Agreements must be honored
Dov Weissglass
Published: 02.07.09, 09:05
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
36 Talkbacks for this article
1. Has Israel ever honoured one of its undertakings ...
Chanalau, Tova ,   London, UK   (07.02.09)
... concerning the Palestinians? Hmmmm
2. And who believed it in the first place?
sergio ,   turin, italy   (07.02.09)
Only the supporters of the deportation plan for the Jews of the Gaza Strip advertised and believed such nonsense, which was OBVIOUSLY the fig leaf used by Sharon and his people, among whom Weisglass, to lure Israelis into the continuation of the national suicide plan for the Jewish People in the Land of Israel
3. Why is Israel fighting for crumbs?
Tracy W   (07.02.09)
The fact of the matter is that there are agreements ratified by the international community that legalize the presence of Jews in what is now called euphemistically the "West Bank", and even beyond. Those documents are the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. Although those documents have been conveniently "forgotten", they are still legally valid. The British violated the letter and the spirit of the Mandate when they created the state of Jordan on what the League of Nations had determined would be a home for the Jews. They also prevented a large numbers of Jews from immigrating into Palestine (even as the persecution in Europe raged on) in defiance of the rules of the Mandate. Bear in mind that when the United Nations was created, it was bound to recognize all previous agreements made by its predecessor, the League of Nations. All the subsequent tweaking of those original legal documents has been illegal and invalid. The presence of Jews in Judea and Samaria is - from the standpoint of those documents and of international law - perfectly legal. Why isn't the Israeli government availing itself of this very powerful legal tool, is a mystery. They'd rather fight for crumbs, for the right to build one more addition to a house on some city in Judea, but they are refusing to uphold for the world to see their legal right to live there. This government would rather quote some side deal made between Bush and Sharon, but do not mention the basic documents by which the international community legalized the right of Jews to return to their land, which included Judea, Samaria and all of Jerusalem.
4. Why?
James ,   Herzeliya   (07.02.09)
Why do we need to explain our actions to a foreign government? Are we a banana republic? Enough is enough. It is high time we gained our independence back from US and do what is good for Israel and its security rather than pleasing the corrupt and anti-semitic countries who overlook the other side of the coin. We as Israelis should decide the future of this country and not some liberal jew who lives in New York or a politician from Chicago. And please don't tell me about the US aid and so forth, we can do without it and in the long run it will be to our advantage. Those faithfull to Jewish independence refuse to be bound by foreign judgment.
5. Un-wise and stiff necked glass
Kerwood Derby ,   Frostbite Falls, MN   (07.02.09)
In a previous comment, I mentioned that DW was "thick necked" and while that may be true, the fact I meant to state was that he is "stiff necked." Need I say more about his abrogation, shredding of the covenant not only with the disenfranchised electorate against the Mitzna plan that he conspired to implement, but his stiff necked denial of Jewish sovereignty over the land of their own name that belongs to all Jews past, present and future as its inheritance and the spoils of war and internationally mandated agreement that the nations united would now also deny am Yisroel.
6. #1 And where did the Palestinian Authority come from?
Roman ,   Lod, Israel   (07.02.09)
Oh, wait... from an Israeli undertaking!
7. Take you medicine Mr. Weissglass
Palestinian ,   Jerusalem   (07.02.09)
and sleep well, do you belive that your agreements is more important than the faith of a millions of Palestinians. who are suffer from your occupation from 10s of years. because of your believes of un justice agreements.
.......DACON9   (07.02.09)
9. Verbal agreement !!!!!!
Harold ,   Liverpool, USA   (07.02.09)
Who cares about verbal agreements made between Bush and Sharon. They both broke tInternational Laws from all angles. Obama is fixing what these two have damaged. Why Bush is quite and mum !!!!!!
10. the bottom line
MC ,   Uk   (07.02.09)
The bottom line is that many Jews world wide including the recent government leaders of Israel from the left have lost their self repect as Jews and their national identity as Israelis. The land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people wherever they are and the very concept of land for peace and 'negotiatiing' a so called peace process with enemies who want to take over the whole country is a waste of time and money and energy, as can be seen over the last 15 years since the disaster of Oslo which in itself didn't even call for a Palestinian state in Israel. The USA and any other world power has no right, legal or otherwise to tell a foreign sovereign nation where in their land they can live and how many children they can have. Unfortunately the enemy within ie ,the supreme court in Israel has too much power which contributes to a travesty of democracy by buying into the Arab lies, that the land was stolen from them and we are occuppiers! When Israeli leaders follow this line and are ready to give the so called Palestinians a state, in the heartland of Israel what else can we expect from the rest of the world? Only when Jews can stand up and be proud of being both Jews and Israelis and not be ready to be dictated too by others will their be any possiblity of peace.. With a real peace the Jews and Arabs could live on the West Bank and elsewhere without the need for a separate state which would be a disaster for the state of Israel.
11. whine whine
Ilana   (07.02.09)
Is anyone else sick of the whining, brainwashing effort of the "palestinians"? "Occupation" "crimes against humanity" blah blah blah! They need to take a good look at an honest mirror.
12. Yes, like the 1949 Geneva Convention
Giora Me'ir ,   USA   (07.02.09)
to which Israel is a signatory.
13. #6
Harold ,   Liverpool, USA   (07.02.09)
Read United Nation General Assembly Resolution 181 (II)FUTURE GOVERNMENT OF PALESTINE dated 11/29/1947. In this Resolution the word PALESTINE is repeated several times. What do you want to know more. I advise you to read the UN resolutions and not the pro Israel media.
14. It's not about Dov Weissglass. It's about the Jews!
Ariel Ben Yochanan ,   Kfar Tapuah, Efraim,   (07.02.09)
B"H Let us not forget and let us remember forever just who is this author. Mr. Dov Weissglass is the father of "disengagement", the man who prepared it for Sharon. Later, he named Azza a "cursed land". This - man - now finds out that the American idol he worshipped is unrelyable. Will you ever learn your lesson, Mr. Weissglass? Jews should, if they want to survive in this world.
15. #13
brian ,   chicago   (07.02.09)
UN Resolution 181 dated 11/29/47 was rejected by the ENTIRE arab world along with the arabs of palestine! Do you really want to refer to a document in the defense of the palestinians/arabs that they themselves rejected and instead opted for an unsuccessful war of extermination? C'mon now!
16. #13, the one the Palestinians and all arabs rejected?
Danny   (07.02.09)
17. #1, Clinon's own autobiography blamed Arafat
Jake   (07.02.09)
100% for the failure of the peace talks, and even said that Arafat had made a failure out of Clinton's presidency.
18. #13, Resolution 181 was a recommendation that Arabs rejected
Jake   (07.02.09)
that the British mandate declared unworkable, and that the UN General Assembly declared would not be carried to the Security Council for implementation due to objections. Go and read that resolution, and you will see the word RECOMMENDATION clearly written at the top. In fact, none of the UN resolutions concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict are legally binding, because they come under Chapter VI. Only those resolutions which were accepted as binding by both sides as the basis of negociations are valid, namely 242 and 338.
19. #12 Go and read the 1949 Geneva Convention again
Jake   (07.02.09)
The Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria were neither deported nor transferred there. The territory in question did not belong to a recognized sovereign. They are there of there own free well. In fact, the opposite is true: Removal of Jewish settlers from Judea and Samaria is precisely deportation and transfer.
20. # 19
Giora Me'ir ,   USA   (07.02.09)
They were transferred there. The west bank enterprise was state-directed, state-funded and state-encouraged. It is widely recognized, except for right-wing Israelis and their kindered spirits elsewhere, that Israel is in violation of the 1949 agreement.
21. Dov don't you understand
Danny   (07.02.09)
Israel only has "responsibilities" it doesn't have rights. Thats what it's enemies have.
22. #13 Oh ,I remember UNGA Resolution 181.
Roman ,   Lod, Israel   (07.02.09)
The Arabs refused it. And declared war. And then the Palestinians lived for a couple of decades under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation. And that's how we got to our current reality. Perhaps it's you who should start reading a bit more, and avoiding propaganda?
23. doc, lawyers and obligations
marcel   (07.03.09)
Dov sold sharon on gaza unilateral withdrawal and settlement strategy. Now he is miffed that the US denies its obligations. Well Dov, US can do that. Anybody can do it. So the US assurances in this regard are worthless. Dov is surprised? you moron. Its facts on the ground that count not assurances. oLMERT was the same as you. He was going to trust assad with the golan, the golan strategic plateau??!! What a shmuck. Dov, Olmert, livni are all lawyers and morons, all of them. begin's son, landau, yaalon, even barak, bibi are not lawyers and are far more trustworthy than these practising lawyers who for the most part are outright cowards. So Dov, you ought to work the fields to find out what the real world is all about.If Olmert tries to regain the PM office, the israelis will rise up and carry him into the sea.
24. Thanks for this piece.
Steve   (07.03.09)
I saved this piece in my records amongst other fine articles. Despite this carefully laid out argument, in addition to Elliot Abrams compelling argument, I have mixed feelings about all this. Israel has, in the past, been pressured into some pretty bad agreements by our "ally" the United States. Maybe it is better this administration violates or repudiates past agreements that previous administrations acquiesced to. Maybe this is a good thing. Because how many worthless and dangerous agreements have previous Israeli governments agreed to, including the murderous Oslo accords and the Bush road map? Maybe it is a good time for both governments to re-evaluate past agreements. Better Washington violate its own understandings and leave future Israeli governments to decide what is in Israel's best interests.
25. U.S.-Israel Understandings were of dubious legal
E. ,   U.S. citizen   (07.03.09)
[If you want your position to have credibility Mr. Weissglass, please respond publically to the legal arguments brought up in this comment. I am withholding my name to protect my rights.] The Law of Return provides that "Every Jew has the right to immigrate to the Land [of Israel]." The areas outside of the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are part of the Land of Israel. The Law of Return is a Basic Law and therefore cannot be violated except (1.) by a law PASSED BY THE KNESSET befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required, or (2.) by regulation enacted by virtue of EXPRESS AUTHORISATION IN SUCH LAW. The U.S.-Israel Understandings were neither a law passed by the Knesset or an express regulation in such law, and therefore are of dubious legality under Israeli law. They are also of dubious legality in American Law. In the American-British Palestine Mandate Convention of December 3, 1924, the United States recognized the Jewish right of settlement in all of Palestine [i.e. the Land of Israel], which has not been overturned, and cannot be overturned except by a treaty entered into force with Israel whose ratification has been duly advised by the U.S. Senate and ratified by the U.S. President. The U.S.-Israel Understandings were not ratified as provided in the U.S. constitution and therefore cannot be binding upon succeeding U.S. Administrations, even if they were legal. They are also of dubious legality under international law because the right of Jewish settlement was recognized in the Palestine Mandate and the inter-allied San Remo agreement of April 25, 1920 and are still part of international law unless a binding agreement overturns it. The U.S.-Israel Understandings were not binding in either Israeli or American Law as mentioned above, so it certainly cannot be considered binding in international law. On a personal note, I am a Jew living outside of Israel and want to make aliyah. Mr. Weissglass, why are you prejudicing my rights? Unlike you, I have not had an opportunity to choose where I want to live in the Land of Israel. I want to live in a site outside of existing Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria that has a great "historical connection" to the Jewish people in exercise of my rights as an American citizen under the American-British Palestine Mandate Convention of December 3, 1924. Mr. Weissglass, you acted shamefully in participating in the U.S.-Israel Understandings. When another U.S. President pressed Prime Minister Mencahem Begin to "freeze the settlements" in 1977, Begin responded as Prime Minister Sharon should have to President Bush. Prime Minister Begin said to President Carter: "You, Mr. President, have in the United States a number of places with names like Bethlehem, Shiloh, and Hebron, and you haven't the right to tell prospective residents in those places that they are forbidden to live there. Just like you, I have no such right in my country. Every Jew is entitled to settle wherever he pleases."
26. From times immemorial
Kay ,   London, UK   (07.03.09)
You are right: a "pound of flesh" is a "pound of flesh".
27. The Land of Israel is exclusively the land of the Jews
Dave Ronen ,   Haifa   (07.03.09)
The Land of Israel belongs exclusively to the people of Israel. The Jews have the right to build and live freely in their country. Agreements as a result of blackmail and pressure are not valid and will not change historical truth and International Legitimacy (The San Remo agreements). Mistakes done in the past by Israeli government(s) should not be respected and should be put right immediately. Settlements in Judea, Samaria (i.e., the West Bank), Gaza and the whole of Jerusalem are legal. We should return to the original legitimity as described at : http://xrl.us/bjch4
28. honoured agrements in israil
shsho ,   ....   (07.03.09)
it is like the one who believe on god as long as he is the winner or has the easy life but once he is the looser or has a hard life he will be kafer so he will loose the life and god mercy
29. The Road Map was not an agreement
Yehudi   (07.03.09)
The second to last sentence in the above Weissglass opinion piece is erroneous. The Road Map was approved by the Sharon Cabinet with 14 reservations which the world promptly poo-pooed. It has been pointed out therefore that the Road Map was not even an agreement. PM Netanyahu would be stupid to reaffirm it.
30. I agree with #29
Steve   (07.03.09)
He wrote: "PM Netanyahu would be stupid to reaffirm" the Bush road map. I wholeheartedly agree. Now I see this morning, on another Israel news site, Mr Weisglass is reported saying, "'PM mistaken not to endorse road map." Why? By not endorsing this immoral agreement PM Netanyahu "risks placing Israel in a situation where the Obama administration instead seeks to impose a permanent accord that would be immensely problematic for Israel." Obama cannot impose anything on Israel. He cannot impose a settlement freeze on Israel. He cannot impose a Muslim-terror state on Israel. Why is Mr. Weisglass afraid of Obama? Doesn't Weisglass have any Jewish self-respect? Does Weisglass have any moral courage? Israel cannot say NO to immoral demands from Washington in Weisglass's view? This indicates to me, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was ill-served by Weisglass.
Next talkbacks
Back to article