(part 3) Thank you for proving Jews can’t trust the world’s promises!

(part 1) (part 2) (part 3)

Thread:

  1. Nathaniel Berman, May 12/17: The Settlement Legality Debate: FAQ(questioning validity of Israel’s legal rights, published by Ted Belman of Israpundit.org)
  2. Mark Vandermaas, May 13/17: Thank you for proving Jews can’t trust the world’s promises! (also published on Israpundit here)
  3. Nathaniel Berman, May 14/17: comment on Israpundit to my May 13 article
  4. Mark Vandermaas, May 15/17: comment on Israpundit to Mr. Berman’s May 14 comment, as published below as Thank you for proving Jews can’t trust the world’s promises! Part 2
  5. Nathaniel Berman, May 15/17: comment on Israpundit to Mark’s May 15 comment
  6. Mark Vandermaas, May 17/17: comment on Israpundit to Mr. Berman’s May 15/17 comment, as published below as Thank you for proving Jews can’t trust the world’s promises! Part 3

Thank you for proving Jews can’t trust the world’s promises! Part 3

Re: Nathaniel Berman comment, May 15/17: http://www.israpundit.org/archives/63623122#comment-63356000187759

Dear Mr. Berman:

Thank you for advising us of your extensive experience in taking an “active part in the detailed negotiation of a large number of international agreements, treaties and conventions.” I was unaware, but am profoundly grateful for the knowledge.

1. THE ‘RIPENING OF SELF-DETERMINATION…’

You state:

“There have been changes both legally and factually. The creation of the State of Israel is one of those changes; the ripening of self-determination into a general right of international law is another.”

You are, in effect, arguing that because the Arabs chose to disrespect the international law of the Mandate For Palestine by using incessant terror and war against Jews, and because the world refused to honour and enforce its provisions, you believe the Arabs’ egregious lawlessness creates ‘rights’ over time that should be interpreted against the black and white law codifying the rights of their Jewish victims.

This is outrageous, and it is immoral however ‘legal’ you and your colleagues think it may be. It again proves my point as to Jews not being able to trust the world’s promises.

2. ‘INTERNATIONAL LAW’ VS. THE ‘RULE OF LAW’ VS. JUSTICE

You accuse those of us who rely on the Mandate as proof of Israel’s ownership of Judea/Samaria of having ‘no respect for international law’ and of doing a ‘grave dis-service to the State of Israel.’

In reality, it is you who have little respect for the law. You, apparently, spend your time negotiating international agreements, treaties and conventions knowing full well they can be abrogated and violated at will through the mere use of time, propaganda, violence and the refusal/inability to enforce. There is an enormous difference between ‘law’ and the ‘rule of law.’ The former cannot exist without the latter, and it is the latter for which I advocate.

As a supporter recently wrote me: “If intervening events can simply cancel solemnly signed international treaties, e.g. San Remo-League of Nations-United Nations, then what would be the point of having them? And if simply disregarding them as passe is OK, then why should Israel be called an “occupier” for Yehudah and Shomron even if she had not had sovereign rights there to begin with?”

Indeed, your accusation of Ted Belman and me of not believing in international law because we draw attention to the fact that the world made promises to Jews under international law that it didn’t keep is a bizarre circular argument that I turn back to you: if you believe in international law so much, why don’t you illuminate your audiences about the fact that the world didn’t keep its promises under international law which is the real reason for the alleged loss of Jewish rights under international law?

In other words, why don’t you use your experience and knowledge to help Israel overcome the filthy accusation that she has no lawful claim to Judea and Samaria? You know full well that the Mandate, coupled with the 1967 liberation of those areas, ended the longest occupation in human history, that of land belonging to the Jewish people from time immemorial. Why not talk about the bright lights of Balfour, San Remo and the Mandate that ended this occupation, and how promises to Jews were undermined at every turn in order to cheat them out of their land?

‘LEGALIZING’ POLITICAL VIOLENCE: I am not a lawyer; I am a reluctant rule of law activist who quit my job to work full time to restore the rule of law to the town of Caledonia in Ontario, Canada. Two books were written about the crisis and the successes of those of us who fought back against a police force and government refusing to protect innocent people and their property from violent militants. Militants who illegally seized a subdivision of homes under construction under the cover of bogus land claim, then terrorized innocents while the police watched and targeted the victims and their advocates (this should sound familiar!).

Caledonia (Ontario, Canada) resident Sam Gualtieri, beaten nearly to death in a home he was building for his daughter. Police refused to end the lawless occupation of the Stirling development site, resulting in Sam being left with permanent brain injury.

We were invited to meet government lawyers where we expressed our belief that their role in the crisis was — for political purposes — to justify injustice by giving cover for refusal by police to uphold the law and our civil rights under the Charter of Rights and the Police Services Act. So, I know — intimately — how lawyers can allow themselves to be used to ‘legalize’ political violence.

DR. KING ON LAW VS. JUSTICE: In his seminal Letter From Birmingham Jail, written while he was jailed for ‘parading without a permit’ in 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King wrote:

‘Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.”

Similarly, I would say to you: there is nothing wrong with having a body of ‘international law,’ but when it is used to try to justify the propaganda and violence of Jew-hating terrorists, and a world community’s refusal to honour an instrument that sets out critical Jewish rights, including ownership of all land west of the Jordan River, it is unjust, immoral and rotten to the core no matter what perfume of ‘legality’ one sprays on it to try to erase the stink.

YES, PEOPLE CAN JUDGE US

Dr. King again:

“We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal”…It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers.”

Your position, of course, gives aid and comfort to those who would see Israel divided yet again in order to appease terrorists. That’s the difference between us. Ted and I prefer to side with truth, justice, morality and the rule of law, not the illusion of law.

Ted and I defend the honour and dignity of the Jewish people who have been falsely accused of stealing land. As a Christian and as a human being, I seek to give aid and comfort to my Jewish brothers and sisters by helping them win the counter-propaganda war that Israel is badly losing, a war I seek to win on moral grounds.

People can indeed judge which of us is doing Israel ‘a grave dis-service.’

IN SUMMARY: I must point out that not one of your arguments refutes the stark black and white truth that in 1922 the world restored Jews to their ancient homeland and then refused to honour its obligations.

There is only one question that really matters insofar as the future of Israel is concerned: Can Jews trust the world’s promises? You have, over and over again, proven my point: Jews could not trust the world’s promises in the 1922 ORIGINAL two-state solution found in the Mandate For Palestine and Note re Trans-Jordan, and they would be fools to trust promises in any new ‘solution.’

The only realistic option, therefore, is to insist that the world acknowledge the truth of the ORIGINAL solution and institute a moratorium on all ‘peace plans’ until it does.

It has been a pleasure debating you.

Respectfully,
Mark Vandermaas

References

  1. Mandate For Palestine training booklet & video [LINK]
  2. Times Of Israel, Mark Vandermaas: Why Israel Is Losing The Propaganda War…And How To Win It.)
  3. Mark Vandermaas: Tell Bibi…GIVE THIS SPEECH! ‘Truth Before Solutions: A New Path To Peace’

(part 1) (part 2) (part 3)


Mark Vandermaas currently trains Zionist activists to destroy the fake ‘occupation’ narrative via his Israel Truth Week project. He has been called a ‘Damn Zionist’ by his enemies and an ‘Honorary Jew’ by his allies. He has organized pro-Israel conferences, and personally trained over 450 Zionists to make a moral argument against the ‘occupation’ lie. His rule-of-law activism during the Caledonia crisis has been cited in two books: the bestselling Helpless, by Christie Blatchford, and in Gary McHale’s Victory In The No-Go Zone.

Copyright 2017: Mark Vandermaas

CONTACT: mark@israeltruthweek.org

Medium: medium.com/@MarkVandermaas

Times Of Israel: blogs.timesofisrael.com/author/mark-vandermaas/

Twitter: twitter.com/Israeltruthweek

LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/markvandermaas1/

Support Mark’s work: patreon.com/IsraelTruthweek