It is important to note that the Ariel Sharon-Ehud Olmert proposition to uproot the Jewish presence in Gaza and northern Shomron (and to transfer the area to the enemy) is an irreversible gift, since it is unilateral, voluntary and does not put any obligation on the other side.
It is unlawful to gift away property and rights without prior consultation of the lawful owner, and even more so if the owner is not even aware of his rights.
The trust of the League of Nations for the "Jewish people", which is the "beneficiary" of the "trust", operates on the same principle as a trust for an individual beneficiary, say a property held in trust for a young individual until he is eighteen. Once this individual attains the age of eighteen, this individual, and only he, is entitled to decide what will happen to the property and rights involved. These rights of the individual are invariant to the passage of time, the changing composition of the board of trustees and the location of the trust. It is clear that in the post-colonization era, the "Jewish people" has long passed its "eighteen". The Jewish people is the sole owner of the rights bestowed on it in perpetuity by the League of Nations' mandate, whatever these rights are.
According to the Palestine Mandate (trusteeship) of the League of Nations, the owner of "Palestine" is the "Jewish people", and its rights include "reconstituting their national home in that country" by creating "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." This includes via the urgent "facilitation and encouragement of Jewish immigration and close [dense] settlement by Jews on the lands, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."
The trustee is not allowed to transfer the land out of Jewish control: "No Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power." Later, these Jewish rights were temporarily "postponed", or "withheld", in four-fifths of Palestine; i.e., in the Kingdom of Jordan of today. Yet, it is to be emphasized that according to the mandate, Jews exclusively were given "political" rights in Palestine.
These rights were given to the Jewish people by the community of nations in perpetuity and were enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. Thus, according to international law, these rights of the Jewish people are still valid and legally binding. The sole beneficiary of this trusteeship, the "Jewish people", has to be consulted before some of these rights are given away. But the owner of these rights (the beneficiary of the trust) himself is not even aware of his rights. This can be ascertained by every Israeli, simply by asking his neighbours.
Indeed, during the existence of Israel, and even before the declaration of the state in 1948, these rights were not taught in Israel's education system. As strange as it may appear to the outside observer, the modern Magna Carta (the original Magna Carta being the Bible) of the Jewish people is absent in the official education system in Israel and among Diaspora Jews. Furthermore, since the Oslo Accords, Israel's official representatives are banned from declaring these rights in public.
It is therefore suggested that a public campaign be initiated, and petitions launched to Israel's state comptroller and Supreme Court. External courts, in particular the court of the ex-Mandatory Power, the United Kingdom, could be approached, as well. The petition of the court should consist of four appeals:
A. That the owner shall be consulted. Since the sole owner and beneficiary of these rights is the "Jewish people", a referendum (or appropriate election) will be organized among all Jews living in Palestine, since only the Jews are the "owners" of these rights. Israeli Arabs and Knesset members of the anti-Zionist Arab parties, who are not the owners of these rights and therefore are not entitled to gift away what is not theirs, shall not be involved in the referendum (or in the Knesset) in any way.
B. That prior to such a referendum the people of Israel shall be made aware of the above-mentioned national rights of the Jewish people. This should include the government of Israel at its own expense hiring advertisement sections in all Israeli newspapers in all languages and informing the population about Jewish national rights, preferably by citing the original formulation of the Mandate and explaining its current validity. Special programs on radio and television should be dedicated for the teaching of this information. Additionally, this information can be propagated by the distribution of leaflets with this information to all households in Israel (like the Geneva-Understandings-people have done). The inclusion of these rights in Israel's education system and in Israel's advocacy abroad should also be urgently instituted and actively encouraged.
In view of the very many years of neglect, it is clear that a compensatory positive action is required in informing the public. Without this special effort of informing the owner of his rights, the "general principle of law" that requires that the owner is to be made aware of his rights will not be fulfilled, and a referendum (or even a Knesset vote on the subject) will be meaningless and invalid in law.
C. After the Israeli public has been made aware of Jewish national rights as described in (B), and before the referendum described in (A) is carried out, there will be a period of public discussion of the wisdom and advisability of the Sharon-Olmert uprooting proposal. It is to be emphasized that Olmert and the Quartet have emphasized many times that the proposed uprooting is only the beginning of the process of Israel returning to the pre-1967 lines. The younger Israeli generations cannot imagine the sense of vulnerability that prevailed in pre-1967 Israel and how deep was the sense of relief that was provided by the 1967 victory. This discussion will inform the younger generations that the victory in 1967 was a matter of touch-and-go, of pure luck, that may not repeat itself, and unlike the Arabs, Israel cannot afford to lose even one major war.
One example among many of the extreme vulnerability of pre-1967 Israel is that in that war, a Jordanian tank brigade was about to cut Israel into two parts at its narrowest waist, the seventeen kilometres of the Natanya-Tul-Karem axis. There were no meaningful forces on the ground to stop the Jordanians and so a desperate last-minute effort was made to divert some planes, since the whole air force was occupied in Egypt, and these few planes managed to stop the Jordanian tank brigade at the last minute.
The younger generations will be informed about the security nightmare of pre-1967 Israel, which included the fear that the country will be cut into two parts, the permanent infiltration of terrorists, even though Israel then faced the more disciplined Jordanian and Egyptian armies and the not the much worse, chaotic Palestinian Authority (which we brought on ourselves). As the West Bank and Gaza were a no-go area for Israelis (as it is gradually becoming now again, by our free choice), it was very hard to take defensive measures, to gather information, to mobilize the reserves in time, to hit the terrorists in their cities of refuge without hitting the innocent, to have enough space for military jets to fly in, and the whole country lived under the permanent threat of annihilation and massacre, as was indeed promised by all Arab states.
The defence (not to mention ecological, living space and more) value of the territories has much increased since 1967, also as a deterrent against the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The crawling return to the 1967 situation will return the nightmare that prevailed in pre-1967 Israel, but it would be much worse because of WMD and the sense of demoralization that we brought all this misery on ourselves. Already, it is clear that the more territorial concessions are made, the more difficult it becomes to stop the supply of weapons and ammunition to the terrorists. Soon civilian aircraft will be under dire threat. And the more official and legal Arab status in the West Bank and Gaza becomes, the more difficult it will be to face the world and to return again to the territories.
After 1967 Israeli soldiers had comfortable military bases in the "territories", which Israel gifted away to the Palestinian Authority. Thus, when the soldiers had to return during the second intifada, they had to live and fight for days in the crowded spaces of tanks, as their former bases were occupied by Palestinian forces.
The public discussion should also raise the irreversibility of gifts, and the difficulties the world will have in accepting Israeli military forces in the territories without accompanying civilian Jewish settlements (which also serve as essential logistic bases); such a military-only presence will appear colonial and contribute to anti-Israel feelings.
The court shall set the lengths of the periods of the activities described in (B) and (C).
D. It is self-evident that during the activities described in (A)-(C), all preparations for the proposed evacuation shall be suspended.
[Part 1 of 3]
It is unlawful to gift away property and rights without prior consultation of the lawful owner, and even more so if the owner is not even aware of his rights.
The trust of the League of Nations for the "Jewish people", which is the "beneficiary" of the "trust", operates on the same principle as a trust for an individual beneficiary, say a property held in trust for a young individual until he is eighteen. Once this individual attains the age of eighteen, this individual, and only he, is entitled to decide what will happen to the property and rights involved. These rights of the individual are invariant to the passage of time, the changing composition of the board of trustees and the location of the trust. It is clear that in the post-colonization era, the "Jewish people" has long passed its "eighteen". The Jewish people is the sole owner of the rights bestowed on it in perpetuity by the League of Nations' mandate, whatever these rights are.
According to the Palestine Mandate (trusteeship) of the League of Nations, the owner of "Palestine" is the "Jewish people", and its rights include "reconstituting their national home in that country" by creating "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." This includes via the urgent "facilitation and encouragement of Jewish immigration and close [dense] settlement by Jews on the lands, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."
The trustee is not allowed to transfer the land out of Jewish control: "No Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power." Later, these Jewish rights were temporarily "postponed", or "withheld", in four-fifths of Palestine; i.e., in the Kingdom of Jordan of today. Yet, it is to be emphasized that according to the mandate, Jews exclusively were given "political" rights in Palestine.
These rights were given to the Jewish people by the community of nations in perpetuity and were enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. Thus, according to international law, these rights of the Jewish people are still valid and legally binding. The sole beneficiary of this trusteeship, the "Jewish people", has to be consulted before some of these rights are given away. But the owner of these rights (the beneficiary of the trust) himself is not even aware of his rights. This can be ascertained by every Israeli, simply by asking his neighbours.
Indeed, during the existence of Israel, and even before the declaration of the state in 1948, these rights were not taught in Israel's education system. As strange as it may appear to the outside observer, the modern Magna Carta (the original Magna Carta being the Bible) of the Jewish people is absent in the official education system in Israel and among Diaspora Jews. Furthermore, since the Oslo Accords, Israel's official representatives are banned from declaring these rights in public.
It is therefore suggested that a public campaign be initiated, and petitions launched to Israel's state comptroller and Supreme Court. External courts, in particular the court of the ex-Mandatory Power, the United Kingdom, could be approached, as well. The petition of the court should consist of four appeals:
A. That the owner shall be consulted. Since the sole owner and beneficiary of these rights is the "Jewish people", a referendum (or appropriate election) will be organized among all Jews living in Palestine, since only the Jews are the "owners" of these rights. Israeli Arabs and Knesset members of the anti-Zionist Arab parties, who are not the owners of these rights and therefore are not entitled to gift away what is not theirs, shall not be involved in the referendum (or in the Knesset) in any way.
B. That prior to such a referendum the people of Israel shall be made aware of the above-mentioned national rights of the Jewish people. This should include the government of Israel at its own expense hiring advertisement sections in all Israeli newspapers in all languages and informing the population about Jewish national rights, preferably by citing the original formulation of the Mandate and explaining its current validity. Special programs on radio and television should be dedicated for the teaching of this information. Additionally, this information can be propagated by the distribution of leaflets with this information to all households in Israel (like the Geneva-Understandings-people have done). The inclusion of these rights in Israel's education system and in Israel's advocacy abroad should also be urgently instituted and actively encouraged.
In view of the very many years of neglect, it is clear that a compensatory positive action is required in informing the public. Without this special effort of informing the owner of his rights, the "general principle of law" that requires that the owner is to be made aware of his rights will not be fulfilled, and a referendum (or even a Knesset vote on the subject) will be meaningless and invalid in law.
C. After the Israeli public has been made aware of Jewish national rights as described in (B), and before the referendum described in (A) is carried out, there will be a period of public discussion of the wisdom and advisability of the Sharon-Olmert uprooting proposal. It is to be emphasized that Olmert and the Quartet have emphasized many times that the proposed uprooting is only the beginning of the process of Israel returning to the pre-1967 lines. The younger Israeli generations cannot imagine the sense of vulnerability that prevailed in pre-1967 Israel and how deep was the sense of relief that was provided by the 1967 victory. This discussion will inform the younger generations that the victory in 1967 was a matter of touch-and-go, of pure luck, that may not repeat itself, and unlike the Arabs, Israel cannot afford to lose even one major war.
One example among many of the extreme vulnerability of pre-1967 Israel is that in that war, a Jordanian tank brigade was about to cut Israel into two parts at its narrowest waist, the seventeen kilometres of the Natanya-Tul-Karem axis. There were no meaningful forces on the ground to stop the Jordanians and so a desperate last-minute effort was made to divert some planes, since the whole air force was occupied in Egypt, and these few planes managed to stop the Jordanian tank brigade at the last minute.
The younger generations will be informed about the security nightmare of pre-1967 Israel, which included the fear that the country will be cut into two parts, the permanent infiltration of terrorists, even though Israel then faced the more disciplined Jordanian and Egyptian armies and the not the much worse, chaotic Palestinian Authority (which we brought on ourselves). As the West Bank and Gaza were a no-go area for Israelis (as it is gradually becoming now again, by our free choice), it was very hard to take defensive measures, to gather information, to mobilize the reserves in time, to hit the terrorists in their cities of refuge without hitting the innocent, to have enough space for military jets to fly in, and the whole country lived under the permanent threat of annihilation and massacre, as was indeed promised by all Arab states.
The defence (not to mention ecological, living space and more) value of the territories has much increased since 1967, also as a deterrent against the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The crawling return to the 1967 situation will return the nightmare that prevailed in pre-1967 Israel, but it would be much worse because of WMD and the sense of demoralization that we brought all this misery on ourselves. Already, it is clear that the more territorial concessions are made, the more difficult it becomes to stop the supply of weapons and ammunition to the terrorists. Soon civilian aircraft will be under dire threat. And the more official and legal Arab status in the West Bank and Gaza becomes, the more difficult it will be to face the world and to return again to the territories.
After 1967 Israeli soldiers had comfortable military bases in the "territories", which Israel gifted away to the Palestinian Authority. Thus, when the soldiers had to return during the second intifada, they had to live and fight for days in the crowded spaces of tanks, as their former bases were occupied by Palestinian forces.
The public discussion should also raise the irreversibility of gifts, and the difficulties the world will have in accepting Israeli military forces in the territories without accompanying civilian Jewish settlements (which also serve as essential logistic bases); such a military-only presence will appear colonial and contribute to anti-Israel feelings.
The court shall set the lengths of the periods of the activities described in (B) and (C).
D. It is self-evident that during the activities described in (A)-(C), all preparations for the proposed evacuation shall be suspended.
[Part 1 of 3]