Why Does The World Ignore Israel's Right To The Land And Its Right To Exist? Anti-Semitism Is The ONLY Answer!

Who Are the Principal Violators of International Law?

by Lawrence A. Franklin
April 3, 2015 at 5:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5480/international-law-violators

34

Comment

In failing to adhere to international law, the United Nations has, as its principle violator, primarily itself.
The real dispute is not about a "Palestinian State." It is about who has the right to the entire area. This is also the reason the Palestinians will never sign an "end of conflict" agreement.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) continues to depict a world without Israel. This is to be done in stages, a "salami" tactic, by which any land acquired is to be used as a forward base from which to take the rest. The Phased Plan was never rescinded.
Hamas, with whom the PA is now aligned in a "Unity Government," takes the Phased Plan a bit farther. Hamas, in its Charter, advocates not only displacing Israel, but killing all the Jews worldwide as well, or genocide. This too has never been rescinded.
And now the PA and Hamas are to be rewarded for aggression? Such a move flies in the face of the UN's own international agreements -- signed by all parties under international law. They state that the Israel-Palestine dispute is to be resolved only by face-to-face negotiations.

There is an unspoken racist assumption that underlies the drive for a separate Palestinian Arab state: that no Jews should be allowed to live there. Presumably, this is why any land now resided on by Jews in the West Bank is called a "settlement." The assumption is apparently that the entire area is an illegal colony.

A map of Palestine published in an 1890 atlas by John Y. Huber & Co. of Philadelphia (click to enlarge).

What is less well known is that even though Jews have continuously lived in this region -- it is called Judea -- for nearly 4,000 years, to many Muslims, the entire State of Israel, not just the West Bank, is considered an "illegal settlement." Please look at any map of "Palestine." It is exactly this view that is the real source of the dispute. The real dispute is not about a "Palestinian State." It is about who has the right to the entire area. This is also the reason the Palestinian negotiators will never sign an "end of conflict" agreement. As we have seen with Syria and Iraq, "official borders," even and including the "pre-1967 line," do not matter any more.
Further, the Palestinian Authority (PA) -- Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah as well as Hamas -- continues to educate the next generation of Arab Palestinians that Israel is destined to disappear. The PA continues to depict a world without Israel and a future without Israel -- a vision first embodied in the Palestinian Liberation Organization's (PLO) 1974 Ten Point Program, known as the "Phased Plan." Its stated goal -- never rescinded -- is the "liberation of all of Palestine." This is to be done in stages, a "salami" tactic, by which any land acquired is to be used as a forward base from which to take the rest.[1]
Hamas, with whom the PA is now aligned in a "Unity Government," takes the Phased Plan a bit farther. Hamas, in its Charter, advocates not only displacing Israel, but killing all the Jews worldwide as well, or genocide. This too has never been rescinded.
The fraudulent diplomatic charade now underway in the U.S. and Europe, treating Palestinian Arabs as the only victims, ignores the historical reality that a Jewish claim to these territories is at least as valid, if not more.
It is not the Jews or the Israelis who have rejected peace; they signed agreements, still in effect, with both Jordan and Egypt, and have offered the Palestinians opportunity after opportunity to do the same.
It was the Arabs and Muslims that rejected the Partition Plan internationally offered them in 1947.[2] It was the Arabs and Muslims that attacked Israel on the day of its founding -- as they did every war after that -- but were defeated.[3] The 1949 armistice line -- where the fighting stopped -- is now pointed to as the new border to which Israel must supposedly retreat.
And now they are about to be rewarded for aggression?

Speaking in October 1947 of the UN partition plan, Arab League Secretary-General Abdul Rahman Azzam (left) saidthe establishment of a Jewish state would lead to "a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades." Israel's Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, reading out Israel's Proclamation of Independence on May 14, 1948, said, "we call upon the sons of the Arab people dwelling in Israel to keep the peace and to play their part in building the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its institutions, provisional and permanent."

There are nearly two million Arabs with full and equal rights living in Israel to this day. Ironically, they enjoy greater rights than they would have in any other regional state, including seats in Israel's Parliament, the Knesset, from which many of them freely and loudly criticize Israel non-stop. Non-Muslims in many Islamic states do not enjoy full citizenship. Minorities in many Muslim states are treated as dhimmis, at best: "tolerated" second-class residents, who have to pay protection money (jizya) to live at the whim of their Muslim rulers.[4]
There has for years been a silent movement afoot -- a diplomatic sleight-of-hand -- which implies that "Israel," the name, may exist, but as a Muslim State, where Jews may live, asdhimmis. The same plan probably exists among many Muslims to rule over Catholics in parts of Spain. The notion of being treated as dhimmis in their own Biblically historic land has been met by Jews with less than enthusiasm.
To protect Israel from such a maneuver, some Israelis have suggested that its parliament pass a law that Israel be declared officially a Jewish state -- just as Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are officially Islamic states, and as England is officially an Anglican Christian state. Unlike the leaders of Iran or England, however, those who have suggested that Israel be officially a Jewish state have been denounced as racists.
The question that refuses to go away is: Why the double standard?
As mountainous evidence accumulates that any territory presently ceded by Israel at this time would be vulnerable to seizure by extremist Islamic terrorists, there seems to be another diplomatic movement afoot, among some Europeans, unilaterally to grant the Palestinians their own state. Presumably, it is all right with these Europeans if that state is ruled by Islamist terrorists, such as Hamas, or if it is taken over by terrorists worse than Hamas, such as ISIS. Presumably it is all right with these Europeans if the leadership remains repressive, lawless and despotic -- indifferent to human rights, the rule of law, and still promoting genocide. And these Europeans actually think they are being so good and moral?
So far, all diplomatic progress toward the emergence of a separate Palestinian state has happened only with the hypocritical non-binding endorsements of several EU member-state parliaments, namely Sweden, Ireland and France.
Such a move flies in the face of the UN's own international agreements -- signed by all parties under international law. They state that the Israel-Palestinian dispute is to be resolved only by face-to-face negotiations.
The decades-old failure of the UN to abide by its own diplomatic agreements has created an opportunity for Palestinians to manufacture a false narrative. Furthermore, the UN has arrogated to itself the entirely false air of legitimacy for establishing yet another Arab state.
In failing to adhere to international law, the United Nations has, as its principal violator, primarily itself.
Internationally binding post-World War I conferences and treaties, as well as the Mandate system of the League of Nations (LN), make no mention that any portion of the land of Palestine would be ceded to Arabs. On the contrary, all of these international documents delineate that the new state that would emerge from the LN's assignment of the Palestine Mandate to the United Kingdom would be a "Jewish National Home." Moreover, this Jewish National Home was also recognized as consisting of the historically recognized land of Biblical Israel, including Judea and Samaria, which are today often referred to as the "West Bank" of the Jordan River.

These documents contain no ambiguity, and no counter-narratives suggesting otherwise. In fact, U.S. President Calvin Coolidge enthusiastically affirmed in 1922 that it was official U.S. policy to recognize a planned future state for the Jewish people by his support for a Joint Congressional Resolution endorsing the Balfour Declaration.[5] There was also never any challenge to the historical reality that Jerusalem has always been the capital of Israel, and exclusively and entirely within the land of Israel.
This juxtaposition of internationally-certified, legally-documented, historical commitments, contrasted to the current Palestinian narrative as "victims of occupation," is simply another extreme example of "historical revisionism," a specialty of the Kremlin. Unless this false narrative is exposed for the fabrication it is, the future viability of international law -- and the continued U.S. funding of the United Nations -- should be in serious question.

Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he was a Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Israel.

---

[1] The Palestinian Liberation Organization, at the 12^th meeting of the Palestinian National Council in Cairo, in 1974, presented their "Ten Point Plan," called the "Phased Plan" or "salami strategy" because of its endorsement of a step-by-step process until all of the territory held by Israel was captured by any means necessary.
[2] Arab League Secretary-General Abdul Rahman Azzam (Azzam Pasha) rejected the UN's 1947 Partition Plan.
[3] Israel had repeatedly said that any Arab who stayed would be welcome, as evidenced that there are within the borders of Israel today about two million Arabs.
[4] Dhimmitude: Jews and Christians under Muslim Rule, by Bat Ye'or, 1985.
[5] The resolution was later endorsed by 37 state governors.

The US State Department Has NEVER Been A Friend Of Israel, From The Days Before It Was A State!

This Week in Israel’s History: David Ben-Gurion Stands Up to US State Department!

 Print Email 1

This week in Israel’s history, David Ben-Gurion tells the US State Department he 
will declare independence for the Jewish state; France, Great Britain and the 
US sign the Tripartite Declaration.

March 23, 1948

Against the objections of the US State Department, David Ben-Gurion, first prime minister
 of the Jewish state, made it clear that the Jewish people had no intention of backing down
 from the establishment of the State of Israel.

During World War II, the US State Department enacted policies making it very difficult for
Jewish refugees from Europe to obtain entry visas to the United States. In spite of the clear
 danger to the lives of millions of Jews in Europe, and specifically Germany, the State
Department further limited entry visas through a severely restrictive Immigration Law that
 had been passed by Congress in 1924.

Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion (left) and Ambassador Abba Eban (right) with US Secretary of State George Marshall. (Marshall Foundation)

Fueled by a combination of anti-Semitism, isolationism and a concern of being flooded by Jewish refugees, the State Department created policies which obstructed rescue possibilities during the war.

Immediately prior to the UN vote to partition British-mandated Palestine, the State Department issued a warning that voting in favor of the partition would lead to “untold troubles in the future.” Although President Truman eventually supported the vote for partition and the creation of a Jewish State, the State Department continued to protest the decision and, according to some sources, attempted to sabotage the creation of the Jewish state.

March 25, 1950

The United States, Great Britain and France issued a joint declaration promising to 

“take action against any aggression designed to alter the frontiers in the Middle East.”

Referred to as the Tripartite Declaration of 1950, this joint declaration by the three 

powers was issued in response to a growing concern that the Arab states would 

attempt again to attack Israel.

Shortly before the declaration was issued, the foreign ministers of the three countries

 met in London to discuss what could be done to prevent yet another conflagration

 in the area. They hoped not only to promote peace, but also to prevent an escalating

 arms race.

In order to achieve their goal, the agreement provided the sale of arms to Middle 

Eastern countries on a basis of parity between Israel and the Arab states. It allowed 

countries to purchase arms only if they agreed not to use the armaments for

 aggressive purposes. In addition, the United States, France and Great Britain 

further pledged to take joint action within and outside the United Nations if a

 threat to peace emerged in the Middle East.

It was only a short few years before the declaration would be tested as Arab 

aggression against Israel once again escalated.

By: Penina Taylor, United with Israel

Israel Must Maintain An Advantage And If The Enemy Thinks They Have A Nuclear Device, So Be It.

YOU CAN'T ASK ISRAEL TO KILL ITSELF

DECEMBER 18, 2014 · 12:00 AM

↓ Jump to Comments

Author(s):  Louis René Beres
Source:  usnews.com.     Article date: December 12th, 2014

0

It would seem preposterous to connect the United Nations General Assembly and genocide in causal terms, but this link is plausible today. On December 2, the world body overwhelmingly endorsed a plainly one-sided resolution, calling upon Israel to renounce possession of nuclear weapons, and, simultaneously, to join a Nuclear Weapons Free-Zone for the Middle East. Should Israel ever feel compelled to abide by such a carefully contrived proposal, it would immediately become complicit in its own planned disappearance.

Almost from the beginning, when first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion saw the primary need for a “great equalizer,” Israel's core security as a beleaguered state has depended upon nuclear weapons. Although still ambiguous and still undisclosed, this Israeli “bomb in the basement” has managed to keep a substantial number of potentially existential enemies at bay. And while it was never a suitable deterrent against historically “normal” wars, or acts of terrorism, this available nuclear option has successfully thwarted what enemy states have expressly wanted most of all – that is, in the precise words commonly favored in such recurrent Arab and/or Iranian pleas, a “liquidation of the Zionist Entity.”

Significantly, from the standpoint of Israel's enemies, there has never been any ambiguity. Presently, with Iran approaching full and effectively unobstructed membership in the Nuclear Club – a manifestly disingenuous approach, one assumed in stunning defiance of its nuclear non-proliferation treaty obligations – nuclear weapons and strategy have become indispensable to Israel's physical survival.

“Mass counts,” wrote the classic Prussian military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz, and only Israel's enemies have mass. Each year, without fail, these determined enemies call sanctimoniously for some form or other of Israeli denuclearization. Now, it is high time to acknowledge that nuclear weapons are never truly evil in themselves, and that their potential harmfulness is contingent upon which individual state or alliance is in control. In certain circumstances, as should be cartographically obvious to anyone who can see that Israel is less than half the size of America's Lake Michigan, these weapons can be vital to self-defense and population survival.

Looking ahead, once an enemy state, and possibly its allies, could believe that Israel had been bent sufficiently to “nonproliferation” demands, adversarial military strategies – either singly, or in carefully calculated collaboration – could embrace extermination warfare. This sinister embrace could occur even if all of Israel's major adversaries were to remain non-nuclear themselves. Over time, moreover, such extermination warfare, by definition, could meet the literal tests of genocide under international law.

In such authoritative jurisprudential considerations, aggressive war and genocide would not need to be considered as mutually exclusive. Rather, they could qualify as fully complementary and mutually reinforcing categories of international criminality.

Any Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone for the Middle East, even if seemingly well-intentioned, would render Israel uniquely vulnerable. In principle, although such existential vulnerability might be prevented by instituting certain parallel forms of chemical/biological weapons disarmament among Israel's adversaries, these disarmament measures would never actually be implemented. Already, as Israel's enemies recognize, any needed verifications of compliance would prove conveniently impossible.

In the Middle East , underlying security problems have nothing to do with Israel's nuclear weapons and posture, defensive assets which have never been used to threaten or to intimidate recalcitrant enemies. Instead, these problems remain founded upon a persisting and unreconstructed Islamic/Jihadist commitment to “excise the Jewish cancer.” Moreover, this openly annihilatory commitment is more or less common to both Israel's Sunni Arab foes, and to Shiite non-Arab Iran.

Among other regional security benefits, Israel's nuclear weapons represent an unacknowledged but critical impediment to the actual use of nuclear weapons, and even to the commencement of an area nuclear war. U.N. resolutions notwithstanding, these weapons must remain at the vital center of Israel's national security policy, and should also be guided by continuously updated and refined strategic doctrine. Some essential elements of any such doctrine comprise a carefully calibrated end to “deliberate ambiguity,” more recognizable emphases on “counter value” or counter-city targeting, and recognizably expanding evidence of secure “triad” nuclear forces. Of course, such forces, which must include some forms of submarine-basing, will have to appear capable of penetrating any foreseeable nuclear aggressor's active defenses.

Israel's latest efforts at diversified sea-basing of nuclear retaliatory forces are costly, but still prudent. Similarly important efforts are needed for the Israeli Air Force. To prepare for anticipated strikes at distances of approximately 1,000 kilometers, whether preemptive, retaliatory, or counter-retaliatory, the air force needs the “full envelope” of air refueling capabilities, upgraded satellite communications, state-of-the-art electronic warfare technologies, armaments fully appropriate to inflicting maximum target damage, and, always, the latest-generation UAVs to accompany selected missions.

“Mass counts.” In the Middle East, deceptive U.N. resolutions notwithstanding, Israel's nuclear weapons represent an absolutely essential barrier to various last-stage enemy aggressions, and to an eventual nuclear war. With this in mind, the United States, which voted correctly against the recent General Assembly resolution, should continue to reject any proposals for a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone in the region. As for Jerusalem, it must never forget that the United Nations cannot require a member state to submit to genocide. In the particular case of Israel, moreover, the attendant ironies – most notably, the legally formative 1947 role of the General Assembly in birthing modern Israel – would be conspicuous and overwhelming.

Louis René Beres, professor of political science and international law at Purdue University, is the author of many books and articles on nuclear strategy and nuclear war, including several very early works on nuclear terrorism. He received his Ph.D. at Princeton. He is a frequent contributor to U.S. News & World Report.

The Great Bond Between Israel and Christians

Menachem Begin and the Evangelicals

Posted by: David Parsons April 2, 2014 , 8:51 am

17 2

0 3Email 33Share

This year, the Menachem Begin Heritage Center is marking the 100^th Anniversary since the birth of this remarkable Jewish leader. Part of these observances included an event this week honoring Menachem Begin as the first Israeli prime minister to openly embrace the support of Christians worldwide. Co-hosted by the Begin Center and the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, the evening featured an address by Dr. Daniel Gordis of the Shalem College, who has just published an absorbing biography entitled Menachem Begin: The Struggle for Israel’s Soul.

Indeed, of all the successive prime ministers of Israel following the nation’s re-birth in 1948, Begin stands out as the first premier to publicly welcome Christian Zionist support and to seek to harness it in defense of the Jewish state. Others before him may have had connections to individual Christian figures, but the story of the Israel-Evangelical partnership as we know it today starts with Begin.

From the birth of the modern Zionist movement, there are many examples of individual friendships and even partnerships forged between Jewish and Christian figures with the mutual goal of resettling Jews back in the historic Land of Israel.

When the Jewish philanthropist Moses Montefiore toured Palestine in 1849 to assess the prospects of establishing Jewish colonies there, he was accompanied by a prominent Christian Zionist named George Gawler. He was a British army officer and governor of South Australia who wrote a book in 1845 advocating the Jewish return to the land. After their joint tour, Gawler was active until his death in raising funds from Christians to help plant Jewish colonies in Eretz Israel.

When Theodor Herzl published his book Der Judenstaat in 1895, he was quickly befriended by Rev. William Hechler, chaplain to the British Embassy in Vienna. Hechler soon became a sort of “foreign minister” for the Zionist movement, opening doors for Herzl to the German Kaiser and other European leaders. In his diary, the secular Herzl also noted that Hechler’s encouragement and biblical inspiration contributed to his own growing sense that he was a modern-day Moses leading his people back to the Land of Promise.

At the First Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897, Herzl also coined the term “Christian Zionist” when thanking his friend John Henry Dunant and other Christians present at the gathering for their strong backing of his efforts.

Zionist leader Chaim Weizman in turn was befriended by Arthur James Balfour a decade before he became foreign secretary for the Lloyd George war cabinet and signed the Balfour Declaration. Weizman also was close to the Christian Zionist figure Jan Smuts, a British general and governor of South Africa who conceived of the League of Nations mandate system.

Israel’s founding prime minister David Ben-Gurion also had encounters with Christian Zionists, as noted Southern Baptist leader Dr. W. A. Criswell, former president of Dallas Theological Seminary, claimed to have had a relationship with Ben-Gurion. Later, Dr. Pat Robertson and others made attempts to reach out to Yitzhak Rabin.

So there were even instances of personal friendships and engagement between Israeli leaders and individual Christian Zionist figures following Israel’s rebirth in 1948.

But Menachem Begin holds the unique distinction of being the first Israeli prime minister to warmly embrace Christian Zionist support in an open manner. He, too, had developed personal friendships with individual Christian leaders like author Dr. David A. Lewis. But Begin went further than his predecessors by actively seeking Christian support and acknowledging its value in public. There are several reasons why.

First, Begin came to realize that he shared a certain biblical worldview with evangelical Christians. Although Begin saw much of the world through the prism of the Holocaust and thus was fully aware of the long, tragic history of Christian anti-Semitism, he also had a strong biblical worldwide and knew this gave him much in common with Bible-believing Christians today. In particular, he looked on the Bible as Israel’s title deed to the land and saw the Jewish return to the land as fulfillment of the vision of the Hebrew prophets, just as many Christians did.

Second, Begin was surrounded by several close advisors who shared his friendly disposition towards pro-Israel Christians. This included the late Harry Hurwitz, the founder and long-serving president of the Begin Heritage Center.

Hurwitz had served as head of the South African Zionist Federation in Cape Town before making aliyah in the early seventies. While still in South Africa, he had been exposed to genuine Christian supporters of Israel and was particularly close to a gentleman named Basil Jacobs, founder of Christian Action for Israel. Basil Jacobs attended the first Feast of Tabernacles celebration in September of 1980 when the International Christian Embassy was founded. His good friend Harry Hurwitz was thus the key official within Begin’s inner circle who convinced Begin to endorse the founding of a Christian Embassy in Jerusalem in 1980.

Finally, Begin’s last years in office were marked by several steep challenges to the nation, including the American AWACS sale to Saudi Arabia, the US “reassessment” after the Osirak bombing operation, and finally the fallout from the First Lebanon War. In all these cases, Begin actively sought Christian support, especially from among prominent American Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell, Ed McAteer. For example, media accounts from those days tell of Begin approaching a wealthy American Jewish friend to lend his private jet to bring over Christian solidarity missions at critical times during the Lebanon crisis.

Yet Begin’s first public embrace of pro-Israel Christians came at the ICEJ’s Feast of Tabernacles in 1981, when he stood before a gathering of several thousand cheering Christians from dozens of nations and warmly told the crowd: “Tonight, I know that we are not alone.”

Later, when Begin resigned from office, the Christian Embassy sent him a letter of gratitude for his friendship. In response, Begin wrote back: “Your decision to establish your Embassy in Jerusalem at a time when we are being abandoned because of our faith was an act of courage and a symbol of the closeness between us. Your acts and gestures gave us the feeling that we were not alone.”

The partnership between Israel and her Christian friends has grown ever since into what Foreign Ministry officials have now acknowledged as a “strategic asset” for this nation. Current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows this history as well as anyone and continues to both solicit and express appreciation for Christian support. But this official open embrace truly starts with our beloved friend Menachem Begin.