Some People Will Just not Accept The Truth

Roughly one half of the world's Palestinian population continues to reside in the area encompassing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and Israel proper.

In this combined area, as of 2004, Palestinians constituted 49% of all inhabitants.

The entire 1.6 million population of the Gaza Strip

an approximate 2.3 million majority of the Israeli-occupied West Bank population

and over 20% of the population of Israel proper, mostly as Arab citizens of Israel.




That amounts to Nearly Four yes 4 Million Palestinians.

Now one realizes why Palestine is a Problem For Israel

Jew hate = bad

Muslim hate = good?

Jew hate = bad

Muslim hate = good?

I have noticed that all those complaining about the alleged jew bashing have all gathered together on the drone thread.

No one complains about the gung-ho attitude towards Islam ans Muslim

We are all supposed to be equal in the eyes of........

Birds of a feather.......


Anyone who wants peace should not advocate war

I have noticed that all those complaining about the alleged jew bashing have all gathered together on the drone thread.

No one complains about the gung-ho attitude towards Islam and Muslim

We are all supposed to be equal in the eyes of........

Birds of a feather.......


Anyone who wants peace should not advocate war

The drone gang are angry that Obama is being diplomatic.

Yup. And on this thread the attacks aren't just against muslims but the entire arab people. The hypcrisy is incredible but sadly predictable. There are violent people with violent views on every side. Its a sad old world we live in

The Myth of Israel’s Pre-1967 Borders


Jeff Dunetz

The mainstream media reports about the May 15 Palestinian violence which accompanied the Nabka Day protests all talked about the desire to establish a Palestinian state within the pre-June 1967 borders. Even “moderate” terrorist PA President Abbas reaffirmed that position.

“A Palestinian state is inevitable, the whole world supports the end of the occupation,” Abbas said, reaffirming the aim to establish a state on the pre-1967 borders.

Of course there are many issues with Abbas’ position, such as the Palestinians stated position that they have no intention of making a real peace but a hudna, a temporary peace that would enable them to rearm, train and finally attack Israel and drive the Jews off “their” land.

Even if the Palestinians were to change their minds about wiping the Jewish State off the map, there would remain another major barrier to Israel reverting to the pre-June 1967 borders….they do not exist!

What Abbas knows but won’t admit is that there is no such thing as pre-1967 borders. That “green line” running through the West Bank is the 1949 Armistice Line. The armistice line was created solely because that’s Israeli and Arab forces stopped fighting at the end of the War of Independence (with some added adjustments in certain sectors). It was if the whistle blew and everyone dropped their gear. That 1949 line, that people call 1967 border, is really only a military line. But don’t believe me, believe the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan:

Article II of the 1949 Armistice Agreement with the Jordanians explicitly specified that the line that was designated did not compromise any future territorial claims of the two parties, since it had been “dictated by exclusively by military considerations.” Of course the Jordanian rationale for that clause is to allow them to claim territory inside the armistice line for their very own.

Even the “famous” UN Resolution 242 which was passed by the UN Security Council five months after the Six-Day War recognized that the 1949 Armistice line was not supposed to designate final Israeli borders.

Anti-Israel forces changed the meaning of 242 by adding one simple article to the resolution: “the.” They claim that 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from “the” territories taken during the Six-Day War. The resolution actually says that “Israel should withdraw from territories” taken during the war (no article). Adding the article changes the meaning from withdrawing from some territories to all territories.

It was no accident “the” was left out. Diplomats are very exact in their language. During the negotiations to create resolution 242, Arab governments tried three times to have “the” inserted in the resolution and their request was rejected. But, by repeating what they wanted the resolution to say all these years, the Arabs succeed in convincing many people to accept their distorted interpretation of 242.

Statements made by the drafters of 242 prove there is no ambiguity about what they meant.

Lord Caradon, sponsor of the draft that was about to be adopted, stated, before the vote in the Security Council on Resolution 242:

“… the draft Resolution is a balanced whole. To add to it or to detract from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole as it stands. I suggest that we have reached the stage when most, if not all, of us want the draft Resolution, the whole draft Resolution and nothing but the draft Resolution.” (S/PV 1382, p. 31, of 22.11.67)

Michael Stewart, (Great Britain) Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969:

“Question: “What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the late war?”

Mr. Stewart: “No, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the Resolution. The Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be read concurrently with the statement on withdrawal.”

George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on January 19, 1970:

“I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. “I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied’, and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.” (The Jerusalem Post, January 3 1970)

Arthur Goldberg, US representative, in the Security Council in the course of the discussions which preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:

“To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries … would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries without withdrawal. Historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description… such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. An agreement on that point is an absoute essential to a just and lasting peace just as withdrawal is… S/PV. 1377, p. 37, of 15. 11.67

Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC “Meet the Press”):

“That Resolution did not say ‘withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines’. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties.”

Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law and Public Affairs, Yale University, who, in 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs:

“… Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces ‘from territories occupied in the recent conflict’, and not ‘from the territories occupied in the recent conflict’. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word ‘the’ failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines.” (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69)

Geraldo de Carvalho Silos, Brazilian UN representative, speaking in the Security Council after the adoption of Resolution 242:

“We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure, permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighboring States.” (S/PV. 1382, p. 66,22.11.67 ).

When it comes to Israel, the world has a very short memory. Not only were there no 1967 borders, but there was never an intention for Israel to move back to the 1949 armistice lines. That’s also why the president’s call for Israel to stop building communities outside the 1949 armistice lines is so absurd. It is also why the UN is being disingenuous every time they call for Israel to retreat to the 1967 borders, since it was the UN who first declared that there were no such thing as 1967 borders.

http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2011/05/myth-of-israels-pre-1967-borders.html

Jew-Hate,or Judeophobia stems from willfully misrepresenting the Truth about a People!
Started with the Catholic Church,continued with Luther, Hitler,and his Friend al-Husseini,the "Mufti Of Jerusalem",and now keeps going with the Islamo-Fascists and their Supporters!

The Repercussions of a UN Recognition of Palestine
By Ted Belman
The Palestinian Authority (PA) has been hard at work of late lining up votes in the UNGA for the recognition of the state of Palestine with pre '67 borders with the eastern part of Jerusalem as its capital. They intend to use the "Uniting for Peace" procedure to avoid a possible UNSC veto regardless of whether the procedure is legal. (See; The UN Charter Cannot Support GA Resolution 377). Were they to get such recognition the repercussions would be significant.

Alan Baker, who was legal counsel for Israel in the drafting of the Oslo Accords and is currently associated with the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs, recently published The Palestinian UN Gamble -- Irresponsible and Ill-Advised. He summarized his article as follows

"While such a resolution would not have the authority to alter the legal status of the territories, the negative consequences of such a course of action would nevertheless serve to void the very basis of the peace process. It would undermine the legal existence of the Palestinian Authority and violate commitments by Yasser Arafat to settle all issues by negotiation.

"Such unilateral action outside the negotiation process would constitute a fundamental breach of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, thereby releasing Israel from its reciprocal commitments."


This would go so far as to release Israel from the confines of UNSC Res 242. How so?

According to the Palestine Mandate passed in 1922, Great Britain, the Mandatory power, had the following obligation with respect to all of that part of Palestine lying west of the Jordan River:

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


The Plan of Partition (Res 181) passed by the UNGA in 1947, though it violated this provision, was accepted by the Jews and paved the way for the recognition of the state of Israel six months later. Had the Arabs accepted this resolution, they too would have had a state and that would have been the end to Jewish rights of close settlement in Judea and Samaria (West Bank). But they didn't and so Jewish rights to same didn't end.

So why isn't The Government of Israel asserting those rights now?

The answer finds its origin in UNSC Res 242, passed in 1967, which authorized Israel to remain in occupation until she had secure and recognized borders. Israel's acceptance of this resolution effectively waived Jewish Mandate rights in exchange for such borders. Israel obviously preferred such borders over exercising her rights of "close settlement" which would have necessitated managing the Arab population in these lands. Once again the Arabs rejected this resolution, preferring instead "no negotiation, no recognition and no peace" as resolved in their Khartoum Conference in Sept 1967.

Notwithstanding this, Egypt broke ranks and made peace with Israel in 1979, as did Jordan in 1994.

In 1993 Rabin and Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn, which aimed to

"establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected Council (the ‘Council'), for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338."


As a pre-condition to this mutual declaration, Arafat delivered two letters to Rabin promising to amend the Charter of the PLO which called for the destruction of Israel, and Rabin delivered a letter to Arafat confirming his intention to allow normalization of life in the territories. Arafat and the PLO never did amend their Charter. For that matter, Fatah and Hamas have similar provisions in their Charters even to this day.

This Declaration made no mention of a Palestinian state as the goal, nor did it call for a cessation of Israeli settlement activity.

In 1995, Israel and the PA entered into an Interim Agreement which provided, inter alia, for the creation of the PA and for its exercise of power. It obligated both parties "to carry out confidence building measures as detailed herewith." Those details involved Israel releasing prisoners in stages. No other confidence building measures were required. That never stopped the US from continually demanding that Israel offer more "confidence building measures".

Article XXXI provided:

"Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice or preempt the outcome of the negotiations on the permanent status to be conducted pursuant to the DOP. Neither Party shall be deemed, by virtue of having entered into this Agreement, to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims or positions.


"Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations."


Both of these agreements became known as the Oslo Accords.

As Baker points out, declaration of a state by the PA would clearly be a fundamental breach of this provision. To my mind there have been numerous fundamental breaches by the PA, which include their daily incitement, their Intifadas and their massive rocket attacks from Gaza. In these instances over the years, Israel chose not to declare the Oslo Accords null and void. But not this time. For example, Israel has mooted the idea of annexing part, if not all, of Judea and Samaria (West Bank), were it to happen.

It may be argued that if the Agreement is abrogated that Israel's Mandate rights still apply.

By demanding the armistice lines as borders subject to mutual exchanges, the PA is rejecting Res 242 which provides for "secure borders" otherwise described as "defensible borders." Likewise the Arab League has similarly rejected Res 242 in putting forth their initiative, which was based on the armistice lines rather than "secure borders." By demanding 100% of Judea and Samaria, they are demanding that Israel retreat from all of the territories which is also contrary to the intent and meaning of the resolution.

Thus it would appear that not only will the Oslo Accords be no longer binding on Israel, neither will Res 242, because the Arabs have never accepted it.

The Obama Administration understands the risks of the UN granting recognition to the state of Palestine. Dennis Ross, speaking to the ADL recently on behalf of the US said,

"We have consistently made it clear that the way to produce a Palestinian state is through negotiations, not through unilateral declarations, not through going to the UN. Our position on that has been consistent in opposition."


The Obama Administration would rather keep Israel shackled to the Oslo Accords while at the same time pressuring Israel to capitulate. In reality, the US has abandoned Res 242 and the Oslo Accords, de facto, by pressing Israel to accept security guarantees in place of secure borders and by pushing the Arab League Initiative. She is also pushing for the division of Jerusalem, which is not required by the Oslo Accords.

It remains to be seen if the EU will follow the US lead on keeping Israel shackled. Angela Merkel during her recent meeting with PM Netanyahu said, "We are in favor of two states for two nations. It is not certain that unilateral recognition will contribute to promoting peace, and this will be our position in September."

Regardless, the PA seems bent on following through with bid for UN membership. Some people think the recognition of the state of Palestine would be a disaster for Israel while others think not.

Caroline Glick recently wrote,

"The fact is that while acceptance of "Palestine" as a UN member state will be a blow, it will mark an escalation not a qualitative departure from the basic challenges we have been facing for years."


But at least, Israel will be free to act.

Israel will have no legal obligation to refrain from annexing Judea and Samaria in whole or in part. Her right to settle all of this land and to establish a national home on all of it for the Jews, which has been recognized by international law, will be legally unassailable. Furthermore, as conquerors of this land, pursuant to a defensive war, international law entitles her to keep it. When Israel conquered the land, no one had sovereignty over it including Jordan and the Arabs living there. In effect, this war was a continuation of the ‘48 war. Thus it put an end to the Armistice Agreement and the armistice lines which the parties had agreed would not be the final borders in any event.

After coming this far in my reasoning, I had a conversation with Baker because I wanted him to reconcile for me the provision in the Interim Agreement calling for a settlement based on Res 242 and Article XXXI which provides "Neither Party shall be deemed, by virtue of having entered into this Agreement, to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims or positions." In my reading of these two clauses, I thought that the second was limited by the first.

He advised to the contrary, noting that Israel could assert any right she might have. I asked if that included our right to settle the land pursuant to the Mandate. He advised that the Mandate rights ended in the creation of Israel in 1948. I begged to differ, arguing that that would have been the case had the Arabs accepted a state on the rest at that time. But what do I know? He has been involved in this process for close to 20 years.

He did say that even if a state is declared, the PA will still have to negotiate borders and everything else, so he isn't fearful of such recognition. With this, I agreed. But the chances of reaching agreement after 25 years, are slim. A recent poll reported that 78% of Likudniks oppose the creation of a Palestinian state.

In the meantime, Israel should build as much as she wants and should extend Israeli law to all communities in Judea and Samaria in which her citizens live. Aside from providing housing for its citizens, it would put pressure on the Palestinians to compromise. If Israel were to continue with the de facto freeze, the Palestinians would have no incentive to make peace and could wait a hundred years while they build throughout Judea and Samaria and continue their campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel.

Accordingly, Israel should welcome the recognition of a Palestinian state and the abrogation of the Oslo Accords.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_repercussions_of_a_un_reco.html

Excerpts from an article written by Rabbi Kalman Packouz...It is a very good article and was based on
Why The Jews? seminar...

On a certain conscious level, people recognize the Jews' message as truth. Those unwilling to embrace the truth have found that the only way to rid themselves of it is to destroy the messengers - for the message itself is too potent to be dismissed.

That is what is so irksome about the Jews, and that is why, for some people, nothing less than total destruction of the Jews will do. If Judaism were just another ideology, people could laugh it off and continue on their merry way. But deep in his soul, every human being recognizes the essential truths of morality - people can't just laugh it off.

If we can come to understand why Jews are so hated, we can understand who Jews are and, more important, who Jews can be. A powerful effort has been made to remove the Jewish element from anti-Semitism, and in doing so, to ignore the critical message anti-Semitism teaches about the uniqueness and preciousness of the Jew. This alone is a compelling reason for Jews to learn about anti-Semitism and what it means to be a Jew.

available online at http://www.aish.com/seminars/whythejews/

BRUSSELS – Growing global anti-Semitism is linked to Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians, the American ambassador to Belgium told stunned Jewish conference attendants in Brussels earlier this week.




Speaking Wednesday at a Jewish conference on anti-Semitism organized by the European Jewish Union (EJU,) Howard Gutman told participants he was apologizing in advance if his words are not to their liking. He then proceeded to make controversial statements about his views on Muslim anti-Semitism, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Friday.






A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, Gutman said. He also argued that an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty will significantly diminish Muslim anti-Semitism.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4156355,00.html