Peloni: Here is the 12th and final installment of Joseph Shellim’s 12 Deceptions, an excerpt from his important work, “Philistine-To-Palestine”. We have been posting one Deception each week, and links to the previous installments can be found at the bottom.
Joseph Shellim
Greatest Deception of All.
Although Israel was invaded throughout her history and her people exiled numerously, never before was the ownership of the Jews’ homeland disputed by any invading forces. Never before was the charge of “Disputed Territory” ever raised by the nations that battled with the Jews 3,000 years.
The charge of illegal or questioned land occupation made on the Jewish state is a modern world phenomenon of the 20th Century. It is antithetical of history, both ancient and modern. That the Jew’s most sacred land portion is deemed as ‘Occupied Territory’, after its ancient name changed to West Bank, illegally, is perhaps the clearest form of all in measuring the occupation charge. Thereby, the examination of how, when and why the charge of occupation arose aligns with the premise of the greatest deception of all.
Israel is in the forefront of a phenomenon impacting on many of the Middle East’s most ancient period inhabitants, many pre-dating the Arabs, with signs and omens such is not limited to one region or people.
- “The Yazidi in Iraq and the Christian Copts in Egypt are not “occupiers” or “settlers;” neither are the Jews in Israel. They are both victims of a common enemy that seems to want a Middle East free of Muslims” – (Gatestone Institute International Public Policy; Ezequil Doiny)
In the 13th Century BCE, Ancient Egypt’s Merneptah Stele boasted of a war and proclaiming that “Israel’s seed is no more.” Yet Egypt never charged the Jews of any illegal occupation and saw the Jews return to Canaan, the land they were born in, raised Kings and Priests, wrote books of their history, built cities and establish Jerusalem as a capital holy city with a huge Temple that rivaled all other monuments of the ancient world. Canaan became Israel 3,000 years ago under King David on 1002 BCE. In the 6th Century BCE, the Babylon Empire invaded Israel, destroyed its temple and exiled most of the Jews. Yet Babylon never charged the Jews of an illegal occupation of this land. In the same 6th Century the Jews returned from their Babylonian exile via the subsequent Persian Empire that conquered Babylon. The Jews were not charged with illegal occupation of this land. The Persian King acknowledged the Jews’ homeland and granted them the right of return and assisted in the rebuilding of their temple. Modern Israel’s Postal Service issued a postage stamp honoring the Persian King Cyrus and his granting the Jews the right to return to their land.
The Cyrus Declaration, 538 BCE.
A clay cylinder discovered 1879 in the ancient city of Babylon (Iraq) contains this Persian dynasty public edict in ancient Akkadian writing, also recorded in the Book of Ezra:
- “In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia… the Lord roused the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to issue a proclamation throughout his realm by word of mouth and in writing as follows: Thus said King Cyrus of Persia: The Lord God of Heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and has charged me with building Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Anyone of you of all His people, may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem that is in Judah and build the House of the Lord God of Israel, the God that is in Jerusalem” (Ezra, chapter 1).
Two thousand years ago Mighty Rome invaded this land and minted 1,000’s of gold and silver coins embossed with “Judea Capta” slogans, signifying this was the conquered land of the Jews. Rome never charged the Jews of illegally occupying another peoples’ land.
One hundred years ago, the previous Ottoman Empire acknowledged Jerusalem as the Jews’ sacred capital and that Palestine was surely the land of the Jews.
In the 20th Century the American, British, French and the Arab Emirs proclaimed Palestine as the national home of the Jews. Even the Nazis put up posters and billboards of “Jews go to Palestine”.
Big Questions.
If the world’s greatest empires throughout history never charged the Jews of occupying another peoples’ land, there are big question hovering in the modern world. Some questions:
Why does the UN charge Israel as occupying Judah and Samaria, which the Romans called as Judea, which previous name was Israel, which name was changed to West Bank in 1950?
Why is the term ‘Palestinian’ made as an exclusive reference to Arabs, when it was anointed on Judea, the ancestral homeland of the Jews, and held that way for 2,000 years till 1960?
Why did the Arabs and all Christian states accept, and then reject the Jews’ land rights when both their scriptures and histories, and their treaties of the early 20th Century, said that Palestine, which was Judea, is the historical land of the Jews?
Why is the accounting of a 3-state in Palestine presented as a 2-state?
Such questions are not controversial, irrelevant or circumstantial, but incumbent, and should be the topside preamble of the world’s most debated issue. Yet these are not in the discourse.
Israel and the Jews have been a controversy throughout the past 4,000 years, even before many of the nations that are active today existed as an identifiable force, and many other great nations have since vacated history. No nation ever questioned the veracity of the land of the Jews, not even their greatest invaders; it is a new phenomenon of the modern times.
The history of Palestine is the history of Israel, and in turn of two of the largest belief groups that battled each other for her minuscule land and heritage for centuries; both are now in the forefront claiming Israel is illegally occupying Israel. Yet what does history say of the claims made by those occupying more than 50% of the earth’s landmass – in relatively recent vintage, and of those who support them so vigorously? Thereby, the occupation charge will be examined; via history – both ancient and modern; and via the judiciary – both the veracity and legality of international laws enacted against Israel. Let’s begin with a name.
Palestine is Israel.
Judea’s previous name was Israel. It is a nation that defied all the laws of history by returning after 2,000 years, and it has upset the worldly status quo. As part of its baggage, as though a witnessing was required, the Hebrew language was also returned; it is one that no other nation spoke or wrote; one that is not 2,000 but 4,000 years old. Hebrew was the language of the Hebrews throughout their history since Abraham’s time; this writing has been un-earthed in 3,000 relics; and some of the inscriptions in the Dead Sea Scroll package date up to 600 BCE.
The Arabs never spoke Hebrew throughout their history, yet deny Jews as Jews in the modern world and a temple in Jerusalem. Immediately, Israel faces a contradiction of charges from Christianity and Islam’s histories and beliefs, whereby both cannot be right; yet both support each other in the occupation charges.
Thereby this is a nation that bears the world’s most impacting history, its trajectories uniquely extending across the nations. The charge of the Jews occupying Palestine illegally makes Israel’s history a most imperative study today. Chiefly, Israel foretells of a future scenario impacting much more than one land and one people. And it has erupted throughout the world’s nations with a dire message to confront; that it is a worldly issue un-connected with Israel and occupation. Some of the most prominent minds of the times say so.
- “We’re talking about global jihadists, and their desire is to destroy us and to destroy our way of life.” – (Mr. Ben Carson, US Presidential Candidate; Meet The Press, NBC News, Nov.11, 2015)
All of Palestine.
In the early 20th Century both the British and the Arabs acknowledged the historical connection of the Jews with Palestine and declared the entire land as one Jewish state – all of Palestine, including today’s Jordan and the West Bank. They enacted treaties and agreements to return the Jews to their historical land. Soon thereafter, both overturned their agreements. Jewish Palestine became Arab Palestine from time immemorial, and as occupied by the Zionist Jews. It says something happened at this junction of history that is barely reported or officially debated.
This presentation contains numerous references of treaties and pledges that identify Israel’s return as based on the ancient ‘historical connection of the Jews’ to Palestine as their homeland; and the legal treaties and pledges that declared so, that have been corrupted. The ‘historical connection’ was the primal clause that was legally executed with the world powers and the community of nations; 51 nations. It aligned with centuries of census records of a continuous habitation of the Jews in the land and a vast array of conforming archaeological relics. One relic was an especially poignant revelation.
Israel’s most vital exposition is the Dead Sea Scrolls, accounted as among history’s greatest discoveries. The Scrolls rendered the charge of occupation an irrefutable deception. It depicted a 3,000-year-old continuous history of Jewish habitation in Palestine, stemming long before the Romans changed the name of Judea 2,000 years ago.
Israel, a minuscule landmass was returned in 1948, when the Arabs were handed 22 states, none of which existed a hundred years ago. Britain’s Lord Balfour called Palestine a little notch of a land that none could be bothered about; indeed, this was a barren, isolated land in the 19th Century, malaria infested with no agriculture, irrigation of electricity. The Scrolls posed whether the worldly angst hinged on another few cubits of land, or does something else apply here. The conflict should have ended with the Balfour Mandate, or else definitely later with the first 2-state compromise that created Jordan on 80% of the landmass originally allocated for ‘one only state for the Jews’. But it didn’t; it wouldn’t. The term ‘occupation’ reigns unmoved, unceasing and untouchable, as though it transcended all else.
Thereby, there appears no alternative that other factors than a little notch of land may apply with the occupation charge. What other factors can apply to turn Israel’s legal return into an illegal one; or to conclude with the charge of occupation on the only state able to affirm her land ownership as no other in this region; it is an incumbent examination. Yet, when Israel’s history with the nations is denied it becomes a contradiction of history per se, extending and impacting half of humanity. Here, history is not the only factors that make Israel’s return validated; the 20th century international laws also do so; these were also over-turned.
The UN’s ‘Disputed Territory’ charge is often misconstrued as an ‘Illegal Occupation’. It has become the world’s most pursued problem, one concerning a tiny measure of landmass, propelled by those handed enormous measures of lands as new states. Of all the states created by Britain in the 20th Century, Israel is the only one that existed previously; Israel was also returned via a legal process more legitimate than any other, with all nations voting in the UN Motion. The issue is further compounded by the absence of any previous owners of this land other than the Jews and transitional invasive forces. Yet the charge is accepted by a vast array of nations of the region and beyond. It appears most implausible as a land occupation or people displacement issue.
The charges on Israel are a phenomenon which like is not seen anywhere else. It attains a mark of chaos that Israel is charged both with occupying a small sector of land, as well as being an illegal state with no right to exist, depending on who is asked. Israel remains among the oldest continuously active historical nation whose history is most known; yet one also most questioned. History says that Palestine is the name anointed on Judea by the Romans, and Jews were called by this name for 2,000 years till 1960. It begs the question: can Israel be charged with occupying Palestine if this name was not usurped? This should not be a problem if the Arabs are native to Palestine and can use another name not aligned with the Jews. But are Arabs or the Jews the natives of Palestine, the often given reasoning? Here, what does history say, must apply.
Natives of Palestine.
History says there was no occupation by Israel of another peoples’ land. Because no other people had a Palestinian state; no such state ever existed. Nor was there another people as natives, as has been so promoted. History says that the Jews are the only continuous ancestral natives of Palestine. Surprised? There is a marked variance of a transitional immigrating people and one that remained since the Roman era 2,000 years ago; even from 3,000 years ago. Not all of the Jews were exiled from Palestine; some remained as witness to their homeland ownership in the midst of numerous invading forces, archived by the Crusaders, Mohammedans and numerous other nations; it is especially seen in the last Ottoman reign. While the Arabs were one of the peoples since the Islamic invasion in the 7th Century, in the 1800’s this land was almost vacant of habitation; the land swelled with mass immigrants and ancestral natives in the 19th Century.
Prior to the Ottomans, the land had an array of multicultural inhabitants; the Arabs were one of them and the Christians and Lebanese predated them in Palestine. The Jews, often in smaller numbers under harsh conditions, were there throughout and never abandoned their land. Thereby was Palestine declared the historical home of one people; all of Palestine.
In the early 20th Century all of Palestine was allocated for one Jewish state, with no other people were listed as a historically connected people with this land; this was not an error. No other people inhabited Palestine as did the Jews. Thereafter, Palestine was divided; this land was drastically reduced in size by Britain without any resultant satisfaction or peace; the conflict intensified. Britain’s dividing of Palestine by corrupting treaties is correctly the first cause of this conflict; it was not a legal action and was not based on any ethical or moral principles. It was also not based on rights applicable to displaced peoples (“The Refugee Deception”).
The Balfour Declaration of 1917 is aligned with the American Proposal for a Jewish Homeland dated January 21, 1919; it said all of Palestine must be mandated as one only Jewish state, separate and independent from the new states created by Britain. The Tentative Report and Recommendations of the American Delegation to the Peace Conference included the following segments:
- That there be a separate state of Palestine.
- That the state of Palestine be placed under Britain as a Mandatory of the League of Nations.
- That the Jews be invited to settle there in Palestine, being assured by the Conference of all proper assistance in doing so. That it will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish state. – (American Proposal for Jewish Homeland, January 21, 1919)
Thereby did the Jews trust the nations and began returning; the Jews, defined as the ‘people of the book’ in the Quran, acted as a law abiding people. While the Arabs were promised almost the entire Middle East region by Britain, the rejection of Israel and the minuscule landmass allotted her should not have resulted by a need for land by the Arabs or claims of Israel’s illegal occupation; after all the Arabs were given numerous new states that never existed before. Such a result is better seen as a theological rejection than of land; because all other factors of rejecting a Jewish state’s return are without merit. Such is claimed by the Arabs themselves who negotiated with the British in achieving a provision that rejects a non-Arab state. The Sharif of Mecca, King Hussein ibn Ali, claimed he had been offered the entire Levant if he fought on the side of the British. Palestine was not included, according to Churchill, presumably due to the American recommendations.[31] The ‘Disputed Territory’ claim emerged later as a politically devised phenomenon when vast oil wells were discovered and was followed by agreements between Britain and the Arab chieftains; these terms substantially approved a new Arab Caliphate to replace the Ottoman Empire. Britain would be rewarded for it.
Although Britain issued the Balfour Declaration, other arrangements were also made thereafter with the Arabs of its negation; much of these have been suppressed from the discourse. These British arrangements explain that the Middle East conflict is not related to Israel or land occupation; that it is based on commercial basis as the price for a Caliphate in the Middle East. Israel just happened to be a state that contradicts the Sharif of Mecca’s wishes which were theologically based and disguised as a land issue. Letters exchanged between Sir Henry McMahon, Britain’s High Commissioner in Cairo and the Sharif of Mecca Husayn bin Ali in 1916, explain some of the mutually acceptable terms:
- ‘The Arab Government of the Sharif will acknowledge that England shall have the preference in all economic enterprises in the Arab countries whenever conditions of enterprises are equal. We accept the terms of Lord Kitchener, supplied to you via Ali Effendi. You accepted fully for the independence of Arabia and its inhabitants, together with our approval of the Arab Caliphate when it is declared. We affirm again now that His Majesty’s Government would welcome the resumption of the Caliphate by an Arab of true race. I confirm your rejection will be only of those who have contradicted the rights of the Caliphate in which are included the rights of all Moslems.’ [32]
Therein were Lord Balfour’s terms being negated and replaced with that of Lord Kitchener (“The Balfour Deception”). That a Caliphate agenda was fully embedded and continues, and that such is not related to any land occupation by Israel, is affirmed by its designs being global:
- “We place our hope that our triumph will not be restricted to Palestine, but to the banner of the Caliphate over the Vatican, the Rome of today” – (Dr. Subhi Al-Yaziji, Dean of Koranic Studies, Islamic University of Haza; Al-Aqsa TV, Hamas-Gaza)
The Wrong Man.
One of the detrimental actions against the Jews, and thereby the facilitating of a Caliphate, was of the wrong man being appointed as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem by Britain. Based on the 1917 Balfour Declaration’s essential provisions, Jerusalem merited a Jewish mayor. Britain’s error will usher the darkest side of humanity, affirming the motives for the deception of an occupation charge, and that this conflict is not an Israel issue. It is a global one and it has erupted afar with no alignment with Israel.
Hajj Amin’s appointment caused the fuelling of widespread revolts, pogroms, murders and chants of genocide, as though the Jews suddenly entered from left field of nowhere and had no history or legal rights. From here will emerge the denial of the Jerusalem Temple, the Holocaust and the entire history of Israel; from here the corruption of the Balfour derives its reasoning. It was followed with Britain’s White Paper Policy, the support of a new West Bank region and a new people called as Arab Palestinians.
History will become distorted as never before. Palestine will cease being viewed as historically connected with Jews or Judea or the ‘national home of the Jews.’ The Palestine that was Judea will become Arab Palestine since time immemorial. History will be altered with a name switch. Britain will have blood on her hands; the Holocaust will have a thread that aligns with Hajj Amin’s alliance with Hitler and Lord Chamberlain.
Under the notorious Hajj Amin, the charge of illegal occupation flourished soon after the Balfour Mandate was issued and positive agreements were signed between the Jews and the Arabs. Britain will divide Palestine into two states in contradiction of the Balfour, and then hail Jordan’s illegal annexation of southern Israel that was renamed as the West Bank in 1950. A new region called as East Jerusalem will emerge, soon followed by Arabs as Palestinians for the first time in 1964.
Instead of Jordan being charged, Israel will be accused of occupying the most sacred portion of her land and another state will be demanded. The present occupation charge is for a 3-state in Palestine, one deceptively presented as a 2-state; and this, known to the UN and all the Christian community, is a facade when the charters of the Arab groups are considered. It all aligns with a theologically motivated compulsion of Israel’s demise.
Britain and the Arabs will promote the support of a worldly multitude and by successively diminishing Palestine’s land size to the most dangerous extremities for the Jews with no sign of quelling. It becomes implausible to view the actions of Britain as unrelated to the negation of a Jewish state; thereby it is also tediously implausible not to have perceived a default Caliphate doctrine hovering and the oil factor as its price. Instead of confronting what is a worldly impacting premise, Britain, the appointed caretaker of this region, focused only on Israel. The Balfour Declaration and all British proclamations by Churchill will become as a mockery. The charge of illegal occupation and its aligning international laws is a diabolical outcome because Israel is among the most widely acknowledged and recorded homelands of any people, and the Jews are not known to have ever occupied another peoples’ land. The quest of changing a country’s borders was perceived in the ancient realm of a heinous crime.
- Palestine was legally mandated as one separate state and to be un-divided; forever. In the early 20th Century Israel’s borders were the Balfour lines; its inference is the Arabs in Palestine were largely recent immigrants secured by Britain throughout the period, in contradiction of its pledges to the Jews.
- “In the period leading up to 1922 the British preferred cheaper foreign labor and they employed fifteen thousand foreigners (mostly from Egypt and Syria) and only five hundred Jews. The increasing numbers of these two populations would soon lead to a significant clash.” – (“The Myth of Jewish Colonialism: Demographics and Development in Palestine” By David Wollenberg).
Relatively, all of Palestine was not a large landmass for one nation with no other states. The charges of Israel’s land size become disproportionate considering her borders have been diminished to the most extreme and dangerous marks. The land west of the river Jordan was as virtually barren as west of the river was under the Ottomans and allocated as one state in Palestine. And although all of today’s Jordan was not part of historical Israel, it should have still been allocated to the Jews considering the vast lands handed to the Arabs and the legal mandate given to Britain to assist the settlement of Jews to return from around the nations. Yet the diminishing of land sizes held by the Jews did not diminish the conflict, affirming it was not a land issue.
The demands applied on Israel today are derived from multiple 2-state divisions, aligning with Israel having no right to exist, conducted via name changes that present an antithetical history. The land claims shrouded an underlying Caliphate agenda. Retrospectively, it is now correct to see that the Balfour Declaration’s flaunting was and remains both the cause of a Caliphate doctrine and a corruption by Britain. Thereby, what is accepted against Israel cannot be stemmed from an extending global syndrome unless these are corrected. While the nations see such a requirement as unfeasible, it is the formula of a mass immigration stratagem used to achieve such a result; and it is more than a local issue concerning only the Jews. First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people; its agenda is self declared. Consider the matter well. The occupation charges on Israel are not based on land or nativity factors but solely on name changes, without any historical or legal veracity; a native people will never usurp another peoples’ historical symbol as with the term Palestinian, or revoke the names of its ancient towns as with West Bank. While all the new states that Britain created in the 20th Century have fictional borders improvised by impromptu lines in the sand to cause regional and cultural in-fighting, Israel’s borders can be historically verified by ancient archives from numerous empires, by factual historical imprints and by some one million archaeological relics. West Bank and Arab Palestinians are historical fictions and agenda based.
Thereby, changing the names of Hebrew towns to West Bank exposes a lack of credibility, and Britain’s accepting of such means places very poor baggage on her people and legacy. The occupation charges represent a reversed historical paradigm mid-way in the same 20th century. These are very bold deceptions borne out of an anticipated immunity enjoyed by Britain as a Christian nation; yet its onus must rest on those who remained silent to correct her. It is history’s message why we have a conflict without cause and a land claim where there is no reasoning of land; the correct cause is not in the discourse.
Revelation.
In the modern history of Palestine, a revelation emerged the same year Israel was re-established. The Dead Sea Scrolls is more than a historical or theological manifestation; it is an indisputable factor of proof, one that affirmed Israel is not illegally occupying her own homeland, that this was the native land of the Jews some 4,000 years ago, describing a host of Kings, cities, monuments and wars in the native written language of Israel that was not used by any other nation. Thereby, the Scrolls proved to be a historical time-machine that aligned with a vast treasure trove of archaeological relics. The message of the Scrolls was either missed or disregarded as it fully negated an occupation charge. However, the land division was really never the issue; Israel’s return was. Otherwise, why would the Arabs usurp ancient historical names of the Jews, other than a negation of a 4,000-year nation and of their own historical veracity. Here, the occupation charge aligns only with a theological doctrine, one set in the constraints of un-ending 2-state charges and a chaos not seen in any other example of history; perhaps intentionally driven so.
A Complicated Roadmap.
The understanding of the numerous treaties and agreements of the Israeli-Arab conflict is a long and winding road, one studded with intricate inter-connecting clauses and ‘subject-to’ conditions. However, a simplified analogy can assist in un-complicating this maze.
Imagine that John Doe purchases a house in 10 Myrtle Street. Thereafter, he is told his house must be divided into two houses, and that 80% of his home is to be removed. John Doe is aghast; he was never advised of such a possibility in his purchase contract. He is referred to the word ‘in’, namely that his purchase was for a house ‘in’ 10 Myrtle Street; that it allows such a division whereby his house will remain as one in 10 Myrtle Street but not the only one.
He complains such a pivotal requirement was not made explicit, but then he reluctantly agrees, and 80% of his house is sold to someone else via a 2-House contract. Next, some of the occupants of House-2 are left in John’s house and barred from entering in House 2. Next, House 2 annexes another 10% of John Doe’s house. He is now told another House 2 is required to house the displaced refugees barred from entering House-2.
Such is a reasonable account when House-1 is seen as Palestine; House-2 as Jordan and the second House-2 as the West Bank.
What Illegal Occupation?
Israel did not illegally occupy Egypt from the Copts, or Krakow from Poland, or Kashmir from India, despite being inhabitants in those lands for many centuries. The historical record says Israel has never occupied another people’s land in all her 4,000 year recorded history; yet Israel is the world’s most accused country of illegally occupying another peoples’ land. Ironically, Israel cannot occupy another peoples’ land for a theological premise as well; it is one in reverse of the Caliphate doctrine. A host of reverse systems pervade this conflict. In the 1960’s Jewish Palestinians became Arab Palestinians. Here, the occupier of a historical name of another people became presented as the occupied; a new improvised heritage definition replaced a historically validated one. The original status prior to such heritage replacement, or that Palestine is Judea and Samaria, are never mentioned alongside the charges; perhaps because they render those charges as problematic in presenting Israel as the occupier. Thus, at the very least, the charges are a lie-by-omission. More accurately, the charges have become diabolical; the two largest belief groups stand by their histories and beliefs, yet contradict them in the reality of the modern world. Thereby, this is not a problem resting with Israel to resolve, but on those who flaunted their histories.
- Britain’s conclusion in 1950 became that Israel should be charged of illegally occupying the West Bank instead of Jordan. Missing from the discourse is that Jordan illegally annexed west of the river, the Jews’ most sacred and historical portion of land and changed its name to West Bank under Britain’s watch. Britain condoned an illegal action and placed the charge on its victim; she reversed the charge of occupation, a corruption that was processed at the UN and now deemed as international law. To right these wrongs, a re-consideration has enormous potential merit, especially when undertaken by the foremost participants of this issue, the Arab and British people themselves; a few bold and forthright ones have pursued such a path. The foremost implication is that the illegal charge constructed at the UN is itself illegal; if the UN’s ‘Zionism is Racism’ charge was corrected, so can another equally entrenched UN wrong be corrected. The real issue is an absence of will to anymore confront such a longstanding error. These wrongs are not based on isolated assumptions but reflect the views of an academy of scholars of good repute from widespread sectors.
A host of distinguished figures reject the UN determinations, some also denying its very judiciary implements as a violation of international law. The occupation charges made on Israel are deemed as both historically false and as illegally adopted by the UN and the western and Arab states that accepted them. Such views merit good consideration of the sincerity, expertise and statures of those denouncing the charges of illegal occupation; they represent a comprehensive array of institutions:
- “The oft-used term “occupied Palestinian territories” is totally inaccurate and false. The territories are neither occupied nor Palestinian. Claims by the UN, European capitals, organizations and individuals that Israeli settlement activity is in violation of international law therefore have no legal basis whatsoever.” – [Courtesy of Israel’s Ambassador to Canada and Negotiator in Peace Agreements with Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, Alan Baker; ‘The Legal Basis of Israel’s Rights; courtesy JCPA Org]
- “There are serious and substantial arguments that Israel does not illegally occupy the West Bank, as well as that Israel has not illegally transferred population into that territory.” – (“Legal Insurrection: Challenging the Long-Held Notion That Israeli Settlements Are ‘Illegal.” by William Jacobson, professor at Cornell Law School; The Blaze, Feb. 24, 2014)
- “I would like to see which international law has declared them illegal” – (Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop; “Don’t call settlements illegal under international law”; Times of Israel)
- “Unfortunately, most of the nations’ deceptions is regarding Israel… about the name of the country, and the size of the country and the world is convinced this is not Israel, this is Palestine, all those lies, and this whole Palestinian ethos that was born only in the 20th century, all of that caused so many churches even in America to actually turn their back to Israel and start believing in horrible doctrines” – (‘The Deception in The Church’; Olive Tree Ministries. Jan Markell and Eric Barger talk with Amir Tsarfati.)
- “Most fair minded people are aware this is a fundamental theological mission of global dominion.” – (Pastor Steven Brodin, Fair Bank Fellowship Church, Dallas Tx.; Black Congressional Pastor’s Caucus; Conservative Tribune.)
Politicizing Theology. While theologies merit respect, the theological and historical factors can be strange partners and often result in deception when made as a political device. It is especially so when Israel is subjected to two totally contradicting theologies that harbor instances of one common denominator against the Jews, rendering both the two largest belief systems equally encumbered and mutually exclusive of each other. Here, honest and objective investigative consideration is essential when faiths clash and leave nowhere to turn; such advice emanates from a source cherished by many and one that also aligned with the Dead Sea Scrolls emerging when it did:
- “Come now, and let us reason together, says the Lord” (Isaiah, 1:18)
Disputed Territory, the originally charged claim, became a covert synonym for ‘Occupied Territory’; osmosis soon followed in a pre-empting defiance of its own legal status. The issue is compounded because the original ‘Disputed Territory’ charge was itself baseless and should have been directed at Jordan, not Israel. Israel did not illegally annex west of the river; Jordan did.
The charge is based on the most dubious premises and enacted as law by those with little arm’s length from the issue and via the filler-busting of the UN process. The rejection of Israel, a slogan numerously proclaimed in the Middle-East, align with the often declared goal of a Caliphate doctrine, usually displayed with chants of ‘We will dominate’ and the rejection of a non-Arab state in the region, even those that are among the oldest inhabitants and nations in the Middle East. Otherwise, it is not plausible for such an obsession to subsist over one meager landmass, a half of 1% of this region, by those holding the 99.5% of the land largess acquired in the 20th Century via Britain.
Why was a state for the region’s ancient Copts not attended instead of Jordan, and why Lebanon was not adequately protected; these are issues incurred under Britain’s watch and merit good consideration. History affirms there was never an Arab state called as Palestine the past 2,000 years, nor is an Arab Palestinian nativity claim validated other than by recent name changes; such nativity is especially not seen during the Roman reign or the previous 400-year Ottoman rule.
Thereby, this is an un-historical theological doctrine that is presented via political machinations, one that is the reverse practiced by the Jews. The Jews are uniquely commanded in Holy Writ not to take a cubit of another peoples’ land, even that of its immediate borders, thereby contradicting the claim of illegal occupation west of the river from the theological view. A reverse theological premise of dominion contrasts those held by the Jews. Israel has abided her theological commands throughout her history, and cannot and never did accept other lands even when offered with assurances of a far better existential provision. To wit:
- “Take ye good heed unto yourselves therefore; contend not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as for the sole of the foot to tread on; because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession. And the LORD said unto me: ‘Be not at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle; for I will not give thee of his land for a possession”. [Duet. 2/4]
Politicizing History.
Political policies cannot alter past history. Israel is a nation born and incepted in Canaan almost 4,000 years ago, the land which became ‘Israel’ then Judah or Judea in Latinized form; its name was changed to Palestine by Rome. This name was not applied to an Arab land; this history was abused recently by those most known of it. Britons and the Arabs were paid mercenaries in the Roman legions and witnessed this event (Flavius Josephus); they also presided when Israel was returned in the 20th Century (The Balfour Declaration). Namely, the name Palestine was held for 2,000 years as a synonym for the national home of the Jews, including in both the British and Arab peoples’ documentation of the 20th Century (The Balfour Declaration; the Faisal-Zionist Agreement and the San Remo Conference Resolutions). Both Britain and the Arab states are thus in denial of their past and present histories, their charges derived by Britain’s overturning of previous legal agreements when oil was discovered. These are attempts to change history via Roman devices of names, using guile and propaganda. History itself exposes the similarities of Rome’s imprints employed and supported by Britain without regard of its widespread global implications for humanity. Britain should reconsider the infamy of propaganda she spread globally; such is worthy of an otherwise great nation. Many great nations fell by such errors and this be made far away from Britain.
Arabs are not Palestinians.
The Arabs are not Palestinians because this name was applied exclusively to the Jews and their homeland; it is a deception because this history is fully known to the UN, Britain, Europe, Russia, America, the Vatican and any who would perform minimal investigation of this history. Hebrew names with a 3,000-year heritage asset were changed to West Bank in 1950 to support a doctrine of dominion; there is no West Bank referred to prior to 1950 anywhere in history or in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The West Bank name is a historical fiction, a recent deception of charging Israel of illegally occupying Israel’s most sacred land portion. This name was not enacted due to borders or land requirements but one that seeks to hide an underlying negation of Israel’s history. It can be credibly argued the usurping of the names Palestinian and West Bank are akin to a Roman genocidal aspiration, one numerously declared so and enshrined in charters of Arab states and groups, and fully known to Britain and the UN.
Arabs are not Canaanites.
The Philistines, the source point of the name Palestine, were not a Canaanite or Arabian people; nor were the Canaanites, the Jews or the ancient Egyptians an Arab people. All historical imprints say despite their numerous enforced exiles, the Jews are the only identifiable active descendents of Canaan, by their historical origins, the Hebrew Scriptures and language, and by archives and archeological reliefs worldwide. [33]
Restoring Britain.
Israel has very substantially abided all legal provisions, more so than any other nation. Palestine was returned to the Jews via mandated treaties and the UN body, with all states voting in the motion via legal process. The region called as West Bank, along with its namesake, was illegally derived and should not be included as a violation by Israel. Israel, west of the river, is thereby not illegally occupying another peoples’ land; the Arabs are doing so. Britain must come clean; for the merit of her nation’s honor instead of her political and commercial preferences, even when this has become an enormously difficult task to confront anymore. The charges of occupation are improvised and arose after Britain’s creation of Jordan and the corruption of the names West Bank and Palestinian. There can be hardly any honor for Britain in being the first nation to accept the overturning of 3,000 Hebrew town names to West Bank. This act, fostered and promoted by Britain, was thereby followed within 30 years by the usurping of the name Palestinian from Jews to Arabs, and by the demand of a 3-state; there are no occupation charges outside this parameter, yet such a path appears will continue unless corrected by Britain and the British people. A 3-state in Palestine, presented as a 2-state, can legitimately be viewed as an intended negation of Israel; the name West Bank and the transfer of the name Palestinian from Jews to Arabs affirms its reasoning, one that allows Israel to forever be charged as illegally occupying Palestinian land.
A closer examination of such a thread of deeds shows that Jordan and Britain conspired to cause such a false paradigm to satisfy Britain’s arrangements with her created regimes, rather than of any illegal occupation factor.
Why “West Bank”?
The usurping of the name West Bank is a corruption of history and self affirms its reasoning. Here, Israel is charged with illegally occupying Jerusalem and Hebron, among numerous other sacred sites of the Hebrew prophets that are recorded in all three scriptures of this region and in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thereby, the name usurping of West Bank and Arab Palestinians are deceptions intended to give this credence by using non-Hebrew names that would not succeed otherwise. Here, the name changes and name transfers align as an essential requirement of intent and do not appear as benign. A closer examination shows the charges stem from theological, not historical or geographical premises, and supported for commercial gains of Britain. Its acceptance says the UN body does not offer protection to the rights of all people of the Middle East, thereby contradicting its mandate.
The charge upon Israel is thus based on the process of historical and heritage elimination to appease Britain and Arab interests; thereby was the Balfour Declaration corrupted with its immense disregard of the overwhelmed Jews or the honoring of solemn pledges.
- “Jordan had no reason to be a state on its own rather than a state of Palestine or Saudi Arabia, except that it better served Britain’s interest to do so” (King Abdullah, Britain and the Making of Jordan; Cambridge University Press, 1987; by Prof. Mary Wilson, p.3.)
Israel’s Return.
Some have equated Israel’s return as inapplicable, with comparisons to lands globally invaded and usurped by other nations who were not historically aligned to those lands. Such an analogy is incorrect; the Jews were not invading a new land but were ‘returning’ to their historical lands instead. Nor can an exiled people still actively subsisting and displaced by force and mass murder become negated of such a return by the statutory period (The Judiciary of War Laws).
It Was Not About Land.
It was not at no time about land because the West Bank was not controlled by Israel when the Arab states embarked on a series of wars with the Jewish state. In 1948 and up to 1967, Gaza was occupied by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan, both occupations deemed illegally by the UN, both being west of the river, when Israel was subjected to an array of Arab states with a declared goal of wars of annihilation.
- “Israel should be annihilated and this is our ultimate slogan.” – (The Iranian Parliament Speaker’s Adviser for International Affairs Hussein Sheikholeslam, quoted by Iran’s Fars news agency; “Israel should be annihilated, Iranian official says”; Jpost)
When the UN actively participates in the corruption of Israel’s rights, instead of protecting the lofty faculties enshrined in its Mandate, it legitimizes the same consequences on all other peoples of the region. The UN’s greatest victims may be the Arab people whose basic human rights are violated by its silence of the regimes mode of rule. The UN Resolutions on Israel, which now number more than any other nation, is not about land; it caters to a declared agenda to diminish the rights of the region’s inhabitants and any other belief system, even those that are its most ancient. A new view of a theology has emerged, interpreted in its harshest form and used to justify murder and castigation based on different belief adherents; it is also used to deflect all blame on Israel. Many have made cautionary addresses at the UN podium to no avail:
- “The UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which declares everyone has the right to manifest their religion, in the world summit outcome of September 2005, paragraph 139, and the responsibility to protect people from genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The persecuted Christians are the caged canary of the modern world – so where are the UN Resolutions to protect the most persecuted people on earth?” – Jonathan Cahn Speech to the UN.)
- “I come before you as a survivor of terrorism. I was ten years old when they blew up my home, burying me wounded under the rubble. My only crime was that I was a Christian. At ten years old I learnt the meaning of the word ‘infidel’ – (Brigitte Gabriel, Act for America Org; Speech to the UN, April 17, 2015).
The UN and its Members have thereby chosen to inflict harsh measures on Israel instead of all other issues facing humanity. Resolutions of Zionism as Racism are hardly related to occupied and disputed Territory charges, yet it arose in alignment with the region’s harsh new theological premises. These include targeting the ancient heart-line of the Jews’ most sacred and fundamental region when west of the river was illegally annexed with no Resolution against Jordan; the same applies of the illegal and un-historical name change of ‘West Bank’. Such can credibly be defined as a doctrine that emulates the Romans that committed a great destruction, including a holocaust in Judea in the year 70, when it too changed this land’s name to Palestine.
It is thus evident Israel’s castigation does not appear about land or displaced Arabs as is presented in the UN Resolutions as international law, but represents a far more sinister agenda. If the Jews were land robbers, every nation they lived in would know of such a history of the Jews and this presentation could not refute such charges. The charge of illegal occupation is made solely referring to the Jews’ most sacred historical land, its size of no consequences to those given vast lands and requiring no more. Yet the nature of the demands cannot be anything other than targeting Israel’s very existence when Israel’s capital is also the central focus of a West Bank landmass. Based on an underlying Caliphate pursuit and the widespread turmoil outside of the Middle East where land is not an issue, the demands of displaced refugees and the name usurping appear as deceptions that have extending global designs.
- The creation of Jordan in 80% of Palestine fostered and anticipated Israel’s instability by removing such a large portion of mandated land handed to a Saudi figurehead. This was the flaunting of the rights of the Jews west of the river by Britain when they were fully helpless. An array of corruptions, primarily focused on Israel, marks the plight of all inhabitants of the region by its consequences and that the charges made on Israel are illegal:
- “The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law. The “Mandate for Palestine” was not a naive vision briefly
embraced by the international community. Fifty-one member countries – the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922: “Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” (Myths and Facts Org)
- “Prior to this usage of the name “West Bank”, the region was commonly referred to as Judea and Samaria, its long-standing name. For example, U.N. Resolution 181, the 1947 partition plan, explicitly refers to the central section of the Arab State as “the hill country of Samaria and Judea”. The neo-Latin name Cisjordan or Cis-Jordan, is literally “on this side of the River Jordan” – (Judea and Samaria, CS McGill)
- “Israel has the right to build settlements in the West Bank” – (President of Israel, Reuven Rivkin)
The West Bank is a fictitious region that emerged by Britain’s failure to correct Jordan’s illegal annexation of this land portion. It occurred on the heels of Britain’s White Paper Policy and the corruption of the Balfour Declaration which left a meager 20% of Palestine for the Jews. Britain’s White Paper consequences can well be accounted as fostering the greatest crime of the 20th Century, with the West Bank as its follow-on corruption. To wit:
- The name changes of 3,000 year Hebrew towns in Judah and Samaria to ‘West Bank’ as a region separate from Israel remains illegal and can be accounted as a means to negate Israel’s existence with continuing 2-state demands. That Jordan was Britain’s first 2-state, the premise of a 3-state called as West Bank, accounted as a 2-state in the same landmass, affirms its corruption.
- The Palestinian name transfer, a derivative of Palestine, namely which was Judea, is presented as the antithesis of the Jewish homeland as a means to negate Israel’s existence with a name corruption.
- The false ‘Time Immemorial Palestinian Natives’ premise of those that came from the surrounding states after the Jews began developing the land, encouraged by Britain as portrayed in Joan Peter’s book, equally aligns with a native people status corruption. The previous Ottoman Empire did not call Arabs, but the Jews, as Palestinians.
- The UN’s Heritage designation allocation of West Bank to a new group aligns with a negation of Israel’s ancient history and allocated to a new one with no heritage; the UN cannot produce an Arab called as a Palestinian prior to the 20th Century, affirming its heritage corruption.
- A ‘Refugee Problem’ focused on the Arabs instead of the Jews who were harshly expelled from Arab controlled lands they lived in for over 2,500 years affirms its refugee allocation corruption.
- The equated Zionism with Racism UN Resolution, later rescinded, was also an aspiration to negate Israel’s existence via the corrupted view of a 3,000 year historical and religious symbol.
Contrastingly, the UN issued no Resolutions of the multiple wars and military attacks upon Israel, despite that these were accompanied by openly declared goals of genocide on a UN established state. The Arab leaders embarked on war against Israel’s existence which is genocide, and threats of war and such annihilation claims are illegal as they are contrary to the UN Charter, Article 2 Section 4:
- “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”
The Scrolls Expose.
It appears clear there was never any issue of occupied land as has been presented by the UN Resolutions. This is abundantly manifest with the region called as West Bank, a corruption in direct proportion of the name usurping of Palestinian; both signify a genocide application than a land dispute. The Dead Sea Scrolls transcends what the UN presents, affirming both charges are false.
Following the outcome of the UN Resolution that favored Israel’s return, the Arabs embarked on multi-state wars despite voting in the UN Motion.
The resultant rhetoric was absolute and formidable, and fully devoid of any relevance to refugees or land; it was a time when Jordan and Egypt occupied Gaza and the West Bank illegal, and prior to any charges of occupation emerging. The UN should have issued at least 50 Resolutions after these grave crimes, rejecting the attacks by states who voted in the UN Motion, the name changes of ancient Hebrew regions and the illegal occupation by Egypt and Jordan.
Despite the acceptance of Jordan’s creation on 80% of the land that was allocated for the Jews, the eruptions of multi-state Arab wars were launched on the embryonic state of Israel, with equally harsh rhetoric as was seen in W.W.II Nazi Germany. The declarations of genocide appeared before the premise of Arab Palestinians emerged and when the entire region called as the West Bank was in Arab hands. Thereby, this was not about land but a rejection based on a numerously declared Caliphate provision. Consider the notable examples of genocide declared on all Jews and prior to the terms ‘Disputed Territory’ and ‘Illegal Occupation’ emerging; it is amid such times when Britain targeted the Jews:
- “I declare a holy war my Moslem brothers. Murder the Jews! Murder them all!” – (From Hajj Amin El Hussein Mufti of Jerusalem.)
- “We shall never call for nor accept peace. We shall only accept war. We have resolved to drench this land with your (Jews) blood, to oust you as aggressor, to throw you into the sea.” – (Then-Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Hassad, May 24, 1966, who later became Syria’s president. (Martin Gilbert, Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993. pg. 63).
- “There are fifty million Arabs. What does it matter if we lose ten million people to kill all of the Jews? The price is worth it.”– (Abid Saud King of Saudi Arabia 1947).
- “This will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian Massacres.” – (Azam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arabs League 1947).
- “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. We will not accept any coexistence with Israel. The war with Israel is in effect since 1948.” – (Egyptian President Nasser; Leibler; p60).
- “If the refugees return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist.” – (Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser Interview, Neue Zuercher Zeitung, Germany, September 1, 1960).
- “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us. Our goal is clear – to wipe Israel off the map.” – (President Abdel Rahman Aref of Iraq, May 31, 1967).
- “Muslims Will Rule America, Britain… and the Entire World; Israel is a Cancer; Jews are a Virus Resembling AIDS; Muslims will finish them off” [Palestinian Authority TV Sermon, May 13, 2005).
- “We will never recognize the Jewishness of the state of Israel,” – (Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas declared at a meeting of Arab foreign ministers and was quoted by Channel 10 News, INN).
Dhimmitude is a religious premise that was coined by Bat Yeor in 1983; it relates to a doctrine of conquering lands, including by war, initiated from the Arabic word ‘Dhimmi’ (Protected); and ‘Dhimma’ (Treaty). The war chants clarified fully that the issue was not of ‘occupied territories’ as claimed by the UN Resolutions and enacted as international law. The chants of genocide predate the creation of a West Bank because these lands were held by Arabs. The charges are thus a corruption of the sacredness of both law and history, because Israel was not occupying any lands of another people other than its most sacred historical portion, as was legally accepted in the Balfour Mandate. The reverse is the case; Jordan and Egypt illegally held the West Bank region when Israel was attacked. Israel was returned not on the British Mandate but on the prima facie factor of the Jews’ connection to this land; Britain accepted this status when given caretaker rights to issue such a mandate for the Jews by the world powers and the American recommendations.
Denials of other Beliefs.
The vitriol and rejection was not limited to Israel and the Jews. It implied that no other religion can be accommodated in the middle-east. It is a Caliphate doctrine. Christians are also equated as un-believers (‘Infidels’) and others like the Baha’i are equated as Heretics. Although the Jews faced threats accompanied by declarations of genocide, the UN and Britain failed to respond and instead focused on Israel, issuing more Resolutions against the new state than all the world’s countries combined.
The illegal settlement is the West Bank, a situation caused by Jordan and Britain against the state for the Jews. Thereby, Britain supported a Caliphate when it failed to correct Jordan’s illegal annexation and also flaunted her 2-state pledge:
Of International Law.
- “Concerning the West Bank, we often hear the terms occupied territory, 1967 borders and illegal settlements. But from whom did Israel capture the West Bank, from the Palestinians? In 1967 no Palestinian state existed. The UN Resolution 242 rejected repeated attempts to call Israel as the aggressor or to demand unilateral withdrawal to the 1967 borders. UN Resolution 242 called for a negotiated settlement based on secure & defensible borders for Israel. But what was Jordan doing in the West Bank in the first place? Jordan simply occupied this area and changed the names of Judea and Samaria to West Bank and almost no one recognizes the legality of Jordan’s occupation, not even any Arab states. So if Jordan had no legal claim to the land and Palestine did not exist, whose territory is it? Israel’s claim to this land was recognized by world renowned jurists of the International Court of Justice, and that is why Israel’s construction of houses in the West Bank should not be considered illegal.” – [Israeli Ambassador to the US and Deputy FM Danny Yaalon, “The Truth about the West Bank”].
Calls for genocide of the Jews and that Israel has no right to exist were not confronted. No Resolutions emerged; these were condoned and legitimized by increased demands on Israel instead. It occurred with a focused and obsessive determination not seen in any other worldly issues, and when many others merited far greater attention. Here, there was no respite seen even in the midst of two world wars; that such flaunting had no alignment with the veracity of the charges now appear retrospectively clear. Consider then if the illegal occupation was by Israel or Jordan:
West Bank Not Arab Land.
A nation cannot credibly be charged of illegally occupying its own land. Israel was returned based on her acknowledged ‘historical connection to Palestine’; and especially so when it is demanded by those with no historical or legal claims. Jordan was never the owner of the West Bank; it is a new state created by Britain in the 20th Century in contradiction of her original Mandates. Britain’s proclamations and treaties, executed in the San Remo Resolutions of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War were not made benignly or subject to revoking.
- The League of Nations and the British had designated the land called “Palestine” for the “Jewish National Home” — east and west of the Jordan River. – (The Mandate for Palestine, 1928, pp. 66, 204—210).
- Arthur Balfour’s memorandum of August 11, 1919, stated: “Palestine should extend into the lands lying east of the Jordan.”
- Britain flaunts the Balfour with a 2-state division of Palestine for oil gains: “In 1923, the British divided the “Palestine” portion of the Ottoman Empire into two administrative districts. Britain made a deal with the Hashemite Kingdom, to obtain control over Suez Canal and oil reserves in Kerkut. The trans-Jordan (77% of the Palestinian Mandate; Trans -East of the river) was given to the Saudi Arabian king’s brother.
- Jordan flaunts Britain’s 2-state division and annexed east of the river. In April 1948, just before the formal hostilities were launched against Israel’s statehood, Abdullah of Transjordan declared: “Palestine and Transjordan are one, for Palestine is the coastline and Transjordan the hinterland of the same country.”
- From 1948 to 1967, Jordan illegally occupied west of the river and changed this region’s name to West Bank. Additionally, Jordan embarked in a multi-state Arab war the same year with a slogan of driving Israel into the sea. That Israel returned back this land is what is now called as Israel’s Occupation of Arab land. This was not Arab land: “Thus Jordan’s occupation of the Old City-and indeed of the whole of the area west of the Jordan river-entirely lacked legal justification; and being defective in this way could not form any basis for Jordan validly to fill the sovereignty vacuum in the Old City [and whole of the area west of the Jordan River].”
- Professor Eugene Rostow, past Dean of Yale Law School, U.S. under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and a key draftee of UN Resolution 242, concluded that the Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable to Israel’s legal position and notes: “The opposition to Jewish settlements in the West Bank
also relied on a legal argument – that such settlements violated the Fourth Geneva Convention forbidding the occupying power from transferring its own citizens into the occupied territories. How that Convention could apply to Jews who already had a legal right, protected by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, to live in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was never explained.” It seems that the International Court of Justice never explained it either.
It is clear the land occupation has been disguised via political and geographical deceptions, based on the examination of legal documents. Thereby, an occupation charge against Israel west of the river is open solely to theological requirements on another people’s possessions and commercial gains. It is a region more connected with Israel than any other sectors and of course this would be known by both
Britain and the Arabs. The theological charge is also likewise flaunted; both the Gospel and Quran declare ownership of this land resting with the Jews. Here, condoning such a doctrine against Israel has extended as a global theological syndrome; because it was not defended against Israel.
- The Judiciary Factor. The West Bank and East Jerusalem, indefensible as being part of Israel by the Dead Sea Scrolls, was allocated by the legally enacted treaties as parts of Israel’s territory, determined so in two legal documents, namely in Britain’s Balfour Declaration of 1917; and in its division of two states that created Jordan in 1948. Of note, Trans-Jordan was not part of the 1917 Balfour Declaration; this was amended in a later supplement via the 16 September 1922 memorandum. [34]
Thus, west of the River was Mandated Israel territory, and cannot be classified as occupied or disputed territory; such is based on an illegal annexation by Jordan, not by Israel, and accommodated by later editing of original legal documents and pledges by Britain with the discovery of oil. The said land occupation was enacted by an annexation and a name change of ‘West Bank’. The invention of a region called ‘East’ Jerusalem is also a recent travesty with no historical validity.
The 1967 Green Line Debacle. Wars of annihilation were declared and enacted on the appointed state of Israel after the Arab states voted in its UN Motion and the results favored Israel. The UN failed to issue any Resolutions against the Arab states that violated the UN’s Motion of its voting results. Israel thereby prevailed in wars of a declared genocide goal and in a 1967 war accepted a cease-fire. The cease-fire line was accepted by both parties only on the bases it was not a political border, ensuring any demands on Israel from the region called West Bank are not enforceable. Thereby, Israel is not required to forgo her most sacred region, based on such invasive wars that declared genocide, and thus this cease fire mark (The Green Line) has no legal or historical basis. Here, Israel did not acquire new land; rather it received back the land allocated to her, which was illegally annexed by Jordan and the region’s name changed to West Bank.
The 3-State Debacle. The UN Resolution 242 called for ‘Secure and Defensible Borders’ guaranteed to Israel; a 3-state is a violation of Israel’s sustainability, geographically, and by the splitting of its Capital that no country can sustain. The Balfour Mandate forbids Jews being barred from the West Bank or any part of Palestine or any country in Arabia. A 3-state, presented as a 2-state is a deception; it fully disregards the 2-state creation of Jordan in Palestine. The barring of Jews from Jordan and other Arab controlled states should be seen as a racist premise; its cause legitimized by Britain’s lack of conditions of rule on the states she created. Part of the Balfour Declaration states conditions on Israel which are not seen in the Arab states but should be:
- “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 Jews in any other country.”
- A resident Aramaic Priest and a prominent Professor of Law’s definition of Occupied Territory contradict the charges embodied as International Law, as do prominent law professors:
- “When people talk about occupied territories’ I ask myself, ‘what do they mean?’ It is the Arab cities that occupy Jewish land. From Nablus (Shechem) in the North to Bethlehem and Hebron in the South, these are the Biblical cities of the Jewish forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” – (Reclaiming Judea; Fr Gabriel Naddaf, Israeli Christian Aramaic Priest of Nazareth)
- “Of all the countries that have come into existence in the last century no country’s birth certificate is more legitimate than that of Israel. Its leaders were obsessed in making it legal, step by legal step.” – (Alan Dershowitch, Prof. of Law at Harvard University)
It’s Not About Occupation.
It is also not about land, refugees, nativity, Israel, Zionism, UN Resolutions, West Bank, Palestine or Palestinians. The Arab Officials say so:
- “Jewish sovereignty is profoundly blasphemous under Islamic law. This situation must obtain in all lands once conquered by a Muslim army, no matter how long ago, and whether or not the current rulers of the place follow Islam. Perforce, the existence of the Zionist Entity violates Islamic law, and thus violates the religious rights of Muslims to enjoy legal sanction for the oppression and extermination of Jews.”
– (“The Existence of Jews Violates My Religious Rights” By Mahmoud al-Zahar, Hamas Official; Pre Occupied Territory Org)
It’s not about Jews.
- “Recently, the Islamic State released a map of the areas it plans on expanding into over the next five years. The map includes Portugal, Spain, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Greece, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus and parts of Russia. The reason these European states are included is simple. According to Islamic Law, once a country has been conquered (or “opened” as it’s called in the euphemistic Arabic), it becomes Islamic in perpetuity. This, incidentally, is the real reason Muslims despise Israel. It is not due to sympathy for the Palestinians. The “caliphate” has been reborn and is expanding before the west”. – (“The ‘Refugee Crises’: Muslim History vs. Western Fantasy”. By Raymond Ibrahim, Middle East and Terrorism)
The charges on the most legally appointed nation is not about any occupation of Arab lands by Israel. It’s a Caliphate doctrine, says a Middle East expert, and here, the term ‘stupid’ can respectfully apply as its cautionary notice:
- “Let’s wake up and tell the truth. The truth is that we are a Jihad target for Hamas and the PLO, each one using its own methods of trying to dissemble and pull the wool over our eyes, and if we fall – thanks in part to the European money pouring into the arteries of the PA Jihad – Europe will be the next objective of that very same Jihad, which is already in the midst of exporting itself to Europe by means of massive Muslim immigration to the aging and deteriorating continent – [“It’s Jihad, Stupid” by Dr. Mordechai Kedar, senior lecturer, Department of Arabic at Bar-Ilan University. Arutz Sheva]
Here are links to previous installments of the 12 Deceptions:
Deception 1: The Name Deception
Deception 2: The Balfour Deception
Deception 3: The White Paper Deception
Deception 4: The Jordan Deception
Deception 5: The ‘West-Bank’ Deception
Deception 6: The Time Immemorial Deception
Deception 7: The Refugee Deception
Deception 8: The Arafat Deception
Deception 9: The “Palestinian-Jesus” Deception.
Deception 10: The Zionism Deception
Episode 11: The The Occupation Deception
Link to the book on Amazon:
https://amzn.to/2XCR3DH
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.