Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, November 04, 2016

The State Department unaware that the US ratified the words of the Balfour Declaration as law in 1924

In the daily State Department press briefing on Wednesday, the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, spokesman John Kirby was asked the official US position towards that document. And his answer was that he has no idea.

QUESTION: And finally, I want to ask you, today marked the 99th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. I am sure you’re aware of the Balfour Declaration.
MR KIRBY: I am. I studied history in college.
QUESTION: Which basically launched this thing into – began this whole process and so on.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: And I wonder, the Palestinians are going to sort of demand that Britain apologizes for the Balfour Declaration. Will you support them in that effort? Will you support the Palestinians if they go to the UN to say that Britain must apologize for that and must do everything that it can to rectify the wrongs that have been inflicted on the Palestinians as a result?
MR KIRBY: This is the first I’ve heard that there’s an interest in doing that at the UN, Said, so I’m not going to get ahead of proclamations or announcements or proposals that haven’t been made yet at the UN. Look, I’ll tell you, not that I’m saying history is not important. Believe me, as a history major and still a lover of history, I get the importance of history. But I’ll tell you where we’re focused is on the future here. And this gets back to your first question about settlement activity. We want to see a path forward to a two-state solution, and the Secretary still believes that that path can be found. But it requires leadership and it requires a forward vision in the leadership there.
So we are very much wanting to look forward here to a meaningful two-state solution, and I think we’re a little less interested in proclamations about the past. Not that I’m saying the past isn’t important or that we’re not a product of history. I am not at all suggesting that. I’m just saying that we are more focused on moving forward.
QUESTION: So okay, recognizing that --
MR KIRBY: I knew something was coming.
QUESTION: -- does the Administration have a position on the Balfour Declaration – good, bad, indifferent?
MR KIRBY: I don’t know.
QUESTION: They sent a declaration --
QUESTION: You don’t know?
MR KIRBY: I don’t know if we’ve taken a position on the Balfour Declaration or the Treaty of Westphalia or --
QUESTION: I think you think that was good because that established the concept of sovereign immunity.
MR KIRBY: Sovereign states, yeah. I – yes, actually.
QUESTION: How about the Treaty of Worms? That one?
MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I don’t know.
QUESTION: I --
MR KIRBY: Now, see, if I had actually said that we did have a position on Balfour, then I would expect you to list every other treaty and ask me. But I’m saying we don’t have a position on this right now.
QUESTION: How about Versailles? Do you think that was a good thing?
MR KIRBY: Which one? Which one? 1783? We actually like that one a lot.

Brian of London at Israellycool noted that there is an actual convention between the US and Great Britain, the 1924 Anglo-American Convention, that quotes and ratifies the Balfour Declaration:

Convention between the United States and Great Britain in respect to rights in Palestine. Signed at London, December 3, 1924: Ratification advised by the Senate, February 20, 1925; ratified by the President, March 2, 1925; ratified by Great Britain, March 18, 1925; ratifications exchanged at London, December 3, 1925; proclaimed, December 5, 1925

It includes the exact language of Balfour quoted by the League of Nations, and more- including the right of Jews to settle in all parts of Palestine:

WHEREAS by the Treaty of Peace concluded with the Allied Powers, Turkey renounces all her rights and titles over Palestine; and
Whereas article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations in the Treaty of Versailles provides that in the case of certain territories which, as a consequence of the late war, ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them, mandates should be issued, and that the terms of the mandate should be explicitly defined in each case by the Council of the League; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed to entrust the Mandate for Palestine to His Britannic Majesty; and
Whereas the terms of the said mandate have been defined by the Council of the League of Nations, as follows:

"The Council of the League of Nations:

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
"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 favor 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; and
"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

Article 2

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble...

Article 4

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

Article 6

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

Article 22

English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.

Or, in the words of the State Department, "I dunno."

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

The Islam Wars: It’s The Shiite Turn (Dr. Mordechai Kedar)

EoZ fan Miki saw this article at Mida in Hebrew and translated it.
_______________________________________

The Islam Wars: It’s The Shiite Turn

Dr. Mordechai Kedar

In the fight which rages on for over a thousand years, the Sunnis were always the dominant segment of Islam. The collapse of the national Arab countries, the retreat of the US and the strengthening of Iran are changing the balance of power, with much more blood to be spilled along the way.

Are we watching the wheels of history turn? We may be. In the terrible war between Sunnis and Shiites, the former always had the upper hand. Now however the situation seems to be changing.

When Muhammad the prophet of Islam closed his eyes forever in 632 AD, his relatives began the fight for his succession. His cousin, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who was also Muhammad’s son-in-law after marrying his daughter Fatimah, claimed that the rule should be his by right, and that Muhammad himself promised him the succession. The other candidates marginalized his claims, forcing him to struggle for 24 years before finally ascending and becoming the 4th caliph in 656 AD.

But even then his respite was short. The governor of Damascus - Mu’awiyah Ibn Abi Sufian - betrayed him six years later. In 661 Ali was murdered and Mu’awiyah became the 5th caliph. The sons of Ali continued to fight, and the new caliph fought back, hard. In 680 Hussain, the son of Ali, was murdered and had his head displayed in Damascus. The Muslims who support Ali and his successors are the Shiites, and those who support the people who pushed them aside and eliminated his succession, are Sunnis.

This 1,384 year old fight is threaded throughout the history, philosophy and politics of Islam. The fight takes place in many arenas, from the scriptures to the prayers, from religious laws to people’s names. But most of all, it takes place in the actual battlefield. These battles have cost many millions of Muslim lives, with mutual massacres taking place during various periods.

The decline of the Sunnis

The war between Iraq under the Sunni Saddam Hussein, and Iran under the Shiite Khomeini between 1980-1988 cost the lives of some million people and injured many more millions. The fight continues today at full force in multiple arenas: Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. Saudi Arabia is the leader of the Sunni world today, and Iran leads the Shiites.

About 85% of the Muslims in the world are Sunnis, making the Shiites a 15% minority. This state of affairs resulted in the Sunnis typically being the winners and in control, while the Shiites are defeated, praying and hoping for their lot to change someday. The Shiites’ miserable state of affairs brought them to call themselves “Al Mustadafin” - a term from the Koran meaning “The depressed upon the earth”. They prayed and hoped that one day the tide will turn and they will have the upper hand.

In recent years it seems that the Shiites prayers are being answered. The 1979 revolution in Iran gave the Shiite religious leaders a large, strong and rich country from which they can export their revolution to the rest of the world. They did so by sending propaganda, education, money and books to every country in which Shiites live, aiming to strengthen their anti-Sunni emotions. Once the hearts were ready, the arms, ammunition and military training weren’t far behind. Wherever possible, Shiites built the potential for taking over the government.

The world has seen this. Other countries understood the Ayatollahs’ plans for control, but chose to ignore what they saw. They did it because oil and gas were a higher motivator than any other consideration, including the safety of entire countries and the state of peace in the world. Under the world’s watchful eye, Iran developed rockets, tanks, guns and fighter planes, chemical and biological weapons, and even atomic weapons. There were attempts to stop Iran’s military expansion, but Iran’s friends in the security council - Russia and China - ensured that it can continue its takeover of the islamic world without interruptions.

In 2003, The US toppled the Shiites biggest and most dangerous enemy, Saddam Hussein.

The Ayatollahs viewed this as confirmation that Allah is on their side, giving them the aid of both global powers - Russia in the security council, and the US in Iraq. The Ayatollahs continued their nuclear program despite sanctions that were imposed on them, and their perseverance, combined with the flimsy US foreign policy has brought about the 2015 nuclear agreement. The billions of dollars that the Ayatollahs received since, and that have been well invested in the various killing fields across the middle east, have shown the Ayatollahs that the road to the top of the world is at their feet.

95,000 Iranian children were hurt or killed during the Iran-Iraq war. Source: Wikimedia Commons

With the aid of the western world and its war on Saddam Hussein, the Shiites managed to wrestle Iraq from the Sunnis. Today, with the aid of the Christian Russians they will wrestle Syria from its Sunni majority. The Shiites are massacring the Sunni population mercilessly, as we’ve seen in recent months in Fallujah, Ramadi, Haleb and Yemen, and are now advancing on Mosul, Iraq’s financial capital.

In the last two years, the Sunni “Islamic State” controlled Mosul, butchering Shiites left and right. Now that the city is under siege, the Shiites are sharpening their knives, ready to take their revenge on the Islamic State and all Sunni citizens for generations of abuse.

A cultural climate of violence

It is very sad to see how a 1,400 years old conflict still sheds rivers of blood in that part of the world. The fight is horrific because it has no boundaries - neither geographical nor moral - and because everything is known in advance: It is clear that there will be a massacre in Mosul. The question is only how big: dozens? hundreds? thousands? tens of thousands? Unknown as of yet, but I have no doubt that there will be a massacre.

You’d expect that people who got exposed to alternate lifestyles will adjust their behavior. Even if Iraqis don’t live in Europe, they still were watching TV, listening to the radio, reading books and newspapers and had plenty of opportunity to see how people live in places like the US and Europe. They were exposed to the material advantages and the happiness that can be pursued and achieved in western countries. Moreover, when most middle-easterners travel to other locales, whether to visit or to migrate, they adopt, by and large, their host country’s customs. There are always exemptions as we saw in Germany during the new year celebrations, however most Arab migrants have no problem adapting new behaviors, suggesting that there is no genetic or racial problem.

The problem raises its head when they are in their homeland, with their culture of violence and extermination of enemies. Here only the fittest survive, and the weak is in dire straits indeed. Here conflicts don’t get resolved - they get enshrined and will continue for as long as both sides exist. Here, a conflict gets resolved when one side gives up, gives in or is obliterated.

Here is also where Israel is trying to survive, and it’s not an easy task. On the one hand, Israel is an island of Western culture and a full democracy, meaning that it can not treat its enemies the way they treat each other; On the other hand, if Israel will behave by the moral codes that are prevalent in post-WWII Europe, the Jews in Israel will be booted back to Europe post haste.

This is complex dilemma, and the debate rages on in the Israeli public. It will continue for as long as Israel fights to exist in the Middle East, due to the chasm between the culture we would love to be, and what we need to do.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

11/03 Links Pt2: Hen Mazzig: Campus Farhud; Prof. Kontorovich Challenges Israel Boycott State By State

From Ian:

Retired British Colonel: Iran-Backed Hezbollah Cells Preparing to Launch Future Attacks in Europe, US

Iran-backed Hezbollah cells are readying themselves to conduct future terrorist attacks in Europe and the US, a retired British Army officer told The Algemeiner on Thursday.
Colonel Richard Kemp — a former commander of UK forces in Afghanistan — was responding to a report in the Washington Free Beacon, citing an Iranian regime-aligned media outlet, that an Iranian military official claimed the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) was dispatching operatives to infiltrate the West.
Despite last year’s nuclear deal reached between the Islamic Republic and six world powers, Iran’s “hatred for America remains a pillar of the ayatollahs’ foreign policy,” Kemp said. “They use their proxy — the terrorist group Hezbollah — to project power overseas. There are today Hezbollah cells both in Europe and the US. These elements are trained, supported and controlled by the IRGC.”
Furthermore, Kemp explained, while “it is not clear exactly where the division lies between direct IRGC action overseas and action by Hezbollah and other terrorist proxies,” what is certain is that “either directly or indirectly, the IRGC has been preparing and will continue to prepare for terrorist attacks in the US and elsewhere in the West.”
In the past, Iran is believed to have used Hezbollah to strike Israeli and Jewish targets around the globe — including in Burgas, Bulgaria in 2012 and in Argentina in 1992 and 1994.
Also, American officials said the IRGC was behind a thwarted 2011 plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US at a Washington, DC restaurant. (h/t Elder of Lobby)

Hen Mazzig: Campus Farhud

I struggle to speak above the noise of the protesters – but more than ever, of the thousands of talks I’ve given across the world, I pour out my soul.
I finish my talk – and reassure the crowd that I would be glad to return. I will not be silenced – and they should not be silenced.
“We won tonight,” I tell them. I ask everyone to be proud of themselves and to stand tall. There isn’t a more admirable, more noble cause to support than Zionism, a movement that brought safety to the Jewish people who for centuries experienced oppression and humiliation as a minority across the world.
We all stand up – and we start singing Hatikva, ‘The Hope,’ Israel’s national anthem. We sing higher than the voices of the mob outside. At that moment, even in the face of violence, the music somehow gives us a sense of transcendent safety – and feel proud.
I am soon rushed out of the campus, in a police coat by the police. They keep telling me: “Don’t look back, keep running.” It is if I am escaping a warzone.
That night strengthened my resolve more than ever. The hateful mob reaffirmed my conviction that antisemitism remains alive – in Europe, North American and beyond.
In twenty-first century Britain, Jews leaving a room to screams of “Shame! Shame! Shame!” is utterly horrifying.
I couldn’t sleep all night – I kept on thinking, how do we fight such hate speech? The answer: with good speech.
You fight bigotry and fanaticism by standing tall, even when you’re afraid. We will continue spreading a message of hope – just as Israel does within the darkness of the Middle East.

London police warn pro-Israel groups not to disclose location

The Metropolitan Police in London have asked pro-Israeli organizations Reservists on Duty and Campaign for Truth not to disclose the locations of any of their conferences, citing security concerns.
Wednesday's warning followed the violent anti-Israel rally at University College London last week, when Jewish students attending a campus event hosted by UCL Friends of Israel were trapped in the hall by protesters.
Police officers called representatives from the Israeli organizations to tell them it would be best not to disclose the location of a conference scheduled for next week. At the same time, since the location has not been disclosed, the police will not provide security at the event. The organizations were told that if necessary they could summon police to the scene.
The conference, on the theme "Ethics of war in the age of social media and the rise of terror," is being hosted by Reservists on Duty and sponsored by Campaign for Truth, organizations that work to undermine the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.

Katharine Graham would turn over in her grave were she to read the Washington Post of today. This is what I've thought to myself every day for the last two weeks since I finished reading Graham's Pulitzer Prize-winning autobiography, Personal History. Graham was forced to take the helm of the Washington Post after her bipolar Wapo editor husband Phil Graham committed suicide. She'd never done any serious or meaningful work in her life up until that time, but she rolled up her sleeves and got to work and did a mighty fine job of it, too.

It was Graham who presided over the Washington Post during the leaking of the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, and the Washington Post's pressmen's strike. And she was a woman of principle. Under her stewardship, the Washington Post did not endorse presidential candidates. Opinion posts and editorials were clearly marked as such. There was an effort to avoid bias and spin.

If Graham could see the horrific spin and bias of her baby she'd die a thousand deaths, which is why it is probably good she is dead and buried. She, like me, may not have liked either presidential candidate, but she would have recoiled from spin like this: "Her use of a private email server as secretary was a mistake, not a high crime; but her slow, grudging explanations of it worsened the damage and insulted the voters."

Let's get this straight: HRC's use of a private server to handle state secrets as secretary of state was most definitely a high crime (no matter what Comey said that made him the darling of the Dems back in July). Which is the reason she, Hillary, lied about it. When journalists take objective facts and insert subjective opinion into the mix in order to distort facts and bring readers to an illogical conclusion, this is not news.

It's spin and bias.

Katharine Graham would have known that. She would have known that in a robust democracy the media's job is to provide access to information, free of spin, so the people can vote for the government that best represents them. In a democracy, where freedom of the press is a value, journalists are expected to uphold ethical standards. Organizations such as the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) were formed for the express purpose of developing and enforcing such media standards. The preamble to the SPJ Code of Ethics lays this out neatly:

...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.

Here's something else you should know about Katharine Graham: her father, who purchased the Washington Post and eventually ceded control of the paper to his son in-law, was Jewish. Katharine Graham was quite sensitive to Jew-hatred and experienced antisemitism on more than one occasion, even though according to Jewish law, as the daughter of a non-Jewish woman, she herself was not Jewish.

Katharine Graham would have known that whenever William Booth and Ruth Eglash take to their desks to pen a story for Wapo about Israel, it's always going to be a Jew-hate festival, big time. Take the story they wrote yesterday on the trial of Elor Azaria. Look at the caption on the Reuter's feature photo: "The father of Elor Azaria, who is charged with manslaughter for shooting a wounded Palestinian assailant, kisses his head in a military court in March."

The only reason to use the word "assailant" is to distort the facts and suck the wind out of the terrorist's deed. The wounded Arab was a terrorist. Now he is a dead terrorist.

The body of the article repeats the distortion, using the word "assailant" in the body of the text, instead of the more accurate word, "terrorist."

This is because they, William Booth and Ruth Eglash, want you to see Elor Azaria, the Jew, as the bad guy in this story. He shot a wounded terrorist. Which obviously looks a lot worse than shooting a wounded "assailant."

The article itself speaks of Azaria "killing" the assailant, rather than "shooting" him. Because killing him obviously looks a lot worse than shooting him. And of course, Booth and Eglash give the readers a very vivid description of how that "killing" was accomplished, but with precious little about the terror attack: "Elor Azaria fired a single bullet at close range into the skull of a Palestinian assailant as he lay wounded, sprawled on his back, on a street in Hebron in the West Bank minutes after lunging at soldiers with a knife." Thirty-five words for how the terrorist got dead, six words alone for terror, for the act of stabbing a Jew because he is a Jew.

The main thrust of this article is that Israeli society is divided over the trial because some feel the terrorist needed to die, and some think Elor Azaria overstepped the boundaries of decency and morality to commit murder. Booth and Eglash serve up the heavily edited and muted B'Tselem video of the shooting, within the article with this caption:

"A graphic video from March shows a wounded Palestinian assailant who is lying on the ground being casually shot in the head and killed by an Israeli soldier. The Washington Post edited the video for time and graphic content. (Emad abu-Shamsiyah, B'Tselem)"

There's that word "assailant" again. Not to mention the characterization of the shooting of the terrorist as "casually shot in the head and killed by an Israeli soldier."

Get it? Israeli=Jews=Evil/Palestinians=Innocent victims

Yes. Wapo certainly did edit that video. They made it look even more damning than it looked to begin with. Furthermore, they shared only the B'Tselem video and not the video that came out the very next day in which you can hear a panicked medic calling out to the effect that the terrorist is getting ready to blow himself up. Note that the terrorist is wearing a heavy jacket on an unseasonably warm Middle Eastern day.

You know why Booth and Eglash show you the B'Tselem clip, and don't even mention the existence of this other clip? It means they're using the time-tested media bias tool of selective omission. Readers will see that edited B'Tselem clip and come to the conclusion that the facts are as Booth and Eglash suggest: Azaria casually murdered an innocent "assailant" cum victim out of malice.

That's the difference between Booth and Eglash and someone like Katharine Graham, who would have served up the facts and allowed the readers to decide the case on the facts alone, or at least let you know when you're reading opinion as opposed to fact. That's the difference between Booth and Eglash and someone like me. I too wrote about Azaria, making sure to include both videos.

The reason Booth and Eglash must resort to spin and bias by selective omission is that the story isn't as they represent it unless you add spin and omit the context. Whether Azaria made the right choice or not may be in dispute, but he did not shoot that terrorist either casually or out of malice. He shot that terrorist because there was a medic freaking out that the terrorist was going to blow them all up to smithereens.

And they, Booth and Eglash, don't want you to know that. Just like B'Tselem doesn't want you to know that. Booth, Eglash, and B'Tselem don't want you to know what really happened here. Because they want you to think that Jews are bad and Arabs are good.

Yes, indeed. Katharine Graham would have fired these two, Booth and Eglash, on the spot. They would never have gotten in the front door of Wapo, while she drew breath. Alternatively, she would have made them show the other video, and take out all the adjectives, labels, and spin.

She would have known what they were up to from the get go.

And so should you.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column

The latest battle in Israel’s ongoing struggle to define itself is being fought over the way Supreme Court justices are selected. The 15 justices are appointed by a judicial selection committee of 9 members:

The Minister of Justice, who chairs the committee,
One additional cabinet minister, chosen by the cabinet (i.e., the government),
Two Knesset members, one from the coalition and one from the opposition,
Two members of the Bar Association, selected by the association, and
Three current justices of the Supreme Court, including the President of the Court (Chief Justice).

Presently, a super-majority of 7 committee members is required to approve a candidate. This gives the existing court justices a veto power, and – since the Court and the Bar Association lean leftward – gives left-of-center candidates a significant advantage. It also means that the Court is self-selecting and unaccountable.

The Israeli Supreme Court has far more power than the US Supreme Court. Rules about justiciability (what matters are in the purview of the Court) and standing (who can petition the court) are far looser than in other democracies; any citizen can petition the Court about any action of the government. It can throw out a law passed by the Knesset even if there’s no litigation about it. Or it can let it be known before a bill is passed that it will not approve it in its present form, and thereby force changes.

The Court greatly expanded its role and its power as a result of the activities of Aharon Barak, who was a justice from 1978-95, and its President from 1995-2006. The American jurist Richard Posner explains just how much power Barak placed in the hands of the Court (his hands!) in a review of one of Barak’s books. It is eye-opening.

Many Israelis feel that that it is unacceptable that in a democratic country so much power is held by an institution that is almost entirely not accountable to the people or its elected representatives. On the other hand, there is great respect for the Court and for the importance of having an independent judiciary and a rule of law.

The present Minister of Justice, Ayelet Shaked, has submitted a bill to the Knesset to change the rules so that only a simple majority of 5 members will be required. This would eliminate the veto power held by the current justices.

I used the expressions ‘right’ and ‘left’ above, but that isn’t the whole story. The disagreement is about much more than the desire of politicians to have a court that will take their side about issues like the development of Israel’s gas reserves, drafting Haredim, or the settlement enterprise. It is about the most basic principle of all: what kind of state will we have? Most will say that it is a Jewish and democratic state, but ideas of what this means in practice diverge widely.

Israel doesn’t have a constitution; instead it has a number of Basic Laws that partially define the nature of the state. There has been a great deal of discussion about what constitutes the Jewish aspect of the state, and recently there was a controversial attempt to introduce a Basic Law that would specify its precise meaning. The Supreme Court was a silent partner in all discussions about the law, because it was clear to all parties that the court would immediately test it – and probably find any non-vacuous version inconsistent with the existing Basic Laws. Various versions of the law were discussed, but so far nothing has been passed. If such a law does pass, chances are that it will be less ambitious than the earlier versions.

Is it an appropriate role for a court to judge the state’s self-definition? Or is this something that should be left to the representatives of the people?

The Amona settlement decision is another situation in which the ideological bent of the Court may have played a role. The settlement of Amona was declared to have encroached on land which was owned by Palestinians, and ordered by a court (and the order approved by the Supreme Court) to be demolished. The Knesset, looking for a compromise, proposed that the Palestinians be compensated and the buildings allowed to remain. But the Attorney General indicated that the Court would find such a solution “unconstitutional.”

The case was very complicated, as are all land ownership issues in Israel. The settlement had been there for several years and the Palestinians had not worked the land in question. The case was brought by a left-wing, foreign-funded NGO (“Yesh Din”) on their behalf. Could there really be no option other than destroying the settlement?

Something is backwards here. In a democracy, the power to govern ultimately resides with the people. In a modern state they express their will through their elected representatives. It is important that the rights of minorities be respected, but it is the majority that decides. But in Israel, the Supreme Court is not selected or even confirmed by the representatives of the people. There are no checks and balances – there is no way the Knesset can appeal or override a court decision. It is both totally independent and all-powerful.

And unfortunately, it leans in one direction. It values a European vision of democracy, universalism over nationalism, a “state of its citizens” over the more conservative, Zionist idea of a state that belongs to the Jewish people. When the Court believes that Zionism and minority rights conflict, it chooses minority rights.

Today there is a struggle between the remnants of the secular, Ashkenazi, universalist, dovish, elite that once ran the country, and the more religious, more Mizrachi, nationalist and hawkish population that is now the majority, and which elects right-wing candidates to the Knesset. It is being played out in the arena of arts and culture, where Miri Regev is challenging the old establishment; it is also happening in the academic world, where Naftali Bennett as Minister of Education is trying to rein in the excesses of the professorate. In the last few days we’ve seen yet another cultural struggle, this one over the new Public Broadcasting Corporation, which Likud politicians say has been co-opted by the left-wing journalists that overwhelmingly dominate the media.

All of these elites have maintained their control of these realms because they are self-selecting. They complain about “political interference” and “undemocratic” actions by the ministers that are trying to change them, but in reality it is the politics of today’s Israel that is trying to “interfere” with institutions that are run according to the politics of the 1960s.

The Supreme Court is the most important and powerful institution in the state that is still firmly in the hands of the old left-wing elite. Even if you think it is a benevolent despot, it is still a despot. Shaked’s bill to end its incestuous means of reproduction is a good start to bringing it in line with the rest of the nation.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

11/03 Links Pt1: Balfour 100; J-Street Makes Best Pro Trump Israel Video Ever

From Ian:

Balfour 100 - Website

May I offer you our heartiest thanks - I am sure that when the history of this time will be written it will be justifiably said that the name of the greatest House in Jewry was associated with the granting of the Magna Carta of Jewish liberties.
Balfour 100 is the official tribute of the British Jewish community marking the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, issued on November 2nd, 1917.
Balfour 100 was initiated by Lord Jacob Rothschild and is managed by a Steering Committee representing Jewish communal organisations.
The Balfour 100 tribute is a comprehensive set of activities including a range of digital resources, educational programmes, communal events, and the Balfour 100 Tribute Lecture by Professor Simon Schama.
Balfour 100 acknowledges with gratitude the foresight of Lord Arthur Balfour and the British government of Lloyd George. In the midst of the Great War, they looked to the future and chose to recognise the longing of the Jewish people to re-establish its national homeland in the land of Israel. We express our deep appreciation to all those British leaders in the subsequent one hundred years, who have shared in their vision.

Red tape, blunders keep Balfour Declaration away from the homeland it promised

It took decades to bring the Balfour Declaration, which enshrined London’s support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, to fruition. Bringing the actual document to Israel for a second visit may take even longer.
Plans to bring the Balfour Declaration to Tel Aviv for its second-ever display in Israel were announced by the Israeli government six and a half years ago, but they are held up in a dust of renovation rubble and bureaucratic misunderstandings, with no horizon for getting it to Tel Aviv for at least another year.
The document, which was issued exactly 99 years ago Wednesday, is now expected to arrive in Israel in 2018. That is just in time for the country’s 70th anniversary — but one year after the declaration’s centennial in 2017.
Originally, the Israeli government expected to host the document in 2015 on the occasion of the grand opening of the renovated Independence Hall in Tel Aviv, where it was supposed to be displayed together with Lord Arthur Balfour’s desk.
In a press release issued in April 2013, the Prime Minister’s Office announced that then-cabinet secretary Tzvi Hauser “received agreement in principle from the British Library for the original copy of the Balfour Declaration.”
The British Library, however, insists that no such agreement was ever granted. Indeed, Israel never formally asked for a loan, according to library spokesperson Ben Sanderson.
“We received an initial enquiry from the Israeli government, as to the conditions that need to be met to enable a loan of the item,” Sanderson wrote in an email to The Times of Israel. “The Library responded to this request, outlining our loans policy and indicating the issues that need to be considered in order to facilitate the loan of the Declaration. We have yet to receive a formal loan request. Any decision on a loan of the item will ultimately be made by the British Library Board.”
Once a formal loan request is made, Sanderson added, “we’ll be able to give proper consideration to whether the institution making the request is able to fulfill the requirements of our loans policy.”

Apologizing for the Balfour Declaration Won't Achieve a Two-State Solution

If love means never having to say you are sorry, then the renewed push for the U.K. to “atone” for the 1917 Balfour Declaration is yet another reminder of the bad blood between Israelis and Palestinians—and of how elusive peace remains.
Today, on 99th anniversary of the letter, which endorsed “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” Saeb Erekat, the secretary general of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, has published an op-ed urging Britain to apologize for the document, which was incorporated into the British Mandate for Palestine.
Sign up Sign up to our daily newsletter for up to date global news and features.
“In order to build a future of peace between Israel, Palestine and the rest of the world, justice must be honored,” Erekat argues. “The United Kingdom cannot continue to avoid its historic responsibility in Palestine.” President Mahmoud Abbas also raised the issue at U.N. General Assembly in September. “This is the least Britain can do,” he said.
In the U.K. last week, a 2013 campaign supporting this plea was relaunched at the House of Lords. “Britain’s legacy in Palestine marked an historical breach against the aspirations of the people of Palestine and shattered its hopes for freedom and self-determination,” the campaigners from the Palestine Return Centre argue. “Our mission is to seek an official apology from the British government for issuing the catastrophic Balfour Declaration.”

What Is The State Department’s Position On The Balfour Declaration?

It runs on into more yakety-yak about Jews building homes. Here’s a full transcript (which starts before where I cut the video to start). You can see the whole thing starting around 14:30 on the State Dept website:
QUESTION: And finally, I want to ask you, today marked the 99th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. I am sure you’re aware of the Balfour Declaration.
MR KIRBY: I am. I studied history in college.
QUESTION: Which basically launched this thing into – began this whole process and so on.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: And I wonder, the Palestinians are going to sort of demand that Britain apologizes for the Balfour Declaration. Will you support them in that effort? Will you support the Palestinians if they go to the UN to say that Britain must apologize for that and must do everything that it can to rectify the wrongs that have been inflicted on the Palestinians as a result?
MR KIRBY: This is the first I’ve heard that there’s an interest in doing that at the UN, Said, so I’m not going to get ahead of proclamations or announcements or proposals that haven’t been made yet at the UN. Look, I’ll tell you, not that I’m saying history is not important. Believe me, as a history major and still a lover of history, I get the importance of history. But I’ll tell you where we’re focused is on the future here. And this gets back to your first question about settlement activity. We want to see a path forward to a two-state solution, and the Secretary still believes that that path can be found. But it requires leadership and it requires a forward vision in the leadership there.
So we are very much wanting to look forward here to a meaningful two-state solution, and I think we’re a little less interested in proclamations about the past. Not that I’m saying the past isn’t important or that we’re not a product of history. I am not at all suggesting that. I’m just saying that we are more focused on moving forward.
QUESTION: So okay, recognizing that —
MR KIRBY: I knew something was coming.
QUESTION: — does the Administration have a position on the Balfour Declaration – good, bad, indifferent?
MR KIRBY: I don’t know.