent governments under international law.

            Under the terms of the treaties of Lausanne and Sevres, the new states came into existence in March of 1920. That was the date when payments on their shares of the Ottoman public debt became payable. The French and British entered into treaties on the borders in the region and they formed and dissolved states by partition within the joint mandates however they wished under the terms of the mandate instruments and related conventions. For example, the States created during the French Mandate included:
            *State of Greater Lebanon
            *State of Alawites
            *State of Jabal Druze
            *State of Aleppo
            *State of Damascus
            *Sanjak of Alexandretta

            “The Jewish militias were not raised and organized in accordance with the terms of resolution 181(II) that you mentioned.”

            In what respect?

            The UN Commission never named Va’ad Leumi or the Jewish Agency to be the Provisional Government of the Jewish state and those organs certainly were not acting under the authority of the UN Commission when the Irgun, the Stern Gang, and the Haganah attacked Deir Yassin and implemented Plan D during the transition period. The militias were supposed to prevent border clashes, but the Jewish militias carried out attacks in the Arab state and Corpus Separatum.

            The Provisional Council of Government of each State, acting under the Commission, shall progressively receive from the Commission full responsibility for the administration of that State in the period between the termination of the Mandate and the establishment of the State’s independence.
            .
            The Commission shall instruct the Provisional Councils of Government of both the Arab and Jewish States, after their formation, to proceed to the establishment of administrative organs of government, central and local.
            .
            The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall, within the shortest time possible, recruit an armed militia from the residents of that State, sufficient in number to maintain internal order and to prevent frontier clashes.
            .
            This armed militia in each State shall, for operational purposes, be under the command of Jewish or Arab officers resident in that State, but general political and military control, including the choice of the militia’s High Command, shall be exercised by the Commission.

            The State of Israel established a democratic legislature

            Yehuda Blum admitted in testimony to the US Senate Judiciary Committee that Israel’s first election had no legitimacy. It had driven the bulk of its Arab voters into exile and refused to allow them to return and take part in the political life of the country. He said that didn’t matter because many other countries held bogus elections or no elections at all. But it is a wild exxageration to claim that Israel’s elections satisfied the minority rights protections contained in resolution 181(II) http://www.loc.gov/law/find/hearings/pdf/00139297647.pdf

            any approval it issued was superceded by the UN and its resolutions.

            Under the terms of General Assembly resolution 24, the UN did not inherit the LoN Mandate system. It insisted that Mandataries continue to administer their mandates until they were terminated or replaced by trusteeship agreements. That meant Great Britain did not need UN permission to use the permanent Arab Legion garrisons in Gaza and Rafah, because they weren’t “militias”. After the General Assembly adopted resolution 186(S2) on May 14, 1948 the plan for the transition period was moot.

            For example, during the 271st meeting of the Security Council US Ambassador Austin cited UN General Assembly Resolution 24 (I) and stated:

            The United Nations does not automatically fall heir to the responsibilities either of the League of Nations or of the Mandatory Power in respect of the Palestine Mandate. The record seems to us entirely clear that the United Nations did not take over the League of Nations Mandate system. See S/PV.271, 19 March 1948 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.271

      1. The fact that Israel has managed to survive does not detract from the legitimacy of Israel’s actions. War is not a boxing match where the parties are required to be in the same weight division. Israel didn’t get to choose its enemies.

        Furthermore the inequalities are multi-dimensional. For example in 1948 the Israelis had more fighters, but that included women, and in some cases children, defending their villages. The Arab invaders had the attackers of advantage of deciding where to attack. The Israelis had defend every place that COULD be attacked.

        And in 1973 the Arabs had the advantage of (partial) surprise. Israel came perilously close to defeat on the northern front with Syria. It was not the one-sided affair that you seem to imply.

      2. Sure, Armies 3 time the size of the Israeli with the best arms you could find in the world is nothing. It would be funny had it not been sad.

      3. Perhaps you could back this up some proof. Egypt deployed the latest weapons and they were very well provisioned (contrary to your claim in a later post) thanks to their Sugar daddy in the Soviet Union. Israeli planes were completely unable to deal with the SAM’s deployed by Egypt, particularly the SA-6 nothing of the kind including the Hawk compared to it. Israel tanks were decimated by Sagger missiles and Israel’s inadequate APC, WW2 ear half track in some cases, were mauled by newly delivered RPG’s.
        Based on the fact that Syria and Egypt’s initial attack was successful and that they annihilated Israel’s initial counter attacks further proves that the Arabs possessed superior military intelegance and planning.
        The continued belief in Egypt that they won also raises some serious doubts to you post that Israel didn’t face a serious army in 73.

        Its easy to forget that once upon a time the Arab armies were provide equal sums of cash and equipment from the Soviets to what the US provided Israel.

        1. Ariel Sharon would’ve crossed the Suez Canal & sailed on to Cairo (much as he did in 1982 in Lebanon) if he hadn’t been stopped by the U.S. By the end of the war, Israel was the far superior force thanks to replenishment of U.S. weapons by Nixon. That’s why I used the word “arguably.” Egypt was a serious opponent until they ran out of all those weapons you describe & had nothing left, while Israel did.

          1. Israel ran out of tank ammunition on the Northern front and for several days were sitting ducks. Replenishment helped, but the picture of Israel as a Goliath to an Arab David is no more realistic than the converse – especially as you can’t replenish POWs (and many Israelis were taken prisoner on the southern front).

            It is doubtful that Arik Sharon would – or could – have advanced on Cairo. More likely he would have surrounded the Egyptian Second Army as he already had with the first and “replenished” with 800 Egyptian tanks. Ultimately it was daring and improvisation that won the day. And for that Israel deserves respect.

          2. Not really when the only reason there was war in the first place was Golda’s spurning Sadat’s negotiation overtures leaving him no choice but war to regain his lost territory.

            In that sense Golda is directly responsible for those 3,000 israeli deaths.

          3. “Israel ran out of tank ammunition on the Northern front and for several days were sitting ducks”

            The interesting thing about the Northern Front in the 73 war was what the Syrians DIDN’T do i.e. when they totally surprised the IDF on the Golan Heights they were able to sweep down very quickly and take those Heights, and were then looking down on the plains below with NOTHING between them and that open country as far as the eye could see.

            Q: What did they do?
            A: They stopped cold.

            It does rather put into perspective the notion that the Arabs were hell-bent on the total destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews.

            Apparently their blood-thirstiness did not extend beyong “grabbing back what was ours”.

            How odd, heh?

          4. “Q: What did they do?
            A: They stopped cold.

            Apparently their blood-thirstiness did not extend beyong “grabbing back what was ours”.”

            A naive oversimplification. What actually happened was that when Israel’s 7th Brigade were about to retreat, some 15 repaired tanks arrived with lightly injured crews from destroyed tanks. The Syrians wrongly interpreted this as a sign that Israeli reservist with a larger number of tanks had arrived and thought they had lost their initial momentum, so they stopped to regroup. That gave Israel more time to bring in reservists and reinforcements.

            This does not detract from the fact that the Syrian’s were a worthy and courageous foe. They were also very well-armed and equipped with an impressive Soviet air defence system and night vision equipment that enabled them to fight effectively at night when the Israelis couldn’t.

  5. Silverstein says: “When in the past 50 yrs has Israel faced an army remotely competitive with its own? Even in 73 the Egyptian army was really no match for Israel’s.”

    That wasn’t what you said in your article. You said Israel prefers fighting poorly armed Hamas militants to fighting a well-armed nation whose population is ten times larger than its own. Yet that is PRECISELY what Israel did in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. In fact, in 3 of those wars, she was fighting not one, but several well-armed nations whose combined populations were considerably more than ten times larger than her own. The fact that tiny little Israel survived against seven well-equipped Arab armies in 1948 was probably due to a combination of desperation (if she lost, she would cease to exist) and sheer luck – or possibly, dare one say it, divine providence.

    1. I said Israel IS interested in…Did you notice the present tense? I didn’t say Israel 50 years ago preferred fighting weak armies. So don’t engage in pilpul w me. I have no interest in ancient history. But there was only one serious army fighting Israel in 1948, Jordan. Israel hasn’t fought against a well provisioned modern army since 1967 (1973 if you want to stretch things). Nor does the IDF want to fight against Turkey, which is why, unless it folds & apologizes, it will allow a Turkish aid convoy to break the siege.

      1. Richard, I think most countries (and terrorist organizations) would rather fight weak opponents than strong ones. Like those terrorists who slit the throat of a three-year-old baby in the village of Itamar.

        1. Don’t you mean the illegal settlement at Itamar, which houses quite a number of thugs who take pleasure in beating up and robbing American peace workers old enough to be their grandparents, merely because these pensioners had the audacity to help villagers in nearby Yanoun try to harvest their olives?

          1. No, I mean the village. I don’t see any reason why Jews shouldn’t live in the West Bank – just like there are Arabs living in Israel. I didn’t see any thugs in Itamar when I visited it – just ordinary people living in a small community.

          2. You must’ve missed the Itamar resident who murdered a Palestinian in cold blood a few yrs ago. If you’re visiting Itamar I don’t imagine they’d treat you the way they do Palestinians. But try going to the nearby Palestinian villages with Taayush or similar groups & see how yr friends will treat u then!

          3. Yes, I have no problems with Jews living in the West Bank, as long as they accept Palestinian sovereignty & laws & take citizenship in Palestine (or whatever arrangement may be worked out bet. Israel & Palestine concerning them). Eventually, I’d love to see Palestinians living in Israel either as citizens or retaining Palestinian citizenship; and Jews living in the West Bank under similar terms. But this means that both Jews & Palestinians would live in these countries and adhere to the respective laws & take citizenship in the respective country (or live there as guests under terms the country lays out).

            But no Jew would be allowed to remain in Palestine living on stolen land or settlements. If, on the other hand, Palestine wishes to make an arrangement whereby it would be paid for the theft of those settlements in return for them remaining where they are and remaining settlers being allowed to live in them–that would be fine. But up to the Palestinians themselves to accept such an arrangement.

      2. Silverstein says: “I have no interest in ancient history”.
        50 years hardly meets the definition of “ancient history”.

        You did NOT say “Israel is interested in…”You said Israel prefers, trying to imply that Israel is a coward and a bully. I merely pointed out that Israel’s military history does not support such a claim. You then asked “When in the past 50 yrs has Israel faced an army remotely competitive with its own? Even in 73 the Egyptian army was really no match for Israel’s.” That is a completely different kettle of fish – but all of a piece with your usual method of sidestepping whenever someone points out the error of your ways and trying to argue on a different premise entirely and pretend that’s what you said from the beginning.

        BTW – when you say “an army remotely competitive with its own” – in what way do you mean “competitive”? Certainly the Arab armies were in no way inferior in equipment, and as for numbers, they way outnumbered the IDF – so it’s hard to understand where you see the lack of competitiveness.

        1. ”You said Israel prefers, trying to imply that Israel is a coward and a bully.

          Well of course. We always hear that Israel lives in a tough neigborhood. Israel and the US claim that every state has the right to defend itself, but they insist on a creating a demilitarized Palestine that has to live in that same neighborhood.

          Long story short. States have enjoyed sovereign equality to make those decisions for themselves ever since the UN declaration on the independence of colonial peoples.

          It is a matter of public record that Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban told the United States government that Israel wanted the territory of Gaza, but not its inhabitants. He said that Israel opposed the establishment of an independent state in the West Bank that might become a UN member state, but he admitted at the same time that the era of establishing autonomous non-self-governing regions was over. http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d442

          Nonetheless, Israel and the United States opposed the secession of the West Bank from the Jordanian union and the recognition of the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people after the Rabat Summit conference in October 1974. Both countries have pursued the establishment of a demilitarized and semi-autonomous territorial dependency with no control over its foreign alliances, borders, airspace, water, radio spectrum, & etc. It’s really embarrassing to see this charade drag-on into the 21st century.

        2. 50 years hardly meets the definition of “ancient history”

          In terms of the Israeli-Arab conflict it is.

          You did NOT say “Israel is interested in…”You said Israel prefers

          The point is once again that I used the present tense & not past. If I’d wished to discuss ancient wars I would’ve said “Israel has always preferred…” I didn’t & I didn’t for a reason because I was talking about more recent history. Israel is a coward & a bully. Israel’s military history over the past 10-20 yrs does indeed support that claim–in spades.

          You haven’t pointed out “the error of my ways.” You’ve merely engaged in meaningless pilpul us usual.

    2. @Simone

      “BTW – I suggest that it is you and the others who subscribe to the myth of a “Palestinian
      people” who should be reading Benedict Anderson.”

      Simone, like it or not the Palestinians are indeed a people and they have the right to their self determination. Terror attacks on Israel notwithstanding, Israel needs to accepts that fact. It is simply inescapable.
      …..and yes, according to Benedict Anderson’s definition the Palestinians as a nation are a socially constructed community (the construction of which was ironically aided by a common opposition to Israeli interference) …. “a nation is a community socially constructed,which is to say imagined by the people who perceive themselves as part of that group”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_community

    3. 1948? Not really. Israels opponents were embryonic nations just like itself, and with decidedly less powerful sponsors.

      1956? You’re kidding, right? Israel, France and the UK ganging up on Egypt is the polar opposite of your ‘plucky little Israel’ propaganda.

      1967 and 1973 are less ridiculous, but then again Egypt, Syria and Jordan were economically much weaker relative to Israel (which they still are.) Turkey’s economy, by contrast, is several times as large as Israel’s.

      There can be little doubt that any imaginable military confrontation with Turkey would go badly for Israel. Such a conflict would mainly be a naval one, and Turkey’s superiority over Israel’s tiny brown-water navy should be obvious even to the layman. If Israel were on its own, Turkey could simply institute a wide naval blockade of Israel and cut off their supplies.

  6. But, it would nice to defeat the IDF in the field, to bring it to heel, and force Israel to accept some terms in settlement. It would be nice because the IDF is Israel and, if it limped home having accepted unpleasant terms, Israel might actually become more democratic as the IDF loses dedomestic power.

  7. Silverstein says: ” the myth of a “Palestinian people”

    That’s a major comment rule violation. You WILL read them. You now will be moderated until you’ve proved you’ve read & understood them. Yr next violation will cause you to lose yr privileges.”

    My comment was in reply to Omar’s comment, which implied the same about the Jewish people. I don’t see you threatening him with “loss of privileges”. Not that I consider it a privilege to reply to some of the outrageous distortions of fact on this blog…

    1. The way to deal with another commenter’s alleged falsehood is NOT to make a false claim of your own. The way to deal with this is to point out what you believe is the false claim & bring it to my attention if I don’t comment on it myself.

    1. You read what you want to read & disregard the rest. First, the article says that Turkey claims his statements were taken out of context & uses the Turkish version of his statement. I don’t know in what language the interview was conducted. Neither yu nor I know precisely what his original statement was. This strikes me not so much as a qualification of what Erdogan said as a wish to show Israel two sides of Turkey: a truculent one and a cautious one (or good cop & bad cop, if you will). This gives Israel the option of choosing which Turkey it wishes to engage. There is no doubt that Erdogan intends to change the security dynamic in the eastern Mediterranean & Israel will no longer rule the roost. That is irrespective of whether he did or didn’t say what was reported.

      In fact, Israel’s previous close military relations with Turkey may allow the Turkish military to prepare for future confrontations.

  8. @ David Kessler
    “No, I mean the village.”

    Itamar is not a village. It is an illegal settlement built on confiscated Palestinian land. I’m sure you didn’t see any thugs in Itamar when you visited… you are after all one of them (though I’m sure not a thug.) As for not seeing any reason why Jews shouldn’t live in the West Bank, there are already Jews living legally and freely and happily in Palestine. They are welcomed because they don’t live as Israelis and they don’t believe they are chosen by God to take the land from its indigenous population –the Palestinians who have lived there for generations or even centuries. Palestinians who live in Israel are there because they refused to be driven out when Israel was created. They supposedly are equal citizens, though not exactly in fact. These Palestinian Israelis have stolen no land.

    The Itamar settlers are squatters and the colony where they live is not a village. The Israeli chief of police at Ariel (another illegal settlement) told us when we were attacked, robbed and beaten at Yanoun that these thugs at Itamar are well known troublemakers.

    Once Palestine is declared a state (together with its other half: Gaza) the settlers will no doubt have an opportunity to apply for Palestinian citizenship, and some of them will probably be allowed to stay under Palestinian rule. It’s not likely the thugs at Itamar or Tekoa (I’m sure there are thugs in other settlements, certainly the ones in Hebron but I have personally only been attacked by those from Itamar and Tekoa) would be allowed to remain in Palestine since they will never accept that God isn’t a real estate agent.

    1. @David Kessler
      Of course if settlers who moved to Palestine illegally are granted permission to stay and become Palestinians, Israel will be expected to allow Palestinians from Europe or the U.S. or anywhere in the world to move to Israel and become citizens. It will have to work both ways.

      More likely, though, the two state solution will soon be recognized as not possible, and in the inevitable single state it really shouldn’t be a problem because Israel will no longer have total control over policy, including immigration, so a new system of allowing outsiders — Jewish or Muslim or Christian — to move to the new single state on an equal basis will have to be worked out.

      1. “Of course if settlers who moved to Palestine illegally are granted permission to stay and become Palestinians, Israel will be expected to allow Palestinians from Europe or the U.S. or anywhere in the world to move to Israel and become citizens. It will have to work both ways.”

        It would only be working “both ways” if Jews can continue to go to Palestine after it is formally established as a state.

        Legalizing the changes of residence that have already taken place need only apply to Arabs already living in Israel and Jews living in the West Bank. And if you wish to point out that the Arabs were living in Israel before it was established as a state, then the the answer is yes, I accept that. But by the same token, Jews living in the West Bank are living in Palestine before it has been formally established as a state.

        1. @David Kessler
          It will be up to the Palestinians to decide if they will allow Jews who have been living there illegally to become landed immigrants and remain there under Palestinian rule, and up to Israel to decide if it will allow Palestinians or other Arabs to move to Israel and become landed immigrants under Israeli rule.

          And yes, I do wish to point out that the Palestinian Israelis were living in Israel before it was established as a state, so their legal residence and citizenship has never been in question, whereas Jews living in the West Bank are living illegally in Palestine and have no such legal residence and citizenship that would allow them to stay.

          Perhaps the Palestinians would agree to allow some or most of the settlers to stay in Palestine under Palestinian sovereignty in exchange for Israel agreeing to an equivalent number of Palestinians returning to their homes and land taken from them in 1947 in what became Israel. Once that is done I imagine both sides can decide on their future immigration policies.

          1. “And yes, I do wish to point out that the Palestinian Israelis were living in Israel before it was established as a state, so their legal residence and citizenship has never been in question, whereas Jews living in the West Bank are living illegally in Palestine and have no such legal residence and citizenship that would allow them to stay.”

            As there is not YET a state of Palestine, there is no legal impediment to Jews taking up residence there. Migrations to areas where there are indigenous inhabitants but no local government are quite common and normal. That is how Europeans got to America and Australia. There is nothing illegal in Jews moving to the West Bank, provided they do not live on expropriated private land.

          2. Perhaps the Palestinians would agree to allow some or most of the settlers to stay in Palestine under Palestinian sovereignty in exchange for Israel agreeing to an equivalent number of Palestinians returning to their homes and land taken from them in 1947 in what became Israel.

            The exercise of the Palestinian refugee’s right of return to Israel on a 1 to 1 basis ought to be a sine qua non for any of the illegal settlers remaining in the territories. There was a grand total of 17,000 Jewish refugees who had been displaced from other parts of Palestine registered with the UNRPR/UNRWA. Netanyahu boasted that there are 600,000 living in the occupied territories in his address to the joint session of Congress.

            There is a PhD in Economics in Ramallah who will be happy to use property taxes, income taxes on foreign earnings, and etc. to turn the settlers into a revenue stream if they insist on staying.

    2. According to Peace Now 45% of the land occupied by Itamar is private Palestinian land. So the other 55% is presumably not. Maybe a fair compromise would be for Itamar to give back the 45%.

      1. Peace Now doesn’t say that the remaining 55% is legally owned by Itamar. It only says 45% certainly is illegally expropriated by the state because it was privately owned by Palestinians. I’d say Itamar will have to prove that it is legally entitled to any of the land.

        1. @David Kessler

          I don’t know who holds title to the land on which Itamar was established, but most often the rationale used in these instances is that if land can’t be proved to belong to individual Palestinians (and often such proof even when it exists is not accepted by those who would steal it) then it is “anybody’s” which usually is taken to mean it belongs to Israel. This is similar to the nonsensical claim that the entire West Bank is “disputed” rather than “occupied.” If the land in question is located outside internationally recognized borders of Israel (which most people accept as the 1967 line, though I don’t know why it should not be the 1948 line since this represents more accurately the land that was granted to Israel to share with those already living there) then that land belongs to Palestine, and I have as much right to claim it as does Israel, which means no right at all.

          I have no problem with Israelis legally purchasing land from Palestinians in the West Bank. I can buy land in France or in many countries. That doesn’t necessarily mean I will be allowed to live there. I don’t know if I can buy land in Israel, but I know I can’t live there. These settlers don’t even apply to the Palestinian authorities for permission to move to Palestinian land, and then they have the chutzpah to raise the Israeli flag and claim they are living in Israel and are not subject to Palestinian law.

          This is what is done in the illegal settlements such as Itamar. There are no legal Jewish settlements in Palestine, and that includes all the Palestinian villages around Jerusalem which Israel is grabbing and re-naming “Jerusalem neighborhoods” for Jews only.

          1. “I have no problem with Israelis legally purchasing land from Palestinians in the West Bank. I can buy land in France or in many countries.”
            You may have no problem with Jews legally purchasing land, but the PA sees it as a rather serious crime.

          2. “most often the rationale used in these instances is that if land can’t be proved to belong to individual Palestinians (and often such proof even when it exists is not accepted by those who would steal it) then it is “anybody’s” which usually is taken to mean it belongs to Israel.”

            Land ownership has been registered in Israel and Palestine since 1858 when the Ottoman’s established a land registry and enacted a law that land ownership must be registered. A lot of land is indeed unowned and therefore subject to usage for public interest projects according to the determination of the relevant authorities. (I suppose it would be off-topic to get into a debate over who those authorities are.)

          3. You may have no problem with Jews legally purchasing land, but the PA sees it as a rather serious crime.

            The government of Israel occasionally drops-in to murder someone and claims it has the right, because there has been a continuous international armed conflict ever since the first intifada. So long as Israel continues to make deadly incursions, designates Gaza as an enemy entity, & etc., the Palestinian authorities are justified in prohibiting all unauthorized communications and transactions. The US has similar laws against “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”.

  9. @David Kessler

    Israel accepted the partitioning of Palestine in 1947-48. Why then can’t Israel be satisfied with what it was granted the rights to share with the indigenous inhabitants of that land? Instead you (and others like you) take what was given and then continue to claim that which was not given and is not yours. Once you accept your share it’s a done deal and you can’t continue to gobble up the others’ share too. I don’t really care what the Ottomans did or said in 1858, any more than I care about what God supposedly did or said a few thousand years ago. I care about now and that the land of Palestine was divided, with the greater share going to Israel. Jerusalem was not given to either Israel or Palestine. Israel has already stolen a great portion of Palestine’s share, and your latest post reveals one reason Israel refuses enabling Palestinians to have a state: So that you can somehow try to justify stealing more and more land under the ridiculous claim that Palestine isn’t a state. As I said, according to your theory, I or anybody else in the world have as much right to the land being stolen as Israel does. You are grasping at straws to justify land theft and dispossession and ethnic cleansing. I think it’s time Israel takes a good look at itself and realizes if it doesn’t get a grip it could end up losing, through its insatiable greed, that which it was given. I hope that doesn’t happen, but if it does then Israel has nobody to blame but itself.

    1. Actually, I have to agree with you to some extent. Personally I would be happy to give up the settlements – despite having relatives there. I think Israel would have done better to concentrate on developing sparsely populated areas such as the Negev or joint Jewish-Arab areas in the Galilee.

      However, I see the settlements as a by-product of the conflict not the cause.

      1. Almost everyone in the rest of the world including Palestinians disagree. But if u need to be a majority of one be my guest. Don’t be surprised however when the existence of that “by-product” jumps up & bites u in the arse in the form of terror attacks, etc.

          1. I think you’ll find that the settlements were built long after the dispute began. Logic tells me that a dispute cannot pre-date its own cause!

            The Zionist started the dispute when they got off the boat in Palestine and started displacing the indigenous population.

            Ahdut Ha’avodah (Unity of Labor) was established in 1919. Its founding Charter called for a Jewish Socialist Republic in all of Palestine, and demanded

            “the transfer of Palestine’s land, water, and natural resources to the people of Israel as their eternal possession.” – See Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, Shabtai Teveth, page 99.

          2. They didn’t “get off the boat and start displacing the indigenous population.” They got off the boat (in a Turkish colony) bought land, built homes and roads, practiced agriculture, wrote poetry, studied, worked and did all the normal things that people do to make a living.

            The fact that one particular Zionist party, that you choose to focus on, had a certain policy as their starting point does not mean that their bargaining position was the cause of the dispute – much less the violence.

            Aside from that, we were discussing the settlements in the West Bank. Richard said they were the cause of the problem; I said the by-product (citing the chronology as evidence).

            If you wish to change the subject and assert that the nominal ambition of one Zionist political party caused the problem, you’re welcome to do so. But don’t try and rewrite history. If there was any displacement of the indigenous population, it was INTO the areas where Jews were taking up residence, in response to the increased work opportunities.

          3. They didn’t “get off the boat and start displacing the indigenous population.” They got off the boat (in a Turkish colony)

            The Ottoman Empire lasted longer than the Empire of the Aztecs. Through intermarriages and alliances it had long-since ceased to be Turkish and it never “colonized” Arabia.

            The fact that one particular Zionist party, that you choose to focus on, had a certain policy as their starting point

            That party and its successors dominated the government of Israel and the pre-state Jewish Agency. At the other end of the spectrum, Jabotinsky wrote the Iron Wall as his swan song when he left the Zionist Executive. He wrote that: there are no meaningful differences between our “militarists” and our “vegetarians.” in their desire for an iron wall of bayonets to keep the indigenous people at bay to facilitate Zionist colonization. Then, as now, the Zionist laid claim to “state lands and waste lands” that otherwise belonged to the Palestinians and prevented them from developing the country according to their own desires.

            If you wish to change the subject and assert that the nominal ambition of one Zionist political party caused the problem

            You’re engaged in blatant sophistry. Even the most innocuous form of political Zionism, as practiced by Magnus, required the Palestinians to share their country under terms imposed by a foreign occupier. I have no bone to pick with honest religious Zionism, but Ben Gurion and Jabotinsky really weren’t messiahs.

          4. “The Ottoman Empire lasted longer than the Empire of the Aztecs. Through intermarriages and alliances it had long-since ceased to be Turkish and it never “colonized” Arabia.”

            It was Turkish, but even if it wasn’t that is hardly relevant to your spurious claim that the Zionists “got off the boat in Palestine and started displacing the indigenous population.” When the Zionists got off the boat, it wasn’t called Palestine and they didn’t displace – except in the sense of making the areas where they settled more inviting to the local Arabs.

            And I don’t see what “Arabia” has to do with it.

            “Then, as now, the Zionist laid claim to ‘state lands and waste lands’ that otherwise belonged to the Palestinians and prevented them from developing the country according to their own desires.”

            It wasn’t a country in those days, just an Ottoman colony (whether you consider that Turkish or not). Zionists may have made “claims” but they bought land, they worked the land and they built – i.e. they contributed in a constructive way to the land.

            “You’re engaged in blatant sophistry. ”

            This from a person who quibbles over whether the Ottoman empire was Turkish?

          5. When the Zionists got off the boat, it wasn’t called Palestine

            It had been called Palestine since the first US Counsel had been stationed there. The US State Department Bureau of Foreign Commerce established Consulates in Palestine in the 1830s to look after US trade interests there. Under the regime of capitulations the US established its own extraterritorial Consular courts and exercised civil and criminal jurisdiction over its own citizens.

            The official reports appear in the Foreign relations of the United States and Commercial relations of the United States series of publications. For example here is the report Consul Gillman of Jerusalem, Palestine for 1891.

            By the Mandate era there 70,000 US citizens living in Ottoman Asia, and most of them were Jews living in Palestine. See Leland J. Gordon, The Turkish American Controversy over Nationality, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Oct., 1931), pp. 658-669 http://www.jstor.org/pss/2189916

            Even after the Mandate was granted to Great Britain, the US insisted that the UK had no right to arrest or prosecute its citizens in Palestine or to collect taxes from them. For example, here is the 1921 case of Mr. Chaikin, who was arrested by the Palestine police near Lod and charged with carrying a revolver contrary to local law. He was tried and sentenced by the District Governor at Ramleh to imprisonment for thirty days. In accordance with standing instructions the US Consulate demanded a week later (when informed of the occurence) that Mr. Chaikin be turned over to it for trial in the American Consular Court in accordance with the Capitulations. See Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1921, page 112

            The legal dispute was only settled when the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention was concluded.

            And I don’t see what “Arabia” has to do with it.

            The Ottomans had a military empire. The vilayets were complemented by a provincial military administration. Palestine was part of the jurisdiction of The ‘Arabistan Ordusu’, the provincial Ottoman Army for Arabistan (aka Arabia) or “the Land of the Arabs”. The headquarters were originally based at Damascus, and was put in charge of Cilicia, Syria (including Lebanon and Palestine), Iraq, and the southern Arabian Peninsula. see Stanford J. Shaw, Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Cambridge University Press, 1977, page 85; Caesar E. Farah, The Politics of Interventionism in Ottoman Lebanon, 1830-1861, I.B.Tauris, 2000, page 417; and Joseph Mary Nagle Jeffries, “Palestine: The Reality”, Longmans, Green and Co., 1939, page 4.

            This from a person who quibbles over whether the Ottoman empire was Turkish?

            Many Ottoman military commanders and rulers were not Turks. The Palestinian national movement began when the people waged a war against an Albanian mercenary and his son. The Sultan had installed Mohamed Ali as the ruler of Egypt and he quickly tried to subjugate Greater Syria and the Hedjaz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_of_Egypt

            In The Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922 (New Approaches to European History), 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2005, Donald Quataert explains that Ottoman is simply a euphemism for Muslim and that the Osmanis had ceased to be Turkish family or Empire through intermarriages and alliances with rulers of other nationalities. They turned their subjects into vassals, but they were not colonizers and Palestine was not a Turkish enclave.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *