NATIONAL HOME FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE- JUNE 30, 1922

For the last one hundred years the 70 Nations and the leftist have been trying to bring peace to the Middle East without luck. In the mean time the Jews in Eretz Israel built a Jewish Country. How about going back and trying the original options. Build a Jewish State for Jews, by Jews, with Jewish Torah Laws, Jewish Labor, Torah Courts and a Torah Government of stead of a bad recreation of the Leftist countries of Europe.

The U.S. Congress in 1922 March 7, 2008  |  Eli E. Hertz http://www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=100

On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:

“Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.” [italics in the original]

On September 21, 1922, the then President Warren G. Harding signed the joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine.

Here is how members of congress expressed their support for the creation of a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine – Eretz-Israel (Selective text read from the floor of the U.S. Congress by the Congressman from New York on June 30, 1922). All quotes included in this document are taken verbatim from the given source.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

1922 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NATIONAL HOME
FOR
THE JEWISH PEOPLE

JUNE 30, 1922

HOUSE RESOLUTION 360
(Rept. NO. 1172)

 

Representative Walter M. Chandler from New York – I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:

(1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration.
(2) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, they shall be required to sell their lands at a just valuation and retire into the Arab territory which has been assigned to them by the League of Nations in the general reconstruction of the countries of the east.
(3) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, under conditions of right and justice, or to sell their lands at a just valuation and to retire into their own countries, they shall be driven from Palestine by force.

“Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss briefly each of these alternatives in order. And first let me read the now celebrated Balfour declaration of date of November 2, 1917, during the progress of the Great War, and afterwards incorporated in the preamble of the British mandate authorized by the League of Nations. The Balfour declaration was in the following language:
His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by the Jews in any other country.

“If this is not a condensed and at the same time a complete bill of rights both for the Arabs of Palestine and for the Jews who intend to remain in their present homelands outside of Palestine, I have never read or seen one. It is conceded by the Arabs themselves that the present government of the country under the British mandate and through the Zionist organization as an administrative agency is infinitely better than the government of the Turks who were chased out of the country by Allenby, the British general. It is probably better than any that the Arabs could create and maintain for themselves.

“I respectfully submit that the Arabs in Palestine should be and would be happy and content under the present government of that country if it were not for Turkish and Arab agitators, who travel around over the land stirring up trouble by making false representations concerning the true character of the Zionist movement, and by preaching a kind of holy war against the immigrant Jews who arrive from day to day. The Arabs are well represented in the personnel of the present Palestine administration, which has recognized their language as one of the official languages of the country, and has given official standing to the Moslem religion.

“In the second place, if the Arabs do not wish to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination there is plenty of room outside in purely Arab surroundings. The British Government and her allies made overtures and gave pledges to the Arab people to furnish them lands and protect their freedom in consideration of Arab alliance with the Allies during the World War. That pledge has been kept. The Hedjaz kingdom was established in ancient Arabia, and Hussein, Grand Sheriff of Mecca, was made king and freed from all Turkish influence. The son of King Hussein, Prince Feisal, is now the head of the kingdom of Mesopotamia [Iraq], and Arab predominance in that country has been assured by the Allies to the Arab people.

“Mesopotamia is alone capable of absorbing 30,000,000 people, according to a report submitted to the British Government by the Great English engineer, Sir William Wilcocks. Arab rights are also fully recognized and protected by the French mandate over Syria. There are also several flourishing Arabic cultural and political colonies in Egypt. In short, the Arab-speaking populations of Asia and Africa number about 38,000,000 souls and occupy approximately 2,375,000 square miles, many times larger than the territory of Great Britain. In other words under the reconstruction of the map of the east, the Arabs have been given practical control of Greater Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and parts of Egypt, which gives them an average of 38 acres per person. If the Arabs are compelled to leave Palestine and turn it over entirely to the Jews, it is admitted that the Arab race would still be one of the wealthiest landowning races on the earth. Therefore, I contend that if they will not consent to live peaceably with the Jews, they should be made to sell their lands and retire to places reserved for them somewhere in Arabia [Saudi], Syria, Mesopotamia, or Egypt, that suit them best, and where they can worship Allah, Mahomet [Muhammad], and the Koran to their heart’s content. After all is said, the fact remains that the Arabs have more lands than they need, and the Jews have none. I am in favor of a readjustment under the Balfour declaration, without too great regard to nice distinctions in the matter of the question of self-determination. This thought brings me to my third proposal heretofore mentioned, that the Arabs should be driven out of Palestine by the British and Jews, or by somebody else, if they will not listen to the voice of reason and of justice.

“I shall probably be told that, regardless of the question of land and property rights, the Arabs have an interest in the holy places around Jerusalem. Admitting that their claims in this regard are just, there should be no trouble along this line. There is no reason to believe that Jews and Christians would deny them access to the holy places in the pilgrimages that they might desire to make from their Arab countries. But if the rights of the Jews to their ancient homeland are to be made dependent, as a final question, upon Moslem interests in the holy places around Jerusalem, I am willing and prepared to repudiate these rights entirely and to shut the Arabs out altogether.”

6 Facts That You Need to Know About Israel’s Legal Rights

So in the last one Hundred years the Arabs have rejected Option one. Israel needs to take Option Two and Three.

Failed Two State Solution ‘אולי הסרטון הכי חזק נגד ‘שתי מדינות לשני עמים

hakolhayehudi-co-il logo https://hakolhayehudi.co.il/

Deal of the Century vs the Torah

11June2020 י”ט סיון תש”פ – https://www.hakolhayehudi.co.il/item/english/deal_of_the_century_vs_the_torah

Last week, 400 Rabbis in Israel signed a proclamation rejecting the “Deal of the Century” peace plan. Without calling up every Rabbi in the Promised Land, I tried in vain to find a Torah scholar who would ratify the peace proposal that was set forth in Washington by United States President Donald Trump, indicating that the broad consensus of Israeli Rabbis believes that the deal is a rotten one. We asked a few leading Rabbis of the Religious Zionist community to explain their vehement opposition.

HaRav Dov Lior, Former Chief Rabbi of Hevron
Anyone who supports this plan is a follower of the Spies in the Wilderness who weakened the spirit of the Nation and betrayed the Land of Israel. This is not a deal – it is a mousetrap, and woe to all to grab at the cheese.

Before the establishment of the Medinah, in response to the Peel Commission, which sliced up the Land of Israel and drastically restricted Aliyah via the White Paper, HaRav Moshe Harlop declared that it was preferable to have one’s hand chopped off than to sign the treacherous document. Years previously, the Balfour Declaration allotted to the Jews all of the borders of Biblical Israel, on both sides of the Jordan River. Then the British gave Transjordon to the Arabs with a scratch of the pen.  HaRav Harlop said it is preferable to have one’s hand chopped off than to sign any document agreeing to give any portion of Ertetz Yisrael to the goyim. At that time, we were physically and economically weak. We needed the goyim to survive. Today isn’t the same. Today we can uphold the Torah obligation to keep the Land of Israel under our control, and from that will come the greatest blessing. You can’t perform a transgression for the promise of a reward. You can’t agree to an agreement that states if you work 2 hours on Shabbat you will receive a ten million dollars bonus. People said to HaRav Harlop – if we don’t agree, we won’t have any State at all. He replied that it was better to remain in exile rather than to transgress the word of Hashem and the Torah commandment to conquer and dwell in the Land of Israel, and to keep it under our control, as delineated by Ramban in his treatise, “Supplement to the Sefer HaMitzvot of the Rambam,” Positive Commandment 4. The same holds true today. It is better to reject the whole plan than to open the door to a foreign terror regime in our midst. Administrations in Washington come and go. Once you sign an international agreement, there’s no backing out. And who knows what a leftist government in Israel will agree to give the Arabs for the illusion of peace? We cannot be an active partner to such an heretical agreement in any shape or form. To do so would be a clear continuation of the Sin of the Spies, as the verse states: “They despised the cherished Land.”


https://www.jewishpress.com

San Remo: The Original ‘Deal of the Century’

By Yishai Fleisher
2 Iyyar 5780 – April 26, 2020 https://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/yishai-fleisher/san-remo-the-original-deal-of-the-century/2020/04/26/

1920 Mandate for Palestine for the Jewish Homeland

1920 Mandate for Palestine for the Jewish Homeland

One hundred years ago this week, the British Balfour Declaration—which recognized the Jewish rights to the land of Israel—became international law.

The Allies, the countries that defeated the Ottoman Empire in World War I, gathered in San Remo, Italy, in late April 1920 to carve up the Middle East. Basing their outlook on Woodrow Wilson’s principle of self-determination, they set out to establish new would-be countries through a mentoring program called “mandates.” The Arabs, now free of the Turks, would get Syria, Lebanon and Mesopotamia (Iraq). The Jews would get “Palestine” (Palestine was a Jewish thing back then).



The language of the 1917 Balfour Declaration was put directly into the San Remo accords: “[T]he Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

This decision was soon unanimously ratified by 56 member states of the League of Nations, and later became part of the United Nations Charter, thus paving the way for the third Jewish commonwealth, reborn on its ancestral soil after 2000 years.

Yet this momentous occasion, on which the international community recognized and then ratified the inalienable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel for the first time in modern history, is often forgotten. Instead, attention is diverted to the radio broadcast of the U.N. vote for Partition on Nov. 29, 1947, where the U.N. General Assembly voted in favor of a resolution adopting the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) partition plan of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states and for which 33 states voted in favor, 13 against and 10 abstained.

Legally speaking, the two events cannot be put on the same scale. The San Remo Accords were binding law, ratified by member states, which took quick effect. Even the United States, which was not a member of the League of Nations, took measures to recognize the accords.

Conversely, the UNSCOP Partition Plan was merely a non-binding resolution, voted on in the toothless General Assembly (not the Security Council), and was immediately rejected by the Arabs—in other words, the whole exercise of the partition plan vote was null and void.

The U.N. bundle narrative

The U.N. partition vote does have the distinction of being the immediate precursor to Israel’s declaration of independence. While David Ben-Gurion and the Jewish Agency accepted the partition plan—ready to take what they could get for the Jewish people in the aftermath of the Holocaust—other Zionists rejected the plan outright as an abrogation of previous agreements. At the time, the U.N. resolution was instrumental, but that is a far cry from the portrayal of the U.N. partition vote as the foundational moment of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state.

So why does the empty U.N. partition resolution get so much play as compared with the real law of San Remo Accords? The answer lies in who is presenting the history—what they want Israeli policy to look like and what they want to say about Israel’s legitimacy.

For those who wish to see a “two-state solution” implemented, the idea that Israel was created through the U.N. partition vote is an indispensable narrative. The logic is clear: If the U.N. gave birth to Israel, and that birth was within the partition framework, then that original vision of two states is the controlling rubric. Any deviation from partition/two-states is an act of imperialism, colonialism and occupation—words which U.N.-narrative folks use against Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria regularly.

Moreover, if the U.N. is the parent of the Jewish State, then under the principle of “Honor thy father and mother,” Israel must kneel to the U.N.’s many anti-Israel resolutions and declarations. The U.N.’s admonitions that Israel is not democratic enough, that it has stolen land, that it abuses the Palestinians and most centrally that it must “give back” land to create yet another Palestinian state, must be heeded.

In short, promoters of the U.N. narrative argue that Israel was born in the halls of the General Assembly and that the original vision of partition is its only legitimate path forward. It is not surprising therefore that two-state proponents are invariably U.N.-touters—cut from the same narrative cloth.

The liberals of San Remo

The San Remo narrative, however, is very different. For those who argue that San Remo is the international legal basis for the creation of Israel, the agreement stands for an unabashed recognition of historic Jewish rights in the land of Israel and a stated goal of reconstituting a Jewish commonwealth.

The text of the Mandate for Palestine (the 1922 document that put the resolutions of San Remo into practice) is straightforward: “Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

At the San Remo conference, delegates never contemplated giving “Palestine” to the Arabs—the absurd idea of taking Judea away from the Jews and creating an Arab state there. For the delegates, giving Syria, Lebanon and Iraq to the Arabs and giving the Jews their historic and biblical land was equitable enough. This was in line with the Wilsonian “self-determination” doctrine—indigenous peoples would gain independence from former empires and govern themselves. Indeed, no one was about to give recognition to the imperialistic Islamic conquests of the 7th century, nor to the 400-year Ottoman domination which the Allies had just terminated.

The text of the Mandate is clear on the issue of land division: “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine [Jewish] territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.”

Indeed, original Israel, as recognized by San Remo-crafted international law, was going to be a big Jewish state, surrounded by newly freed and even bigger Arab states. That was the vision.

And what about democracy?

The issue of democratic voting in the new Mandate states was not clearly defined at San Remo. However, the framers at the conference were well aware of what it would take to balance power in the region: The Jewish state would be Jewish by charter and not by majority rule.

The Mandate for Palestine states that “nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,” but does not mention national rights, which could potentially undo the Jewish character of the country in any given election. There was no intent to back an untenable, all-out participatory democracy.

But U.N.-touters cannot stomach the idea that Israel’s core identity is Jewish, without the necessity of a Jewish majority. That is why they are always stressing the contrived “Jewish and Democratic” stipulation—so as to force the two values onto equal footing. In that line of thinking, Israel is not a Jewish state, but rather a democratic state that happens to house a lot of Jews.

However, since demography coupled with democracy could spell the end of the Jewish character of the state, their only viable solution is to shrink away from Arab populations and gerrymander the borders smaller and smaller until there are no Arabs left, only a perfect Jewish democracy on a very small parcel of land remains.

Indeed, the framers of San Remo foresaw the folly of such an approach.

The non-jihad Arab narrative

Anti-Zionist tendencies among Arabs were strong in the 1920s, but were not ubiquitous. At the time, there also existed a line of thinking among some Arab leaders which saw the process of Middle East self-determination as being a boon to all the indigenous people of the region—all the children of Abraham.

Two weeks before the Paris Peace Conference of 1919—the prelude to the San Remo Accords—the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann met with Emir Feisal, son of the Sharif of Mecca, and put an agreement to paper in which the Arabs would accept the tenets of the Balfour Declaration:

“His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their natural aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration….”

A few weeks later Feisal wrote a letter to the future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, a Zionist: “The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper.”

Since that time, much has been done to undermine the goodwill between Arabs and Jews as expressed by the Feisal-Weitzman dialogue. But hidden in the ashes are a few coals of this thinking among the Arabs of today. These Arab thinkers, who usually live in fear of jihadists, believe that Arabs have their 22 states on their tribal lands, and Jews their one state on their tribal land, and that mutual acceptance of these facts will avert needless war and will bring about regional cooperation and then prosperity.

But the U.N.-partition narrative denies that Arabs could possibly accept a sovereign Israel in Judea and Samaria or that regional cooperation could come about without further partition. Instead, the U.N. types promulgate the belief that there is no possibility of peace without partition. Without saying it, they assert the jihadist position that the Arabs could never really accept a Jewish state in their midst and that large areas of the land of Israel must be Judenrein if there is ever to be a chance for peace.

Yet, after the 2005 Gaza disengagement, Israelis have seen clearly that surrendering land only leads to more violence and more demands. A smaller Israel is nothing but a weaker target.

Arab Palestine 1.0

There is yet another fundamental reason why U.N.-narrative folks wish to bury the story of San Remo: They don’t want us to remember that an Arab Palestine was created in the ’20s that should have satisfied Arab demands and made the Israel-Palestine conflict disappear before it began.

In the three years between San Remo and the League’s ratification of the accords in 1923, the British utilized a legal loophole to strip away 77 percent of the mandate for a Jewish Palestine and gift it to the leaders of the Hashemite clan. This was the creation of Trans-Jordan, which was later renamed the Kingdom of Jordan.

For many years, we have been told by the U.N. proponents that there is no Middle East peace because there is no Arab Palestine. They want us to avert our eyes from the fact that the Kingdom of Jordan, created on the land originally intended for the Jewish state, is actually an Arab Palestine—but one which refuses to absorb the Palestinians.

Therefore, for the pro-Palestine camp, history must start in 1947, where a Jewish state was slated for partitioning as the U.N. gave birth to it. No one has to know that an Arab Palestine was created 20 years prior.

Deal of the century

We are in the era of the Trump administration’s “deal of the century”—with Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria slated to become a reality. And yet, for some, the goal of an Arab Palestinian state on Jewish land persists.

It would behoove us now to remember the original deal of the century—the San Remo Accords, signed exactly 100 years ago—which recognized and confirmed Jewish historical national rights to the land of Israel, and equitably divided up the Middle East into a strong Jewish state neighbored by strong Arab states. In that deal of the century, Israel was meant to be big, defensible—and Jewish by charter and not by majority—and there were many Arabs ready to accept and respect it.

As we celebrate Israeli independence this year, let us cast off the contrived U.N. narrative in which Israel was born into the inevitability of two states. One hundred years ago, the framers of San Remo laid down common-sense principles, that with implementation, can still become the real deal of the century.


US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman delivers remarks at Kohelet Forum, in an event marking US Secretary of State’s statement regarding the legality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Jerusalem, January 8, 2020.

Zuheir Mohsen

– Palestinian politician
Zuheir Mohsen (19361979) was a Palestinian leader of the Syria-controlled as-Sa’iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979.

Quotes https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zuheir_Mohsen

*The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
*James Dorsey, “Wij zijn alleen Palestijn om politieke reden”, Trouw, 31 March 1977.

Guess the Iconic Zionist

Golda Meir in Poale Zion Chasidim pageant - 1919

Golda Meir in Poale Zion Chasidim pageant – 1919

Arutz Sheva http://www.israelnationalnews.com/

Basic Middle East facts

How Middle East realities are a reflection of the behavior of the Palestinians.

Barry Shaw 04February2020 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/25139
Barry Shaw
The writer is the Senior Associate for Public Diplomacy at the Israeli Institute for Strategic Studies. He is also the author of ‘Fighting Hamas, BDS and Anti-Semitism.’

The Middle East is characterized by the following 14-century-old intra-Muslim features which can be summed up as:

No intra-Muslim peaceful coexistence, but constant unpredictability, instability, religious and ethnic fragmentation, violent intolerance, terrorism, subversion, and a drive to fulfill Islam-driven goals including the unacceptance of an “infidel” entity in the “abode of Islam.”

Most of the Middle East is not driven by a desire to improve its standard of living, but by religious/ideological visions.

Western imposed concessions, appeasement and gestures actually embolden them to more aggression and terrorism.

The assumption that a Palestinian Arab state could be effectively demilitarized and de-terrorized should be assessed against the track record of the Palestinian Arabs themselves.

The 1993 Oslo Accord and the 2005 Gaza Disengagement were supposed to demilitarize and de-terrorize the Palestinians in return for dramatically enhanced political and economic benefits. Instead, both events intensified terrorism in a dramatic manner.

A direct correlation exists between the degree of Palestinian Arab sovereignty and the level of Palestinian terrorism. For example, in 1968-70, Jordan provided the Palestinian Arabs with an unprecedented platform of operation. Consequently, they triggered a civil war, attempting to topple the pro-US Hashemite regime.

During the 1970s, the Palestinians initiated a series of civil wars in Lebanon.

In August 1990, the Palestinian Arabs collaborated with Saddam Hussein’s invasion of their host county (Kuwait), which triggered the 1991 and 2003 Gulf Wars.

Immediately after Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian civil,war erupted and Hamas usurped power, oppressed any opposition, destroyed the agricultural and community projects left by Israel, and turned Gaza into a network of terror bases, indoctrinated the people into violence, and launched thousands of rockets into Israeli civilian centers.

The assumption that granting Palestinians territory to develop a peaceful base for statehood and prosperity has become a classic oxymoron and is a terrible diplomatic mistake.

The Palestinians are agitated not by the size of the Jewish State but by its very existence. All sides of the Palestinian political divide call for the “liberation” of Palestine “From the River to the Sea,” the annihilation of Israel.

It is worth recalling past Arab voices. They are as relevant today as when they were spoken decades ago.

In October 1994 Jordan’s military commanders advised their Israeli counterparts: “That which the Palestinians sign in the morning they tend to violate by the evening.” They added that “A Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the Hashemite regime east of the River.”

Former Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak (1981-2011): “Jordan’s King Hussein does not want a Palestinian state; Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are not concerned about the Palestinians.”

Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat (1970-1981): “Do I want a Palestinian state? Why should I want another Soviet base and another member of the Rejectionist Front?” (“No More War”)

Israeli affirmative action and the lack of global counter action.

In 1948/49, Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, unilaterally applied sovereignty to West Jerusalem and large parts of the Negev and the Galilee, in spite of US and global opposition.

In the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War, Israel’s Prime Minister Eshkol united the city of Jerusalem, notwithstanding US and global opposition.

Israel Defense Forces (IDF) destroyed a nuclear reactor built in the northeastern Syrian province of Deir al-Zor in 2007.

In December 1981, Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin asserted the Israeli law in the Golan Heights despite brutal pressure by the US, including the suspension of a major strategic pact.

In June 1981, Israel destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor, notwithstanding White House opposition. Begin’s unilateral action spared the US a nuclear confrontation in January 1991.

It is in Israel’s vital interest to annex both the Jordan Valley and the bulk of territory in Judea & Samaria, including all the high ground that dominates central Israel’s narrow, low-lying, coastal strip.

These facts are self-evident and essential to maintain the security and safety of Israeli citizens, if not the rest of the Middle East which, as this article proves, will continue to be a maelstrom of ethnic, tribal and religious violence.

With acknowledgement to Ambassador Yoram Ettinger for lighting the spark for this article.

Ze’ev Jabotinsky, warned the Jew of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s to leave and in 1933 we get..

As soon as Hitler, y”sh rose to power, any doubts any European Jews still harbored as to his intentions should have been put to rest.  But, surely by the time Kristallnacht happened, could anyone have still had any illusions that Jews could continue to live in Europe?
Just go through the history of what the German Jews went through between January 30, 1933 – Adolf Hitler is appointed Chancellor of Germany a nation with a Jewish population of 566,000. and November 9/10, 1938 – Kristallnacht – The Night of Broken Glass.  (Source)

New Consider the situation in Eretz Yisrael over the same time period…

…in Mandatory Palestine, a growing Jewish population (174,610 in 1931, rising to 384,078 in 1936) was acquiring land and developing the structures of a future Jewish state despite opposition from the Arab population.

Hanotea (הַנּוֹטֵעַ, “the Planter”) was a citrus planting company based in Netanya and established in 1929 by long-established Jewish settlers in Palestine involved in the Benei Binyamin movement. In a deal worked out with the Reich Economics Ministry, the blocked German bank accounts of prospective immigrants would be unblocked and funds from them used by Hanotea to buy agricultural German goods; these goods, along with the immigrants, would then be shipped to Palestine, and the immigrants would be granted a house or citrus plantation by the company to the same value. Hanotea’s director, Sam Cohen, represented the company in direct negotiation with the Reich Economics Ministry beginning in March 1933. In May 1933 Hanotea applied for permission to transfer capital from Germany to Palestine. This pilot arrangement appeared to be operating successfully, and so paved the way for the later Haavara Agreement.

The Haavara (Transfer) Agreement, negotiated by Eliezer Hoofein, director of the Anglo-Palestine Bank, was agreed to by the Reich Economics Ministry in 1933, and continued, with declining German government support, until it was wound up in 1939. Under the agreement, Jews emigrating from Germany could use their assets to purchase German-manufactured goods for export, thus salvaging their personal assets during emigration. The agreement provided a substantial export market for German factories to British-ruled Palestine. Between November, 1933, and 31 December 1937, 77,800,000 Reichmarks, or $22,500,000, (values in 1938 currency) worth of goods were exported to Jewish businesses in Palestine under the program. By the time the program ended with the start of World War II, the total had risen to 105,000,000 marks (about $35,000,000, 1939 values).

Emigrants with capital of £1,000, (about $5,000 in 1930s currency value) could move to Palestine in spite of severe British restrictions on Jewish immigration under an immigrant investor program similar to the modern EB-5 visa. Under the Transfer Agreement, about 39% of an emigrant’s funds were given to Jewish communal economic development projects, leaving individuals with about 43% of the funds.

The Haavara Agreement was thought among some German circles to be a possible way to solve the “Jewish problem.” The head of the Middle Eastern division of the foreign ministry, the anti-NSDAP politician Werner Otto von Hentig, supported the policy of settling Jews in Palestine. Hentig believed that if the Jewish population was concentrated in a single foreign entity, then foreign diplomatic policy and containment of the Jews would become easier. Hitler’s own support of the Haavara Agreement was unclear and varied throughout the 1930s. Initially, Hitler seemed indifferent to the economic details of the plan, but he supported it in the period from September 1937 to 1939.

After the German invasion of Poland in September 1939 the program was ended.

The agreement was controversial both within the NSDAP and in the Zionist movement. As historian Edwin Black put it, “The Transfer Agreement tore the Jewish world apart, turning leader against leader, threatening rebellion and even assassination.” Opposition came in particular from the mainstream US leadership of the World Zionist Congress, in particular Abba Hillel Silver and American Jewish Congress president Rabbi Stephen Wise. Wise and other leaders of the Anti-Nazi boycott of 1933 argued against the agreement, narrowly failing to persuade the Nineteenth Zionist Congress in August 1935 to vote against it.

The right-wing Revisionist Zionists and their leader Vladimir Jabotinsky were even more vocal in their opposition. The Revisionist newspaper in Palestine, Hazit Haam published a sharp denunciation of those involved in the agreement as “betrayers”, and shortly afterwards one of the negotiators, Haim Arlosoroff was assassinated.  (Source)

Clearly, Hashem provided an escape hatch, but only up until a certain point.  And that point seems to have been 1939.  Until then, immigration to Eretz Yisrael for Jews was unrestricted.

The White Paper of 1939 was a policy paper issued by the British government under Neville Chamberlain in response to the 1936–39 Arab Revolt. Following its formal approval in the House of Commons on 23 May 1939, it acted as the governing policy for Mandatory Palestine from 1939 until the British departure in 1948, the matter of the Mandate meanwhile having been referred to the United Nations.

The policy, first drafted in March 1939, was prepared by the British government unilaterally as a result of the failure of the Arab-Zionist London Conference. The paper called for the establishment of a Jewish national home in an independent Palestinian state within 10 years, rejecting the idea of partitioning Palestine. It also limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 for 5 years, and ruled that further immigration was to be determined by the Arab majority (section II). Restrictions were put on the rights of Jews to buy land from Arabs (section III).

And the “grace” period for the Jews of Europe was over as they found themselves both locked in and locked out.

Einat Wilf: Why the Israeli left collapsed


Palestine is Jordan, Jordan is Palestine

Comments on the “Einat Wilf: Why the Israeli left collapsed” video from YouTube:

Mark Simons 2 years ago (edited)
She’s absolutely hit the nail on the head! Palestinians had everything they now desire under Jordanian sovereignty, Complete absence of settlements, access to Jerusalem, albeit not their capital, passports, freedom of movement, equality, Jews not even allowed as visitors. Admittedly, political freedom was curtailed but no more than anywhere else in the Arab world. Sadly, they chose the silly promises of Yasser Arafat over King Hussein, and it’s been downhill ever since.

What Will Israel Look like in 5 Years with a Palestinian Arab State Alongside It?

Israel gives away land for fake “Peace Plans”, US gets Disasters

List of Middle East Failed peace proposals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name of Storm or Disaster

Results

Faisal–Weizmann Agreement (3 January 1919)
San Remo conference (19 to 26 April 1920)
Peel Commission (July 7, 1937)
Peace proposals of Count Folke Bernadotte (1948)
1949 Armistice Agreements
UN Security Council Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967)
Jarring Mission (1967–1971)
Allon Plan (July 26, 1967)
Rogers Plan (1969)
Camp David Accords (1978)

Anwar Sadat wearing a nazi tie while negotiating with Moshe Dayan

Necktie diplomacy: meeting at the Knesset in Jerusalem in November 1977, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, wearing a nazi tie, and Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan discuss a potential peace treaty between their respective Countries.

Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty (March 26, 1979)  Israel gave away the Sinai

Yamit (Hebrew: ימית‎‎) was an Israeli settlement in the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula[1] Population: 2,500 people. Yamit was established after the 1967 Six-Day War until the Sinai was handed over to Egypt in April 1982. All the homes were evacuated and bulldozed.[2]

Three Mile Island

 The Three Mile Island accident was a partial nuclear meltdown that occurred on March 28, 1979, in reactor number 2 of Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station (TMI-2) in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, United States. It was the most significant accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant history.[2] The incident was rated a five on the seven-point International Nuclear Event Scale: Accident With Wider Consequences.[3][4]
Fahd Plan (1981)
Reagan Plan (September 1, 1982)
Fez Initiative (September 9, 1982)
May 17 Agreement, a failed attempt of peace between Lebanon and Israel (1983)
Madrid Conference of 1991

1991 Perfect Storm

This legendary storm traveled 1000 miles the wrong direction and sent 35 foot waves slamming directly into President Bush’s home in Kennebunkport, Maine.

 Oslo Accords (September 13, 1993)

More than 1,600 Israelis have been murdered and another 9,000 wounded since the signing. [27]

Hurricane Emily (1993)

Hurricane Emily on August 31, 1993 caused record flooding in the Outer Banks of North Carolina while remaining just offshore. It dissipated on September 6 to the southeast of Newfoundland.
President Clinton met with President Assad of Syria to discuss the possibility of Israel giving up the Golan Heights. (January 16th, 1994)

1994 Northridge earthquake

Northridge Earthquake, CA, January 17, 1994 — . FEMA News Photo

M 7.2 Earthquake* Damage occurred up to 85 miles (125 km) away, with the most damage in the west San Fernando Valley, and the cities of Santa Monica, Simi Valley and Santa Clarita. The “official” death toll was placed at 57;[14] More than 8,700 were injured [19] Total damage $13–$44 billion[3]
* Reported as 7.2 Old M Scale
Israel–Jordan peace treaty (1994)
 Wye River Memorandum (15–23 October 1998)

1998:  Hill Country, Texas

Oct. 17–19, 1998: Rainstorm. Hill Country. A massive, devastating flood set all-time records for rainfall and river levels, resulted in the deaths of 25 people, injured more than 2,000 others, and caused more than $500 million damage from the Hill Country to the counties south and east of San Antonio.
Camp David 2000 Summit (2000)
The Clinton Parameters (December 23, 2000)
 Taba summit (January, 2001)

Road map for peace (24 June 2002)

Elon Peace Plan (also known as “The Israel Initiative”) (2002)
The People’s Voice (July 27, 2002)
  Arab Peace Initiative (March 28, 2002)
Road Map for Peace (April 30, 2003)

May 2003 tornado outbreak sequence

The May 2003 tornado outbreak sequence in the United States was a series of tornado outbreaks that occurred from May 3 to May 11, 2003. Tornadoes began occurring over the affected area on April 30, but the most prolific continuous period was the seven-day period of May 4–10. There were 401 tornado reports in 19 states and 1 Canadian province.[2]
Isratine AKA One-State Solution (May 8, 2003)
Geneva Accord (October 20, 2003)
Sharm el-Sheikh Summit of 2005 (February 8, 2005)

Gush Katif -Tisha B’Av 5765 (2005)

Close to 10,000 Jews were expelled from their homes in the Gaza Strip and parts of northern Samaria.

 

Hurricane Katrina

Surge damage in Pascagoula, Mississippi

Surge damage in Pascagoula, Mississippi

Israel sent an IDF delegation to New Orleans to transport aid equipment including 80 tons of food, disposable diapers, beds, blankets, generators and additional equipment which were donated from different governmental institutions, civilian institutions and the IDF.[149]

2006 Franco-Italian-Spanish Middle East Peace Plan
Two-state solution
Three state solution
Israeli Peace Initiative (April 6, 2011)
Barack Obama told Israel that there must be a return to the pre-1967 borders (May 19, 2011)

2011 Joplin tornado

22May2011 a half-mile wide EF-5 multiple-vortex tornado ripped through Joplin, Missouri. According to Wikipedia, it was “the costliest single tornado in U.S. history.”

Arabs give Israel WAR

Conflicts considered as wars by the Israeli Ministry of Defense (as they were named by Israel) are marked in bold.[3]

Conflict Combatant 1 Combatant 2 Results Israeli commanders Israeli losses
Israeli Prime Minister Defense Minister of Israel Chief of Staff of the IDF IDF
forces
Civilians
War of Independence
(1947–1949)
 Israel Egypt Egypt
 Iraq
Jordan Transjordan
Syria Syria
 Lebanon
Saudi Arabia
 Yemen
Flag of Hejaz 1917.svg Holy War Army
Arab League ALA
Victory

David Ben-Gurion
Yaakov Dori
~4,000
~2,400
Sinai War
(1956)
 Israel
United Kingdom United Kingdom
France France
Flag_of_EgyptEgypt Victory

  • Sinai demilitarized, UNEF deployed.
Moshe Dayan
231
None
Six-Day War
(1967)
 Israel Flag_of_Egypt Egypt
Syria Syria
 Jordan
 Iraq
Victory

Levi Eshkol
Moshe Dayan
Yitzhak Rabin
776
20
War of Attrition
(1967–1970)
 Israel Flag_of_Egypt Egypt
Soviet Union Soviet Union
Flag of Palestine - short triangle.svg PLO
 Jordan
Both sides claimed victory

Golda Meir
Haim Bar-Lev
1,424[4]
227[5]
Yom Kippur War
(1973)
 Israel  Egypt
 Syria
 Iraq
 Jordan
 Algeria
Morocco Morocco
 Saudi Arabia
 Cuba
Victory[6]

David Elazar
2,688
None[8]
Operation Litani
(1978)
 Israel
Lebanon FLA
Flag of Palestine - short triangle.svg PLO Victory

  • PLO retreat from South Lebanon.
Menachem Begin
Ezer Weizman
Mordechai Gur
18
None
First Lebanon War
(1982–1985)
 Israel
Lebanon SLA
Lebanon Lebanese Front
Flag of Palestine - short triangle.svg PLO
Syria Syria
Lebanon Jammoul
InfoboxHez.PNG Hezbollah
Flag of the Amal Movement.svg Amal
Tactical victories, strategic failure[9]

  • PLO expulsion from Lebanon.[10]
  • Collapse of Maronite-Israeli alliance.
Ariel Sharon
Rafael Eitan
657
2-3
Security Zone conflict
(1985–2000)
 Israel
Lebanon SLA
InfoboxHez.PNG Hezbollah
Flag of the Amal Movement.svg Amal
Flag of Lebanon.svg Jammoul
Defeat[11]

  • Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.[12]
Shimon Peres
Yitzhak Rabin
Moshe Levi
559
7
First Intifada
(1987–1993)
 Israel Flag of Palestine - short triangle.svg Fatah
Flag of Hamas.svg Hamas
Oslo I Accord

Yitzhak Shamir
Dan Shomron
60
100
Second Intifada
(2000–2005)
 Israel Flag of Palestine - short triangle.svg PA
Flag of Hamas.svg Hamas
Victory

  • Palestinian uprising suppressed.[13]
Ariel Sharon
Shaul Mofaz
Moshe Ya’alon
301
773
Second Lebanon War
(2006)
 Israel InfoboxHez.PNG Hezbollah Stalemate

Ehud Olmert
Amir Peretz
Dan Halutz
121
44
Operation Cast Lead
(2008–2009)
 Israel Flag of Hamas.svg Hamas Victory

Ehud Barak
Gabi Ashkenazi
10
3
Operation Pillar of Defense
(2012)
 Israel Flag of Hamas.svg Hamas Victory

  • Cessation of rocket fire into Israel.
Benjamin Netanyahu
Benny Gantz
2
4
Operation Protective Edge
(2014)
 Israel Flag of Hamas.svg Hamas Both sides claim victory

Moshe Ya’alon
67
6
Jerusalem (2015)[Edd]  Israel Flag of Palestine - short triangle.svg PA Ongoing

And gave the rest of the World Terror

List of Islamist terrorist attacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dore Gold Cambridge Jerusalem Speech and Q and A

WHAT IS PALESTINE? WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS?

THE NAZIS AND THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT from FACESHIRHOME on Vimeo.

What’s Holding the Arab World Back?

Einat Wilf – How Israel Can Achieve Victory

The 2 State Solution is DEAD!

Yoram Ettinger: There is no Arab Demographic Time Bomb [Hebrew with English subtitles]

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share