Israel’s never-ending battle

By Ted Belman

As the West ups the pressure on Israel to capitulate to Arab demands and return to the armistice lines, it is important to remember that all of Judea and Samaria were held in trust for the Jewish state from the singing of the Palestine Mandate in 1922, if not earlier from the time the San Remo Conference awarded these lands to the Jews.

Throughout the thirties and forties the Arabs, with the Support of Great Britain, the Mandatory Power charged with the responsibilities of holding the land for the Jews, tried to thwart the intent of the Mandate and prevent the Jewish state from coming into being. Even the US helped in this endeavour. In 1947, UNGA Resolution 181, recommended a detailed plan for the Partition of Palestine knowing full well that such a resolution was contrary to the sacred trust for the Jews set out in the Mandate.

Ben Gurion, knowing, how the winds had been blowing, decided that a half a loaf was better than no loaf and went for the deal. The Arabs didn’t and invaded Israel instead. The War ended in an Armistice Agreement. Neither Res 181 nor this agreement vitiated the sacred trust and Jewish rights to Judea and Samaria and Gaza.

While the West maintained its policy of preventing Israel from expanding these lines by forcing Israel to retreat in ‘56 from Sinai and negotiating Res 242 in ‘67 requiring Israel to return from territories occupied to secure borders, the Arabs continued in their efforts to erase the Jewish state.

By accepting Res 242, many argue that Israel relinguished its rights to keep all the land described in the Mandate. Others dispute this interpretation and continue to argue that the Mandate still applies. Afterall, Res 242 was silent on the question of the Mandate and simply gave Israel the right to remain in occupation until they had negotiated “secure and recognized borders”. It is noteworthy that no restriction was put on Jewish settlement of these lands as permitted by the Mandate. Myths and Facts has produced a very important presentation “Mandate for Palestine: The legal Aspects of Jewish Rights” confirming Israel’s right to Judea and Samaria.

Be that as it may, the government of Israel chose not to claim all the land as was its right, with the exception of Jerusalem and The Golan which it annexed.

Nevertheless the west is not supporting Israel in any of its positions demanding that it share Jerusalem and return to “negotiated” borders near the armistice line. In time it will demand that Israel cede the Golan too.

Although Bush is on record of leaving it to the parties to negotiate borders, only Israel is pressed to capitulate and the PA is allowed to be as inflexible as it wants. Under these circumstances, if Israel isn’t allowed to say “no”, their right to negotiate is vitiated.

So now the West is getting ready to force Israel to accept the Arab demands. Unfortunately many Jews in Israel and the US support such a move. But the majority don’t.

Refugees

In a fair world the refugees would have been resettled in the fifties when Jordan was in occupation. That was more of an occupation than that of the Israel’s because Jordan had no legal claim to the land. Did Jordan welcome back the refugees? NO. Did the west resettle them elsewhere? No. Thus the West was fully complicit in supporting the “right of return” as the solution.

At the Madrid Conference a Refugee Working Group was set up to try to resolve the plight of Palestinian refugees. The Arabs were adamantly opposed to resettlement of the refugees elsewhere. When Canada’s Minister John Manley, sat as Chair of the RWG, he announced that Canada would accept a certain number of refugees and had similar commitments from others. He said,

“We are prepared to receive refugees. We are prepared to contribute to an international fund to assist with resettlement in support of a peace agreement.”

The Palestinians burned him in effigy and said, “We refuse resettlement of refugees.” That was the end of the RWG.

An article in EretzYisroel.org, Palestinian Refugees, Invited to leave in 1948 clearly presents the history of this issue. The quote I like best is the one by Syria’s Prime Minister, Khaled Al-Azm, after the 1948 war.

Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees… while it is we who made them leave…. We brought disaster upon … Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave…. We have rendered them dispossessed…. We have accustomed them to begging…. We have participated in lowering their moral and social level…. Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon … men, women and children-all this in the service of political purposes …. [36

Commentary Magazine just published an article by Ephraim Karsh entitled 1948, Israel, and the Palestinians— The True Story

During the past decade or so, the actual elimination of the Jewish state has become a cause célèbre among many of these educated Westerners. The “one-state solution,” as it is called, is a euphemistic formula proposing the replacement of Israel by a state, theoretically comprising the whole of historic Palestine, in which Jews will be reduced to the status of a permanent minority. Only this, it is said, can expiate the “original sin” of Israel’s founding, an act built (in the words of one critic) “on the ruins of Arab Palestine” and achieved through the deliberate and aggressive dispossession of its native population.

This claim of premeditated dispossession and the consequent creation of the longstanding Palestinian “refugee problem” forms, indeed, the central plank in the bill of particulars pressed by Israel’s alleged victims and their Western supporters. It is a charge that has hardly gone undisputed. As early as the mid-1950’s, the eminent American historian J.C. Hurewitz undertook a systematic refutation, and his findings were abundantly confirmed by later generations of scholars and writers. Even Benny Morris, the most influential of Israel’s revisionist “new historians,” and one who went out of his way to establish the case for Israel’s “original sin,” grudgingly stipulated that there was no “design” to displace the Palestinian Arabs.

The recent declassification of millions of documents from the period of the British Mandate (1920-1948) and Israel’s early days, documents untapped by earlier generations of writers and ignored or distorted by the “new historians,” paint a much more definitive picture of the historical record. They reveal that the claim of dispossession is not only completely unfounded but the inverse of the truth. What follows is based on fresh research into these documents, which contain many facts and data hitherto unreported.

It makes for interesting reading.

The Arabs will never make peace with Israel. Why should they. With the use of the peace process and the support of the West, they keep chipping away at the state of Israel.

Israel must put an end to it.