Self-Defeat 101: Israel is a Trust
Stephen Kruger – Arutz Sheva – August 30, 2012
The land of Israel is a trust of which the Jewish people are the beneficiaries, the government of Israel the trustees. There are, however, duties and rules.
The government of Israel wants to apply, through negotiations, a two-state “solution” to the territorial conflict in the Land of Israel. No other country acts similarly.
China does not negotiate its sovereignty over Taiwan, Tibet, the Spratly Islands, and the Paracel Islands. No two-state solution for Tibet, and no two-state solution for Taiwan. China does not refer to Taiwan as the Republic of China, in the manner of the reference by the government of Israel to Judea, Samaria and Aza as “Palestine.” China refers to Taiwan as “Chinese Taiwan.”
Russia maintains its claim to Chechnia. No two-state solution. No negotiations. No releases of Chechnian prisoners.
India and Pakistan retain their respective sovereignties in Jammu and Kashmir. No negotiations, and no independent Jammu and Kashmir.
When, in 1861, southern states of the United States seceded from the Union, the United States did not negotiate its sovereignty, and there was no two-state solution in relation to the Confederate States. In response to formation of the Confederate States on the territory of the United States, the United States fought the Confederate States, and the United States destroyed the Confederate States utterly.
Settlor, trust instrument and beneficiary
Creation of a “Palestine” was made possible by denial, by the government of Israel, of Jewish sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Gaza. However, the government of Israel lacks authority to deny Jewish sovereignty there.
When God gave the Land of Israel to the Jews, as recited in the Bible, He did so in trust. In law, a settlor is an owner of specified property, such as a parcel of land, who gives the specified property to another person for his use, but subject to a trust.
To do this, the owner of the property (the settlor) transfers ownership of the specific property (the corpus) to an entity (the trust) for the benefit of a named person (the beneficiary). The means of transfer is a document (the trust instrument).
The corpus is owned by the trust, and the corpus is managed by the manager of the trust (the trustee). Subject to the terms of the trust instrument, the beneficiary may make use of the corpus.
It is the duty of a trustee to fulfill the intention of the settlor, as expressed in the trust instrument. Utmost fidelity is required of a trustee to the trust instrument, to the corpus of the trust, and to the beneficiary of a trust.
God is the Settlor of the trust, the corpus of which is the Land of Israel. Portions of the Bible are the trust instrument. E.g., Genesis 15:1-21; Numbers 21:21-22:1, 34:1-15; Deuteronomy 2:17-3:27. The trust is a concept expressed in the Bible, rather than an entity.
Terms in the trust instrument include the boundary of the Land of Israel, the transfer of the Land of Israel to Jews, the ermanence of the possession of the Land of Israel by Jews, and the permanence of the trust.
By default, the present trustee of the trust is the government of Israel. The beneficiaries of the trust are all Jews, throughout their generations.
The world does not accept those facts, because they are decisive for Jews. Without God and the biblical trust, there is no superior claim of Jews to the Land of Israel.
The government of Israel is a trustee entirely without fidelity. The giving away by the government of Israel of swathes of the Land of Israel to Arabs, and the potential giving away by the government of Israel of more swathes of the Land of Israel to Arabs, stem from the contempt of the government of Israel for the Settlor of the trust, for the corpus of the trust, for the terms of the trust, for the Book in which it is written, and for the beneficiaries of the trust.
The government of Israel continues the touchy-feely, and capitulatory, policy toward Arabs put in place by left-wing Jews in Mandatory Palestine after World War I. That policy caused the government of Israel to lose the peace subsequent to the 1948 war; to lose the peace again, subsequent to the 1956 war; to lose the peace once again, subsequent to the 1967 war; and, in ensuing years, to cement its losses of the peace. Baseball has a rule: three strikes, you’re out. That rule should have been applied by the government of Israel in 1967, after the third major Israel-Arab war. It was not.
“International law” and “international community”
There is no “international law” any more than there is an “international community.” Both terms are creations of left-wing professors, who fantasize about world government.
The lowest common denominator of countries large and small, which constitute the “international community,” is Jew-hatred.
That explains widespread use of “international law” by the “international community” as a club with which to clobber Israel. Two examples among many are the countless anti-Israel resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly, and the innumerable anti-Israel resolutions by the UN Human Rights Council and its predecessor UN Commission on Human Rights.
A visitor from Mars who counts all those resolutions, and who takes note of the diplomatic efforts monomaniacally devoted to drafting them, printing them, circulating them, discussing them and passing them, would be forgiven for thinking that, to the “international community,” the overriding threat to the third planet is Jews living in the Land of Israel and governing the Land of Israel.
During the sixty-seven years of the existence of the United Nations, no circumstance — not the murders of seventy million people by the Red Chinese; not the Gulag archipelago maintained by the Soviet Union; not the brutalization of North Koreans; not the oppression of Burmese; not the loot-motivated wars in Africa; not the genocide in East Timor; not the genocide in Rwanda; not the genocide in Cambodia, not all of them together — has been of greater concern to the “international community” than “the Jewish problem.”
The “international community,” which knew of the World War II death camps but refused to bomb the railroad tracks which led to them, regrets that the Nazis did not fully effectuate the Final Solution to “the Jewish problem.”
The one-sidedness of the “obligation” of the government of Israel, under “international law,” to create a “Palestine” out of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is illustrated by application elsewhere of the concept of a two-state solution for the purpose of resolving a territorial conflict.
Suppose that a call were issued to Moslem Iraq and to Moslem Turkey to give away land for peace. Further, suppose that there were UN resolutions expressive of the obligation, under “international law,” of Iraq to deny its sovereignty over Kurdistan, and of Turkey to deny its sovereignty over Anatolia, and for Iraq and Turkey to create, out of Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkish Anatolia, a homeland for Kurds, with Mosul as its capital.
There would be no sonorous talk about a Kurdistan living side-by-side in peace and security with Iraq. No visionary sound-bites about mutually-beneficial relations between Kurdistan and Turkey. No road map; no international conferences; not a single meeting at Camp David. No shuttle diplomacy among Baghdad and Ankara and Mosul. There would be no establishment and endless funding of a United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Kurdish Refugees in the Near East (compare the UNRWA).
Iraq and Turkey, respectively, would respond with outright rejection of, and outraged nationalism about, alienation of even a square foot of its territory. Each of Iraq and Turkey would say that territorial integrity is an unshakeable standard of “international law.” In that, Iraq and Turkey would be supported by the “international community.” It is otherwise for Israel.
Two-state “solution” and 22-state solution
The “international community” demands a two-state “solution” detrimental to Israel. No comparable demand is made for a two-state solution detrimental to Spain and France, concerning the Basque country. Or detrimental to the Philippines, concerning Mindanao.
Or detrimental to Cyprus, concerning the Greek and Turkish parts of the island. Or detrimental to Georgia, concerning each of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
There was no demand by the “international community” that there should have been a two-state solution detrimental to Sri Lanka, concerning the Sinhalese and the Tamils.
It is high time for the “international community” to get over its fixation with the two-state “solution,” and to sign up for the 22-state solution. Thereunder, Arabs keep the 5,000,000 square miles of 21 of the 22 members of the League of Arab States (that excludes the square miles claimed by the “Palestine Authority,” one of the members of the League). Jews keep the Land of Israel, and its mere 10,000 square miles.
The government of Israel should renounce the two-state “solution.”
Its price was abandonment of the Sinai peninsula, and forceful removals of Jewish settlers from Gaza, and abandonment of Gaza.
Its price is forceful removals of Jews from various settlements in Judea and Samaria, and abandonment of those settlements.
Its price will be abandonment of Jerusalem.
National interests of Israel
It’s high time for the government of Israel to define the national interests of Israel and to implement them:
1. The government of Israel should chuck its Jew-hating subservience to the “international community.”
2. The government of Israel should say “No” to its Judaism-hating two-state “solution.”
3. The government of Israel should declare that Israel includes the entirety of the Land of Israel — from the north to the south, from the Mediterranean to the east side of the River Jordan, and along the east side of the Salt Sea and all of the Negev — is Jewish; and that the presence of Jews in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights, the Sheba’a Farms, and Gaza is rightful.
4. The name of the country should be changed to Yisrael. Name changes of countries include British Guiana – Guyana; Burma – Myanmar; Ceylon – Sri Lanka; Dutch Guiana – Suriname; Ivory Coast – Côte D’Ivoire; Northern Rhodesia – Zambia.
5. The name of the capital of the country should be changed to Yerushalayim. Name changes of capital cities include Akmola – Astana (Kazakhstan); Lourenco Marques – Maputo (Mozambique); Rangoon – Yangon (the capital of Myanmar was since moved to Naypyidaw); Salisbury – Harare (Zimbabwe); Stanley – Puerto Argentino – Stanley (Falkland Islands).
Name changes of major cities other than capitals: Bombay – Mumbai (India); Calcutta – Kolkata (India); Saigon – Ho Chi Minh City (Viet Nam); St. Petersburg – Petrograd – Leningrad – St. Petersburg (Russia).
6. Embassies should be required by the government of Israel to be located in Yerushalayim. A foreign government has no authority to demand that the location of its embassy be New York or Philadelphia rather than Washington; or Rio de Janeiro rather than Brasilia. If a foreign government demurs, its representation in Israel should be a mission. Not a consulate, because a consulate implies an embassy.
The alternative to the defining and implementing by the government of Israel of the national interests of Israel is yet more harm to the Land of Israel, to Jews, to Judaism, and to future generations of Jews. The government of Israel would do better to look after and preserve the Land of Israel for all Jews and their progeny, than to be the enabler of the world’s willingness to see the ultimate stage of the Final Solution.
Stephen Kruger is a laywer based in Hong Kong.
Link to original article: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12115