Miriam Leedor is director of public outreach at B’Tselem – The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. She wrote an article which was published by YNET, a left leaning newspaper. It was titled E1 is not Israeli territory
In it she kept saying what international law does or does not permit. Never once did she back her assertions up.
What I found interesting was that the vast majority of the comments, in this leftward leaning blog, ripped into her. You may too.
According to the three treaties of international law, (i) The San Remo Resolution of 1920, (ii) The Mandate for Palestine of 1922, and (ii) The Anglo American Treaty of 1924, Jews were granted an inalienable right to settle everywhere in the National Home for the Jewish people, ie Palestine.
Now what is not understandable is that since 1948, no one of all successive Israeli governments never claimed said right, which resulted in the barking of ignorant dogs.
It is high time to enforce each and all the provisions of said three treaties of international law.
A lesson for Miriam leedor who is misrepresenting and does not understand international law. 1. There is a Middle East history of “international law”. San Remo international law http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmMmJ46O-3Q&feature=player_embedded was followed by the 53 members of the LEAGUE OF NATION which declared on 24/7/1922 that:” 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Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national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 of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”. 2. International law is not one way road. Leedor hypocritical wisdom lets her use “International Law” when convenient for her preferred Palestinian cause. Suicide bombing of Israeli mothers and children, launching rockets on Israeli civilians killing innocent civilians is against International Law and a war crime. 1977 UN amendment states “Articles 51 and 54 outlaw indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations,…. A war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime”. 3. “West Bank” is and was the home of Jews for centuries. Hebron, Gush Etzion, East Jerusalem are examples out of many where demand of minorities have to be met. It is similar to demands that some Arab Israeli have in Israel. 4. Jewish access to Holy places including Jerusalem 194 (III). Palestine — Progress Report 1948 demanded free access to all Holy places. This was an International law accepted by UN general assembly and endorsed many times thereafter. Yet Jews were not allowed access to the Wailing Wall, old synagogues in the Jewish sector in East Jerusalem. The Joseph’s Tomb in the West Bank was bombed and destroyed by Palestinians in 2000 intefada. International Law was not exercised despite the overt prohibition of destroying holy places, not allowing access to them. Jewish history, archeology and prayers see president Abbas declaration 2010 is a Nazi declaration:”We have frankly said, and always will say: If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it,” Jews like anybody else have the right to live where ever they desire.This is a fundamental human rights issue unless Be’tselem thinks that Jews should not have rights. 5. The city of Jerusalem grows rapidly and there is necessity for dwellings. E1 was targeted for development in the next 15 years. In a peace agreement E1 all or part may be under Palestinian jurisdiction. Miriam Leedor! I demand an answer. Professor I. Barr,
LEFTIST HYPOCRISY –
It’s not only that according to the left Arabs are entitled to terrorize and kill Israelis as part of their ‘resistance movement’, but also to occupy land and houses that belong to Jews. It does not end there. There is also the issue of modest clothing.
Why is siding with the enemy regarded as just another point of view in Israel?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I found an interesting article on Ynet the other day. It could be titled “Please, don’t call me Jewish”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And back to the subject of housing construction, has the Hebrew media followed up on Aryeh King charge that there has been no official approval of new construction, that is all pre-election talk, that the only construction with official approval has been for 600 units for the Arabs?