Recognizing Palestine

Ari Bussel has written that five nations have recognized the existence of a sovereign Palestine:  Chile, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. Although Bussel doesn’t mention I found that Venezuela also has joined this crowd of nations delegitimizing Israel’s National Homeland. Ecuador and Venezuela are essentially Marxists nations in which Ecuador is a buddy of Venezuela and Venezuela is a buddy of the evil rogue nation Iran. Brazil has been demonstrating a lot of diplomatic sympathy for Iran most obviously opposing stricter UN sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program. Marxist Bolivia also a friend of Venezuela is noted for sending uranium to Iran. More uranium means the greater possibility for weapons grade processing. I have no doubt Bolivia will join nations with a unilateral recognition of Palestine as a sovereign nation.

JRH 1/9/11

********************************

Recognizing Palestine

By Ari Bussel

Sent: 1/9/2011 12:04 PM

Five Latin American countries have already recognized Free, Independent Palestine:  Chile, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.  American Friends for Peace Now estimates that 30 more countries around the world will recognize Palestine by the next United Nation’s General Assembly in September.

APN also laid down the path for recognition as espoused by the Palestinians.  The Palestinians will come to the UN and invite its members to see a viable state, building itself from the very foundation, with security forces that oversee peace and order – in close coordination and cooperation with Israeli forces – transparency that fights corruption and a government that is by the people, for the people and removed from Hamas’ military fight against Israel.

It seems a recipe for guaranteed approval.

I see Israel digging her own grave, and a new Palestine emerging from the very fertile graveyard ground that used to be Israel.

APN’s head even went as far as calling one of the Palestinians technocrats the new David Ben Gurion, building an actual state, with a vision for the future.

Only the vision does not stop at the mere act of creation of a Palestinian state.  It is the prelude to the grand act of destroying any remnant of the Jewish state, exterminating the Jews and ridding the world of their continued existence once and for all.  That is the true and sole purpose of the “Palestinian” exercise.

There are rumblings within Israel against the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian State, even admonitions of those countries who have already taken the path toward this eventuality.  Others in Israel seem to have reached the conclusion this is already the de facto state of affairs, and the full recognition is just an upgrade of current status.

How should Israel respond? Is a free, independent Palestine a bad thing? Why is the declaration of a free, independent Palestine creating such a wrath?

Should Israel boycott the world as country after country rise to the challenge, raising its hand in support of Palestine?  After all, would Turkey welcome a new Kurdistan sprouting from within its borders?  How about the United States of America relinquishing California or Texas to Mexico?  China and a free, independent Tibet?  And the list goes on as Israel is held to a different standard.

Should Israel embrace the idea, since a majority of her citizenry support “two states for two people?”  Will this misguided notion (“Peace on Earth” ushered as a result of the creation of Palestine) stand the test of reality or expose the naked truth with all its horrors, evilness and ugliness?  Palestine is just a stepping-stone to Israel’s destruction and that is its sole purpose of existence.

How should Israel respond?

The Palestinians have made their intentions clear for some time.  There were no secrets and the goals were declared explicitly.  The package was put on display for all to see.  By now, Israel should have had an action plan, other than “let us live and see how this thing plays out.”  Acquiescing is interpreted as a sign of weakness.  Allowing a Palestinian State to come into fruition is tantamount to allowing Iran have the bomb. 

Excusing the status quo as inevitable is agreeing with the process, rather than responding to it.  Likewise, those who say that parts of Jerusalem are de facto “Arab,” gravely mistake.  They should highlight that Jerusalem is one city, Israel’s eternal capital, unified and indivisible, and work to stem out any misconceptions, misleading notions or action of the ground that creates such a divide.

Whereas Israel has been urging the world community to act against Iran, has it heeded its own advice?  In many ways, Israel’s response (or lack there of) to the latest Palestinian move is no different than the world community’s failure to do anything at all to stop Iran. 

I argue that a unilateral move by the Palestinians is a blessing in disguise to Israel, and the fact it will be fully supported by the world community is nothing but a reflection of the growing tsunami of anti-Semitism to which Israel must respond.

There is one way for Israel to respond.  I am afraid, though, that Israel lacks the leadership, the courage and the conviction to carry it forward.

In response to the new free, independent Palestine, Israel must annex Judea and Samaria.  If the former is ludicrous, the latter is long overdue and much more reasonable.  To then achieve peace, or for it to be negotiated in earnest, there would be value assigned to Judea and Samaria, whereas today there is none – it is taken for granted not to belong to Israel, not to ever have belonged to her.

Israel must fight for her survival, for she exists in the land of her forefathers, from time immemorial to time everlasting.  It is the land of no other, despite any illusions to the contrary.

Israel must call things by their name, and Judea and Samaria must stop to be “Occupied Territories” with Jewish towns and cities referred to as “Settlements.”  Judea and Samaria is Israel’s heart and should be no different than any other region in Israel.  Possibly if Israel treated it that way, others would concede, or at the very least listen.

The Middle East understands action, as does the world.  There is no one “understood” more, or possibly feared, than the Russians or the Chinese who make no bones about their intentions or determination.  Israel should follow suit and do what is good for her, and the only thing good for Israel is to wake up and fight for her own survival.

Judea and Samaria are as much a part of an imaginary “Palestine” as one tearing out another human being’s beating heart and holding it for display in one’s hand with a roar of joy.  Just as such an action ensures the death of the person from whom the heart was removed, likewise, removing Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem from Israel would be a brutal deathblow to the Jewish State.

There is only one Jewish country in the world, in a place that has been its home for the past three millennia.  Empires rose and fell, countries were created and others disappeared into the dustpan of history.  Israel was and still remains.  She alone has a claim over her land, and neither Israelis nor the world at large has the right, or the ability, to relinquish even an iota of this ownership to others.

Palestinian Authority’s latest attack against the Jewish State is good in so far as it will force Israel to respond to the reality she is trying to avoid.  Annexing Judea and Samaria is an equally brilliant move that will force the world to recognize that Israel is not a laboratory in which experimentations are carried out on a live subject. 

Judea and Samaria are the cornerstones of Israel, past present and future, and Israel will not allow anyone to tear her heart out or stab her to death; in theory at least.

________________________

The series “Postcards from America—Postcards from Israel” by Ari Bussel and Norma Zager is a compilation of articles capturing the essence of life in America and Israel during the first two decades of the 21st Century.

The writers invite readers to view and experience an Israel and her politics through their eyes, Israel visitors rarely discover.

This point—and often—counter-point presentation is sprinkled with humor and sadness and attempts to tackle serious and relevant issues of the day. The series began in 2008, appears both in print in the USA and on numerous websites and is followed regularly by readership from around the world.

© “Postcards from America — Postcards from Israel,” January, 2011

Contact:  bussel@me.com

First Published January 8, 2011

Discussion on Judge Bolton’s Stripping Arizona SB 1070

John R. Houk
© July 31, 2010

Inside Passage a frequent commenter on my VOX blog may be described as a Center-Left Independent. In my train of thought that means he supports some Leftist concepts and supports some elements of the Slanted Right in a mixed bag that bugs both the entrenched Left and the entrenched Right (which would be me).

Inside Passage was totally with the Obama Administration’s efforts to use the Judiciary to hamstring Arizona State Immigration enforcement of it SB 1070. Inside Passage believes Arizona overstepped her Sovereignty by meddling in affairs that should be sacrosanct to the U.S. Congress as vested power granted by the U.S. Constitution. You probably imagine I did not share his view.

To view all the comments between me and Inside Passage go to my VOX post HERE.

This particular post is in response to this comment by Inside Passage:

We're not in disagreement here as far as the government goes. They are failing to do their job, and failing dramatically. I totally understand that. Our job is to force them to do theirs, not to break the constitution into little bitty pieces as the means to the end by doing their job for them.


Understand that this is exactly what SB1070 is. The states have no right to put "teeth" into any LEGISLATIVE powers, just as the government has no right to overstep into state rights. I'm going to pull a constitutional quote here, because it's pure relevance:


All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


Note the word "vested". That means fixed or absolute, without contingency. That may sound dictatorial in nature to you, but it is intentional to preserve the balance of powers. Each of the three branches is vested with specific powers that no other branch may infringe upon. That means that no, the states are absolutely NOT allowed to tinker with Congressional powers. The constitution gets very explicit about it to make sure that people understand that the lines exist. It's the preservation of states rights in the 10th amendment that convinced states to join the Union in the first place, knowing that they would not be allowed to keep their own armies, declare war or render treaties or any of those other wonderful congressional powers. Or establish supreme law, such as the judicial branch has. Or ... so on. You get that right? That states can't just add 'teeth' to any governmental power they like to claim a power they're not supposed to have?


Kobach knows that perfectly well, but being a lawyer and being teamed up with a power-grabber like Pearce, they have no reason to care.


I agree, the federal government makes a regular habit of stepping on state sovereignty and rights to an unconstitutional degree, but that doesn't justify the same behavior by the states. This is the constitution they're breaking here. They need to stop it. right. now.


As far as Scott Brown goes, I referenced him because he supposedly represents the face of change. Yeah, he's the face of change alright, that's why his name is all over the T.E.A (stripping Americans of citizenship without due process), the so-called Kill Switch Cyberspace Bill, and just recently on Charles Rangel's HR 5741 which allows the government to force citizens between 18 and 42 to be forced into presidential service. Yeah, that's awesome, Scott Brown's not just a RINO, he's an AINO - American in name only, selling out his country to that little clique that strangely includes democrats and republicans both.


Just think, if McCain had been elected, you would be dealing with the exact same crap right now, because his name is on at least two of the same bills, as well as political waste like Lieberman and Rangel.

I am focusing my response solely on the Constitutionality of Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling removing the teeth from Arizona SB 1070.

Inside Passage you quote Article 1 Section 1 of the US Constitution:

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

There are 10 Sections in Article One. So would it be logical to read all Ten Sections to reference “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”?

It seems to me that Sections Two through Ten deal with the selection process and terms of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Specifically Section Eight relates the powers of Congress to make Laws that Sovereign States cannot:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Section Ten enlightens the individual Sovereign States the laws they specifically CANNOT pass in State Legislatures:

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

I have to be honest with you Inside Passage; I do not see any vested powers enumerated in Article One that prevents the Sovereignty of the State of Arizona from enacting a law that does not contradict any Federal Laws vested in Congress. Indeed, the Tenth Amendment which amends any part of the original Constitution or clarifies ambiguities that may exist in the U.S. Constitution (which includes Article One), elaborates that laws not vested in Congress or Constitutionally in the Federal government is open to State Sovereignty to legislate:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Adding teeth to the enforcement of Federal Law enacted by the U.S. Congress does not contradict the rule of law; therefore the State of Arizona’s Immigration Law SB 1070 is not prohibited by the Constitution. Further more if a non-contradictory Law it means the rule of law is the same; ergo adding teeth to enforcement is not prohibited yet indeed the teeth thus reserved for the State of Arizona to enact a law supportive of the Congressional Law.

In relation to this the Federal Judiciary is only Constitutionally able to rule if Arizona’s Immigration Law is prohibited by the Congress. If the Federal Law does not prohibit a Sovereign State from adding teeth to a standing Law, Court cannot strike down the State Law. Rather the Court should have directed the plaintiff with is the Federal government under the management of the Executive Branch to refer back to the U.S. Congress. The U.S. Congress then in turn with the power vested in it by Article One could indeed prevent Arizona’s Immigration Law from becoming the rule of law in Arizona. The Executive Branch is limited in what it requires of Sovereign States of the Union by the power vested in the U.S. Constitution first and the power vested in Congress. Forcing action by Executive fiat that is outside of the U.S. Constitution or passed by Congress comes in the realm of the Judiciary to rule according to the Constitution. Again Judicial ruling is to the merit of Constitutionality and not to form policy which is derived from the U.S. Constitution first and the laws passed by the power vested in Congress. Execution of policy is in the prevue of the Executive Branch. And Policy is made by the Executive Branch as interpreted by the law of the land vested in the power of Congress.

So for clarity sake my position is that the Judiciary was operating extra-Constitutionally in making a ruling in accordance to the ability or inability of the Federal government to manage a policy burden that might be created by the State of Arizona bringing more illegal aliens for the Federal government to process in deportation or breaking laws. A Federal policy ability ruling was ridiculous! The Obama Administration should have shown its distaste for the Arizona Immigration Law by going to Congress to ask for more money to comply with the extra influx illegal aliens or to ask Congress to pass a new law according to the power vested in it by the U.S. Constitution to limit or extricate Arizona’s Illegal Alien enforcement.

We both know such a move by President Obama would be the political death sentence on election day 2010 and probably election day 2010. So what path did President pursue? He tapped a Left Wing activist Judge which has discarded the Constitution by Judicial fiat through making policy rather than ruling on the issues of Constitutionality.

Inside Passage that is wrong!

JRH 7/31/10

Dem Party Appointed Judge Bolton Takes Aim at Arizona

John R. Houk
© July 28, 2010

The President Clinton appointed Federal Judge - Susan Bolton - has handed President Barack Hussein Obama mixed bagged victory in relation to Arizona State Immigration Law SB Bill 1070. Judge Bolton has taken much of the political teeth that drove Leftists, Democrats and BHO crazy out of SB 1070. Judge Bolton DID NOT strike the whole Arizona Immigration down. There are still enforcement parts that still gives Arizona law enforcement some ability to tighten an illegal alien immigration net. The part stricken down however still allows holes in the American border along Arizona to skate through AND apply for work in Arizona. In essence Judge Bolden has accomplished the shameful act of ignoring the Constitution by making Federal Policy rather than ruling on the Constitutionality of a law.

Here are some reaction quotes of note courtesy of Blogs for Victory:

“This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens.” – Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in her official statement to the press…

…”We are deeply disappointed in the court’s ruling today and disagree with the court’s opinion that the Arizona’s law will unduly ‘burden’ the enforcement of federal immigration law. Instead of wasting taxpayer resources filing a lawsuit against Arizona and complaining that the law would be burdensome, the Obama Administration should have focused its efforts on working with Congress to provide the necessary resources to support the state in its efforts to act where the Federal government has failed to take responsibility.” – Joint Statement by U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz…

…”Today’s ruling does not strike down SB1070. Her ruling only puts a hold on a few parts of the new law. That’s why her actions today are called a preliminary injunction. Those who are here in this state illegally, my deputies will still ask about their status in this country and will arrest on existing state and federal immigration violations. State violators will be booked into my jail and federal violators will be turned over to authorities.” – Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio

THE FOUNDRY provides the Slanted Right opinion of Judge Bolton’s ruling.

JRH 7/28/10