Aboriginal Title and Self Government – Delgamuukw v. British Columbia

read Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010 (Aboriginal [read INDIGENOUS] rights, including aboriginal title and the right to self-government triumph colonial dispossession ….)

Put another way: This decision of the Supreme Court of Canada is important because only Jews are aboriginal or indigenous to the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael) as recognized by the San Remo Resolution; have maintained a continuous presence in Eretz Yisrael and have continuously exercised self-government in Eretz YisraelFrom Time Immemorial” in spite of foreign (e.g. Roman, Byzantine, Turkish and Arab) conquest!

The Supreme Court of Canada has decided that, where a First Nation maintains demographic and cultural connections with the land, aboriginal title (including self-government rights) can survive both sovereignty changes and the influx of a new majority population, resulting from foreign conquest.

“Aboriginal title encompasses the right to exclusive use and occupation of the land held pursuant to that title for a variety of purposes, which need not be aspects of those aboriginal practices, customs and traditions which are integral to distinctive aboriginal cultures.  The protected uses must not be irreconcilable with the nature of the group’s attachment to that land.

Aboriginal title is sui generis, and so distinguished from other proprietary interests, and characterized by several dimensions. It is inalienable and cannot be transferred, sold or surrendered to anyone other than the Crown.  Another dimension of aboriginal title is its sources:  its recognition by the Royal Proclamation, 1763 and the relationship between the common law which recognizes occupation as proof of possession and systems of aboriginal law pre‑existing assertion of British sovereignty.  Finally, aboriginal title is held communally.

The exclusive right to use the land is not restricted to the right to engage in activities which are aspects of aboriginal practices, customs and traditions integral to  the claimant group’s distinctive aboriginal culture.  Canadian jurisprudence on aboriginal title frames the “right to occupy and possess” in broad terms and, significantly, is not qualified by the restriction that use be tied to practice, custom or tradition. The nature of the Indian interest in reserve land which has been found to be the same as the interest in tribal lands is very broad and incorporates present‑day needs.  Finally, aboriginal title encompasses mineral rights and lands held pursuant to aboriginal title should be capable of exploitation.  Such a use is certainly not a traditional one.

The content of aboriginal title contains an inherent limit in that lands so held cannot be used in a manner that is irreconcilable with the nature of the claimants’ attachment to those lands.  This inherent limit arises because the relationship of an aboriginal community with its land should not be prevented from continuing into the future.  Occupancy is determined by reference to the activities that have taken place on the land and the uses to which the land has been put by the particular group.  If lands are so occupied, there will exist a special bond between the group and the land in question such that the land will be part of the definition of the group’s distinctive culture.  Land held by virtue of aboriginal title may not be alienated because the land has an inherent and unique value in itself, which is enjoyed by the community with aboriginal title to it.  The community cannot put the land to uses which would destroy that value.  Finally, the importance of the continuity of the relationship between an aboriginal community and its land, and the non‑economic or inherent value of that land, should not be taken to detract from the possibility of surrender to the Crown in exchange for valuable consideration.  On the contrary, the idea of surrender reinforces the conclusion that aboriginal title is limited. If aboriginal peoples wish to use their lands in a way that aboriginal title does not permit, then they must surrender those lands and convert them into non‑title lands to do so.”

Parshah Pinchas – Lamah YiGara

B”H

The daughters of Zelophehad the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph, came forward, and his daughters’ names were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. They stood before Moses and before Eleazar the kohen and before the chieftains and the entire congregation at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, saying, “Our father died in the desert, but he was not in the assembly that banded together against the Lord in Korah’s assembly, but he died for his own sin, and he had no sons. Why should our father’s name be eliminated from his family because he had no son? Give us a portion along with our father’s brothers. ” So Moses brought their case before the L-RD.”

‘lamah yigara’ – literally, why should it be omitted – why indeed?

The Daughters of Zelophechad went before Moshe and the Entire Congregation:

“They not only come forth, but also they speak with determination: “Our father died in the wilderness. He was not one of the faction, Korah’s faction, which banded together against G-D but died for his own sin; and he has left no sons. Let not our father’s name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father’s kinsmen!” ” (B’midbar Numbers 27:3-4).

Korach’s faction banded together against G-D arguing (and excluding G-D from the picture) that “you have not brought us to a land flowing with milk and honey” (B’midbar 16.14) while Zelophechad, (TOGETHER with the entire congregation) merely was ignorant of the penalty for violating the Sabbath (it was not told what should be done to him B’midbar 15.34).

“Why should our father’s name be ostracized from his family because he had no son?”

How is it that The Daughters of Zelophechad went from mentioning “he died for his own sin (gathering sticks on the Sabbath) [and as such] he had no sons (plural);” to framing the case as a question of inheritance – “because he had no son (singular)?”

Doesn’t the issue of being “a Sabbath breaker” beg the question as to why they eliminated the matter of being a Sabbath breaker and framed the case as one concerning tribal – family inheritance?!

And where did they learn to make a pointed statement?

The Torah tells us they said, “Lamah Yigara shem avinu ….”  “Why should our father’s name be ostracized (estranged, omitted) ?”

לָ֣מָּה יִגָּרַ֤ע שֵֽׁם־אָבִ֨ינוּ֙ מִתּ֣וֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחְתּ֔וֹ כִּ֛י אֵ֥ין ל֖וֹ בֵּ֑ן תְּנָה־לָּ֣נוּ אֲחֻזָּ֔ה בְּת֖וֹךְ אֲחֵ֥י אָבִֽינוּ:

I surmise that they learned to make a pointed statement because of the statement made by those defiled by the dead (Zelophechad) who could not observe the Passover due to ritual defilement (corpse tumah) who said, “Lamah Nigara….” “Why should we be kept back from offering the L-RD’S Korban Pesach from amongst the Children of Yisrael?” B’midbar 9.7

לָמָּה נִגָּרַע, לְבִלְתִּי הַקְרִיב אֶת-קָרְבַּן יְהוָה בְּמֹעֲדוֹ, בְּתוֹךְ, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

Both express an impediment to enjoyment of a mitzvah – one with a future tense (Lamah Yigara) related to being excluded from an inheritance of the land and one with a past tense (Lamah Nigara) related to exclusion from a national commemorative festival, Pesach (Passover).

“While the Sifrei and many mefarshim emphasize that Pesach Sheni was always anticipated as an integral component of the commemoration of Yetziat Mitzrayim, they credit the group’s initiative by characterizing their role as “megalgelin zechut al yedei zakai“. Why did this outcry, particularly if it did not constitute either a request-demand or complaint-argument, resonate so powerfully? Surely there must have been other queries, complaints, or efforts to expand religious commitment and fulfillment, particularly when halachic standards militated against universal participation in treasured mitzvot. The omission or obfuscation of specific proposals or arguments, according to the mefarshim that project these, implies that the depth of anguish and the impassioned presentation was more compelling than the force of any specific argument.”

 

 

“Palestinians have no national rights to the Land of Israel”

Notice he says the Al Axsa Mosque is in al-Gi’irranah – Arabia…!

What are the difficulties with the belief that the al-Aqsa mosque described in Islamic tradition is located in Jerusalem? For one, the people of Mecca, who knew Muhammad well, did not believe this story. Only Abu Bakr, (later the first Calif,) believed him and thus was called al-Siddiq (“the believer”.)
The second difficulty is that Islamic tradition tells us that al-Aqsa mosque is near Mecca on the Arabian Peninsula. This was unequivocally stated in “Kitab al-Maghazi,” a book by the Muslim historian and geographer al-Waqidi. According to al-Waqidi, there were two “masjeds” (places of prayer) in al-Gi’irranah, a village between Mecca and Ta’if – one was “the closer mosque” (al-masjid al-adna) and the other was “the further mosque” (al-masjid al-aqsa,) and Muhammad would pray there when he went out of town.
This description by al-Waqidi which is supported by a chain of authorities (isnad) was not “convenient” for the Islamic propaganda of the 7th Century. In order to establish a basis for the awareness of the “holiness” of Jerusalem in Islam, the Califs of the Ummayad dynasty invented many “traditions” upholding the value of Jerusalem, which would justify pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the faithful Muslims. Thus was al-Masjid al-Aqsa “transported” to Jerusalem. It should be noted that Saladin also adopted the myth of al-Aqsa and those “traditions” in order to recruit and inflame the Muslim warriors against the Crusaders in the 12th Century.

 

– NOTICE OF MATERIAL CLAIMS CONFERENCE –

B”H
TO: Embassy of Jordan
       Embassy of Egypt
       Embassy of Saudi Arabia
– NOTICE OF MATERIAL CLAIMS CONFERENCE –
RE: Estoppel and Article 24 of the Israeli – Jordanian Peace Treaty (Claims Commission)
WHEREAS the Hashemite Crown agreed to establish a Claims Commission for the mutual settlement of all financial claims, NOTICE is hereby given that the Jewish Community claims $250 billion in compensation for Jews forced out of Arab Countries and the Hashemite Crown is estopped from asserting inconsistent claims contrary to the Jordanian-Israeli Peace Treaty; and,
WHEREAS, 1,000 delegates of “West Bank” Arabs voted for Abdullah I as their sovereign at the December 1948 Jericho Conference within the meaning of UNGA Resolution 181 (Article Three – Election of an Independent Sovereignty); and,
WHEREAS the Hashemite Crown collectively naturalized all Arabs of Palestinian extraction (April 1950) nullifying UNGA Resolution 194(11); and,
WHEREAS, by their own admission, the 1948 Arabs of “Western Palestine” left, fled or were displaced of their own accord as affected by the Arab League;
JUSTICE demands truth, reconciliation and reparations through a Material Claims Conference that a Claims Commission be established in Jerusalem and this writer proposes such Conference be held on or about 19 October 2020!
And, Nothing follows.
/S/ Yochanan Ezra ben Avraham

JEWS DISPLACED FROM ARAB COUNTRIES: A STORY OF COLLUSION

Justice for Jews From Arab Lands, North Africa and Iran

JEWS DISPLACED FROM ARAB COUNTRIES: A STORY OF COLLUSION

Note: All documents are referenced and all source material is readily available in the United Nations Archives

Chronology of Events and Evidence

For over 2,500 years, Jews resided in North Africa, the Middle East and the Gulf region in substantial numbers – fully 1,000 years before the advent of Islam. During the twentieth century, the uprooting of up to one million Jews from their ancient Jewish communities in ten Arab countries did not occur by happenstance.

State-sanctioned repressive measures, coupled often with violence and repression, precipitated the Jewish refugee problem in the Middle East. There is ample evidence that points to collusion, a shared pattern of conduct amongst a number of Arab regimes that appeared intended to coerce Jews to leave, or to use them as weapons in the Arab world’s struggle against the State of Israel.

This is evidenced from:

(a) The drafting of a Law by the Political Committee of the Arab League that recommended a coordinated strategy of repressive measures against Jews;

(b) strikingly similar legislation and discriminatory decrees, enacted by numerous Arab governments, that violated the fundamental rights and freedoms of Jews resident in Arab countries; (c) statements made by delegates of Arab countries at the U.N. during the debate on the ‘Partition Resolution’, representing a pattern of ominous threats made against Jews in Arab countries; and(d) newspaper reports from that period. This Chronology provides a small sample, and not an exhaustive survey, of such of events and evidence.* * * * *

In 1947, the Political Committee of the Arab League (League of Arab States) drafted a law that was to govern the legal status of Jewish residents in all Arab League countries (See attached Exhibit E).

Arab diplomats at the UN sought to attribute blame for any danger to Jews on the Arab “masses” – indeed, even to the UN itself – while, in fact, the Arab League was colluding to encourage state sanctioned discrimination against Jews in all of its member states – at the time, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, and Yemen.

This Draft Law of the Arab League provided that “…all Jews – with the exception of citizens of non-Arab countries – were to be considered members of the Jewish ‘minority state of Palestine,’; that their bank accounts would be frozen and used to finance resistance to ‘Zionist ambitions in Palestine; Jews believed to be active Zionists would be interned as political prisoners and their assets confiscated; only Jews who accept active service in Arab armies or place themselves at the disposal of these armies would be considered ‘Arabs.’” 1

From the sheer volume of subsequent state-sanctioned discriminatory measures, replicated in so many Arab countries and instituted in such a parallel fashion, one is drawn to the conclusion that such evidence suggests a common pattern of repressive measures, – indeed collusion – against Jews by Arab governments (See attached “State Sanctioned Persecution of Jews in Egypt {Exhibit K} and Iraq {Exhibit L}).

1Text of Law Drafted by Political Committee of Arab League (See attached Exhibit E)

The following official statements demonstrate a pattern of ominously similar threats made against Jews in Arab countries:

November 24, 1947 In a key address to the Political Committee of the U.N. General Assembly on the morning of November 24, 1947, just five days before that body voted on the partition plan for Palestine, Heykal Pasha, an Egyptian delegate, made the following statement: The United Nations … should not lose sight of the fact that the proposed solution might endanger a million Jews living in the Moslem countries. … If the United Nations decided to partition Palestine they might be responsible for very grave disorders and for the massacre of a large number of Jews.”2

November 24, 1947 In an afternoon session of the Political Committee of the U.N. General Assembly on November 24, 1947, the Palestinian delegate to the UN, Jamal Husseini, representing the Arab Higher Committee of Palestine to the UN General Assembly, made the following threat: “It should be remembered that there were as many Jews in the Arab world as there are in Palestine whose positions might become very precarious.”3

November 28, 1947 Iraq’s Foreign Minister Fadil Jamali, at the 126th Plenary Meeting of the UN General Assembly stated: “Not only the uprising of the Arabs in Palestine is to be expected but the masses in the Arab world cannot be restrained. The Arab-Jewish relationship in the Arab world will greatly deteriorate.”4

January 19, 1948 A memorandum was submitted to the U.N. Economic and Social Council by the World Jewish Congress, warning ECOSOC that all Jews residing in the Near and Middle East face extreme and imminent danger.”

The memorandum referred to the Text of Law Drafted by Political Committee of [the] Arab League (See attached Exhibit E) which was already adopted by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. This law recommended discriminatory treatment against Jewish residents in all Arab League countries. The Memorandum went on to report on recent incidents of violence and other anti-Jewish measures in a variety of Arab countries. Due to the extreme urgency” of this matter, the WJC requested that this matter be placed on the agenda of the forthcoming” meeting of the U.N. Economic and Social Council.

2 U.N. General Assembly, Second Session, Official Records, Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, Summary Record of the Thirteenth Meeting, Lake Success, N.Y., November 24, 1947 (A/AC.14/SR.30). This comment was made at 10:30am.

3 U.N. General Assembly, Second Session, Official Records, Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, Summary Record of the Thirty-First Meeting, Lake Success, N.Y., November 24, 2947 (A/AC.14/SR.31) This comment was made at 2:30pm.

4 U.N. General Assembly, Second Session, Official Records, Verbatim Record of the 126th Plenary Meeting, November 28, 1947, p. 1391.

February 16, 1948 A second Memorandum was submitted by the World Jewish Congress to the ECOSOC President, citing cases of serious violence, economic discrimination and anti-Jewish excesses” that had occurred in Syria. Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt and Bahrain, urging the Council “to take up the situation of these Jewish populations as a matter of immediate international concern.”5

March 5, 1948 Item 37 on the agenda of the UN Economic and Social Council, supported by Document E/710 (See attached Exhibit J) was to deal with the “extreme and imminent dangerto Jews in Arab countries. The Council’s President, Dr. Charles H. Malik (Lebanon), utilized a procedural maneuver that resulted in the matter never being addressed.

March 11, 1948 When the Council was ready to resume its deliberations, Mr. Katz-Suchy (Poland) requested that the matter of Document E/710 (See attached Exhibit J:The World Jewish Congress Memorandum that alluded to “The extreme and imminent danger to Jews residing in the near and Middle East) be reconsidered. He charged that agreement had been reached among the five major Powers not to discuss document E/710” and argued that “usual” Council procedure was not followed. Mr. Kaminsky (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) declared that he could not condone a practice whereby items on the agenda were allowed to disappear from the agenda.” A resolution recommending that this matter be discussed in full at the next Council meeting (July 1948) was adopted by a vote of 15 – 1. The lone dissenting vote was cast by the representative of Lebanon who stated that the resolution “was tantamount to prejudging the issue.”

May 16, 1948 A New York Times article reported on Law drafted by the Political Committee of the Arab League and revealed some of its provisions: “It [the law] provides that beginning on an unspecified date all Jews except citizens of non-Arab states, would be considered “members of the Jewish minority state of Palestine.” Their bank accounts would be frozen and used to finance resistance to “Zionist ambitions in Palestine.” Jews believed to be active Zionists would be interned and their assets confiscated.”6

June 21, 1948 The Council referred this matter back to the NGO Committee of ECOSOC which met and reviewed document E/710 (i.e. The World Jewish Congress Memorandum that alluded to The extreme and imminent danger to Jews residing in the near and Middle East). A resolution concluded that it should not make specific recommendations regarding the substance of the consultation (WJC Memorandum) unless specifically requested by Council” 7. This circuitous buck passing’ ensured that the matter was never addressed.

5 Report on the Activities of the Political Department (November 15, 1947 – May 15, 1948)

6New York Times May 16, 1948 “Jews in Grave Danger in All Moslem Lands, Nine hundred thousand in Africa and Asia face wrath of their foes.” by Mallory Browne.

7 Report on the Council NGO Committee (Item 31) (E/940) August 9, 1948

“Justice, Justice shall you pursue….”

B”H

Jerusalem Material Claims Conference Against the Arab League

Justice, Justice shall you pursue….” Deut. 16:18-20

Zion shall be redeemed with justice, And they that return of her with righteousness.” Isaiah 1.27

“And Judah also shall fight for Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the nations round about shall be gathered together, gold, and silver, and apparel, in great abundance.” Zechariah 14.14

“The children of thy bereavement Shall yet say in thine ears: ‘The place is too strait for me; Give place to me that I may dwell.’ ” Y’shiyahu (Isaiah) 49.20

It is advised by Yochanan Ezra ben Avraham that on or about 13 October 2020, Jews, Christians and Muslims hold  a “material claims conference” in Jerusalem patterned after the 1952 Luxembourg Reparations Agreement, the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine and Reintegration Fund, the UN Compensation Commission and Fund, together with the Canadian Treaty Land Entitlement Agreements to effect a just and lasting peace for the Indigenous Peoples of the Middle East that land reserves for “close Jewish and Arab settlement” in historical “Eretz Yisrael” (Palestine – “East & West” of the Jordan River) be “set aside” under a trusteeship agreement to secure reparations and restitution against the Arab League for the 1947 Draft Law of the Political Committee of the Arab League and expulsion of the Jews from Arab Countries, North Africa and the Persian Gulf as documented by Justice for Jews from Arab Countries; and for the refusal of the Arab League states to patriate by collective naturalization “Arabs of Palestinian extraction” and the recent denaturalization of Arabs of Jordanian Nationality who were collectively naturalized by King Abdullah on December 13, 1949.

****

Collective Naturalization

It is further advised by Yochanan Ezra ben Avraham that the State of Israel amend the Law of Return and “Collectively Naturalize” all Jews of the Diaspora, and symbolically re-patriate (viz, naturalize) the Arabs of Palestinian Extraction from the 1948 Israeli War of Independence (as contemplated by UNGA Resolution 194 (11) and as purviewed by the historical attempts via the UN CONCILIATION COMMISSION for PALESTINE [UNCCP] Reintegration Fund to reintegrate the Arabs of Palestinian extraction into the body polity of Eretz Yisrael; and Camp David II) for “close settlement” in historical Eretz Yisrael, east and west of the Jordan River.

The subject of collective naturalization is discussed at length in Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135, (1892) and many cases cited and illustrations given.

Collective Naturalization can occur by legislation or by treaty of cession or through acquiescence, concession or assent (failure to remove, relocate or traverse international boundaries).

Citizenship by Conquest or Treaty of Cession & Election of Citizenship:

“Manifestly the nationality of the inhabitants of territory acquired by conquest or cession becomes that of the government under whose dominion they pass, subject to the right of election on their part to retain their former nationality by removal, or otherwise, as may be provided.” Boyd v. Thayer.

Although the “self-determinism” by Arabs of Palestinian extraction who voted by delegates as a “free expression of the will of the people” for King Abdullah I as their sovereign at the December 1948 Jericho Conference and were “collectively naturalized” by King Abdullah; all Arabs of Palestinian extraction retain an inalienable and unalienable right of suffrage in the Jordanian Parliament, and possess Jordanian Citizenship by virtue of force majeure, acquiescence, concession or assent.

See: Bishop, International Law, Cases and Materials, Second Edition, 1962 (Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Toronto); Chapter 5, Nationality: (pp. 394, – 409, – 438)

“These commentators maintain that when territory is transferred to a new

sovereign by conquest or cession the inhabitants of the territory

become nationals of the new government only by their own consent,

express or implicit. [….] If the inhabitants remain within the territory

their allegiance is transferred to the new sovereign. [….] American Insurance Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Peter 511, 542, 7 L. Ed. 242

****

Jerusalem Declaration 10 Sep 2012 :

“We, the participants of the conference “Justice for Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries”, hereby declare that we fully support the rights of Jews displaced, expelled or who fled Arab countries, to justice, rights and redress. [….] As the organizing body in the Arab world and the organization which drafted legislation against the Jewish communities in 1947, we hold the Arab League responsible for the exodus of Jews from Arab countries.”

Read the full Jerusalem Declaration on Justice for Jews from Arab Countries

****

Watch The Forgotten Refugees

Register Your JIMENA Refugee Claim

****

Read the Fact Sheet Jewish Refugees From Arab Lands

1952 Luxembourg Reparations Agreement:

The Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany –

According to wikipedia,

“The Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany was signed on September 10, 1952, and entered in force on March 27, 1953.

According to the Agreement, West Germany was to pay Israel for the costs of

“resettling so great a number of uprooted and destitute Jewish refugees” after the war, and to compensate individual Jews, via the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, for losses in Jewish livelihood and property resulting from Nazi persecution and genocide.”

More information on The Reparations Agreement of 1952 can be read here National Library of Israel

Canadian Treaty Lands Entitlement Agreements –

Treaty Land Entitlement process

First Nations who did not receive all the land they were entitled to under treaties signed by the Crown and First Nations, can file a Treaty Land Entitlement (TLE) claim with the Government of Canada. TLE settlement agreements are negotiated between First Nations and the Government of Canada, typically with the participation of provincial/territorial governments. The federal government must adhere to treaty obligations to provide the promised amount of reserve land to treaty First Nations.

Generally, a TLE settlement agreement specifies an amount of land that a First Nation may either purchase on a willing buyer-willing seller basis, or select from unoccupied Crown land, or both in some cases, within an agreed to acquisition or selection area.

Once purchased or selected, the First Nation may submit a proposal to the Government of Canada for the land to be added to the First Nation’s reserve under the Additions to Reserve process.

As of August 2016, some 90 percent of TLE transactions take place in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The fulfillment of TLE agreements assists in building partnerships and encourages economic development on reserves and in surrounding communities.

More information can be read here Canadian Treaty Land Entitlement Agreements

And here Crown Indigenous Relations Northern Affairs

****

The Supreme Court of Canada has decided that, where a First Nation maintains demographic and cultural connections with the land, aboriginal title (including self-government rights) can survive both sovereignty changes and the influx of a new majority population, resulting from foreign conquest.Delgamuukw v. British Columbia

[1997] 3 SCR 1010 (Case Number 23799)

This jurisprudence is an important decision because only Jews indigenous to Palestine have maintained an “indigenous demographic and cultural connection” to the Land of Eretz Yisrael, have survived foreign (Arab) conquest and were guaranteed POLITICAL rights to self-government within Mandate for Palestine “Treaty Territories” pursuant to the San Remo Resolution!

The Canadian Treaty Land Entitlements Agreements, and the Jurisprudence decided in behalf of Indigenous First Peoples provides a useful model that could be negotiated as part of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement under a trusteeship agreement as contemplated by Chapter XII (Articles 75 through 85) of the UN Charter, to “set aside” Land Reserves for “close Jewish and Arab settlement” in historical “Eretz Yisrael” (Palestine) both East and West of the Jordan River.

****

Reparations Against the Arab League

As for reparations against the Arab League, in 2013 Israeli MK Shimon Ohayon Called on the Arab League to Accept Responsibility for the Jewish Refugees from Arab Lands:

“It is time for the Arab League, not just to make diktats for a resolution to the conflict, but also accept their great responsibility for driving out almost a million Jews from lands which they had lived in for millennia,” MK Ohayon continued. “I call on the Arab League not just to take responsibility but also to provide redress to the Jewish refugees.

“This is a matter of justice and rights and has been ignored by the Arab League and the international community for too long. It is time to place the rights of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands at the forefront of the push for peace and reconciliation in our region.”

****

The Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran is a Memorial Day that is marked in Israel every year (starting in 2014,) on November 30 with the purpose of marking the departure and expulsion of Jews from Arab countries and Iran. It is based on a law sponsored by MK Shimon Ohayon (Yisrael Beiteinu) and passed in the summer of 2014 by the Knesset.

****

The 1947 Draft Law and more information about the expulsions, pogroms and internment of Jews in Arab Lands, North Africa and the Persian Gulf can be read here 1947 Arab League Draft Law – Jewish Refugees

Conference on Material Claims Against the Arab League States –

Claims Commission and Fund

As part of any future Middle Eastern “regional” peace agreement, there would need to be a claims commission set up and a claims fund following the establishment of a (Jerusalem/Al Quds) Reparations Agreement for distribution to those populations affected, as contemplated by UNSC Resolution 242 and US House Resolution 185; which was supposed to have been part of the Camp David Peace Accords with Egypt (Article 8) and was supposed to have been part of the Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty (Article 24).

Camp David Peace Accords – Article VIII The Parties agree to establish a claims commission for the mutual settlement of all financial claims.

 

Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty – ARTICLE 24 CLAIMS

The Parties agree to establish a claims commission for the mutual settlement of all financial claims.

— Justice Requires a Conference on Material Claims Against the Arab League States –

“In the aftermath of World War II and the establishment of the State of Israel, the World Jewish Congress was actively involved in assisting Jews in Arab and other Muslim countries, who had come under increasing pressure. In January 1948, WJC President Stephen Wise, appealed to US Secretary of State George Marshall: “Between 800,000 and a million Jews in the Middle East and North Africa, exclusive of Palestine, are in ‘the greatest danger of destruction’ at the hands of Muslims being incited to holy war over the Partition of Palestine … Acts of violence already perpetrated, together with those contemplated, being clearly aimed at the total destruction of the Jews, constitute genocide, which under the resolutions of the General Assembly is a crime against humanity.” The United States, however, did not take any follow-up action to investigate these pleadings.” (Source: Wikipedia World Jewish Congress)

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton made the following assertion after the rights of Jews displaced from Arab countries were discussed at “Camp David II” in July 28, 2000 (from White House Transcript of Israeli television interview): “There will have to be some sort of international fund set up for the refugees. There is, I think, some interest, interestingly enough, on both sides, in also having a fund which compensates the Israelis who were made refugees by the war, which occurred after the birth of the State of Israel. Israel is full of people, Jewish people, who lived in predominantly Arab countries who came to Israel because they were made refugees in their own land.”

Sign the Petition Jerusalem Material Claims Conference to the World Jewish Congress: “For any peace process to be credible and enduring, it must address the rights of all Middle East refugees, including Jewish and other minority populations that were displaced from Arab countries.”

****

The UN CONCILIATION COMMISSION for PALESTINE [UNCCP] Reintegration Fund

As the [UNCCP] Commission was aware, it [the State of Israel] had already “declared its willingness to support the Reintegration Fund to be established by the United Nations by paying into it funds accruing from compensation for abandoned Arab lands”.

On December 2, 1950, the United Nations General Assembly passed resolution 393 by a vote of 46 in favor, 0 against, 6 abstaining. This resolution allocated, for the period 1 July 1951 to 30 June 1952, “not less than the equivalent of $30,000,000” for the economic reintegration of Palestinian refugees in the Near East “either by repatriation or resettlement”, their permanent re-establishment and removal from relief, “without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 11 of General Assembly Resolution 194”.

Toward this goal, Israel donated the equivalent of $2.8 million, and Arab states pledged almost $600,000. The United States accounted for the greatest pledge with $25 million.

****

UNGA Resolution 194 (11) and the “Right of Return” –

Although UNGA Resolution 194 (11) is a non-binding resolution and is premised upon a return “at the earliest convenience” of those “willing to live at peace with their neighbor(s);” the right of return to treaty territories must now be construed and exercised on an individual basis with a qualified offer of collective rehabilitation (repatriation) in light of the December 1948 Jericho Conference wherein the 1,000 Arab delegates led by Sheik Muhammad Ali Ja’abari elected Abdullah I as their sovereign within the meaning of UNGA Resolution 181 (III Election of an Independent Sovereign).

As such, a “limited right of return” is still offered to the 1948 Arab (“Palestinian”) refugees, conditioned on a REGIONAL peace treaty with the Arab League States that will allow Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to retain a TRUST, (as contemplated by Chapter XII (Articles 75 through 85) of the UN Charter) over the Jewish Treaty Territories east and west of the Jordan River (e.g. Judea, Shomron, Gad, Reuven, and Manasseh) for “close Jewish and Arab refugee resettlement” within the spirit of US Congress’ House Resolution 185, 1 April 2008 as these [trust] treaty territories were ceded to the Jewish Community via the Mandate for Palestine as contemplated by the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement.

****

Israel’s first offer of any limited right of return came at the 1949 Lausanne Conference, when it offered to allow 100,000 refugees to return, though not necessarily to their homes, including 25,000 who had returned surreptitiously and 10,000 family-reunion cases. The proposal was conditioned on a peace treaty that would allow Israel to retain territory it had captured which had been allocated to a proposed Palestinian state, and the Arab states absorbing the remaining 550,000–650,000 refugees. The Arabs rejected the proposal on both moral and political grounds, and Israel quickly withdrew its limited offer. At the 2000 Camp David summit 52 years following Israeli independence, Israel offered to set up an international fund for the compensation for the property which had been lost by 1948 Palestinian refugees, to which Israel would contribute. Israel offered to allow 100,000 refugees to return on the basis of humanitarian considerations or family reunification. All other refugees would be resettled in their present places of residents, the Palestinian state, or in third-party countries, with Israel contributing $30 billion to fund their resettlement. During this time, most of the original refugees had already died without any compensation. Israel demanded that in exchange, Arafat forever abandon the right of return, and Arafat’s refusal has been cited as one of the leading causes of the summit’s failure.

****

Megillat HaNechoshet (the Copper Scroll) –

This material claims conference would lead to compensation for all populations affected, Jewish, Christian and Arab/Muslim (within the spirit of US House Resolution 185) and I suggest a peace and reconciliation conference for the populations effected by the Arab Israeli Conflict “with a gesture of peace and reconciliation by the Hashemite Kingdom” of  a return of the Copper Scroll to the Jewish People from the Jordan Museum Amman!

UN Compensation Commission and Fund

The UN Compensation Commission and Fund provides a useful model that could be negotiated as part of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement. In the aftermath of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the UNCC adopted a policy of paying individuals first, with the remaining sums owed entirely to government entities. The UNCC also created six categories for resolving claims from the Iraq-Kuwait war. These categories include claims for families killed or injured during the war, business losses, individual anguish, cost of resettling citizens, and damage to the environment. These categories could be adapted to fit the needs of an international peace fund for the Middle East.

****

Truth and Reconciliation Commission –

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was a court-like restorative justice[1] body assembled in South Africa after the end of apartheid.

Witnesses who were identified as victims of gross human rights violations were invited to give statements about their experiences, and some were selected for public hearings. Perpetrators of violence could also give testimony and request amnesty from both civil and criminal prosecution.

The TRC, the first of the 1003 held internationally to stage public hearings, was seen by many as a crucial component of the transition to full and free democracy in South Africa. Despite some flaws, it is generally (although not universally) thought to have been successful.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) provides a useful model for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement.

****

Stateless Again

Palestinian-Origin Jordanians Deprived of their Nationality*

Summary: More than half of the 6.3 million population of Jordan is of Palestinian origin-that is, from areas west of the River Jordan, including the West Bank, today’s Israel, and Gaza. With the exception of persons from Gaza, the vast majority of those persons of Palestinian origin have Jordanian citizenship. However, since 1988, and especially over the past few years, the Jordanian government has been arbitrarily and without notice withdrawing Jordanian nationality from its citizens of Palestinian [Israeli] origin, making them stateless. For many of them this means they are again stateless Palestinians as they were before 1950.

So far, Jordan has withdrawn its nationality from thousands of its citizens of Palestinian origin-over 2,700 between 2004 and 2008 alone. It has done so, in the individual cases Human Rights Watch identified, in an arbitrary manner and in violation of Jordan’s nationality law of 1954. Under that law Palestinian residents of the West Bank in 1949 or thereafter received full Jordanian nationality following Jordan’s incorporation of the West Bank in April 1950.

****

*Disclaimer: In order for there to be TRUTH and RECONCILIATION between Arabs and Jews, one must admit that the Arabs of Palestinian Extraction are simply Arabs who have migrated to Eretz Yisrael. That is, the author of this proposal does not espouse a distinct Palestinian Identity for Arabs of “Palestinian Extraction” as there is no difference between an Arab from Arabia and an Arab from Judea and Samaria (the West Bank of the Jordan River) or from the territories allocated (by Moses and Joshua) to Gad, Reuven and Menasheh (the East Bank of the Jordan River) as agreed to by the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement.

In their own words: In 1977, Zuheir Mohsen, PLO Executive Council member, articulated the goals of the new “peoplehood” strategy saying, “The Palestinian people does not exist…. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel…. It is only for political and tactical reasons that we speak today about…the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.”

While Jews are Indigenous to Eretz Yisrael (Palestine); Arabs are Indigenous to [Saudi] Arabia, not Eretz Yisrael and many only recently settled within Mandate for Palestine [TREATY] territories! The Hashemites should be held to the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement as the Arabs have been given “independence” through the Mandates for Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria and Lebanon and by and through the Kingdom of the Hejaz and exercised, by their free will, “national self-determinism” at the December 1948 Jericho Conference wherein they elected King Abdullah I as their sovereign (within the meaning of Chapter III [Election of Sovereignty] of UNGA Resolution 181).

The 1950 State Department Country Report on Jordan said that King Abdullah had taken successive steps [to wit: Annexation and Occupation] to incorporate the area of Central Palestine into Jordan and described the Jordanian Parliament resolution concerning the union of Central Palestine with Jordan. The report said the US had privately advised the British and French Foreign Ministers that it had approved the action, and that “it represented a logical development of the situation which took place as a result of a free expression of the will of the people.”[7] The major problems of concern to the United States were the establishment of peaceful and friendly relations between Israel and Jordan and the successful absorption into the polity and economy of Jordan of Arab Palestine, its inhabitants, and the bulk of the refugees now located there.[8]

****

Since the Arabs were collectively naturalized by Abdullah I of trans-Jordan April 1950, effectively nullifying and voiding UNGA Resolution 194(11); any Reparations Agreement must include a provision that those hostile belligerent nationals of Jordan unwilling to “live at peace with their neighbor” be classified as hosti humani generis and the parties to such Reparations Agreement should establish a Regional UN Human Rights / Terrorism Court in East Jerusalem for the prosecution of any terrorist or act of terrorism.

Midot HaRayah

Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, zt’l, writes in his important work on morality, Midot HaRayah, that whenever we as human beings are attracted to another person, another object, another creature, whenever we are drawn to something or someone else in this world, it is not that we are drawn solely by their appearance as seen by just our eyes, rather that our soul recognizes and sees and is drawn to the divine sparks contained within each individual, within each place, within each of G-d’s creations. Rav Kook explains that one who truly seeks to be an ethical, moral person will constantly work to recognize and see the divinity within every person, every creature, and every thing.

Are Jews Indigenous to the Land of Israel?

Ryan Bellerose says:

Yes.

Tablet Magazine

by Ryan Bellerose

February 08, 2017

As an indigenous activist—I am a Métis from the Paddle Prairie Metis settlement in Alberta, Canada—there is one question I am most often asked by the public, one that can instantly divide a community due to its intense and arduous subject matter.

Yet, regardless of the scenario, each time I hear the words, “Are Jews the indigenous people of Israel?” I’m inclined to answer not only with my heart but with the brutal, honest truth, backed by indisputable, thousands-year-old historical and archaeological fact: yes.

While evidence in favor of this view is overwhelming, activists who oppose Israel’s right to exist and deny the Jewish people’s connection to the land—perhaps before learning where indigenous status stems from and what it means—still have an issue with this claim, supporting a narrative built on falsehoods that today is basically acknowledged as fact.

It is my belief that strengthening Jewish identity is the optimum way to fight against the perpetuation of false narratives and lies. This can be achieved only through an indigenous decolonization of Jewish identity, which would urge Jews to see themselves through a Jewish lens and manifest the indigenous aspects of Jewish identity in a meaningful way.

Now, to understand indigeneity, one must also understand indigenous people, how we see ourselves, and how we see the world. At its simplest, indigenous status stems from the genesis of a culture, language, and traditions in conjunction with its connections to an ancestral land, most commonly derived from ties to pre-colonial peoples. Once a people have such a cultural, linguistic, and spiritual genesis as well as a coalescence as a people, they are generally acknowledged as an indigenous people.

An anthropologist named José Martínez Cobo, who served as the UN’s special rapporteur on discrimination against indigenous populations, developed a simple checklist in order to make indigenous status easier to understand. Even though that checklist has since been adjusted—I would argue, to fit the UN’s anti-Israel agenda—it remains the standard for most anthropologists in the field today:

Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present nondominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.

This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors:

a) Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them;

b) Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands;

c) Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.);

d) Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language);

e) Residence on certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world;

f) Other relevant factors.

As a guideline, the Martínez Cobo study is fairly clear and gives us a way to avoid falling prey to false claims. However, there is one section—which, as far as I can tell, wasn’t in Cobo’s earliest definition—that has been referred to as problematic by many indigenous activists. This section refers to “nondominant sectors of society,” which is directly related to the issue of Jews as an indigenous people. It implies that by being “nondominant,” you have yet to realize self-determination. Ergo, if a group has achieved self-determination (i.e., the Jewish people or the Fijians), they will no longer meet the checklist as indigenous.

Seeing how the goal of all indigenous peoples is to achieve self-determination on their ancestral lands, it’s basically the most egregious example of a Catch-22.

You might be wondering why this seemingly throwaway line about “prevailing societies and non-dominant sectors” was included when it’s so clearly counterintuitive to our goals as indigenous peoples. It is my belief that it was inserted to deny indigenous status to one specific people, in fact, the only people who have actually achieved full self-determination on their ancestral lands: the Jewish people.

Why else would the United Nations include a caveat that basically denies indigenous peoples’ identity if we actually win in our struggle?

***

Archaeology, genealogy, and history all support the Jewish claim to indigeneity. A debate on this issue only even exists because we’ve been fed a false narrative that Palestinian Arabs also hold a claim to the land of Israel. Not to say that two peoples can’t be indigenous to one land. The Palestinians do indeed have the legitimate “rights of longstanding presence” in Israel, but this does not trump the indigenous status of Jewish people, 90 percent of whom can directly trace their genetics to the Levant. The cultural genesis, spirituality, language, and ancestral ties of Palestinian Arabs, however, trace back to the Hejaz (a region in present-day Saudi Arabia). In the Quran, the Hejaz is where Muhammad was born and where he established a community of followers.

To say that Palestinian Arabs were the first inhabitants of the land of Israel is problematic for actual indigenous people like the Jewish people, the Amazigh, the Copts, the Assyrians, the Samaritans, and others who were forcefully conquered, subsumed, and converted. It would literally be akin to white Europeans in North America making that same claim. Conquering peoples can still become indigenous through cultural genesis and coalescence. They cannot, however, become indigenous simply through conquering indigenous people.

Indigenous status is specific to certain areas, just as in North America, where certain tribes are indigenous to specific regions. The same rules should be applied in the Middle East. Just as the Cree would not claim Mohawk territories, Arabs should not try to claim Jewish, Amazigh, Kurdish, or Assyrian territories. Each of those peoples have clearly defined territories that date to pre-colonial times.

The primary argument promoting the false narrative that Jews are not indigenous to the land of Israel is that they are actually the descendants of European colonizers. This can be easily rebuked. Recent studies support the notion that some 80 percent of Jewish males, and 50 percent of Jewish females, can trace their ancestry to the Middle East. Early population genetics studies also confirm that “most Jewish Diaspora groups originated in the Middle East.”

Another study shows that even the first European Ashkenazi Jews were at least half Middle Eastern.

The next argument against Jews being an indigenous people derives from the fact that Abraham was from Ur. And, while he is considered the father of the Jewish people, they did not become a people in Ur but in the Levant—specifically, in modern-day Judea and Samaria.

According to Jewish tradition and spirituality, the Torah was given to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai, but they had their cultural Genesis in the land of Israel. Of the 613 mitzvot, the vast majority can only be completed in the land of Israel. The Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the Jewish people are all buried in the land of Israel. The holiest sites in Judaism are located—you guessed it—in the land of Israel. Abraham was indeed from Ur, but the people who stemmed from him are, without a doubt, from Israel.

This is closely related to the issue of Jerusalem, which both Palestinian Muslims and Israeli Jews claim as their own. One need only look to the Tanakh, where Jerusalem is mentioned an astounding 699 times, and then to the Quran, where Jerusalem is not mentioned even once, to resolve this dispute.

Then there is the Canaanite argument, a relatively newer piece of Palestinian propaganda that argues—because the Torah claims that the Canaanites were driven out by the Israelites—that Jews are therefore not indigenous to Israel. Archaeologists suggest, however, that the Canaanites were in fact not destroyed at all, but subsumed by the ascendant Hebrew people.

It appears that once Palestinian Arabs realized their claim to being descendants of the Philistines was false—as the Philistines, derived from the Hebrew word peleshet, have no connection ethnically, linguistically, or historically to the people of Arabia—they decided that they were descended from Canaanites instead.

In a 2012 speech, a spokesperson for Mahmoud Abbas said, “The nation of Palestine upon the land of Canaan had a 7,000-year history B.C.E. This is the truth, which must be understood, and we have to note it, in order to say: ‘Netanyahu, you are incidental in history. We are the people of history. We are the owners of history.’ ”

This comment from the Abbas camp is complete rubbish, just one on a laundry list of Palestinian misnomers. First, the Canaanites have been extinct for 3,000 years and little is known today about their direct descendants. Second, pre-Islamic Arabs—of whom Palestinians are direct descendants—first appeared only in the 9th century BCE, not in 7000 BCE. Third, in 1946, before the establishment of Modern Israel, Palestinian-Arab leaders themselves only claimed a connection to the land of Israel dating back no further than seventh century CE—when Muhammad’s followers conquered North Africa and the surrounding region. You may also want to ask: What spiritual, cultural, or traditional constructs of the Canaanite people have Palestinian Arabs maintained? The answer is none.

But this should not be surprising. Even the most novice researcher looking into falsehoods perpetrated by Palestinian leaders would quickly find other blatant lies aimed at delegitimizing the history of the Jewish people, like the time Yasser Arafat told Bill Clinton there was never a Jewish temple in Jerusalem, or the time Ekrima Sabri, former Jerusalem mufti and chairman of the Supreme Islamic Council in Jerusalem, said, “After 25 years of digging, archaeologists are unanimous that not a single stone has been found related to Jerusalem’s alleged Jewish history.”

These are the proponents of the false narrative attempting to rebuke the indigenous status of the Jewish people in the land of Israel.

I got involved in this struggle because I was seeing nonindigenous people make arguments that are detrimental to actual indigenous people, arguments that attempt to rewrite our history. The idea that “Palestinian Arab” conquerors could become indigenous through conquering the Jewish people, even though the term “Palestinian” was only used in reference to Jews before 1948, is anathema. While Arabs claim to be related to the descendants of Israel through blood, it’s just another way to say that they acted like all conquerors, raping and pillaging and then settling and subsuming the locals. Native North Americans especially understand that simply conquering indigenous people does not grant one indigenous status.

Building a monument over our sacred places does not make them yours (Mount Rushmore, anyone?) Not any more than UNESCO declaring the Temple Mount to be a Muslim sacred site because they built a mosque over the church that was built over the ruins of the Jewish Temple. It’s a basic tradition in the Western ethos to respect those who came before you; it’s even built into most of our laws to respect prior claim, and that’s what indigenous rights are really all about. Respecting the rights of those who came before you.

***

Read more from Tablet magazine about the legal definitions of Jewish indigenous rights here.

Ryan Bellerose is the Advocacy Coordinator for Western Canada of B’nai Brith Canada’s League for Human Rights.

Apply Sovereignty & End the Islamic Occupation of Tzion

The Arabs (“Palestinians”), led by Sheik Muhammad Ali Ja’abari – Mayor of Hebron, together with approximately 1,000 delegates voted for Abdullah I as their sovereign at the December 1948 Jericho Conference. This was an expression of “the will of the people” as an exercise in “self-determinism” according to the 1950 US State Dept. Country Report. As such, Abdullah I collectively naturalized all Arabs of “Palestinian” extraction. It’s time to end the farce of “Palestinian National Aspiration;” apply Jewish/Israeli sovereignty to all of Eretz Israel and end the Islamic Occupation of Tzion!

Israel Should Apply Sovereignty — and Reject the Trump Peace Plan

Algemeiner
July 1, 2020 3:11 am

avatar by Benjamin Anthony and David Benger

Opinion

Regardless of how far-reaching or limited, and immediate or gradual, the process may actually be, Israel should apply sovereignty over the Jordan Valley, but it must not do so under the framework of the Trump peace plan.

That plan, if implemented, exacerbates all of Israel’s present security concerns and leaves it with no discernible advantages. Israel’s sovereignty over the Jordan Valley must be decoupled from the Trump plan.

The extension of Israeli sovereignty is a policy consonant with the principled, decades-long held view of Israeli leaders that Israel must retain security control over the Jordan Valley. That bedrock of Israeli national security, combined with the continued growth of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, has increased the calls for international recognition of Israeli sovereignty in those areas — the recognition of which would enshrine Israel’s national security imperatives in law and resolve the somewhat purgatorial status of Israelis who live there.

Indeed, Israel should have recognized its own sovereignty over Judea and Samaria long ago, just as it did over the Golan Heights in 1981, but it has not yet done so. Instead, it has deferred any decisive legislative action vis-à-vis the Jordan Valley right up to the present day.

July 1, 2020 8:24 am
0

An Urgent Call for American Jewish Self-Defense

The rise of antisemitism in the US, which seems to cross party lines, ideologies and ethnic groups, has caught many…

 

Absent an Israeli declaration, the Trump plan is now the voice most openly calling for the recognition of Israeli sovereignty in the Jordan Valley, something that has pleased many observers who value the importance of Israel affixing its eastern border. The unfortunate consequence of this is that the Trump administration seems a more strident supporter of the idea than do many Israeli policy makers.

A thorough analysis of the plan reveals that the concessions requested of the Israelis in exchange for American support of sovereignty extension are far too great for Israel to accept or work from as a basis for negotiation.

Heavily conditioned upon a change in Palestinian behavior though the plan is, it encourages negotiations on issues that Israel has long considered non-negotiable, to a degree that is unpalatable and unacceptable.

First: the question of Jerusalem. The Trump plan explicitly proposes that the capital of a future Palestinian state will be situated in East Jerusalem. It states:

The sovereign capital of the State of Palestine should be in the section of East Jerusalem … and could be named Al Quds. Jerusalem should be internationally recognized as the capital of the State of Israel. Al Quds … should be internationally recognized as the capital of the State of Palestine.

If Israel applies sovereignty to the Jordan Valley as part of the Trump plan, it will be doing so while knowingly elevating the partition of Jerusalem to a legitimate subject for negotiation. Jerusalem is the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish people. President Trump cannot be allowed to play King Solomon with that city.

Second, the plan explicitly calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. By applying sovereignty over the Jordan Valley as part of the deal, Israelis themselves will be party to a proposal that anchors a Palestinian state in the heart of the Jewish people’s ancient homeland.

This would expose Israel to a potentially belligerent Palestine perched atop the Judean hills. Such a Palestine would enjoy a topographical advantage over Israel’s most densely populated civilian areas and industrial sectors, including Tel Aviv.

This plan defies the ideological and religious principles of many Israelis who support sovereignty.

It wantonly ignores the pyrrhic price Israel could be required to pay, according to the plan itself, promoted as it is by a transactional American president who, beyond November, would be free from reelection considerations, and will likely be in pursuit of a foreign policy legacy.

Third, this plan dangerously resurrects the widely discredited “land for peace” strategy that harmed Israel’s security interests in the past and continues to do so in the present. It encourages further concessions of Israeli land, specifically in the Negev region, for the stated purpose of expanding the Gaza Strip.

Gaza has been a haven for terrorists since the Israeli withdrawal from the enclave in 2005. There is no evidence to support the idea that an expansion of Gaza’s borders into Israel will improve the situation.

In essence, the plan offers Israeli land adjacent to the Gaza Strip that has been cultivated and inhabited by Israelis for a century — and which is in no way disputed — to an enemy state. It effectively calls for the affixing of Israel’s eastern border with Jordan, with whom Israel has a peace treaty, at the cost of further ensnaring over a million Israelis within a reality of continuing, sustained, indiscriminate rocket barrages from an ever-larger launching pad to Israel’s west.

Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, stated, “It is in the Negev where the creativity and pioneering vigor of Israel will be tested.” Ceding Israeli land in that part of the country will destroy that vision.

In addition to the many flaws particular to the Trump plan, it’s high time that Israel disentangles itself from US-brokered peace processes writ large. Historically, peace deals brokered by Americans have not aged well for Israelis. Every concession to the Palestinians simply becomes the starting point for the next round of negotiations, while Israel gains nothing in return — not peace, nor quiet, nor international legitimacy.

No other sovereign nation awaits the permission of the United States of America when deciding its domestic affairs and priorities, as Israel has done. The parameters of the Trump plan prove that it is not in Israel’s interests to continue to do so, despite the long-standing bonds between the two countries.

If the American “quid” is the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over land Israel already legitimately holds, Israel’s “quo” must not be the division of its capital, the anchoring of a Palestinian state in its heartland, the ceding of further land, and the placement of its citizens in yet greater danger.

Israel must reject the Trump plan outright. It only endangers Israel further. Instead, Israel should assert full effective civil control over the Jordan Valley, and arrive at the next negotiation from a place of strength.

Benjamin Anthony is the Co-Founder & CEO of The MirYam Institute. David Benger is a publishing Adjunct at The MirYam Institute. 

The MirYam Institute is the leading international forum for Israel focused discussion, dialogue, and debate, focused on campus presentations, engagement with international legislators, and gold-standard trips to the State of Israel. Follow their work at www.MirYamInstitute.org.