Is the Jewish State Bill Necessary or is it Redundant?
In my legal opinion, new legislation is unnecessary, not for the reasons stated by those Knesset members who are opposed to the law, but because it would be redundant.
From the time of the Balfour Policy, adopted word for word at San Remo, the Jewish People were intended to have the sole collective political rights to Palestine and the Arabs were intended to have only individual political rights -- sometimes referred to as included in "civil rights" , i.e. one vote for each citizen. of the state.
Those who claim that the "Palestinian People" should have equal collective rights, ignore that there is no "Palestinian People". The Jewish People’s state has always been intended to be a Jewish Democratic state. The only concession made to the Arab People was to put the collective political rights recognized as belonging to the Jews, in trust so that the Jews could not establish a state until they comprised at least a majority in the area to be ruled. They also had to be capable of exercising sovereignty over the territory.
The reason for the British policy is shown in a memorandum of the British Foreign Office written by Arnold Toynbee and Lewis Namier [Sept. 19, 1917] replying to those opposing the Balfour Policy because the Jews in 1917 only had a 10% population minority in all of Palestine and a Jewish State would therefore be antidemocratic. The BFO replied that they agreed that the immediate rule of the Jewish People would be antidemocratic, but the political rights were intended to be placed in trust until the Jews had a population majority where they would rule so the "antidemocratic" charge was "imaginary".
The briefing documents of the US Diplomats carried to the Paris Peace talks confirmed this intent of the Settlors of the Palestine Mandate trust. At the Paris Peace Talks the Arabs and Jews had filed competing applications for the collective political rights to Palestine. The Allied Principal War Powers recognized the Jewish People as entitled to self-determination in Palestine and agreed to put the collective political rights in a trust, later entitled the Palestine Mandate when they reconvened the next year in San Remo.
Some 52 states including the US approved that trust in 1922. The trust res vested partially in 1948 when the Jews had achieved a population majority and Britain had abdicated the legal dominion it had over those political rights as the trustee.
The Jews gained the remainder in 1967 when they gained control over the territory and became capable of exercising sovereignty over it.
Why? The US Commission of Inquiry established by President Wilson in 1919 to implement his policy on "self-determination" to establish a world map of those entitled to self-determination found that Palestine: was "the cradle and home of their [the Jewish people's] vital race", the basis of the Jewish spiritual contribution, and the Jews were "THE ONLY PEOPLE WHOSE ONLY HOME WAS IN PALESTINE"…[emphasis added]
Those who claim that the "Palestinian People" should have equal collective rights, ignore that there is no "Palestinian People".
"The Palestinian People do not exist", admitted Zahir Muhsein, a member of the executive board of the PLO in a 1977 interview by the Dutch newspaper Trouw. "The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism.
A fictional Palestinian Arab “People” was invented by the Soviet dezinformatsiya in 1964. You will see it in the preamble of the PLO Charter drafted in Moscow. At the same time Soviet Diplomats were promoting the dignifying of the natural law "right of a people to self-determination"to the status of a right under international law.
Even if such a “people” actually existed, the rule under International Law is that where there is a tension between the right of a people to self-determination and the right of an existing sovereign state to territorial integrity, the right of the state is paramount. The inviolability of state boundaries has been the sine qua non of world order ever since the Peace of Westphalia and was reinforced by the UN Charter and two Conventions on the rights of a people to self-determination under International Law effective in 1976. One of these is the International Covenant on the Civil and Political Rights of a people.
The ownership of the sole collective political rights in Palestine is not unfair to the relatively few Arabs in Palestine because the Arab people have 22 states in which the Arabs exercise the sole collective political rights compared to only one for the Jews. The Arab territory comprises almost 500 times the area of the territory of Israel.
Can anything be said in favor of such a law? Yes. Looking back almost 100 years to find the intent behind the 1920 San Remo Agreement and the Palestine Mandate requires sifting through the sands of time where that intent is buried. Some, Israeli citizens who are Arabs or some on the left might not agree with the interpretation I have placed on it. A fresh restatement might show that it is an interpretation agreed to by the Government of Israel — but it would be helpful to note that what is pronounced is, in fact, a restatement.
A new law could show that the authority for issuing the pronouncement includes the authority of the Supreme Council of Allied Principal War Powers under International Law to enter into a treaty with the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I and does not rest solely on the authority of the Israeli Knesset. The Treaty of Sevres in which the Ottomans ceded sovereignty over Palestine to the Mandatory Power was never ratified, however, the treaty of Lausanne shows the release by the Ottoman Empire of its sovereignty over Palestine leaving its final disposition to the parties involved. By that time, July 24,1923, Palestine’s fate had been decided at San Remo and approved by the League of Nations and in the United States
Those who claim that the "Palestinian People" should have equal collective rights, ignore that there is no "Palestinian People".
The Jewish People’s state has always been intended to be a Jewish Democratic state. The only concession made to the Arab People was to put the collective political rights recognized as belonging to the Jews, in trust so that the Jews could not establish a state until they comprised at least a majority in the area to be ruled. They also had to be capable of exercising sovereignty over the territory.