Expert: Arab-Palestinian state an existential danger to Israel

Expert: Arab-Palestinian state an existential danger to Israel

Leading US researcher states 'Arab-Palestine' is liable to endanger Israel much more than third Intifada will increase danger of nuclear war.

The "state of Arab-Palestine” presents a far greater threat to Israel than a third Intifada or persistent terrorism. This threat, which would further exacerbate the area’s correlation of forces, is potentially existential. Under certain circumstances, Arab-Palestinian statehood west of the Jordan River could meaningfully enlarge the prospects of both mega-terror attacks and regional nuclear war, warns Prof. Louis René Beres of Purdue University, expert on nuclear strategy.
In an article published on the Begin-Sadat (BESA Center) website, he explains that examining the subject in depth shows that the danger to Israel from a Arab-Palestinian state is far greater than is generally stated, and that it may be existential.
However, he pointed out, the actual danger is indirect - as in the case of a disease that is not serious enough to kill a person, but weakens it in such a way that other diseases can kill it. However, he said, it is also possible that a Arab-Palestinian state would pose a mortal danger in itself, but would implement the danger in a piecemeal manner.
According to Beres, since any Arab-Palestinian state will be created at the expense of the State of Israel, Israel will weaken as a result of the agreement, while the Arab-Palestinian entity will be strengthened. On the basis of Arab-Palestinian actions, declarations and positions over the years, there is no escaping the conclusion that in this situation, the Arab-Palestinians will continue their terrorist activities and terrorism will expand in scope.
As for the fear of a third Intifada, he wrote, it makes no sense for Israel to encourage its adversaries to become an even more organized and powerful entity, because such an entity could cause Israel greater damage. For example, it could attack the reactor in Dimona. Beres notes that polls conducted by the Arab PA found that most of the residents there support the armed struggle against Israel.
According to Beres, the establishment of a Arab-Palestinian state would reduce Israel's strategic depth, which is limited in any case.
As a result, Israel will have to react more strongly and immediately to any threat from Arab countries, whether it is a conventional or an unconventional threat. This will increase the risk of deterioration into non-conventional war. Beres also argues that "Arab-Palestine" could turn into an ISIS state or a disintegrating Syrian-style state.

The British objectives in ‘mentoring the revival of a national home for the Jewish people’ under the Mandate for Palestine were not based solely on the 1917 Balfour Declaration (which was approved by many nations, prior to Britain’s official Declaration). While international support for the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was set in motion by this landmark British policy statement, international intent rested on a solid consensus, expressed in a series of accords and declarations that reflected the ‘will’ of the international community, hardly the product or whim of a colonial empire with its own agenda.
(Napoleon in 1799 offered the Jewish community in Palestine aka The Land of Israel to reconstitute the Jewish State in Palestine as a French protectorate)
The Mandate itself notes this intent when it cites that the Mandate is based on the agreement of the Principal Allied Powers and declares:
“Whereas recognition has therefore been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country” [italics by author] with no restrictions as to the boundaries. There was also the January 1919 Faisal Weizmann Agreement.
A June 1922 letter from the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, Winston Churchill, reiterated that:
“…the [Balfour] Declaration of 1917 [was] re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at the April 1920 San Remo and again in the August 1920 Article 95 in the Treaty of Sevres … the Jewish people … is in Palestine as a right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historical connection.”
In the first Report of The High Commissioner on the Administration of Palestine 1920-1925 to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, published in April 1925, the most senior official of the Mandate for Palestine, the High Commissioner for Palestine, underscored how “international guarantee[s]” for the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine aka The Land of Israel were achieved:
“The Declaration was endorsed at the time by several of the Allied Governments; it was reaffirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo in April 1920; it was subsequently endorsed by unanimous resolutions of both Houses of the Congress of the United States; it was embodied in the Mandate for Palestine approved by the League of Nations in 1922; it was declared, in a formal statement of policy issued by the Colonial Secretary in the same year, ‘not to be susceptible of change’; and it has been the guiding principle in their direction of the affairs of Palestine aka The Land of Israel of four successive British Governments. The policy was fixed and internationally guaranteed.”
**It is also important to note that after WWI the Arabs/Muslims received over 13 million sq. km. of territory with a wealth of oil reserves, excluding Palestine. At the same times the Jewish people were allocated about 120,000 sq. km. but today they have about 21,000 sq. km. The world at large also ignores that the Arab Muslim countries terrorized and expelled over a million Jewish families who lived there for over 2,800 years and confiscated all their assets, including personal property, businesses, homes and over 120,000 sq. km. of Jewish owned Real Estate for over 2,600 years (which is 6 times the size of Israel and valued in the trillions of dollars, they also took over 77% of Jewish territory east of the Jordan River which is Jordan and expelled the Jews). Most of the million expelled Jewish families were resettled in Israel, and today comprise over half the population.
YJ Draiman

The San Remo Conference of 1920 was an international meeting held following the conclusion of World War I that determined the precise boundaries for territories captured by the Allies.

The conference, attended by Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan- with the United States as a neutral observer, was held in San Remo, Italy, in April 1920. The conference was a continuation of a previous meeting between these Allied powers that had been held in London in February 1920, where it was decided, among other things, to put Palestine under British Mandatory rule. At San Remo, the Allies confirmed the pledge contained in the Balfour Declaration concerning the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine as an international law and guarantee.
The British delegation to San Remo was headed by Prime Minister David Lloyd George and Lord Curzon, who had replaced Lord Balfour as foreign minister in 1919. Balfour, however, was also present at the conference as a consultant for final settlement issues. At both meetings the French expressed many reservations about the inclusion of the Balfour Declaration in the peace treaty, and it was only after the exertion of British pressure and the U.S. that they were gradually were persuaded to agree to it.
The San Remo Conference was also attended by Chaim Weizmann, Nahum Sokolov, and Herbert Samuel, who presented a memorandum to the British delegation on the final settlement in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The article concerning Palestine was debated on April 24 and the next day it was finally resolved to incorporate the Balfour Declaration in Britain's mandate in Palestine. Thus Britain was made responsible as trustee "for putting into effect the declaration made on the 8^th [sic.] November 1917 by the British Government and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people; it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." (Which the Arab countries violated consistently and expelled over a million Jewish families and confiscated all their assets).
The resolution at San Remo of April 1920 which issued international recognition and guarantee of reconstituting the Jewish Homeland in Palestine with no restrictions on boundaries was celebrated by mass rallies throughout the Jewish world.

Balfour Declaration, the British government’s letter of support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. (Which emulated Napoleons 1799 letter to the Jewish community in Palestine promising that The National Home for The Jewish people will be reestablished in Palestine, as the Jews are the rightful owners). Furthermore was declared as having the force of International Law in the April 1920 San Remo Conference by the Supreme Allied Powers and confirmed in Article 95 Treaty of Sevres on August 1920.There no allocation of territory to any other entity.

“We find these joys to be self evident: That all children are created whole, endowed with innate intelligence, with dignity and wonder, worthy of respect. The embodiments of life, liberty and happiness, children are the original blessings, here to learn their own song. Every girl and boy is entitled to love, to dream and belong to a loving “village.” Thus, to pursue a life of purpose.
We affirm our duty to nourish and nurture the young, to honor their caring ideals as the heart of being human. To recognize the early years as the foundation of life, and to cherish the contribution of young children to the human evolution.
We commit ourselves to peaceful ways and vow to keep from harm or neglect these, our most vulnerable citizens. As guardians of their prosperity we honor the bountiful Earth whose diversity sustains us. Thus we pledge our love for generations to come. ”

Political Rights in Palestine aka The Land of Israel were granted only and exclusively to the Jews

October 31, 2013  |  Eli E. Hertz            

"Neither customary international law nor the United Nations Charter acknowledges that every group of people [Arab Palestinians included] claiming to be a nation has the right to a state of its own." [1]

The Mandate for Palestine, a legally binding document under international law, clearly differentiates between political rights – referring to Jewish self-determination as an emerging polity – and civil and religious rights, referring to guarantees of equal personal freedoms to non-Jewish residents as individuals and within select communities. Not once are Arabs as a people mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine. At no point in the entire document is there any granting of political rights to non-Jewish entities (i.e., Arabs). Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine explicitly states that the Mandatory should:

“Be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

Political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed by the League of Nations in four other mandates – in Lebanon and Syria [The French Mandate], Iraq - which amounted to millions of sq. km. of land with a wealth of oil reserves and later Trans-Jordan [The British Mandate]. Political rights in Palestine were granted to Jews only.

International law expert Professor Eugene V. Rostow, examining the claim for Arab Palestinian self-determination on the basis of law, concluded:

“The mandate implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favor of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land. Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Minister, made this reading of the mandate explicit. There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent ‘natural law’ claim to the area.”

[1] See Eugene V. Rostow, The Future of Palestine, Institute for National Strategic Studies, November 1993. Professor Rostow was Sterling Professor of Law and Public Affairs Emeritus at Yale University and served as the Dean of Yale Law School (1955-66); Distinguished Research Professor of Law and Diplomacy, National Defense University; Adjunct Fellow, American Enterprise Institute. In 1967, as U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, he became a key draftee of UN Resolution 242. See also his article: “Are Israel’s Settlements Legal?” The New Republic, October 21, 1991.

P.S.

Kaiser Wilhelm II's 1895 drawing 'Nations of Europe
Wilhelm wrote in 1898 that he had always been interested in the 'basic idea' of a Jewish state in Palestine. Now he was convinced that the settlement of the Holy Land by the wealthy and hard-working nation of Israel would soon bring to the former unsuspected prosperity' --- a blessing which could spread to produce a significant economic revival in Asia Minor. That in turn would restore the financial fortunes of Turkey, and so the sick man of Europe would be sick no more.
In addition, the energy, creativity and efficiency of the tribe of Sem would be diverted to worthier goals than the sucking dry [Aussaugen] of the Christians, and many an oppositional Semite now supporting the Social Democrats would go off to the East, where there is more rewarding work to be done ... Now I realize [the Kaiser explained] that nine-tenths of all Germans would recoil in horror if they were to discover that I sympathized with the Zionists or would even, as I intend to do if asked, place them under my protection.
But he, Wilhelm, had his defense ready: 'Our dear God knows even better than we do that the Jews helped kill Our Savior, and he has punished them accordingly. But neither the anti-Semites nor others, myself included, have been asked or empowered by Him to bully these people after our own fashion in majorem Dei Gloriam!' One must remember the Christian exhortation to love one's enemies, the Kaiser exclaimed. And besides, 'from an earthly, realistic political standpoint it should not be forgotten that, considering the immense and extremely dangerous power which international Jewish capital represents, it would after all be of huge advantage to Germany if the world of the Hebrews looked up to it in gratitude?! The Sultan's unexpected objection put a quick end to Wilhelm's plan for a German Protectorate of a Jewish state in Palestine; 

Herzl meets the German Kaiser

“Herzl leaves Vienna secretly and travels to Turkey and Palestine in order to meet with the German Kaiser Wilhelm II, who is touring the East. He plans to recruit the Kaiser to influence the Turkish Sultan to seriously consider the proposals of the Zionists.

On October 18^th, Herzl meets with the Kaiser in Istanbul and lectures him on the need to settle the Jews in Palestine. The Kaiser makes comments that could be interpreted as anti-Semitic. In spite of this he tells to Herzl: “Tell me in one word: what should I demand from the Sultan?” Herzl replies: “A franchise company [that will accept Eretz Israel] with German backing.”

Late October – early November, the German Kaiser Wilhelm II arrives in Palestine, the high point being his visit to Jerusalem. Herzl is visiting Jaffa, the southern settlements and Jerusalem at the time. He meets the Kaiser twice: on October 28 at the gate of Mikve Israel and on November 2 in Jerusalem. The Kaiser makes no promises.”

Could an Arab-Palestinian State in Israel ever be acceptable? - YJ Draiman

A second Arab-Palestinian State (Jordan is the first), especially in Israel (west of the Jordan River), is not viable; not even in theory.  There is nothing to debate. The past 70 years has proven that the Arab culture and mentality is not conducive to coexistence with its own people, much less with the Israelis.

If there is to be peace for Israel, and thus, the entire Middle East, it is imperative that Israel has a total crushing victory over its enemies.

Reviewing all the efforts Israel has tried in the past seven decades in trying to give the Arabs concessions upon concessions has only returned more terror, violence, suicide bombing and encouragement to continue the terror and violence. The PLO and Hamas Charter state explicitly that they must fight Israel’s Occupation and all of Israel belongs to the Arabs. Thus, they consistently incite the Arab population to acts of terror and violence; actually educating their children to hate and kill Jews. 

Examining the facts of what has taken place in Gaza since Israel withdraw its forces in 2005 proves that the Arabs do not want peace and instead of using their resources to build an economy and improve the lives of their people, the terrorist organizations who run Gaza use these resources to build attack tunnels, purchase weapons, rockets, missiles and other war making instruments and supplies and attack Israel. All the while taking a section of Gaza and turning it into luxury enclave for their leadership, while the rest of the population lacks the basic necessities to survive, which they blame on Israel. 

Gaza is nothing more than a terrorist entity promoting terror and violence against Israel and all Jews. No other country in the world would allow such a terrorist organization to exist within their borders. 

An examination of the devastating effect on Europe and the U.K. from the Arab immigrants from the Middle East and the steps being taken by those countries to rectify the problem proves the above factual statement.  Perhaps those countries should set-up an Arab-Palestinian State within their borders.

The situation in other Arab/Muslim countries is no different with some minor exceptions. About 400,000 Arab-Palestinian were employed and living in Kuwait.  After the 1991 Gulf war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, the Kuwaitis expelled the Arab-Palestinians due to their support of Saddam Hussein. If other Arab countries refuse to create a State for fellow Arabs, why should Israel be forced to create a State for the Arab-Palestinians?

Historical facts show Arab countries, are in support of the Arab-Palestinian agenda, they lost four wars against Israel since 1948. Now these same Arab countries and the Arab League are using the illusion and deception that they want peace which can only be achieved by creating an Arab-Palestinian State in Israel.  With this insidious and deceptive approach they have managed to gain more in concessions than all their wars, and receive billions of dollars in financial support. These concessions by Israel and the financial support from nations of the world and the U.N. which the Arab-Palestinians continue to use to promote terror, killings and endless daily acts of violence against innocent Jews of Israel. They defraud and deceive the world by not using all the funds for the betterment of all the Arab-Palestinians.

The Arab-Palestinians and their supporters are waging war against Israel under the guise of a “peace process”.          

The solution to the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli confrontation lies not in more painful concessions, but by reversing all those concessions by Israel. 

The only true solution is for Israel to impose its' will and crushing the enemy so it cannot continue to wage terror and violence.  It should not, and cannot be ignored that the ultimate goal, the dream of Arab-Palestinians is to eliminate the Jewish state.  They have openly stated such and should be considered a declaration of war against Israel.   

“If someone comes to kill you, you must preempt him/them and kill him/them first”.

What Israel needs is the world at large to mind its own problems, they have enough of their own and let Israel resolve the Arab-Palestinian problems without outside interference whatsoever.  

Ironically, allowing Israel to put an end to the terrorist acts of the Arab-Palestinians is the best thing that could happen to the Arab-Palestinians population.  It would liberate them from their destructive obsession and allow them to begin constructing their own polity, economy, society, and culture with the ultimate goal of becoming self-sufficient. 

Israel must have all the territory west of the Jordan River. It is legally and historically Jewish territory which was guaranteed by the Supreme Allied Powers as part of an international agreement after WWI.  At the same time the Arabs were allocated over 13 million sq. km. (6 million. sq. mi.) with a wealth of oil reserves, plus they took over 77% of Jewish allocated land of Palestine and established the new Arab State of Jordan east of The Jordan River.  The new State of Jordan immediately expelled all the Jews and confiscated all their assets.  

Furthermore, other Arab countries also terrorized and expelled over a million Jewish families who now reside in Israel and comprise over half the population.  These are the very same Jewish refugees from Arab countries which the Arabs confiscated all their assets including, personal assets, businesses, homes and over 120,000 sq. km. (46,332 sq. mi.) of Jewish owned Real estate for over 2,600 years.

It is going to be a monumental achievement to relocate the Arabs in Israel to Jordan and/or to other Arab countries.  However, it is a known fact that after WWII over 100 million refugees were resettled in various countries so it can be done.  However, by relocating the Arabs in Israel to the homes and land confiscated from the million expelled Jewish families is more than a fair exchange. Arab refugees being returned to Arab countries to replace the Jewish refugees wrongfully and forcefully expelled.  This would be a peaceful solution to the unending war being waged against Israel.

Another solution would be for the total and crushing defeat of all Arab-Palestinian organizations by Israel which would mark the beginning of the end of the wider Arab and Muslim war on Israel. 

YJ Draiman

THE BASICS OF OUR LEGAL RIGHTS
ISRAEL IS NOT AN “OCCUPIER”
Will you remain silent while the PA continues to tell lies?
• They are used to advance the BDS movement.
• They promote the rights of the PA Arabs to a state in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem (j-s-j).

Until now, these lies have not been consistently refuted by Israel. Use the information below to effectively counter these damaging and false charges.

The following claims are made:
• In 1967 Israel conquered Judea and Samaria and part of Jerusalem from the Kingdom of Jordan, which held legal jurisdiction over the territory.
• This was/and is “Palestinian Arab” territory.
• The Laws of Occupation apply to Israeli presence in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem (j-s-j).
• The settlements are illegal.

Each of these assumptions is incorrect:
Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem are part of the area designated by the Mandate for Palestine for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish People only. That status of the land has not changed.
The Mandate – enacted in international law by the League of Nations and assigned to Great Britain – was predicated on the Balfour Declaration and preceded by the San Remo Conference.
Article 80 of the UN charter, 1945, assured that the rights inherent in the Mandate were not abrogated or altered because of the demise of the League of Nations and its succession by the UN.
Contrary to popular opinion, there was no legal decision made in 1947 to ‘partition’ the land called Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. There was merely a recommendation by the UN General Assembly (Resolution 181). The Arabs refused to accept this and Judea and Samaria then remained, without change, part of the territory that the Mandate for Palestine had established for a Jewish homeland.
Jordan’s entry into Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem in 1948 as part of an offensive military action was illegal. Jordan’s annexation of this land was in contravention of international law.
Israel took this land from Jordan in 1967 during a defensive war, which makes its actions legal. The areas that Israel took control of during the Six Day War in 1967 were not part of any other legal sovereignty. They were stateless areas that had in any case been designated for the Jewish People by the Mandate for Palestine.
The Laws of Occupation apply to a situation in which territory is taken from another state. Since Israel did not take land from a sovereign state, the laws do not apply to Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem. The injunctions and restrictions that lawfully might be placed on an occupying nation are not relevant to Israel’s presence in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem.
The claim that Israel’s presence in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention is frequently used to bolster the argument that Israel is an occupier. However, there is a very solid body of legal opinion – including that of the International Red Cross – that concludes that the Convention was drafted to address situations of coercive transfer of population, such as that practiced by the Nazis. This is not remotely connected to Israel’s settlement policy.

The charge is made frequently that Israel must “return” to its legitimate “pre-1967 border.” The line – often called the Green Line – was not a border, however: It was an armistice line. The 1949 armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan defined this ceasefire line as temporary, saying that a final border would be established via negotiations. Those negotiations were never held.
Security Council Resolution 242 (which is non-binding with no legal standing), passed in 1967, did not require Israel to return behind the Green Line, but instead recognized Israel’s need for secure borders. No pullback by Israel was called for until after negotiations had determined the final border. Those negotiations, which would have been with Jordan, were never held. (Note: Jordan officially relinquished all claims to Judea and Samaria in 1988.)
There was no mention of a Arab “Palestinian People” or a Arab “Palestinian State” in Resolution 242. There has never been a Palestinian State and Judea and Samaria in no sense belong to the Arab Palestinians.
The claim that the Arab Palestinians are entitled to a state is purely a political and not a legal argument.

Therefore:
The settlements are not illegal.
Israel is not an occupier in Judea-Samaria or Jerusalem.