Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Is there any legal justification for the creation of a Palestinian state?


Is there any legal justification for the creation of a Palestinian state?

A question was posted on Quora.com as this: "Since the Palestinians rejected the partition plan, is there any legal justification for the creation of a Palestinian state?" . I will endeavor to answer that question.

The justification of an Arab Palestinian state exists. It was created in 1922 and ratified in the Treaty of Lausanne. It was originally named “Arab Government of the East”. Today you know it as Jordan. It was created as Arab Palestine and even used overprinted Mandate Palestine stamps.

The justification for Jewish Palestine was defined in San Remo in 1920 and included what is now Jordan. The San Remo Resolution, 1920 (a binding international agreement) stated:

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people



A particular point of interest is article 6 of the Mandate

Article 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency. referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

This is actually the law enabling Jewish "settlement" activity. In essence it was the British governors who failed to adhere to this law.

To appease Ibn Saud, who later became King of Saudi Arabia, the British chopped off a part of the mandate and made it a monarchy with one of Ibn Saud’s relatives. This was also in accordance with the League of Nations mandate:

ARTICLE 25. In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18″~Palestine Mandate

Professor Eugene V. Rostow, an American legal scholar and public servant, Dean of Yale Law School and served as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs under President Lyndon B. Johnson, stated that after the partition plan was rejected by Arabs the only legally binding document remains is British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) which states:
“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the 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, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights ( but not political ) of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political ( the word political is especially mentioned ) status enjoyed by Jews in any other country

Nothing about any other entity to the west of the Jordan river besides the Jewish National Home .

Now we get to the United Nations itself. The UN official charter Article 80 ( a binding international agreement)
Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
This in effect means that the partition plan of 1947 was illegal and non-binding. Whether the Arabs accepted or rejected it means nothing, it was illegal under international law. Under the law, the UN agreed to accept all decisions of the League of Nations meaning the boundaries of Arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine.

May 15th 1948, the British Mandate for Palestine ended and the neighboring Arab states invaded Israel and so the Arab occupation began.At the end of this war in which the Arabs had hoped to erase Israel there were ceasefire discussions. The Arabs demanded that it would not be a border. The 1949 Armistice Agreement, also known as the ‘green line”.

The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question."


Take note: the so-called 1967 border is not a border but a ceasefire line.

When the PLO was created in 1965, they specifically said that the area illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt were not a part of their demands. After the loss in 1967, the PLO covenant was altered)

Article 24. This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area.~PLO Covenant 1964

People have said that after 1967, Israel was in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, part IV which deals with occupied territory.
Article. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
If people claim that Israel violates that convention, then why were they silent when Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria? Secondly, what occupied territory? You cannot occupy your own territory. In addition, it is talking about deportations, transfers etc. Explain how that is relevant? In addition, the section deals with sovereign states. That would be Israel and what other state? The Jordanians occupied the area illegally, so what other state?


All that being said, the so-called "Palestinian" Arabs do not want to live with Jews. Does Israel behave like the Spaniards when the Catalonians elected not to be a part of Spain and reject their demand? Or do we say, "OK, we signed an agreement and area A and B is yours, do whatever you want there". Will the Arabs accept that?

Sunday, April 23, 2017

What are the pros and cons of a two state solution for Israel and the Palestinian people?


What are the pros and cons of a two state solution for Israel and the Palestinian people?

This question was posted on Quora.com. I posted an answer and the moderators decided that I violated their policy of "be respectful and be nice" and collapsed it. Perhaps they are correct that in this case I am not respectful to the Palestinian people. I am reposting here so that you can be the judge. Here is the link to the original article: What are the pros and cons of a two state solution for Israel and the Palestinian people?. If you have access to Quora, please upvote my answer.

What defines the so-called Palestinian people? Are they a people by definition or by political design? The name Palestinian belongs only to the Jews of Judea, simple fact. Now, look at the “Palestinian people”:

  • Do they have their own language? 
  • Do they have their own culture? 
  • Do they have their own history? 
  • Do they have their own religion? 
  • Do they have their own flag?

The answer to all of that is NO. The areas that they live in have belonged to the Jewish people for thousands of years. Up until 1948, the area known today as the West bank was known as Judea and Samaria. All proven facts.

Two state solution? Look at the facts. When the PLO was founded in 1964, they specifically declared that the area occupied by Jordan and Egypt was not a part of their future demands, that includes what you refer to as East Jerusalem and the Jewish Holy Places.

Article 24. This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.


Look at Yassir Arafat the leader of the PLO and then the PA for many years:



And look at another member of the PLO:



Look at the Fatah maps - see any two state there? look at the PA insignia - any two state? Look at their official logo: Palestine Liberation Organization. Hamas and Fatah all said that any solution is temporary, a hudna. So the con is simple, there is little hope for peace.

What Israel must do is to withdraw from Area A and B and make that the border. They can self-govern that. Oh wait, tried that, it was called Oslo A and B. What a proven failure. Billions of dollars poured into that area and instead of building a nation, they created pure terror and billionaires.

Theoretical pros for Israel:

  • Peace or at least cold peace like we have with Jordan 
  • Less terrorism thanks to an international border. However leaving Gaza has shown us that that is wishful thinking.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Why does Israel want to shift the capital to Jerusalem?


Why does Israel want to shift the capital to Jerusalem?

This question was seriously posted on Quora.com. I posted an answer and the moderators decided that I violated their policy of "be respectful and be nice" and collapsed it. I am reposting here so that you can be the judge. Here is the link to the original article: Why does Israel want to shift the capital to Jerusalem. If you have access to Quora, please upvote my answer.


Questions like this never cease to amaze me. It shows a deep lack of knowledge. I am not sure where you got the idea from that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, the media maybe? Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda said:

"If you tell a lie big enough, and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it"~Joseph Goebbels




This question is proof of that. Jerusalem is and as always been the capital of Israel and the Jewish people. No one else has any valid claim to the city. Do you know how long it has been the capital? 3000 years! It was the capital of the Jewish Kingdom of Judea and the symbol of Judea exists in Jerusalem today.

Now, two questions for you:

  • Who has the right to define where your capital city is? The country where the city is situated or someone else? 
  • Apart from Israel and the Jewish people, has Jerusalem ever been the capital of any other country? Or even nation?
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”― Edmund Burke

Monday, December 26, 2016

Another anti-Israel Resolution at the Security Council


Another anti-Israel Resolution at the Security Council

On Christmas eve, the Americans pushed for a Security Council vote against Israel which passed. Why did it pass? Because the Americans did not veto it. A day earlier, Egypt pushed for the same vote but withdrew it probably because of President elect Trump. So, who asked for it in the end? New Zealand, a Christian country, among others. Why is it relevant that New Zealand, a Christian country pushed for it? You will soon understand.

Why did Obama push for this? Why did Kerry push for this? Why did the Security Council allow this? All simple. They wanted to leave a mark on something. I would say that it is because of pure hatred and vindictiveness but I will not. Obama was a huge failure as a president. He took a 6 trillion dollar deficit and almost quadrupled it. China owes a huge chunk of the US national debt. What if they come to Trump and ask for him to repay the debt? The Security Council and Obama are responsible for the death of over half a million Syrians, yet instead of dealing with that, they condemn Israel for building in her own homeland. Can you fathom that? Pure hypocrisy.

The resolution against "settlements" is a joke, the wording is unbelievable and actually goes against all international law, if the UN had any idea what international law is. It also goes against previous binding Security Council resolutions such as 242. Strangely Russia and China are occupying nations so why would they let this resolution pass? Quite unbelievable.

Let us look at some of the text of the resolution:

  1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace; This statement is an affront to any logic. It goes against the law written down in 1921. What Palestinian territory? There was no Palestinian territory. When the PLO was created in 1964, they claimed that the area occupied by Jordan which people now call the West Bank, was not a part of their demands. East Jerusalem was Jewish for 4000 years. Actually King David paid money for it, although he had no need to. Why does it matter that New Zealand is a Christian country and this was a nice gift? Have you read the bible? Even the old testament? Isn't New Zealand itself an occupying power? Isn't America with its own occupation of Texas? China? Russia? Spain with its control of Catalonia? Catalonia recently demanded to be free from Spain, but Madrid rejected this.
  2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard; This statement is an affront to any logic. It goes against the law written down in 1921. What occupied Palestinian territory? Since when was it occupied? Who are we occupying it from? Up until the Jordanian occupation, it was Judea and Samaria. If you want to use a legal term, you can refer to it as disputed territories.
  3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations; Hello, heard of 242? Oslo? Do you know that the 4th June 1967 line was simply a ceasefire line? The cease-fire agreements of 1949 that delimited them explicitly say that they are just the lines marking the locations of the armies when the shooting stopped. They are not borders meaning that they have no political significance. Do you know that it was the Arabs who insisted on this because they wanted to gain more territory in the future?
  4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperiling the two-State solution; What two-state solution now?
  5. Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967; Well, now the BDS are going to have fun. Little wonder that BDS stands for Brain Dysfunction Syndrome.


What actually happened was that with the aid of Obama and the French, the Palestinians have hijacked every major UN institution! This is in total disrespect of every agreement they signed with Israel. New Zealand explained their un-Christian like action as Israeli settlements are “the single biggest threat to peace” and the “primary threat to the viability of the two-state solution." Are they being serious? Are they totally brain dead? Settlements? Not the fact that the Palestinians were offered statehood in 2000, 2009 and 2014 and turned to pure terror. Ukraine said they voted because it was balanced. Is everyone that stupid? What this resolution has shown is that terror works. Why should the Arabs negotiate? The UN just hands them everything on a platter.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”― Edmund Burke

Barely 70 years ago the world defeated Nazis. Now pure evil has risen again, but this time far worse.

Can anyone trust the Obama administration? Will the world survive this new evil.


Sunday, November 20, 2016

Islamification of America


Islamification of America

Whoever does not think that Islam has taken over America should read this blog. Forget the fact that President Obama refuses to recognize that Islam is behind the world terror in the past few years. The American government is riddled with Islamists and it is getting worse:

John Brennan, current head of the CIA converted to Islam while stationed in Saudi Arabia as I mentioned in a previous post. He even refers to Jerusalem as Al-Quds.

John Kerry's son-in-law is Iranian with family still in Iran. Tell me that did not influence the Iran nuclear deal.

Obama's top adviser, Valerie Jarrett, is a Muslim who was born in Iran where her parents still live.

Hillary Clinton's top adviser, Huma Abedin is a Muslim, whose mother and brother are involved in the now outlawed Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Hillary Clinton's new running mate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, has a history of embracing Islamists. He appointed a Hamas supporter to a state immigration commission; spoke at a dinner honoring a Muslim Brotherhood terror suspect; and received donations from well-known Islamist groups. He came under suspicion by the FBI more than once when the FBI was still allowed to investigate Islam.

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for Homeland Security, Arif Aikhan, is a Muslim.

Homeland Security Adviser, Mohammed Elibiary, is a Muslim.

Obama adviser and founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Salam al-Marayati, is a Muslim.

Obama's Sharia Czar, Imam Mohamed Magid, of the Islamic Society of North America is a Muslim.

Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships, Eboo Patel, is a Muslim.

November 8, 2016, the day America fought back

Let us face it, Hilary Clinton was a very bad candidate as was Bernie Sanders. HRC's main advisor was a proponent of Sharia and so were many of her backers.

So people said "what difference does a few emails make?" or "so she made a mistake" and if the FBI did not find anything incriminating, she must be innocent. OK, people, wake up. She tried to destroy the emails. She destroyed 13 smartphones with a hammer. Suspicious? Even more suspicious was that Loretta Lynch, the DOJ, was also Bill Clinton's lawyer against all those women who accused him. He and Lynch met together and the next day she decides not to indict his wife? How about a rumor that says that the wife of the head of FBI was given money by the Clinton Foundation? Do I know if these are true or not, NOPE. But there is too much. One thing for sure, she does not know what the truth is. She also said that you must have two views, one public and one private and carry out your private views. Hello, that is the Islamic method.

If it is true or not that during her time as Secretary of State, people paid the Clinton Foundation for a meeting with her, I do not really know. I just know that her advisors are also pro J-Street and that is as bad as there is. George Sorros seems hell bent on destroying America. So America fought back. They wanted change. Has HRC or Obama condemned the riots? Not at all. Obama fueled them while on a trip to Europe, paid for by the American people. Any idea why he went to Europe? A lame duck president?

Donald Trump was not a good candidate, but with 400 million people, he was the best that America had to offer. I wonder if he is going to #DrainTheSwamp and get rid of the Islamic hold of America and make America great again?

November 8, 2016, the American Spring

Sunday, May 22, 2016

The French Peace Initiative


The French Peace Initiative

I call for an international summit to discuss the issue of dividing France into two countries for two nations, the French nation which will retain the name Republic of France and the other nation will be the Islamic Caliphate of France with Paris as its capital. If the French do not agree, then it will be illegal for a person of French origin to live in occupied Paris. They must withdraw from Paris and all parts of Eastern and southern France before November 2017. If not, they will be in violation of international law.

Does this sound familiar to you? We have been saying the same idea for years. Although this is supposed to be a joke based on the idea of the upcoming French initiative in which they said that if Israel does not accept their conditions, they will recognize a Palestinian State on Israeli territory. Now, any idiot will say, unless you are a French politician or a member of the radical far-left, if that is the case, the Palestinians will get everything they demand, despite having absolutely no rights, not legally, historical, moral or religious, so why should they negotiate? Because the French want to feel important! Forget the small issue that the French initiative is in TOTAL VIOLATION of international law of which they are signatories, not one of the multitude of Islamic countries, but the French. They want to feel important, on the backs of others.

But in essence, do the Arabs want another failed state? They have rejected overtures very often. Who will line their pockets if they get a state? How will the leaders get their billions? Look at the billionaires: Ismail Haniya, Khaled Mashal, Mahmood Abbas and Saeb Arekat. Look at how Yassir Arafat milked the coffers to become a billionaire.
I call for an international summit to discuss the issue of dividing France into two nations for two peoples, the French nation which will retain the name Republic of France and the Islamic Caliphate of France with Paris as its capital.

Let us continue with my satire:

The terror attacks in France have shown that it is time to make necessary changes in France. No longer can the French accept living in terror. No longer must they execute without trial, poor Muslims who simply want to murder people. Muslims are clearly waging war on France to transform the county into Dar Al Islam and it is time that France must start negotiations with them. The world now realizes that France cannot do it themselves, so we call on the  international summit. If they fail, we will divide France unilaterally as they did in the Middle East over a 100 years ago.

Isn't my attempt at humor similar to what is happening at the moment? As I have blogged before, Sharia Law divides the world into two domains Dar Al-Harb ( (territory of war or chaos) and Dar Al-Islam (territory of submission). Any place ruled by the laws of Islam even if the majority of the inhabitants are not Muslim is considered Dar Al Islam and no longer needs to be conquered.

Some people say that Israel should give the French a chance, should we trust the French? Well let us look at our history with France. During the first crusade (1096), a thousand years ago, the French placed Jews of Rouen in a Church and murdered them. Jews throughout France were at that time in great fear, and wrote to their brothers in the Rhine countries making known to them their terror and asking them to fast and pray. In the Rhineland thousands of Jews were killed by the crusaders. The French stole our property. Then there were expulsions, massacres, allowing us to return, expulsions, massacres, and a cycle. We stupidly did return. Who understands why? But hatred of Jews reigned for a thousand years in France. Dreyfus case anyone? That was only a 100 years ago. Holocaust? The French were willing partners. What about their actions against Israel since 1967? Will the French ever return all the money, land an other property they stole from us? Probably valued today as 1000 Trillion dollars. That would help my own bank account a bit. Jews have been living in France for more years than there was an Islamic presence in France, or even in Israel, should we also demand a part of France as a satellite of Israel?

So I ask again, why should we trust the French?

Saturday, May 7, 2016

I am NOT Islamophobic


I am NOT Islamophobic

Turkish President Erdogan wants to define Islamophobia as racism or a crime against humanity. He wants to put Islamophobia in the same category as anti-semitism. Interesting?

If you have a fear of open spaces or of being in crowded, public places like markets, you are agoraphobia. You will probably not go for a run in an open field, but that is your choice. You are not endangering anyone. If you are claustrophobic, you have a fear of closed space. Being in a lift scares you. Fair enough. You are not endangering anyone.
What is a phobia? A phobia is an irrational fear of something.
If you are homophobic, you have an irrational fear of gays. Unsure why you may have that, it is not as if they are going to attack you. Unless you are... On the other hand, there are many cases where gays are ganged upon and beaten. Sad but true. To be anti something is to be against it.

Anti-semitism is being against Jews. Anti-Semitism, hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group. This has manifested itself as pure hatred of Jews. Hitler tried to define Jews as a race. They are no more a race than Muslims are. Many Arabs today try to say that it it against them as well because they are also semitic. Simply total nonsense. In Europe today we see that Jews are scared to walk alone. There are attacks against Jews, against synagogues etc. The same thing is happening in campuses all over the United States. Jews are scared to wear anything to show that they are Jewish. To be anti-Semitic today is a trend. People say that they are not anti-Semitic but anti-Israel. That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Even the late Martin Luther King agreed.

We all know that to be anti-Semitic is to be a racist although Jews are not a race, they are a nation, a people. This is in total contrast with the so called Palestinians who are neither a nation, a people or a
race. Fair enough, you hate Jews because it is trendy, but what about Islamophobia? Should that be defined as racism? Is Islam a race? Not by any definition! Is Islam a nation? Tell the Turks that they are not a nation or the Iranians. 

What is Islamophobia? It is an irrational fear of Islam. That is what Turkish President Erdogan wants to define as a crime. Have you read the Koran? Have you seen what happens when God forbid you say something about Mohammed who was simply a prophet, a human being. If you do, you will no longer be around. Draw a cartoon about him, no! But to draw anti-Semitic cartoons is fine. Do anything against Islam and there are riots. Say anything against Islam and you will probably be beaten. But it is OK for them to say anything they want.  Try and tell them to shut up. If you do not bend to their ways, you will be beaten or worse, maybe loose your head. Are women safe? Heard about mass rapes in Europe? Sweden used to be free but now Stockholm is the rape capital of the world. Sad. Have you tried to walk through a Muslim neighborhood? What about during midday prayers? Scared? What about walking past or near a gathering of young Muslims? Do you feel safe?

Where do people come up with nonsense that Islam is the religion of peace? Where is there peace in Islam? OK, if you are a Muslim you will be at peace. Islam means surrender. Have they condemned their own terrorist attacks. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost ALL terrorists are Muslims. Ask yourselves why the wealthy countries in the Arabian Gulf have not taken in a single so-called Syrian Refugee?

What did Winston Churchill have to say about Islam, more than a century ago? Writing in "The River War", published in 1899, about the British retaking of Sudan, Churchill noted the threat of radical Islam:


Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die: but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Islam, Churchill wrote, is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog.
In essence, nothing to do with the Arab Israel conflict!!!

Friends, I have read the Koran, a few times, I have seen how Muslims act and behave. I have seen their riots. I have watched the news, even left-wing news, opened my eyes.

 I really do not have an irrational fear of Muslims, I have a purely rational fear of them for me and you. We are not Islamophobic, we are realistic.