[Editor: This article was originally written as a comment to Mordechai Kedar's article on this blog, "What's Really Going On in Gaza?". Since Salubrius is extremely knowledgeable on the topic and makes astute observations, I've chosen to present Salubrius's words in the form of an article.]
Dr. Kedar is quite right [see Mordechai Kedar:What's Really Going on in Gaza?]. It is the Soviet dezinformatsia that invented the Palestinian Arab People and the notion that they had a passion for self government. If you look closely at the preamble of the 1964 charter of the PLO drafted in Moscow, you will see its reference to the Palestinian Arab People for the very first time that that collective noun has been employed to describe Arabs local to Palestine. It also asserts they have a passion for self government. So it was that the Arab-Israeli conflict commencing as a product of religious jihad, was reframed into a conflict caused by secular nationalism that Arabs in Palestine had formerly found to be too abstract to be of interest in the 20s according to Professor Porath. To get new membership in the Arab Executive that was anti-Ziionistic but not nationalistic, Haj Amin al Husseini spread the false rumor that the Jews were taking over Al Aqsa mosque and got a massacre instead of new members. Jihad is not a foreign ideology nor is Islam.
It is time to annex Judea and Samaria and take back Gaza. This would result in a lawful one state solution that surprisingly would not result in an Arab majority and therefore not risk the loss of Israel's Western values.
It is a pity that Harvard would not allow this one lawful state solution to be discussed at their March 3,4 conference that was dominated by a one (Arab) state solution.
There are in fact three solutions, like a three legged stool. One ends quickly the collective and exclusive political rights of the Jews, that were based on a democracy with a majority of the electorate being Jews, that would be lost if both the West Bank and Gaza would quickly be annexed. A two state solution would lose Israel much of its Jewish heritage and give up much Christian Heritage too, and would also fail in the long run, but there is insufficient space on this page to discuss why [Editor: because this article was submitted as a comment, which limits the number of characters allowed.]
However the third solution, a solution based on the San Remo Agreement of 1920 and the quick annexation of Judea and Samaria would not lose Israel its majority. It would still have a majority as the Arab population in the West Bank is much smaller than that reported in PA statistics. Some say this is because they want to get more welfare from the UNRWA. Requiring Muslims, Christians and Jews to take a oath of fealty before being awarded citizenship would likely result in retaining a comfortable margin. The rest might remain as permanent residents unless they violated the law. Annexation would be lawful because of the grant at San Remo of political rights to the Jews, intended to vest when the Jews were in the majority according to Arnold Toynebee and Winston Churchill if the Arabs position at UNSCOP is to be believed.
Then there is Jordan. It was part of what was granted in 1920 but taken away in 1922. But England was then a fiduciary, having those political rights in trust according to Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant.
Read those first two paragraphs of Article 22 and you will be convinced it unmistakeable that the design of what was called a "mandate" was based on the British legal concepts of trust and guardianship. And England violated its fiduciary relationship when it gave Transjordan to Abdullah for its own political reasons. But Israel gave up the Jews rights to TransJordan in 1994 in exchange for a quitclaim to CisJordan.
Harvard presented the one state solution and Professor Dershowitz with likely sponsor a conference with the two state solution, so the students will ultimate get a two legged stool, but without much balance.
[Editor: At this point, the comment became longer than the allowed number of characters, so Salubrius was unable to continue. I invite Salubrius to contact me so that I will be able to post his/her thoughts as articles instead of just comments. I suggest to Salubrius that he/she will send an email address that I can contact, in a comment on any article. I (Sally) am the only person who sees the comments, and of course, the comment will not be published.]
Source: This article was originally written as a comment in response to Dr. Kedar's article, What's Really Going on in Gaza?, a previous post in this blog.
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.