"
Accord"
Alternative Version
Model for a
Permanent Israel-Arab Agreement
by
Rabbi Dr. Chaim
Simons
Kiryat Arba-Hebron
November 2003
Proposal
Mandatory
will be divided into two states to be called
and
of the land area and will be situated east of the
River
remaining 23% and will be situated west of the
River
together with the whole of Judea,
the
Arabs at present living in the designated
recognising
as a Jewish state, be allowed to remain. Otherwise they will move to
Likewise Jews living in the designated
state, be allowed to remain. Otherwise they will move to
Endeavors
Part 1 - Background
The Mandate for
In April 1920, the San Remo Conference decided to assign the Palestine Mandate
under the League of Nations to
was confirmed by the Council of the
in July 1922[2]. The aim of the Mandate, as stated
in its preamble and Article 2 was to prepare the area for "the
establishment in
of a national home for the Jewish people.[3]" There is no mention of the
establishment of a national home for the Arabs. In fact, the term Palestinian
Arabs, is completely absent from the various documents of this period.
Palestinian Arabs, who now claim a history extending over thousands of years,
were never heard of 70 years ago!
The area known as
in this Mandate document extended from the Mediterranean to the eastern border
of what is today known as
Article 6 of this document stated that an aim of the Mandate was to
"encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency,... close settlement by
Jews on the land[4]."
Article 25 allowed the Mandatory Power, with the
consent of the League of Nations, "to postpone or withhold
application" of certain articles of this Mandate in the area known as
Jewish settlement organised by the Jewish agency could no longer take place in
excluded[6]. It must however be stressed
that Transjordan was always part of the British Mandate over Palestine[7].
In March 1946, Britain acting unilaterally and contrary to Article 5 of the
Mandate, detached the area of Transjordan from the Mandate and set up "a
sovereign independent State" named Transjordan[8]. This act had no foundation in
law and thus the legality of the country of Transjordan has always been
very questionable[9].
The United Nations
Resolution of November 1947
On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution
dividing up Palestine west of the Jordan River into two independent states, a
Jewish one and an Arab one[10]. The Arabs rejected this
resolution and as soon as Israel was born, five Arabs countries attacked in
order to destroy her. Thus begun the War of Independence. In this war Israel
succeeded in acquiring a large part of the area allocated by the United Nations
to the Arab state. This included West Jerusalem, Beersheba, Ramla, Lod,
Nazareth, Acre, Nahariya, Jaffa, Ashdod and Ashkelon[11]. The area of Judea and Samaria,
(described by the world as the "West Bank") was occupied and annexed
by Jordan, and Egypt captured the area known as the Gaza Strip. The only
countries in the world to recognise Jordan's annexation were Britain and
Pakistan[12].
The Six Day War.
In June 1967, Egypt, Jordan and Syria made an unprovoked attack on Israel. As a
result of this attack, the Six Day War broke out. During the course of this
war, Israel succeeded in acquiring Judea and Samaria, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai
Peninsula and the Golan Heights.
In the following years, leading international lawyers discussed Israel's
international rights to Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, and they concluded
that Israel has a better title to these areas than any other country in the
world. These legal authorities included, Professor Julius Stone[13], Professor Stephen Schwebel[14], Professor Yehuda Blum[15], Dr. Benjamin Halevi[16] and Alan Levine[17].
Israeli Settlements
in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip
Since the Six Day War, Israel has built settlements in these areas (including
east Jerusalem) and towards the end of 2003, there were about 400,000 Jews
living there[18].
The world as well as the Israeli Left has been condemning these settlements as
illegal. What in fact is their status?
The late Eugene Rostow, who was Professor of Law at Yale University and U.S.
Assistant Under-Secretary of State, wrote, "Since the Palestine Mandate
conferred the right to settle in the West Bank on the Jews, that right has not
been extinguished, and, under Article 80 of the [United Nations] Charter,
cannot be extinguished unilaterally[19]."
It follows that one therefore cannot describe any Jewish settlement in these
areas as illegal. This naturally includes "outposts" which the
Israeli Government is in the process of dismantling in response to American
pressure. It should be pointed out that President Bush's actions in condemning
settlement building and demanding the demolishing of the outposts, are a
flagrant breach of the U. N. Charter to which his country is a signatory.
Jews from Arab
Countries
Jews have lived in Arab countries for thousands
of years. They were often persecuted and such persecution greatly intensified
from the end of 1947. Three quarters of a million Jews fled to Israel, either
having their property and assets confiscated or having to abandon them[20]. This property and assets have
been valued at one hundred billion dollars[21].
Transfer of
Population
Transfer of population has been successfully put
into practice in the 20th century in different parts of the world. Here are
some of examples of such transfers:[22]
Following World War I there was a compulsory
transfer of population involving nearly two million people between Greece and
Turkey. This transfer had been proposed by Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Fridtjof
Nansen.
At about the same period there was an exchange
of population between Greece and Bulgaria.
After Pakistan split from India in August 1947,
8 million Hindus went from Pakistan to India and 6 millions Muslims in the
reverse direction. This was an operation which had broad international support.
A discussion of the advantages and moral aspects of transfer of population is
given in Part 3 of this paper.
A Historical Survey
on Transfer of Arabs from Eretz Israel
It is a common misconception that the idea of transfer of Arabs from Eretz
Israel originated with Rabbi Meir Kahane. In fact this idea stems from Theodor
Herzl himself. In his private diary entry in June 1895, he wrote regarding the
indigenous non-Jews in the Jewish State, "We shall try and spirit the
penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the
transit countries whilst denying it any employment in our own country.[23]" Further, his Charter for
Palestine of 1901, gave the right to transfer Arabs from Palestine to any other
part of the Ottoman Empire[24].
Herzl was not the only Zionist leader to make such proposals. David Ben-Gurion
repeatedly made such proposals in his private diary[25] and in closed meetings[26]. He even said "I favour
compulsory transfer [of Arabs]. I see nothing unethical in it[27]." Immediately after the
establishment of the State of Israel, he gave the order to expel the Arabs from
Lod and Ramla[28]. He was also angry that they had
not been expelled from Nazareth[29],
and that Abba Hushi, who was later the Mayor of Haifa, tried to persuade them
to remain[30].
Chaim Weizmann, the liberal, told the British
Colonial Secretary that "the Jews ... will help in getting Arabs out of
Galilee[31]." In fact, the majority of
the Zionist leaders - for example, Berl Katznelson[32], Leo Motzkin[33], Nachman Syrkin[34], Menachem Ussishkin[35], Yosef Weitz [36]- put forward proposals for such
transfer.
In 1937, the Jewish Agency Executive set up a
Committee[37] whose function was to
"prepare a programme for the transfer of [the Arab] population and to
coordinate the information required for this[38]."
The Six Day War with its consequent large
increase of Arabs under Israel's jurisdiction, spurred on further transfer
proposals. In a Cabinet meeting held a week after the war, Abba Eban and
Pinchas Sapir called for the transfer of the Arab refugees residing in Judea, Samaria
and the Gaza strip to the neigbouring Arab countries[39]. In 1970, Chaim Herzog stated at
a seminar, "Were it possible for us to take a million Arabs and move them
out, it would be good[40]."
Such proposals were not limited to Jews. It was President Franklin Roosevelt
who stated that "Palestine should be for the Jews and no Arabs should be
in it[41]." His predecessor President
Herbert Hoover worked on a plan to resettle the Arabs from Palestine in Iraq[42]. The pro-Arabist Harry St. John
Philby, worked for several years on a transfer plan and said that "Western
Palestine should be handed over completely to the Jews, clear of Arab
population....[43]."
In 1939, Mojli Amin,, a member of the Arab Defense Committee for Palestine, put
forward a proposal to transfer the Arabs of Palestine to Arab countries in
exchange for Jews then living in Arab countries. This proposal was published in
Damascus and distributed among the Arab leaders[44].
Public bodies also put forward transfer proposals. The British Royal Commission
under the Chairmanship of Lord Peel thoroughly studied the situation in Palestine
in 1936/7, interviewed over one hundred witnesses and in their detailed 400
page report unanimously included the recommendation for the transfer of Arabs,
if necessary by compulsion, from the proposed Jewish state[45].
Another British public body to propose transfer
was the British Labour Party who, in a Resolution at their Annual Conference of
1944, overwhelmingly voted for the encouraging of the Arabs of Palestine to
move out[46].
Part 2 - The
"Accord"
Borders of the two
states
Palestine will receive 77% of the area of Mandatory Palestine and its borders
will be those of the country today known as Jordan..
Israel will receive the remaining 23% of this
area and its borders will be those of the area at present under Israeli law and
order, together with the whole of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza strip.
Both Palestine and Israel will have constitutions and an unalterable paragraph
in the constitution of Palestine will be that it is an Arab state. Likewise an
unalterable paragraph in the constitution of Israel will be that it is a Jewish
state.
Population of the
two states
All Jews will be allowed to live in Israel.
An Arab wishing to remain in Israel will have to sign a declaration that he
fully recognises Israel as a Jewish State and that he will always act in
accordance with his declaration. This declaration would then be published twice
in a newspaper in both Israel and Palestine, with an interval of one month
between each publication.
Such an Arab will then be allowed to remain in Israel. However, should at any
time in the future, he not honour his declaration, he will immediately be
transferred to Palestine, without any compensation whatsoever for his assets.
A similar procedure would apply to a Jew wishing to remain in Palestine.
Those Arabs in Israel not wishing to sign such a declaration, will, within
three months of the establishment of the State of Palestine, move to Palestine.
They will be able to take all their movable assets and all their removal and
transport facilities will be provided at public expense. They will be given
every assistance in packing their effects and other arrangements involved with
their moving.
Arabs having immovable assets within the borders of Israel will be compensated
with the assets of Jews who left the Arab countries leaving their assets
behind. Such Jews will have to sign a waiver for such assets and in return will
receive immovable assets of the transferred Arabs. It goes without saying that
these Jews will be able to sell or otherwise dispose of these assets in any way
they desire.
A similar procedure will be implemented for Jews moving from Palestine to
Israel.
Part 3 - Answers to
Objections to "Accord"
Introduction
It is naive
to expect that there will be no objections to this "accord" from the
world and from the Israeli Left. Let us therefore try to anticipate these
objections by giving our answers here.
Is not transfer
"racial cleansing"?
a) Many people erroneously believe, that
population transfers originated with the Nazis who adopted large-scale transfer
of national minorities as part of their "New Order" in Europe[47]. Such transfers are undiluted
"racial cleansing" and must be highly deplored.
In fact, well before the Nazi era, successful and beneficial population
transfers took place. The reason for such transfers was summed up in an article
on the exchange of populations appearing in the "Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"The mixture of populations had led to so much political trouble in modern
times that this unmixing process must be regarded as a very considerable
advantage[48]."
A classic case of such a transfer took place between Greece and Turkey soon
after World War I. This transfer was proposed by the Nobel Peace Prize winner,
Fridtjof Nansen and it involved the transfer of about two million persons.
It was so successful that the British Royal Commission, under the Chairmanship
of Lord Peel, when considering the Palestine problem in 1936/7, introduced it
as a precedent[49]. They unanimously recommended
that a similar population transfer, compulsory if necessary, be implemented in
Palestine. They felt that this was the only constructive and permanent solution
of the Arab-Jewish conflict over Palestine.
This Commission was comprised of six distinguished Englishmen[50] with highly respected backgrounds
and it could not be suggested that their motives were "racial
cleansing." Since then a further three Nobel Peace Prize Winners[51], two American Presidents[52] and many distinguished Jews[53] and non-Jews[54] have proposed the transfer of
Arabs from Palestine.
Over 65 years have passed since the Royal Commission made this recommendation.
Today relations between the Arabs and the Jews are no better than they were
then. If anything, terrorism and the negative relation of Arabs to the State of
Israel are increasing from year to year. In the early years of the State of
Israel, there were two Arab parties in the Knesset allied to the dominant Mapai
(Labour) party. These two parties had a total of 5 seats[55]. However, as time went on they
disappeared and were replaced by Arab nationalistic parties, each trying to be
more extreme than the next!
b) Of course, mass transfer of population, or,
for that matter, transfer of individuals is not to be undertaken lightly, but
it is sometimes the only solution to a problem. It was a former director of the
Pan-European Union who wrote of population transfer, "To cut the cancer
from a sick body is not cruel, it is necessary[56]."
Let us not pretend that transfer is not painful. People are uprooted from their
homes, moved to a different location and then have to reorganise their lives.
But what is the alternative? Continual wars, terrorism, numerous people who are
killed and maimed for life. As the Jewish writer Israel Zangwill wrote on this
question, "One single act of compulsion is better for both sides than
perpetual friction[57]."
c) One should mention here that the Government
of Israel has forcibly transferred Jews. This was done with the full support of
the Left, who made no suggestion that it was "ethnic cleansing"! This
occurred in 1982 when Israel transferred the thousands of Jews living in the
various settlements in the Sinai peninsula, including the entire city of Yamit.
This was absolutely against the will of those settlers and they were even
removed in cages! They were given no option to remain[58].
d) Section 4 paragraph 5 of the
"Geneva Accord" of Beilin et al.. states that 100,000 Jews at present
living in Judea. Samaria and the Gaza strip will be compulsorily transferred to
within the borders of their intended State of Israel[59]. They obviously do not consider
such compulsory transfer of all the Jews from their intended State of
Palestine to be "ethnic cleansing." There is no option included
for these Jews to remain in the intended State of Palestine. In contrast, no
Arab would be required to leave the intended State of Israel.
Why not the pre-1967
borders?
One might well ask why not make the borders of Israel identical to those prior
to the Six Day War and those of the Palestine state the areas of Judea, Samaria
and the Gaza Strip?
There are a number of answers to this question:
a) In the partition plan of November 1947,
Palestine west of the River Jordan was divided into two states, an Arab state
and a Jewish state, and the plan precisely defined the borders of each of these
states. As a result of the Arab attack on the emerging Jewish state, the War of
Independence followed and Israel acquired part of the area of the intended Arab
state, (we shall call the resultant borders the "1949 borders"). As a
result of a further attack in 1967, Israel acquired the remainder of the area
allocated to the intended Arab state, (and we shall call the resultant borders
the "1967 borders").
One could call the United Nations 1947 borders, borders which were recognised
by this world body. However, the areas acquired in the War of Independence and
in the Six Day War, have the same status - namely, areas acquired during
a war. One could therefore understand (although not agree with) those wanting
to fix the borders of the Jewish and Arab states according to the 1947 borders.
But why should those on the Left choose the 1949 borders, rather than the 1967
borders, for the future borders of Israel?
b) One does not require a degree in War Studies
to realise that the 1949 borders of Israel were indefensible. There was the
very narrow waist - a mere 15 km[60].
- on the coastal strip, making it easy for an enemy to bisect Israel. There was
also the narrow Jerusalem corridor, surrounded on three sides by Jordan making
it easy to besiege Jerusalem.
c) A few weeks after the end of the Six Day War,
the United States Secretary of Defence asked Earle Wheeler, the Chairman of the
American Joint Chiefs of Staff, to put forward "the minimum territory, in
addition to that held on 4 June 1967, Israel might be justified in retaining in
order to permit a more effective defense against possible conventional Arab
attack and terrorist raids." In Wheeler's secret memorandum, he considered
that this minimum area included about two thirds of the area of Judea
and Samaria and the entire Gaza Strip[61].
d) The Security Council Resolution 242 of
November 1967 states that Israel has the "right to live in peace within
secure and recognized boundaries[62]."
Those of 1949 were certainly not "secure boundaries"!
e) A few days before the outbreak of the Six Day
War, Jordan, (who then thought she would conquer Israel!) told the Security
Council, "The [Armistice] Agreement [of 1949] did not fix boundaries; it
fixed the demarcation line[63]."
f) It was Abba Eban, who was on the left-wing of
the Israel Labour Party, who said, "We have openly said that the map will
never be the same as on June 4, 1967. For us, this is a matter of security and
of principles. The June map is for us equivalent to insecurity and danger. I do
not exaggerate when I say that it has for us something of a memory of Auschwitz[64]."
Conclusion
There have been enough wars, bloodshed, killing
and maiming during the last hundred years in the conflict between the Jews and
the Arabs.
The time has more than come to put an end to
this. It can be done by implementing this "accord" and in this way
both Arabs and Jews will be able to live unmolested by each other in their own
states.
Powered by ScribeFire.
No comments:
Post a Comment