Israel Matzav

Who makes sacrifices for peace?

'Nuff said.

Labels: biblical Israel, Palestine mandate

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:22 AM 1 comments

90 years ago today, 78% of 'Palestine' was given to the Hashemites

90 years ago today, the League of Nations approved the British Mandate for 'Palestine.' As part of that approval, 78% of the country's territory was turned over to Britain's ally, the Hashemite family of Jordan.

The British Mandate for Palestine, or simply the Mandate for Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros. The draft of the Mandate was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, amended via the 16 September 1922 Transjordan memorandum^[1][2] and which came into effect on 29 September 1923^[1] following the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne.^[3][4] The mandate ended at midnight on 14 May 1948.

The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.^[1] The mandate formalised British rule in the southern part of Ottoman Syria from 1923–1948.

The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."^[5] The mandate document formalised the division of the British protectorates - Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people, under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain under the rule of the Hashemite family.^[1]

Note that Wikipedia has done some clever editing above. They have changed what the document said to make it sound like 'Palestine' would include a national home for the Jewish people. But this is what the preamble to the mandate said:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might 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.^[28]

Note - no mention of 'Palestine' 'including' a national home for the Jewish people.

Learn some history: Read the whole thing. 

Labels: Balfour Declaration, British Mandate, Jordan is Palestine, Palestine mandate

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:38 AM 0 comments

Obama White House acknowledges 'West Bank' part of Israel

The Obama White House, in announcing President Obama's visit to the Dead Sea Scrolls while in Israel, has acknowledged that the 'West Bank' (Judea and Samaria) is part of Israel, and that the Jewish people have an historical connection to it.

In describing President Obama’s itinerary during his trip to Israel and Jordan next week, Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes conceded that the Jewish connection to the West Bank is as strong as it is to Israel, and indeed, spoke of the two interchangeably:

Thursday, the President will begin by going to the Israel Museum. At the Israel Museum, he will view the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are a testament, of course, to the ancient Jewish connection to Israel and, frankly, a marvel that the Israelis have restored within the Israel Museum in a very substantial, impressive way. So the President very much looks forward to the opportunity to see the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were first discovered in the Qumran caves in 1947, when it was part of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. Thus the White House seems to recognize that Israel’s history and borders are rooted in the Mandate – what happened in the “West Bank” in 1947 is somehow “connected” to Israel.

Moreover, most the the scrolls were recovered in the the 1950s, after this portion of the Mandate was illegally invaded and occupied by the Jordan. To put it simply, the Dead Sea Scrolls are from the West Bank, otherwise known as “Occupied Palestinian Territory.” The Dead Sea Scrolls, one might say, are written by settlers.

Read the whole thing. 

It's likely that this was an unintentional slip of the tongue and is likely to be walked back by the White House when and if they become aware of it. But it would be nice if it got enough publicity to force them to have to do that before Obama even gets here.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Judea and Samaria, Palestine mandate

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:29 AM 4 comments

Video: 'Israel's magna carta'

Israel's real magna carta is the Torah (the bible).

This video talks about the San Remo Conference, which was the basis for the way the Middle East was divided and for the 'British Mandate' that allowed the British to administer what was then known as Palestine. The San Remo Conference remains relevant to Israel's status under 'international law' today.

Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Shosh).

Labels: Palestine mandate, San Remo Conference

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:21 AM 0 comments

Israeli 'diplomat' can't get his facts straight

Back in December 2006, some Israelis thought we had reached a sort of equilibrium with our Arab population when Ishmael Khaldi became our first Muslim diplomat. Khaldi seemed a good choice at the time.

But Khaldi, while conceding that the situation of Arabs in Israel "is not perfect," is an unrepentant Israeli who says he is not betraying his Arab "brothers" by becoming the new Israeli consul to San Francisco.

...

Khaldi, 35, is no newcomer to the United States or the Bay Area. He arrived in the United States after the outbreak of the second intifada in 2000 and was soon in demand as a speaker at college campuses.

"I'm a Bedouin and we are nomads, so I felt at home traveling coast to coast on a Greyhound bus. Twice," he said.

During his stay in the United States, Khaldi said he was shocked to discover that American students were unaware of Israel's large Arab minority and the fact they have the right to vote, elect members to parliament, and become judges, professors and senior army officers.

Until now, Khaldi didn't cause the Israeli government any embarrassment like Reda Mansour in Atlanta or Nadav Tamir (the former being a Druze and the latter being Jewish) in Boston, or Tsuriel Raphael in El Salvador. He's no longer in San Francisco. He's now a senior policy adviser at the Foreign Ministry and has been since July 2009 (which means his posting at the Foreign Ministry was done under the current Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman).

But on Tuesday night, Khaldi spoke to a gathering of a group called Dor Chadash in New York, and he said something that is so totally ignorant of Israel's history that I can only wonder what kind of training the Foreign Ministry gives their diplomats. Either that or Khaldi is a fifth columnist, in which case he should not be representing us.

This is from an email I received this morning from reader Yehuda A in New York City.

I am a regular reader of your blog and an oleh chadash temporarily back in New York in order to complete my PhD. Tonight I went to this event, a talk by Ishmael Khaldi, a Bedouin Israeli diplomat. The talk was rambling and the hosts had to ask him several times to wrap it up so that we could get to the Q-&-A period; more substantively, though: Khaldi said that at a previous talk, he was asked how he feels about Israel being a Jewish State but then (in tonight's talk) he did not answer this question. He also said that the vast majority of Israelis, including himself, favor the creation of a Palestinian state / the two-state solution. In the Q-&-A period, I pressed him on the interrelated issues of his thoughts on the Jewish State question and the question of whether Jordan is in fact the second state. He said that the Jewish State "is a fact." He did not endorse or reject that fact, and before moving on to another question he said "There is a problem with the national anthem." (I assume from that comment that he also has a problem with the flag, etc.) On the second point, he explicitly and repeatedly denied that the British Mandate for Palestine had resulted in the creation of two states, Israel and Jordan. He said that Jordan ("like Saudi Arabia") was separate, part of a separate territory and process, having nothing whatsoever to do with the British Mandate. His line of argument seemed to be that the Mandate territory = present-day Israel and that therefore, the second state has not yet been created.

On the one hand, he said some good things about Israel and I can see how his speaking engagements to students, etc. can earn Israel some good publicity. On the other hand, his comments (coming from an official representative of the State) on Jordan, the Mandate, and the two (or more…) states, as well as, in the context of these comments, his frequent return to the theme of "Israel's not perfect, it has problems, etc." were deeply troubling, and I am hoping to get your thoughts on this, as I left the event confused and, as I say, not a little troubled.

Khaldi is way off. Jordan was originally part of the Mandate. In fact, it was 79% of the Mandate. Jordan is governed by the Hashemite royal family and its Bedouin elite. Here's how it happened.

The Emirate of Transjordan was an autonomous political division of the British Mandate of Palestine, created as an administrative entity in April 1921 before the Mandate came into effect. It was geographically equivalent to today's Kingdom of Jordan, and remained under the nominal auspices of the League of Nations, until its independence in 1946.

Initially, both the territory to the East and the West of the Jordan river were the British Mandate of Palestine. "Transjordan" was a word coined as a reference to the part of Palestine "across the Jordan", i.e. on the far (eastern) side of the Jordan River. On the western side of the Jordan River was the remaining 21% of the Palestine Mandate, Palestine which contained many places of historical and religious significance to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

In other words, 'Jordan' is 79% of the Palestine Mandate. Not only is it 'Palestine' - it is the vast majority of the area covered by the 1917 Balfour Declaration.

The Mandate for Palestine, while specifying actions in support of Jewish immigration and political status, stated that in the territory to the east of the Jordan River, Britain could 'postpone or withhold' those articles of the Mandate concerning a 'Jewish National Home'.... In September 1922, the British government presented a memorandum to the League of Nations stating that Transjordan would be excluded from all the provisions dealing with Jewish settlement, and this memorandum was approved by the League on 11 September. From that point onwards, Britain administered the part west of the Jordan as Palestine, and the part east of the Jordan as Transjordan....

...

The Hashemite Emir Abdullah, [Abdullah's great-grandfather, who was assasinated by 'Palestinians' in 1951 at the Dome of the Rock. Incredibly, Wikipedia omits this. CiJ] elder son of Britain's wartime Arab ally Sharif Hussein of Mecca [the Saudi royal family. CiJ], was placed on the throne of Transjordan [by the British. CiJ].... In March 1946, under the Treaty of London, Transjordan became a kingdom and on May 25, 1946, the parliament of Transjordan proclaimed the emir king, and formally changed the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. In December 1948, Abdullah took the title King of Jordan, and he officially changed the country's name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in April 1949.

Two thirds of Jordan's population is described as 'descendants of 'Palestinian refugees.''

So how could Khaldi say that Jordan was not part of the Mandate? Is there a lacking in the Foreign Ministry's training (or was there such a lacking in 2006 - a far more likely scenario) or is Khaldi a fifth columnist trying to justify the creation of a 'Palestinian state'? And what is with all the deprecation about Israel's faults?

I'm going to send this to a contact I have in the Foreign Ministry and see what they have to say about it. Check back later for more.

Labels: Avigdor Lieberman, Dor Chadash, Ishmael Khaldi, Israel's Foreign Ministry, Palestine mandate

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:13 AM 0 comments

Abdullah's game

The rump king of Jordan has a new game. Now, he's pouting over the lack of 'negotiations' for a second 'Palestinian state' (the first being Jordan - I'm not sure how we could classify Gaza) by refusing to grant an audience to Prime Minister Netanyahu.

On Thursday, a few days after Arad's trip to Jordan, Netanyahu traveled to Sharm el-Sheikh to meet with President Mubarak. The Arab diplomat says the Egyptians were also disappointed by the talk with Netanyahu. Upon his return from Sharm el-Sheikh, Netanyahu phoned King Abdullah, to brief him about his discussion with Mubarak, and to request personally a meeting with the monarch. King Abdullah reportedly told Netanyahu that serious talks should be started as soon as possible and deal with core issues, to implement the two-state solution.

The Prime Minister's Office stated on Sunday that "Netanyahu had a discussion with the King of Jordan on Thursday and agreed to meet with him soon."

The Prime Minister's Bureau said on Sunday: "Netanyahu spoke with the king of Jordan on Thursday and agreed with him to meet soon. We will announce the date of the meeting with the king in the coming days."

What's going on here? We've all assumed that Abdullah doesn't really want a 'Palestinian state' because the 'Palestinians' on the west bank of the Jordan River could hook up with the 'Palestinians' on the east bank of the Jordan River (his side), throw him out, and create the reichlet of 'Palestine' on the original area of the Palestine Mandate. If that's the case, Abdullah should be happy that Netanyahu has reached a stalemate with the 'Palestinians' where nothing is moving ahead for the foreseeable future. So why isn't he happy and why is he snubbing Netanyahu?

There are two explanations. The obvious explanation is that Abdullah doesn't want to be seen as betraying his fellow Arabs, especially the 'Palestinians' whom he ostensibly fears. But why then would Mubarak - who did meet with Netanyahu - not fear being accused of betraying the other Arabs? One could argue that unlike Mubarak, Abdullah has 'Palestinians' in his midst and therefore needs to worry more. But for the most part, he seems to have them under his control.

I have a less obvious explanation. I can't prove it, but you will see it fits. Abdullah is getting greedy. There's one circumstance in which Abdullah would be perfectly willing to have a 'Palestinian state' on the west bank of the Jordan River: If he could expel his own 'Palestinians' to it. That's why Abdullah started revoking the 'Palestinians' Jordanian citizenship. And that's what he hopes to get by cozying up to Iran: an Iranian attack on Israel that would leave Israel desolate and eventually allow Abdullah to move all his 'Palestinians' there.

Is that a fantasy? Of course it is. If - God forbid - Israel were nuked, it is highly likely that the radiation cloud would hit Jordan as well. But that won't stop Jordan's rump king from pursuing his wet dream. After all, his grandfather lost, and Britain still compensated him by giving him what is now known as 'Jordan.' So why should Abdullah be any less well off?

As to Netanyahu, he should stop kissing up to the illegitimate 'king' and start having a little pride in himself and his people.

What could go wrong?

Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Jordanian King Abdullah, Palestine mandate, Palestinian refugees

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:12 PM 1 comments

Jordanian elections have an anti-Israel theme

There are parliamentary elections in Jordan this week, and I'm sure you'll all be shocked to hear that the elections' major theme is bashing Israel.

Behind the anger expressed by candidates and voters lies US ally Jordan's greatest fear: That if peacemaking collapses, Israel will try to force it to take in the residents of the West Bank and stand as the Palestinian state. Recent talk by right-wing Israelis about the "Jordanian option" has only fueled the belief here that this is Israel's ultimate plan.

"It would mean Jordan's demise and the obliteration of our national identity," Salameh Ghoweiry, an independent candidate, shouted to loud applause to a crowd of Palestinian Jordanians during a campaign speech in his constituency, Zarqa.

The town, east of the capital, Amman, is the hometown of al-Qaida in Iraq's slain leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and is a center for Islamic hard-liners.

Issues of rising inflation, steep increases in fuel and food prices and unemployment have arisen on the campaign trail as some 763 candidates vie for seats in the 120-member parliament in Tuesday's election. But the theme heard most often — and embraced by candidates of all political stripes — is anger at Israel, even more than in past elections in this country that, along with Egypt, is the only Arab state that has reached peace with Israel.

Many candidates trumpet denunciation of Israel on their campaign banners, and on the stump they call for "political resistance" to defend Jordan from the Israeli threat — avoiding any calls for violence — and for ending the peace treaty, a step King Abdullah II is highly unlikely to take. One moderate running for re-election, Khalil Atiyeh, is seen on posters proudly burning the Israeli flag.

"Resisting the Zionist entity and abolishing the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty is a national duty," proclaim the banners of a leftist, Khaled Ramadan, whose official campaign slogan is "Israel is the enemy."

"Since the peace process is dead, Jordan should prepare to confront Israel's atrocious scheme of forcing more Palestinians out of their homes in the West Bank and dump them in Jordan," Ramadan told The Associated Press in an interview.

Jordan is de facto the 'Palestinian state' (contrary to what this article says, it's not 50% but 70% 'Palestinian'). But because a spoiled 'king' and his family had to be given a consolation prize by the British, 78% of the original 'Palestine mandate' was cut off and given to a small group of Bedouin tribes. And now they pretend that they have a separate identity from the 'Palestinians' on this side of the river.

What could go wrong?

(The picture is downtown Amman).

Labels: Hashemite kingdom, Jordan is Palestine, Palestine mandate

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:44 AM 1 comments