Israel & The Right to Exist

0 1,892

“The Palestinian Arab leadership rejected partition as unacceptable, given the inequality in the proposed population exchange and the transfer of one-third of Palestine, including most of its best agricultural land, to recent immigrants. The Jewish leaders, Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion, persuaded the Zionist Congress to lend provisional approval to the Peel recommendations as a basis for further negotiations. In a letter to his son in October 1937, Ben-Gurion explained that partition would be a first step to “possession of the land as a whole.” The same sentiment, that acceptance of partition was a temporary measure beyond which the Palestine would be “redeemed . . in its entirety” was recorded by Ben-Gurion on other occasions, such as at a meeting of the Jewish Agency executive in June 1938, as well as by Chaim Weizmann” [1]

It was the “Peel recommendations” eventually morphed into United Nations Resolution 181(II), creating the state of Israel. Noteworthy is the Israeli founders’ disingenuous acceptance of borders when acquiring statehood.

The actual debate should be, if the UN can confer legitimacy on a state of its own creation, can it ‘uncreate’ that state?

This exercise of patent fraud on Ben Gurion & Weizmann’s part might be tempered by exam of consequent ‘questionable right’ of Israel to exist. In light of this, as previously stated by this author, the United Nations is a far from perfect entity, necessarily flawed from circumstance of birth:

“However sincere certain statesmen might have been in creating the United Nations and associated international law of the present era, flaws were inevitable in the mold at casting; the ideological contest between East and West, the naivety of non-Western, especially non-European, nation-states in matters of the Western conceived international law…” [2]

In today’s geopolitical climate, the UN possibly most resembles the post-Tito, but pre-implosion Yugoslavia, with a Security Council polarized and pulling in irreconcilable directions similar to the rotating presidency that had been a failed successor to the man who’d held mutually antagonistic nations (especially Croatia & Serbia, or Catholicism vs Orthodoxy) together with the force of his personality. As time has passed in a disintegrating social fabric across the world, leadership capable of holding a multi-national state together with leadership qualities appears increasingly rare. In the larger case of the United Nations, currently gridlocked due to competing visions of the future at the Security Council, perhaps more often than any other issue, at the nexus of this circumstance is the state of Israel.

It is combined social and cultural psychology demands (or drives) the Jewish state towards a ‘Greater Israel.’ This demand is embedded in the mythology of history where ‘Samaria’ and ‘Judea’ are, at one time or another in ancient past linked, aligned with, or integrated to the historical Kingdom of Israel, having little to do with the fact of modern Israel.

According to the Oxford:

Samaria |səˈme(ə)rēə|
1 an ancient city in central Palestine, founded in the 9th century bc as the capital of the northern Hebrew kingdom of Israel. The ancient site is situated in the modern West Bank, northwest of Nablus.
2 the region of ancient Palestine around Samaria, between Galilee in the north and Judaea in the south.

Judaea |jo͝oˈdēə, -ˈdāə|
the southern part of ancient Palestine that corresponds to the former kingdom of Judah.

This next affirms Ben Gurion and subsequently Israeli duplicity:

roman_judea-jpg-1

“The term Judea as a geographical term was revived by the Israeli government in the 20th century as part of the Israeli administrative district name Judea and Samaria Area for the territory generally referred to as the West Bank” [3]

A state does not give the names of one’s historical mythology to an area except that state intends to assert sovereignty over the same. Prior to this, Judea had last been the name of the area under Hadrian’s rule, changed shortly after the era of Agrippa II, the last Roman approved ‘Herodian’, or ‘titular’ king of the Jews, who were NOT a sovereign people.

If there were Jews who were enslaved by, or fled Roman rule, there were many, many more who stayed in what was no longer ‘Judea’ but what became Roman ruled Palaestina, renamed by the Roman Emperor Hadrian. Where are those ancient Jewish people’s descendants today? They’re in Palestine and they’re called Palestinians. [4] The inconvenience for the modern Ashkenazi and associated ‘historic’ claim to a Jewish state is, most of these indigenous people had, with passing time, converted to Islam. Any ‘Jewish’ right, claim and/or title to a geographic state of Israel prior to the creation of the UN would have traced (and ultimately become extinguished) through the Palestinian people. In the pre-United Nations ‘customary’ international law, there is no title (sense of sovereign) survived that could be described as ‘Israeli.’ The uniqueness of Israel is, it had been created by a new incarnation of international law, that is the United Nations.

- Advertisement -

It follows, any rational inquiry concerning Israel’s right to exist must be examined in a context different to the sovereign title of those nations established prior to the United Nations’ founding charter or, the right of Israel to exist can only be explored within the framework of the UN.

Insofar as those states holding Israel is an ‘illegitimate’ state, it would not require formal relations with Israel to confer legitimacy; in fact recognition of Israel by the disputing states is implicit by the very fact of those states opposed to Israel having joined and belonging to the United Nations; where in fact Israel is a UN creation. Disputing Israel is in fact disputing the United Nations; where international law should not provide for an oxymoron of belonging to the body which had created Israel and disputing Israel’s right to exist, these are mutually exclusive proposals. You cannot belong to the one and deny the other. 

The actual debate should be, if the UN can confer legitimacy on a state of its own creation, can it ‘uncreate’ that state?

If such a debate were to ensue, the fraudulent aspect of Israel’s founders in relation to borders should open the conversation, followed on with analysis of subsequent behavior. Do the policies of Israel reflect the admitted fraud?

But opening this conversation at the United Nations could be a self-inflicted multiple Swords of Damocles in environment of corrupt intrigues where the interests of ‘peoples’ are suborned away by the petty arrogance of those who would presume to rule us. Israel is certainly not the only state in circumstance of abusing indigenous populace and encroaching borders while sleeping with Salafi militants. For instance, the dreams of the Ottoman die hard. All of this is internationally influenced behavior attended by blackmail & bribes subject to possible public purview within any UN debate.

Complicating this proposed debate in already compromised environment, particularly relating to Israel, would be the frailties of the modern human psychology and attending nuclear armed Zionism, especially the irrational Zionism of an apocalyptic Christian persuasion perhaps best illustrated where behaviorism determines with simple example:

“You can’t convince a chimpanzee to give you a banana with the promise it will get 20 more bananas in chimpanzee heaven. It won’t do it. But humans will” -Yuval Noah Harari

In this case it should be noted, at the creation of the United Nations, the many joining states were binding themselves to a western standard of international law within a newly created, quasi-republican order remarkable for the granting of what amounts to plenipotentiary rule to the handful of powers making up the ‘permanent’ membership of the Security Council.

In this circumstance enforcement of United Nations resolutions require consensus relating to Israel that is actually impossible to arrive at. If the net outcome is a rogue state refusing to honor its granted borders; shielded from consequence of its aggression; in a duplicitous drive for a ‘Greater Israel’ not only allowed to perpetrate fraud as result of Security Council gridlock; but in fact is protected by one or several of the member parties, the natural follow on subject to explore should be whether the United Nations is outlived its promise, and in that case, moving forward, what is to be done.

Perhaps Israeli geopolitical malfeasance is a symptom, not the disease.

Notes:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

[2] https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/10/12/a-breaking-point-in-geopolitical-torsion/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea

[4] https://shavei.org/palestinians-jewish-roots/

Subscribe to our newsletter
Sign up here to get the latest news, updates and special offers delivered directly to your inbox.

Get real time updates directly on you device, subscribe now.

Comments