ISRAELI FRONTLINE is non-profit.
This weblog is rewarded for each click, so please visit our advertisers to see what they are offering, with no obligation. Thank you!
All opinions expressed on this weblog are those of the author, with the exception of opinions expressed in links that appear on this site and with the exception of comments written by viewers whose opinions may not necessarily reflect the author's. All original material is copyrighted and property of the author, and is not to be used without permission, unless it is attributed to this weblog (with a hyperlink to, or to the particular article shown in this weblog). All emails and messages containing public news and information are presumed to be for publication on this site, unless otherwise specified. I reserve the right to delete comments that I find to be offensive in nature, inappropriate or irrelevant to the content of this weblog. Michelle Cohen, Creator of ISRAELI FRONTLINE---------------------------------------------------------------- © 2010 - 2016 ISRAELI FRONTLINE - All Rights Reserved.
Today's Top Headlines, Videos, Analysis and Opinion / / HOME PAGE

Monday, December 31, 2012

Video: Paratroopers Prepare for War on Terror - Miracle Saves Baby from Rock-Throwing Terrorist - Arabs Caught with Firearms After Attacking Soldiers

Source: Arutz Sheva
By Yoni Kempinski

IDF releases video clip featuring special training drill which included live fire and practicing urban warfare.


Miracle Saves Baby from Rock-Throwing Terrorist

Source: Arutz Sheva
By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

A rock-throwing Arab teenager nearly killed a baby Sunday morning when the huge rock he hurled at the car crashed a few inches from the infant.

“We were saved by a miracle,” “Roie,” a resident of Samaria, told Arutz Sheva. "I do not even want to think what would have happened if the rock had hit the baby."

“We were driving south from Rehalim when an Arab around 17 years old, standing next to a school, threw a huge rock at the car,” he said. Rehelim is in Binyamin, near Shiloh and the community was authorized by Israel's government.

He said he was traveling around 80 kilometers an hour (50 miles an hour), and the rock smashed through the car window and landed only a few inches from the baby’s seat.

He was sitting with his wife in the vehicle, and their eight-year-old son and two-year-old daughter were sitting next to the infant.

The family also was shocked by the behavior of the police. Soldiers, after realizing what had happened, closed the road to search for the attacker, but police at the scene threatened then with arrest if they did not re-open it.

Mainstream media did not report the attack, following usual practice to ignore rock-throwing unless it causes an accident or injury.

The objective of the rock-throwers is murder, whether by a direct hit or by causing a driver to lose control of his vehicle and to crash.

Over a year ago terrorists “succeeded” in killing Asher Palmer and his two-year-old son when they threw a rock at Palmer’s car near Kiryat Arba-Hevron. Police determined the crash was a traffic accident until evidence published by Arutz Sheva forced them to carry out an investigation, which proved it was a terrorist attack.



Arabs Caught with Firearms After Attacking Soldiers

Source: Arutz Sheva
By Elad Benari

Arab terrorists threw a firebomb at an IDF force that was on routine patrol south of Shechem on Saturday evening, Channel 2 News reported. Nobody was hurt in the attack.

Soldiers from the IDF's Nahal Brigade later arrested two suspects in the attack. The suspects were found to be carrying an improvised gun, two knives, a firebomb and a diagram with a detailed plan for throwing the explosives in their possession.

The incident is the latest in a series of violent attacks in the Judea and Samaria area. Palestinian Authority Arabs have rioted and attempted to carry out terror attacks in Hevron and throughout Judea and Samaria in recent days.

Tensions were particularly high following two incidents in which soldiers shot Arab attackers in Hevron.

In one incident a female officer shot and killed a 17-year-old PA Arab terrorist who pulled a gun on Border Police officers near Hevron.

A police sapper who arrived subsequently to check out the gun determined that it was a fake gun.

In a subsequent, the Border Police officer who killed the terrorist said that she shot the terrorist because she feared a fellow officer would be killed by him. The officer, N, said that the terrorist had aimed his gun at the head of a fellow officer, and that when he failed to respond to orders to drop his weapon, she opened fire.

The IDF Spokesperson's Unit later released a video which verified N's remarks.

Gaza Official: Israel promises to further ease Gaza blockade if Hamas truce holds

A Hamas official checking a truck loaded with gravel at the Kerem Shalom crossing Sunday.  -   Photo by Reuters
Source: Haaretz
By Reuters

GAZA - A Palestinian official said Sunday that Israel has promised to ease its blockade of the Gaza Strip to allow building items in more often if Hamas maintains the Egyptian-brokered truce that brought an end to last month's conflict.

Speaking after Israel eased its blockade to allow a shipment of gravel for private construction into the Palestinian territory for the first time since Hamas seized control in 2007, the Palestinian official said Israeli counterparts had promised "other building items" would be allowed into Gaza in the coming days. "Israel has promised to ease the blockade more if the truce continues to hold," he said.

Another Palestinian official with knowledge of an Egyptian-brokered cease-fire that ended the eight days of fighting last month between Israel and Gaza militants said the move had been expected as part of the deal.

"This is the first time gravel has been allowed into Gaza for the Palestinian private sector since the blockade," said Raed Fattouh, the Palestinian official overseeing the shipment of 20 truckloads of the material.

Israel tightened the blockade after Hamas took power five years ago. But under international pressure, Israel began to ease the restrictions in 2010 and has allowed international aid agencies to import construction material.

The gravel was transferred a day after Egypt allowed building material into Gaza through its Rafah crossing, departing from a six-year ban. It was part of a shipment donated by the Gulf Arab state of Qatar, which has pledged 400 million euros to finance reconstruction.

Gaza economists say nearly 70 percent of the enclave's commercial needs including building material and fuel ¬ were being met through shipments via Israel and a network of smuggling tunnels running under the Egyptian border.

Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom, speaking to reporters in Jerusalem, said more than 300 truckloads of goods have been moving from Israel to the Gaza Strip on a daily basis.

"They can have much more if they would like to," he said

John Kerry at State: A Disaster for Israel

Dear friends,

John Kerry is not a friend of Israel, despite the diplomatic noises uttered by some of Israel's leaders from left and right. 

As with almost all my predictions over 13 years that unfortunately materialized, I predict troublesome time for Israel if he is appointed Secretary of State. 

However, I also predict that despite him, Israel will prevail and get over the obstacles he would lay in her path. As always, the Arabs and Arab terrorism, will guarantee Kerry's failure to push Israel towards committing suicide. 

The illogical idea of an additional Arab state in tiny Judea & Samaria ("West Bank") while Palestine already exists in the East Bank, will doom any Kerry anti-settlements plans and pressures he will certainly come up with.

Your Truth Provider,


Source: Arutz Sheva
By Moshe Phillips, AFSI
Submitted by Ira L. Jacobson

The view that Israel and the Palestinian Arabs equally share blame for the continuation of a decades old conflict is part and parcel of Kerry’s troubling perspective.
President Obama’s decision to nominate Senator John Kerry as his next Secretary of State will prove to be a disaster for Israel.

The choice of the American Jewish establishment to vehemently protest the expected nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel while granting Kerry a free pass for his anti-Israel behavior follows their longtime pattern.

Hagel is a Republican who has a history of marking foolish remarks regarding Israel and has long been seen as an independent thinker on Middle East policy with a non-interventionist outlook.

Kerry, however, is the much bigger problem for Israel.

Hagel as Sec of Defense will be tasked with handling military issues. Kerry will be in a position to effect policy as it impacts Israel, set an overall tone for US in the Middle East and be a key player in future negotations.

When it comes to criticizing Democrats who are hostile to Israel, the Jewish elites have a history of weakness. From Jesse Jackson to Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama, Democrats are treated with kid gloves and given the benefit of the doubt, while pro-Israel Republicans are never given their due praise.

When Kerry ran for president, he was vetted by the so-called pro-Israel community in the U.S. and little was made of his attitudes toward Israel because he had, for the most part, steered clear of controversy.

Kerry’s record since his presidential campaign tells a different tale. It was clear Kerry would not run for president again and his policy shift on Israel was ignored. What’s worse is that Kerry’s attitudes on Israel are still being ignored by the pro-Israel community.

Even Kerry’s failure to sign the December 20, 2012 letter in support of continuing sanctions against Iran has not been a matter of concern for pro-Israel activists. [See]

And this even though 73 of Kerry’s fellow senators signed the letter. [See]

Kerry’s Israel problem goes back much farther than his troubling attitude towards Iranian sanctions.

When Kerry decided to take over for former President Jimmy Carter as the front man for Democratic criticism of Israel, he enlisted the U.S.'s first Muslim member of Congress for help.

Kerry was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he stated on March 04, 2009 at a Brookings Institute address:

"Nothing will do more to make clear our seriousness about turning the page than demonstrating – with actions rather than words – that we are serious about Israel freezing settlement activity in the West Bank.  For decades, American presidents, Democrat and Republican alike, have opposed new settlement activity and recognized that the settlements are an obstacle to peace.. " [See]

It should be apparent that when it comes to pressuring Israel on Israeli settlements John Kerry plans to pick up at Foggy Bottom where James Baker left off.

Kerry’s idea that the settlements are the main problem echoes the rhetoric of Yasser Arafat’s successors, Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad. In his March 2009 remarks, Kerry even adopted the Arab view that Jerusalem is one of “the big three issues.”

Jerusalem is no issue – it is Israel’s capital.

The view that Israel and the Palestinian Arabs equally share blame for the continuation of a decades old conflict is just another part of Kerry’s troubling perspective.

While Kerry was on his February 2009 junket to the Middle East, it was no mere coincidence that Rep. Keith Ellison was in Gaza at the same time. This was a coordinated effort by senior Democrats to demonstrate to Israel’s government that the pro-Israel attitude of the Bush-Cheney years were over.

The Forward reported on April 10, 2009 that “...he (Ellison) presented the findings of his February 19 trip to Gaza at a Capitol Hill event sponsored by the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee.

The second-term congressman did not mince words when describing the hardship that Gaza residents are facing in the aftermath of the Israeli attack, or in addressing Israel directly on what actions ought to be taken to ease the suffering. “I come here with one message only,” he told the audience: “Open up the crossings, open up the crossings, open up the crossings.”

Later in his speech, Ellison once again chose the triple-repetition technique when calling on Israel to “stop, stop, stop the settlement expansion.”


Kerry provided Ellison with the cover he needed for his verbal onslaught against Israeli settlements.

At the Democratic Convention in 2012 Kerry ignored the decision of his party leadership to remove Jerusalem from their platform and instead opened his podium speech by attacking Romney for his “neo-con advisors” and then proceeded to quote Benjamin Netanyahu out of context. 

[See and for the full speech see

We all know what Kerry meant when he said “neo-cons” – it is code speak for pro-Zionists. Kerry’s words show that he will be hostile to the very existence of Israeli towns in the suburbs of Jerusalem. Democrats consider these “settlements” to be part of the “Occupied West Bank”and he will label them as such.

John Kerry’s leadership at State will be the beginning of a new effort by the Obama Administration to pressure Israel to surrender territory to the Palestinian Authority, deny Israel’s sovereignty in Jerusalem, negotiate with Hamas and accept a hostile Palestinian State along its vulnerable borders.

Israel and its American supporters are in for a very tough time with Kerry and they seem to have no idea what is in store.

Moshe Phillips is a member of the executive committee of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans for a Safe Israel / AFSI. The chapter's website is at: www. phillyafsi. com and Moshe's blog can be found at

Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper: I Will Defend Israel 'whatever the cost'

Submitted by Rachel Leon

Muslim Member of British Parliament, Sajid Javid, Supports Israel!

Source: United With Israel
By Rachel Avraham
Submitted by Tom Ifrach

British Economic Secretary to the Treasury and MP for Bromsgrove, Sajid Javid, is a self-made man. The son of a bus driver, he grew up attending British state schools and won a place to study economics and politics at Exeter University. 21 years ago, he became active in Britain’s Conservative Party. In 2010, Javid would be elected to the British Parliament as a member of the Conservative Party after working his way up the latter with his own hands. He is a secular Muslim who married a Christian woman and also happens to be a supporter of Israel.

As a member of the British Parliament, he recently addressed an audience of 700 people at the Conservative Friends of Israel business lunch in order to vocalize his support for the Jewish State. There, he stated, “If for some reason, I had to leave, with my young family, and I was told that I must go and live in the Middle East, where would I decide to go? […]There is only one place I could possibly go: Israel, the only nation in the Middle East that shares the same democratic values as Britain and the only nation in the Middle East where my family would feel the warm embrace of freedom and liberty.”

He continued, “In Britain, we are rightly very proud of our long history as a nation. But we are mere beginners compared to Israel, a nation that is governing itself in the same territory, under the same name, with the same religion, and the same language as it did 3,000 years ago. Now that’s what I call sustainability! Israel is a country about which almost everyone has a passionate opinion — an opinion which they’re not usually shy about sharing, especially when that opinion is based on total ignorance. If you want to have any chance of understanding the complexities of the Middle East, you can’t just read about Israel, you have to experience it.”

Javid was not shy about making these statements, despite the fact that many voices within the UK, especially within the British Muslim community, are radically opposed to the State of Israel. Both moderate Muslims who are not anti-Israel and Jews who attend British universities claim that anti-Israel intimidation is a major problem on British campuses. Not to mention that the British media is full of anti-Israel articles and the BDS movement is quite active in the UK. Nevertheless, in spite of all of this, Javid decided to be courageous and to speak out for the truth in regards to Israel.

This was not the first time that Javid has come out to support the Jewish people. This year, Javid also commemorated Holocaust victims on the International Holocaust Remembrance Day by signing the Holocaust Educational Trust’s Book of Commitment in the House of Commons. According to Javid, “This is an important opportunity to remember the victims of genocide and to pay tribute to the extraordinary men and women who, having survived the Holocaust, work to educate young people about what they endured through the Holocaust Educational Trust’s outreach program. […] It is vitally important that we remember and learn from the appalling events of the Holocaust and that we continue to challenge all forms of bigotry.”

The SS-Headache of Carlos Latuff - Anti-Semitic Cartoons on Progressive Blogs

Douglas Murray and Michael Coren - Defending Israel in Europe

Mohammed Chowdhury flanking Anjum Chouhdhury arguing with Douglas Murray

Submitted by Tom Ifrach

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Security Forces Arrive to 'Finish the Job' at Oz Tzion - Video: Abbas’ Fatah Shoot Their Way through Hevron

Source: Arutz Sheva
By Elad Benari

Security forces in large numbers arrived at the Shomron (Samaria) outpost of Oz Tzion on Saturday night, in order to finish the demolition that was started on Friday afternoon.

The Tazpit news agency reported that ten police and IDF jeeps, along with a bulldozer belonging to the Civil Administration, arrived at the outpost overnight. The report added that clashes broke out between the forces about 30 people who were present in the outpost. One of them was detained for questioning.

Local residents also reported that the troops confiscated equipment such as clothing, beds, purses and bags. In total three buildings were demolished using the bulldozer.

The IDF was forced to stop the eviction from Oz Tzion on Friday afternoon when locals resisted eviction. The soldiers had to retreat, but the IDF had announced that the eviction will resume on Saturday night, after Shabbat.

Large forces had arrived at the outpost, which is located in the Binyamin region, shortly before Shabbat. Local residents reported that the officers used tear gas and stun grenades to try and evict about 200 youths who erected an improvised structure and put up several tents.

Violent clashes erupted between the two sides and one person was arrested. The IDF said its forces were attacked with rocks and that five officers were lightly wounded. The eviction was halted because of the Sabbath.

Dozens of youths who stayed at Oz Tzion over the Sabbath left the community after the Saturday evening havdala prayer. The youths spent the Sabbath at the outpost along with Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, the Rabbi of Tzfat, and Rabbi Dov Lior of Kiryat Arba.

The two rabbis had driven to nearby Ofra Friday, to negotiate an agreement according to which security forces would stop trying to evict the youths, and the youths would leave voluntarily at the Sabbath's end.

Tzipi Livni, head of the Hatnua party, blamed Bayit Yehudi leader Naftali Bennett for the violence at the Oz Tzion outpost.

Bennett reacted to Livni's accusation after the Sabbath on his own Facebook page, under the heading, "You Too, Tzipi Livni?"

Abbas’ Fatah Shoot Their Way Through Hevron

Source: Arutz Sheva

By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

Masked and armed members of Fatah, Hamas’ rival party headed by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, shot automatic rifles in the air as they marched through Hevron on Saturday.

The parade marked the anniversary of the founding of Fatah by Yasser Arafat, who was succeeded by Abbas after his death eight years ago.

The scene of masked men shooting rifles was identical with Hamas demonstrations in Gaza over the years.

The march did not encroach on the Jewish neighborhoods in Hevron, but it illustrates the face of Fatah not reported in mainstream media, which promotes Abbas as Israel’s ”peace partner.”

Marches, without rifles, also took place on a hill in eastern Jerusalem overlooking the Old City. Speakers emphasized that Jerusalem is “Arab” and praised martyrs and Arab nationalism.

Fatah is planning a parade in Gaza on Friday, the first time in five years that the Hamas terrorist organization is allowing the event to take place “for the sake of unity” with Abbas’ Fatah movement.

Arab League Chief Nabil Elaraby: Peace talks are a waste of time

Elaraby, Al-Maliki and Amr in Ramallah on Sat. (Photo: AFP)
Source: YNet News
By Elior Levy

Top Arab officials paid a rare visit to the West Bank on Saturday to discuss a Palestinian financial crisis that President Mahmoud Abbas hopes will be eased by Arab donations.

Arab League Chief Nabil Elaraby and Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr congratulated the Palestinians on a successful United Nations status upgrade last month, but stopped short of promising the badly-needed funds.

"Palestine is in need of material and political support," Elaraby told a news conference in the Palestinians' de facto capital of Ramallah.

"Arab countries agreed at their Baghdad summit (in March) for an Arab safety net of $100 million dollars each month, but unfortunately none of this has been achieved yet," he said.

Palestinian were cheered by a strong majority in the United Nations recognizing them as an "observer state" on Nov. 29 but have struggled to get Arab support to make up $100 million in shortfalls left by Israeli sanctions following the UN move.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki told reporters that Abbas has updated Elaraby over the Israeli measures, including the construction planned for territories beyond the Green Line.

Elaraby addressed the impasse in the talks between Israel and the Palestinians, emphasizing that the two decades of talks with Israel have been "a waste of time" and that Palestinians will soon take a new statehood bid to the UN.

"We will return to the UN Security Council," he said. "Palestine will be cooperating with Arab and EU countries to change the equation (in the peace process) that prevailed over the past 20 years, which was a waste of time."

Elaraby is the first Arab League Chief to visit Ramallah, but he and other prominent Arab and Islamic leaders, including the Egyptian

prime minister, met Abbas' Palestinian Hamas rivals in Gaza during their brief war with Israel last month.

Arab support for Gaza

Hamas, which split from the West Bank after it seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, also won a diplomatic coup by receiving Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, ruler of the oil-rich Gulf state of Qatar, who pledged $400 million in aid for the impoverished territory in October.

The emir postponed a visit to Ramallah he had announced this month, disappointing West Bank officials who had hoped he would arrive bearing gifts of cash.

The Gaza visits broke years of diplomatic quarantine for the Islamist Hamas group, which refuses to recognize Israel or relinquish its arms, and increased the isolation of the dovish, Western-backed Ramallah government.

West Bank officials have watched with worry as uprisings in the Arab world divert attention from their diplomatic strategy, which has failed to achieve an independent Palestinian state.

Hamas militants, by contrast, have been heartened as fellow-Islamists rise to power in Egypt and elsewhere.

In fact, Egypt allowed building materials into Gaza via the Rafah crossing on Saturday for the first time since 2007, according to an Egyptian border official. It was part of a shipment of building materials donated by Qatar.

An Egyptian official said the shipment was made in consultation with Israeli officials, who were in Cairo Thursday to discuss security in the Sinai Peninsula and the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire signed by Gaza's Hamas rulers and Israel last month.

Abbas has accused Israel of "piracy" after it withheld customs revenues it collects on the Palestinians' behalf, citing months of utilities bills Ramallah owes Israeli companies.

The financial crisis has forced the Palestinian Authority to delay salary payments to West Bank employees, who have gone on strike in protest. Abbas has responded by saying he might give up power and compel Israel to take on the Palestinians' affairs.

Reuters and AP contributed to the report

+972′s Person of the Year: The Settler - A Far Left Blog Gets it Right on Settlers

Source: Israepundit
By Lisa Goldman and Mairav Zonszein
Submitted by Dan Friedman, NYC

+972′s Person of the Year: The Settler

This is a well researched article published by a far left Blog. I believe it is accurate and fair with one exception, it refers to settlements as illegal under international law. But the bottom line is the settler movement has won. The remaining power of the left elite in media, army, Knesset, judiciary, is waning and they know it. Ted Belman. H/T Curious American

+972 Magazine

The settlement movement registered major victories this year on various fronts. Its representatives are reaching new heights in politics, the judiciary and the media. One out of five residents east of the Green Line is a settler.The expansion of settlements continues unabated, and – most importantly – settlers are in full control of the Israeli national narrative. In 2012, as more and more observers declared the death of the two-state solution, the settler became the new normal.

For decades, the settler movement and Israel’s secular, largely Ashkenazi urban elite have been playing a game of “pretend.” The secular political elite claimed the settlers were religious ideologues, obstacles to peace and not representative of mainstream Israeli society. The settlers, meanwhile, charged that an effete minority ruling class ignored their contributions and commitment to the state.

But all the while, successive governments headed by secular, purportedly liberal leaders tacitly expedited settlement growth even as the secular, purportedly liberal judiciary handed down rulings that effectively sanctioned settlements, which are built in contravention of international law. The settlers, meanwhile, became increasingly confident as they rose to occupy important positions at the highest levels of the state’s key institutions – the legislative branch (Knesset), the executive branch (the governing coalition), the judiciary and the army.

In 2012, the game became reality: The settlers are the new ruling elite of Israel.

According to all the polls, Israelis will elect an unprecedented number of Members of Knesset (MKs) from far-right parties, even as Likud’s relative moderates have been ousted and replaced by settlers and ex-settlers with radical political agendas.

A settler was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2012, while a former justice declared that the West Bank was not actually occupied territory.

Israel’s fourth estate, too, is partly “occupied” by the settlers. This year, Shlomo Ben-Zvi, a far-right publisher and settler who owns the frankly nationalist daily Makor Rishon, bought Maariv – one of Israel’s three veteran daily newspapers. While Maariv took a right-of-center editorial line in recent years, for decades it was Yedioth Ahronoth’s chief competitor for the title of Israel’s most mainstream daily newspaper.

Throughout the year, over and over, settler violence – price tag attacks on Palestinian property, unprovoked violence against Palestinians, even flat-out murder – has gone unpunished. Worse, it rarely elicits public condemnation or even, except for a few high-profile incidents, extensive media coverage.

The settlers have influenced the national narrative to the point that politicians who talk about peace, the two-state solution and negotiations risk becoming irrelevant.

For all these reasons, +972 Magazine has chosen The Settler as its Person of the Year for 2012.

The judiciary

In 2012, Judge Noam Sohlberg was appointed to the Supreme Court; he was the first settler to be elevated to this position. Eyal Clyne wrote in an article for +972that Sohlberg “has a proven record of controversial anti-liberal rulings in lower courts, some of which were later reversed.” His appointment resulted from “… sustained pressure on the Judicial Selection Committee, the body responsible for appointment of judges in Israel.” The right-wing coalition brought the committee to a deadlock, all-but forcing it to select conservative judges.

Also this year, a committee headed by former Supreme Court justice Edmund Levy concluded in its report on the legal status of the West Bank that it was not occupied territory but rather administered territory. The report also stipulated that illegal outposts should be declared legal. The Levy Commission was appointed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. While the Levy Report does not contribute anything new to the Israeli discourse, it does offer the stamp of legitimacy to what was once considered an extremist narrative.

The legislature and the government

According to all the polls, when Israelis cast their ballots on January 22, they will send an unprecedented number of elected representatives from the far right to the Knesset – settlers, former settlers and supporters of the settler movement. These include Moshe Feiglin, who led the anti-Oslo disobedience campaign in the Knesset, and Naftali Bennett, former head of the Yesha council and today head of Habayit Hayehudi (Jewish Home), the party of the national religious settler movement. Bennett, and not the leaders of the center or the left, is seen as Prime Minister Netanyahu’s main rival in these elections.

Avigdor Lieberman, who recently resigned as foreign minister after it was announced he would be indicted for corruption, is still head of Yisrael Beiteinu, which has merged with Likud. In other words, Lieberman, resident of the settlement of Nokdim, is now the deputy leader of Israel’s ruling party.

In the upcoming elections, a party called Otzma LeYisrael (Strong Israel) is running on a platform rooted in ideals of racism and violence. With a list of candidates that includes Aryeh Eldad and notorious Kahanists like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Michael Ben-Ari, at least half the polls show the party is expected to pass the threshold and gain two or three seats in the Knesset.

With Likud-Beiteinu polling at about 35 seats and the far-right parties at 15 or 16 seats, and given that Netanyahu is all-but guaranteed to win the coming election, it is very likely that he will form his next coalition in the 120-seat Knesset with the far-right parties, rather than the center and center-left parties — like Hatnuah, headed by Tzipi Livni, and Shelly Yachimovich’s Labor Party. But even if Netanyahu ends up with a more centrist government, the far right will be the dominant ideological force in the next Knesset.

Politics and the national narrative

The success of the settler movement is reflected in changes to the national conversation. Labor leader Yachimovich, who was elected to lead a putatively liberal-left party, will not touch the issues of the occupation and negotiations with the Palestinians. Nor will Stav Shaffir, one of the faces of the J14 social justice movement, who is now running for a Knesset seat on the Labor list. Both women know that the national narrative has swung so far to the right that mentioning the occupation will make them politically irrelevant. Yachimovich, a former journalist, a social democrat and a feminist, once voted for Hadash. Now, after entering political life, she says she supports the accreditation of a university in the settlement of Ariel, wants the budget for settlements to remain untouched and announced she would not rule out joining a government coalition headed by Likud.

Shaffir has not taken a public position on the settlements. The J14 movement that she helped lead in the summer of 2011 refused to draw a connection between Israel’s wealth gap and the funding shifted to the settlements, lest they make the movement “political.” She continues to focus on issues of domestic social injustice, completely ignoring the conflict.

Yet the traditional focus on the center seems somewhat irrelevant, as a new role model of the Israeli Sabra emerges in figures like Bennett, who has been receiving quite a bit of publicity lately, including a feature in the New York Times. The cherubic, youthful-looking Ra’anana resident is a former director general of the Council of Judea and Samaria; prior to that he was Netanyahu’s chief of staff, when the Likud was in the opposition. Born in Israel to American parents, Bennett served as an officer in an elite combat unit before going on to make his fortune in hi-tech, which is practically an Israeli Everyman story for men of his background. But Bennett, the Zionist patriot, recently said in a television interview that as an army reserve officer he would refuse orders to evacuate settlements.

Refusing orders has long been a red line that few dared to cross; politicizing one’s army service was considered a taboo in mainstream Israeli society that many thought made one unelectable. Yariv Oppenheimer, the former director of Peace Now, continued to serve his annual reserve duty in the West Bank even as he devoted his career to ending the occupation and eyed a career in politics. Oppenheimer ran unsuccessfully for a place on the Labor party list this year but was sidelined by internal party politics; if he had been a refusenik, his candidacy would have been unacceptable for a mainstream center-left party. But while leftists are marginalized for vowing to refuse service in the occupied territories — and arehanded jail sentences for making good on their promise — Bennett’s popularity and poll numbers seem unaffected by his controversial statement. If anything, he has become more popular. The ground has indeed shifted.

Settler violence and an atmosphere of impunity

The past year saw a precipitous rise in settler violence against Palestinian civilians. Some of the more egregious attacks received wide media coverage, but the settlers seem to operate in an atmosphere of impunity. Only a handful of indictments have been filed for uprooting olive trees, vandalizing and burning mosques, firebombingcars or accosting and beating Palestinians so badly that they require hospitalization – for no reason other than their being Palestinian.

In August, settlers threw a firebomb at a Palestinian family traveling in a taxi near the settlement of Bat Ayin. The entire family was wounded and required hospitalization, including an infant. The parents and driver received third-degree burns. That same week, a mob of Jewish teenagers assaulted and beat unconscious Jamal Julani, a 17-year-old Palestinian boy from East Jerusalem, while he was walking on a popular downtown pedestrian mall in West Jerusalem. Other reported incidents of violence committed by settlers this year include thesevere assault of an Israeli Ta’ayush activist in the South Hebron Hills. The activist testified to being blindfolded and beaten by a group of settlers. Just this week, five settlers accused of tracking IDF activities in order to thwart evacuation of outposts were let off with just community service and up to three months in jail.

According to reports published earlier this year by EU officials in Jerusalem, settler violence more than tripled over the last three years. Yesh Din, a human rights organization, reports that since 2005, fewer than 9 percent of police investigations into Palestinian complaints of settler violence have resulted in indictments.

The consequences of the rise of the settlers as the new elite

With the rise of the settlers, the once-radical idea that Israel should annex or maintain its military occupation of the West Bank indefinitely has gained new currency in relatively mainstream circles. Government approval for settlement expansion continues unabated. The taboo on discussing one state in liberal circles has been lifted. In 2012 we saw a flurry of op-eds declaring the two-state solution dead, with the writers making the declaration either with satisfaction or with regret.

Judea and Samaria Council leader Dani Dayan declared in a New York Times op-ed that the settlers’ “…presence in all of Judea and Samaria — not just in the so-called settlement blocs — is an irreversible fact.” Likud MK Danny Danon published a book called “Israel: The Will to Prevail,” in which he sketches out his solution to the conflict: annexation of the West Bank and no Palestinian state of any kind. One Haaretz columnist has declared the two-state solution dead and painfully admits the majority in Israel seek one state; the nature of that state remains unclear.

The emerging settlement reality has also reverberated within the American Jewish community. This is evidenced, among other indicators, by the fact that Peter Beinart, considered to come from within the mainstream Zionist, “pro-Israel” American Jewish establishment, made waves when he called for a boycott of Israeli settlement products. In a New York Times op-ed from March, Beinart argued that this is the only way to save the Zionist project.

This was the year the settler narrative regarding Israel’s control over the West Bank became institutionalized: the Education Ministry mandated school trips to Hebronfor high school students. The next generations of soldiers and leaders is being taught that the territory once regarded by the majority as temporarily occupied pending a negotiated solution, is actually part of the Israeli birthright.

The rise of the settlers is a result of state policies. This has been the case since the 1970s, when the government began shifting funding toward Jewish settlement of the occupied territories, turning it into a major national enterprise that preoccupied successive prime ministers. In 1993, fewer than 100,000 Jews lived in the occupied Palestinian territories. Today, there are half a million; thus, almost one out of 10 Israeli Jews is a settler, and one out of five people living east of the fading Green Line is a settler.

The political power of the settlers has extended to the judiciary, the powerful security establishment, the media and the business elite. They will decide Israel’s future – or perhaps its fate.

UK-based Arab Human Rights Group Accuses PA of Abuse

Source: The Jerusalem Post
By Jonny Paul

LONDON – An Arab human rights group based in London accused the Palestinian Authority of inhumane practices and human rights violations against Palestinian civilians in a scathing report published on Friday.

The Arab Organization for Human Rights has put the primary blame for the human rights abuses on PA President Mahmoud Abbas and called on the UN, Arab League and Organization of Islamic Cooperation to take urgent action.

AOHR monitored the practices of the PA’s security agencies from January to July 2012 and used information from victims detained by the PA, their families, eye-witnesses and local NGOs in its report.

It accused the PA of arbitrary actions against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank – including torture, detentions, interrogations and firing people from their jobs.

From June 2007 until the end of 2011, PA security forces detained 13,271 Palestinian citizens and 96 percent were subjected to various methods of torture, the report said. This resulted in the death of six detainees and caused “chronic illness” in others.

Between January and July 2012, PA security agencies detained 572 people and sent summonses to 770 more.

“Among them women and old people, who were often forced to wait from early morning to the evening before being interviewed.

Some were summonsed daily for weeks on end, others were kept under virtual house arrest. The period also witnessed raids against universities, hospitals and houses in order to arrest people wanted for protesting against the Israeli occupation. PA officers confiscated equipment and personal cash, which often went missing after the searches,” the group said.

It also said the PA was guilty of torture and degrading treatment, with 18.7 percent of a sample of 300 former detainees stating that they experienced “severe torture” and 99.7% claiming that they were exposed to degrading treatment.

“With regards to the effect of detention on the lives of the detainees, 60% of those in the study explained that they now suffer from chronic diseases due to torture and the poor conditions in which they were held in detention.

On another level, 60% confirmed that repeated or extensive detention reduced them to a state of acute poverty,” the report stated.

AOHR said also that many experienced harassment and dismissal from their jobs.

“At least 73 people were made unemployed in the period under review, and it is estimated that around 3,200 have faced the same injustice since 2005. Harassment also includes students with security records being unable to find employment, acquire a driving license or open a business,” the group maintained.

The PA’s activities, the NGO said, are routinely carried out in full coordination with Israel. It added, however, that the detentions and summons by the PA surpassed those by Israeli security forces.

PA security agencies have “no concern for the age or gender” of those being detained or summonsed, the report said.

“A significant number of detainees are elderly people aged 60 and above, representing 11.3%; women made up 15.3%. Of the sample, 39.3% are students, 38% of whom confirmed that their studies were interrupted as a result of detention,” the report stated.

It calls on the PA to adhere to international law and conventions, and to declare that a future Palestinian state “must be set up on true bases built on the rights of the Palestinian citizen to life and freedom.”

It accused the PA of not learning vital lessons from the Arab Spring that has taken place in Arab states in the past two years.

“It is staggering that the PA should, in the shadow of the Arab Spring, cultivate its own system of impunity, in total defiance of its people’s demands for freedom and dignity.

They seem to be oblivious of the factors which led to the downfall of the tyrannical regimes across the region.

There is absolutely no justification for its acceptance of becoming a subcontracted security instrument of the Israeli occupation, crushing at every opportunity the legitimate aspirations of their people for freedom and self-determination.”

It also said that the PA has not learned from its experiences with Israel, and called to halt military cooperation with the Jewish state.

“The PA’s human rights violations against the Palestinian people have amplified their suffering under the Israelis and undermined their national [unity] and struggle for selfdetermination.

It is clearly obvious that the PA hasn’t learnt from its experiences with the Israelis. On the contrary, it remains firmly committed to its campaign of detention and destroying national solidarity while serving foreign agendas which strike the Palestinian national freedom project at its core,” the report stated in its conclusion.

“AOHR places complete responsibility for these human rights violations on the Palestinian President Abbas... AOHR calls for the secretary-generals of the UN, Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to put pressure in Mahmoud Abbas to stop political detention as it harms the interests of all Palestinians.”

Based in North West London, the AOHR in the UK was founded in 1993. Its website, which is in Arabic, said it was set up “to defend human rights in general and the Arab human rights in particular, and to publish the whole truth no matter how painful.”

Was Jesus a Palestinian?

Source: Israel Hayom
By Gonen Ginat

The sights coming to us from the Gaza Strip have been some of the most terrible sights one can imagine. A group of motorcyclists drag a battered body down the streets, squealing with delight at the joyous calls of the crowd. People suspected of having relations with members of the same sex are hurled alive off rooftops to their deaths. Anyone who makes it to the ground and is still moving gets a round of bullets, too. A man's twitching body is strewn on the sidewalk and someone comes along and cuts off the head and lays it on the back while the people around applaud. Reports of a rocket exploding in Tel Aviv prompt Gazans to hand out candies in the streets.

People from the nation of MKs Ahmad Tibi and Hanin Zoabi, who both excel at preaching to us on the perils of the "occupation," have displayed extraordinary levels of cruelty, the likes of which have likely never been seen throughout the history of humanity. Bodies being dragged through main streets have become a mundane event. They talk about the Mavi Marmara (a Gaza-bound protest ship where clashes between activists and Israeli commandos left nine Turks dead in 2010) and they lament the nonexistent blockade on Gaza, but when it comes to relations between Arabs themselves, it seems that the Arab people have declared a competition to see who can break the record of shocking brutality.

*    *    *

It is not just the Palestinians. In Syria, they apparently used chemical weapons this week. Last week it was missiles. They are bombing their own brothers as a matter of routine, time after time, with every intent to kill. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad won't relinquish his seat until he has had a chance to butcher as many of his citizens as possible. This brings back collective memories of the last massacre in Syria, back in 1982. Hafez al-Assad surrounded a neighborhood in Hama and pounded it with artillery fire until there was not a single living soul left. The world was unfazed. It certainly didn't stop Israeli Arab politician Azmi Bishara from seeking solace with the butcher's family for the mistreatment he was subjected to by Israel.

The blindness that afflicts the Tibis and Zoabis of our country in the face of their people's appalling brutality evokes the memory of that historical event in Israel's justice system:

A blind man once filed a lawsuit against another blind man. As fate would have it, the judge presiding over the case was also blind. At the start of the proceedings, the judge asked the defendant, "What is your opinion about the lawsuit against you?"

The defendant replied, "It is entirely true."

The judge said, "I wasn't asking you."

To which the blind man replied, "I wasn't the one who answered."

*    *    *

The sights coming to us from Syria include the massacre of civilians, bombing of citizens and butchering of children. But many of the Israeli Arab leaders support Assad's murderous regime. Between talking about the "atrocities of the occupation" and declaring that "Israel is responsible for ethnic cleansing," there is apparently no time to do anything about the massacre of civilians across the border. After all, Tibi and Zoabi need their afternoon naps, don't they?

And still, there are those who argue that Jews and Palestinians have a lot in common. There is something to that claim: The parents of both peoples dream that their son will become an engineer.


Razi Barkai, an Army Radio personality, said Wednesday, and I quote, "Public discourse has taken a rightward turn and the country's intellectuals can't seem to find their place in it anymore because they are on the opposing side." In simple terms: Intellectual means leftist. Obviously.

The reason emerges

Hamas announced this week that from here on in, Palestinian journalists are no longer permitted to work in the Israeli press. Wait a second. Doesn't that explain something?

Where is the money?

A moment after Yair Lapid spoke at Ariel University (located beyond the Green Line), he was already explaining what a terrible sin it is to invest in the settlements, repeating his old familiar "where's the money" the routine. And so, there are those who will naturally conclude that on the day after the election, Lapid is going to be handing out the millions of shekels he is talking about. Here is an event that may show those people how wrong they are:

The heads of a certain charity were looking for donors. They realized that they had never received a donation from one of the country's richest tycoons. So they quickly sent their best fundraiser to the tycoon to try to secure a donation.

The charity representative began by saying, "We looked at our records and saw that even though you earn millions, you have never donated any money to charity. Maybe now is the time?"

The millionaire replied, "Did your records tell you that my mother is terminally ill and that her medical care is beyond her means?"

The fundraiser mumbled, "No, I didn't know."

The millionaire continued,"Did your records tell you that my brother is disabled and can't provide for his wife and children?"

"No, no, I didn't know that," the fundraiser said.

"And did you discover that my widow sister was killed in an accident and now there is no one to provide for her children?" the millionaire asked.

The fundraiser lowered his gaze and answered, "No, I didn't know about all these terrible tragedies."

Then the millionaire said, "Now tell me, if I refused to give money to any of them, what makes you think that I would give money to you?"


Two weeks ago, Likud dropped in the polls to 35 Knesset seats. Since then, the headlines keep repeating the fact that Likud is down to 35 seats. It has been five polls at least that have announced the news that Likud is down to 35 seats. This is an ongoing, steady decline in the polls. Mainly it is consistent, as it always lands on 35 seats.

The Holy Spirit

So many Palestinian spokespeople have recently taken advantage of the Christian holidays to declare that Jesus was a Palestinian. The Palestinian Authority has recently developed an alternative to the fact; they call it the narrative. They've already explained that the Dead Sea Scrolls, written in Hebrew, are part of their history, and that Moses was a Palestinian leader. This week, Palestinian politician Jibril Rajoub went as far as to claim that "Jesus was the greatest Palestinian in history, followed by Yasser Arafat."

Let's put aside the ignorance. Let's ignore the absence of any sort of self-awareness or any ability to grasp how bizarre the Palestinian Authority is making itself. Let's ignore the question of the value of a peace agreement with people who are completely detached from reality. The real question is this: If Arafat is the successor of Jesus, could the man who thought he was Arafat's father not actually be his father? And, in light of Arafat's sanctity, have we found a serious explanation for the jokes about who was really his daughter's father?

The Exclusive Political Rights Granted To Jews In 1920 At San Remo

Source: Think-Israel

by Wallace Edward Brand

There are actually three solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict. First there is a "one [Arab majority] state" solution, in which the Jewish Israelis would become unwelcome guests in their own National Home, and the Jews in the Diaspora, such as in Toulouse, lose the only place on earth they could go to and not be in a minority. The second is a "two state [temporary] solution" in which the interim solution would result in the loss of much Jewish and Christian heritage and in the long run would end up as the one [Arab majority] state solution. The third is one lawful Jewish state based on the San Remo Agreement of 1920 that established the British Mandate for Palestine. It granted the Jews exclusive collective political rights to Palestine, in trust, to vest when the Jews had attained a population majority.

It is widely accepted, but not correct, that the West Bank belongs to the local Arabs in Palestine who in 1964, at the suggestion of the Soviet dezinformatsia, decided to call themselves "Palestinians." as is apparent from reports of their invention by Major General Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest ranking defector from the Soviet bloc during the cold war. [1]

These "invented people" [2] also pretend they had long had a passion for self government. As shown in the footnote, the claim is actually of fairly recent origin. [3]

The full extent of Israel's claim of sovereignty has not recently been stated. At most, it is said by the Israeli government that no one has sovereignty over the West Bank, but that Israel has the better claim. [4]

A better view is that the Jews obtained a beneficial interest in sovereignty over all of Palestine in the 1920 agreement at San Remo of a British Mandate for Palestine, that entrusted exclusive political or national rights in Palestine to Britain. The trust and guardianship was provided for the benefit of the World Jewry -- to vest when the Jews, a population minority of only 10% at the time, later matured into a legal interest. This vesting occurred at least by the time of the abandonment of the trusteeship by Britain in 1948 when the trust res devolved to the beneficiary, and in any event by the attainment of the Jews of a majority population in 1950.

The trusteeship was to be called a "mandate" as shown in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 22 of the League Covenant, but it was clearly based on the British legal concepts of trusts and guardianships.

It was in 1919 that Jan Smuts submitted a memorandum to the League, which later became Article 22. The Council of Ten drafted for the League of Nations as Part I of the Treaty of Versailles [5], an Article 22 providing for mandates for the areas in The Middle East and North Africa captured by the WWI Allies from the Ottoman Empire. This concept was later applied to other areas.

Two years earlier, in 1917, in advance of the end of WWI, the British had drafted and published a policy for the disposition of the captured Ottoman lands in Palestine. [6] Britain and France were at that time following the "secret' Sykes-Picot Agreement in their disposition of Ottoman Lands. But in recognition of the historic association of the Jews with Palestine, the Balfour Declaration, a British Policy approved by its Cabinet, provided for exclusive political or national rights in Palestine to be granted to World Jewry.

The 1920 agreement of the WWI Allies at San Remo, on the terms of the Mandate turned what had been only a British Policy approved by the Cabinet, into International Law. Under Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, the rights had been provided in trust, [7].

We know this because the Balfour policy had been attacked as antidemocratic, as giving sovereignty to the Jewish people who constituted only 60,000 of the total population of 600,000 in Palestine as of 1917.

In Jerusalem, the Jews had had a plurality of the population since 1845 and a majority since 1863, but in all of Palestine, in 1917 they constituted only 10% of the population. Even US President Woodrow Wilson was advancing the argument that award of sovereignty to a minority population was inconsistent with his 14 points that provided, among other things, for majority control.

To counter this argument, which they conceded was a good one, Arnold Toynbee and James Namier in the British Foreign Office, in a memorandum of September 19, 1917 [8] said the problem of control by a minority was "imaginary" because they predicted that the grant would be placed in trust and would not vest sovereignty in the Jews until the Jews were fit to govern it on principles of a modern European state.

In my view these included attainment of a majority population, defined boundaries, unified control over all within the boundaries, etc. Providing a National Home for Jews in Palestine with the British running the government until the Jews could attain a majority status based on favored immigration from the Jews in the Diaspora to be facilitated by the trustee would be a temporary measure and not antidemocratic. [9] The local Mandate Administration was to have the Zionist organization as their official advisors.

The statement of the purpose of the British Mandate for Palestine in its Preamble and Article 2 is entirely consistent with this view although not expressed. [10]

What was the National Home to be -- a reconstituted state?

No, not immediately. It was a place for the Jewish people to feel at home while the immigration was going on that would ultimately give the Jews a majority of the population and a reconstituted state. So that the staff of the British Mandatory Power, will know how to do that: Article 4 provides for the Zionist Organization to advise the mandate government staff. Part of Article 6 requires the staff of the Mandatory Power for The Administration of Palestine, to facilitate immigration of Jews. The Mandate does NOT provide that immigration of any other peoples is to be facilitated. Article 5 provides that none of the land is to be ceded to a foreign power.

Who were the beneficiaries of the trust?

Only World Jewry, both those already in Palestine and many more scattered worldwide in the Diaspora since the time of the Roman Empire conquest of Palestine.

Howard Grief, who has provided the seminal work on the legal foundations of Israel under International Law, says one can conclude this because they are the only people mentioned to be dealt with specially. [11]The non-Jews are referred to only to ensure their civil and religious rights are to be protected when the Jews attained a majority population and were vested with Sovereignty.

Because Article 22 of the League Covenant defined the relationship of Britain and the Jews as trustee and guardian with Jews in effect being beneficiaries and ward the Mandate essentially provided for a Jewish National Home that would be supervised by the British until its ward was capable of exercising sovereignty, including helping it attain a majority of population it needed to do that. It was charged with facilitating such immigration.

All this purpose was not expressed very clearly in the Mandate, likely to avoid stirring up the Arabs in time of war that might bleed off troops to maintain stability in Palestine. But the Arabs were given to understand that this was the case after World War I ended.

After the war, the Arabs were told by Winston Churchill that the request for self government by the inhabitants of Palestine would be denied until such time as the Jews had attained a majority of the population. The Arabs later made that understanding clear in their arguments against Partition in the UNSCOP hearings in 1947. [12]

The Arabs argued in 1947

"It was clear from the beginning that if Palestine were to be turned into a Jewish national home, this would involve the indefinite denial of self-government until such time as the Jews were strong enough to take over the government; that pending such time, Palestine would have to be subjected to a foreign administration [of England] which had no basis in the consent of the population and of which the policy would be determined, not by consideration of the welfare of the population, but by the desire to assist in the settlement of an alien group; and that to make such a settlement possible the country would have to be cut off from the surrounding Arab lands by artificial frontiers, would be given a separate system of law, administration, finance, tariffs, and education and would thus inevitably lose some if not all of the Arab character."

But that is what the grantors knew had been intended by the Balfour Policy and the Arabs knew it when they argued against Partition in 1947. [13] They had learned after WWI from Winston Churchill this was the intention of the British Policy in 1917 and of the San Remo grant in 1920.

"As the first Arab delegation to England stated in the course of its correspondence with Mr. Churchill, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, 'we are to understand ...that self-government will be granted as soon as the Jewish people in Palestine are sufficiently able through numbers and powers to benefit to the full by it, and not before.'"[14]

And at the Paris Peace Conference, David Lloyd-George referred to the requirement that the Jews in Palestine attain a population majority before they were to have sovereignty.

Prior to the publishing of the British Mandate the French attached a procès verbal in French shown only in the French Version. [15] This was the agreement of the French to the 1920 grant only on their stated understanding that the Mandate would not require any non-Jews in Palestine to surrender any existing rights. The League had no objection to the process verbal.

The Mandate expressly preserved existing civil and religious rights of the non-Jews but could not preserve their political rights because they had never had any. The preservation of their civil rights only protected their individual political rights, ie. their right to vote. It did not protect their collective political rights or national rights, the right of sovereignty and political self-determination.

The Arabs in Palestine had always been ruled from afar. So the Mandate carried out the "process verbal"

Why, in 1917, did Britain establish a policy that gave a preference to the Jews? There were several reasons.

Britain's Prime Minister at the time of the Balfour Declaration was David Lloyd-George. Later, in 1923, he was the author of an article "The Jews and Palestine" [16] In it he revealed his view that the Arabs under Ottoman Rule had turned Palestine, the Biblical land of milk and honey into a malarial wasteland. He believed it could be remedied under a reconstituted Jewish State.
There was considerable sympathy among many Christian Evangelicals in England who thought the Jews should be restored to Palestine to flee from the pogroms of Russia and Poland. This sympathy did not extend to receiving them in England. British workmen had complained that Jews were flooding in to England and taking their jobs and working for less. This led to the Aliens Act of 1909 restricting Jewish immigration into England.
But the British recognized that the oppression of the Jews in Russia and Poland was very bad and they needed some place to go. [17]
Chaim Weismann, an ardent Zionist and also a good chemist, had helped Britain in the war by developing an inexpensive method of manufacturing acetone used in cordite for munitions and had given it to the British. It was a great help to the British war effort. [18]
And England, according to Winston Churchill, also desired to win over the Jews in Russia, many of them in the Bolshevik government, so that they might influence the new Marxist government to remain in battle with the Germans and Ottomans in WWI on the side of the Allies. He thought that the Balfour Declaration could sway them in British favor. [19]
There came a time, some 28 years later, after WWII that the British decided their effort to be trustee was simply costing it too much. They tried to obtain some funding from the United States, but the United States declined to provide any. Britain finally decided to abandon its trusteeship and guardianship in 1948.

On the abandonment of its trusteeship by Britain in 1948, political rights that were the "trust res" (the thing put in trust) devolved to the Jews as beneficiaries or wards of the trust and vested in them the political rights permitting them to exercise sovereignty. These rights had survived the demise of the League of Nations by virtue of Article 80 of the UN Charter. [20] By 1948 the Jewish population had grown to one third the total population of what had been granted in the 1922 Mandate, in which TrasJordan had been split off and granted to Abdullah and the Hashemite tribe.

It should be expressly noted that the Jews did not receive these rights from the 1948 Partition Resolution. The General Assembly "recommended" a Partition of the land west of the Jordan River. It was in the form of a recommendation as the UN General Assembly had no authority to grant political rights or in fact any rights. It only had the authority to recommend and its recommendations were without effect unless both involved parties agreed to accept the recommendation.

By that time the Jewish population had increased significantly to about one third the total population in Palestine West of the Jordan. In 1947 the UN General Assembly had recommended that the Jews give up some of its rights in an attempt to avoid violence that had been threatened by the Arabs if the Jews were to reconstitute their state in Palestine. The Jews agreed to give up some of the land over which they were to have political rights, but the Arabs rejected the recommendation and commenced a war.

It was by the Arabs starting a war that led to a Jewish population majority in 1950. Some 600,000 to 700,000 Arabs fled the country before even seeing an Israeli soldier. The wealthy left first, at the first foreshadowing of war. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Mahmoud Abbas wrote this in the official organ of the PLO, "Filanstin", most of the rest left at the request of the Arab Higher Committee that wanted to get them out of the way of the Arab armies in the surrounding states. [21]

Many left because of a false report that the Irgun had committed a massacre of Arabs at Deir Yassin, that the Haganah, their political enemies did not dispute. A BBC program based on an interview of an Arab radio commentator at the time revealed he had been pushed into designating a hard fought battle as a massacre so as to provide an excuse for the invasion of surrounding armies. [22] A very few Arabs, mainly those living in Lydda and Ramle, were required to leave to protect the rear of the Israeli battle line.

Many Arabs local to Palestine left; some remained.

But those that left could not go back because the Arab Armies did not prevail

In 1948 Israel declared Independence and vindicated its claim by force of arms against the assault of other Arab states surrounding it. It established an orderly unified stable control of its territory except for Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem which had been invaded and occupied by the Arab Legion in the East. This British supplied and led organization became the Army of Jordan. [23] In the South, the Egyptian Army was able to maintain its occupation of the Gaza Strip.

In 1920 the Ottoman Empire in Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres,had ceded its sovereignty in Palestine, which had been undisputed for 400 years, to a Mandatory Power in trust for a National Homeland for the Jews. [24] The Sevres Treaty was never ratified by the Turks who were concerned over Turkey's boundaries in Europe and in adjacent areas in Asia, not in the Middle East and North. But these issues were finally settled in 1923 in the Treaty of Lausanne that left the agreements in the Middle East unchanged. By then they were fait accompli.

The trustee selected by the League of Nations at San Remo was Great Britain; the US had been another possibiility. Sovereignty, i.e. political rights, over the other 99% of the lands captured from the Ottomans in the Middle East was allocated to Arab and Muslim majorities in some 20 areas such as Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq but as in the case of Palestine, in mandates of guardianship as the inhabitants had had no prior experience in self rule.

While it was expected in 1920 that the Jewish Homeland would eventually become a state when immigration gave the Jews a majority of the population, at the time the Jews were incapable of exercising sovereignty. Lord Balfour had resigned as Foreign Secretary following the Paris Conference in 1919, but continued in the Cabinet as lord president of the council.

In a memorandum addressed to new Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon, he stated that the Balfour Declaration contradicted the letters of the covenant (referring to the League Covenant) the Anglo-French Declaration, and the instructions to the King-Crane Commission.

All of the other engagements contained pledges that the Arab or Muslim populations could establish national governments of their own choosing according to the principle of self-determination. Balfour explained: "... in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present (majority) inhabitants of the country though the American [King-Crane] Commission is going through the form of asking what they are."

Balfour stated explicitly to Curzon:

"The Four Great Powers [Britain, France, Italy and the United States] are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, and future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. In my opinion that is right."

Balfour continued:

"I do not think that Zionism will hurt the Arabs, but they will never say they want it. Whatever be the future of Palestine it is not now an 'independent nation', nor is it yet on the way to become one. Whatever deference should be paid to the views of those living there, the Powers in their selection of a mandatory do not propose, as I understand the matter, to consult them.". . ."If Zionism is to influence the Jewish problem throughout the world, Palestine must be made available for the largest number of Jewish immigrants"

While the rights granted under the Trust restricted the Jews, when they did exercise sovereignty, from doing anything that would impair the civil or religious rights of the Arabs it was silent as to the political rights for the Arabs. The Mandate Law also became the domestic law of the UK and the US in 1924 as Treaty Law when, under a new American Administration, the Mandate became the subject of the Anglo American Convention of 1924.[24a]

Perfidious Albion did not maintain 1920 form of its trust for very long. Circumstances changed, British interests changed, and the British Government also changed. Italy's opposition had delayed the issuance of the mandate as proposed in the initial draft submitted to the WWI Allies at San Remo. In the meantime, England had installed Feisal as the King of Syria. After the Battle of Maysalun, in which the French Armed Forces defeated the Syrian Army the French deposed Feisal.[25] Abdullah, Feisal's brother, was furious. He marched his troops from their home in the Hejaz (in the Arabian Peninsula) to Eastern Palestine and made ready to attack the French in Syria.

Churchill did not want war between the Arabs and the French. In the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement, Syria was in the French sphere of influence. Churchill gave Feisal the Kingdom of Iraq as a consolation prize[26] and gave Abdullah and his Hashemite tribe from the Arabian Peninsula Eastern Palestine in violation of the British Mandate.[27] The Mandate at San Remo had prohibited the Mandatory from ceding any land to a foreign nation. In the 1922 change, with a new Article 25, it formally approved delaying organized settlement by the Jews East of the Jordan River and informally gave TransJordan to Abdullah and his Hashemite Tribe from the Hejaz.

Article 25 preserved the prohibition of the Mandatory Power from discriminating among races or religions.[28] Under that Article the land East of the Jordan River became TransJordan in which settlement of the Jews was postponed. Later, a permanent mandate of Transjordan was executed changing the beneficiary to Abdullah and his Hashemite Tribe. Despite the specific terms of the mandate, England prohibited Jews, but not other ethnic groups, from settling there.

The British urging the League to adopt Article 25 was a breach of its fiduciary relationship as trustee with World Jewry its beneficiary and as guardian, with its World Jewry its ward.[29] as were the policies in their White Papers of 1922, 1930 and the vicious White Paper of 1939 under the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, of Munich fame. It was the last paper that had blocked many Jews from fleeing from the Nazi Holocaust. A vicious enforcement of the blockade ensued and directly disobeyed the Mandate's requirement to facilitate Jewish immigration. The British had reneged on their promises to the Jews.

During WWI the Hussein/McMahon correspondence with the Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula led to a British offer of self-government free from Turkish rule to all Arabs in the Caliphate if they helped the British in the war.[30]

The Arabs local to Palestine, unlike the Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula that had been led by Lawrence, declined the British offer of political self determination if they were to help the Allies, and preferred to fight for the Ottoman Turks who ruled from Constantinople. According to Winston Churchill, , "The Palestinian Arabs, of course, were for the most part fighting against us, ..." [31]

"However the Jews assembled several battalions of Jewish soldiers that fought alongside the British in Palestine in WWI.[32] They were known as "Palestinians".

At that point the Jews had, de facto, lost 78% of their Mandated beneficial right to sovereignty in Palestine, the land TransJordan or East of the Jordan River. Only 22% of the Mandate was left. After WWII, Article 80 of the UN Charter[33] expressly preserved the rights that had been granted by the League of Nations prior to its demise, i.e. the Jewish national rights, so the UN could not grant any of it to the Arabs. As I have noted, the Mandate itself prohibited the trustee from ceding any land in Palestine to a foreign Power.

Known as "the Palestine clause," Article 80 was drafted by Jewish legal representatives including the liberal Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Peter Bergson (Hillel Kook) from the right-wing Irgun, and prominent Revisionist Ben-Zion Netanyahu (father of Bibi). It preserved the right of the Jewish people to "close settlement" throughout their remaining portion of Palestine west of the Jordan River.

In 1947 nevertheless, the UN did not "grant" but its General Assembly "recommended" (not a grant-- that would be inconsistent with the previous grant) a partition that offered a part of the area West of the Jordan (a part of the 22% remaining) to the Jews, in effect, releasing that part of the trust res (the political rights) to the Jews, and the remainder to the local Arabs, although the latter was unauthorized by the Mandate. In the UNSCOP hearings, the Arabs had threatened violence if the Jews were to have a state in any part of the Middle East. It is evident that the UN, by submitting to the Arabs extortion -- threats of violence -- and recommending still further partition of the remainder, hoped to avoid the violence.


"To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted a process-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine;"[34]

What were those rights?

The Mandate preserved the civil and religious rights of the local Arabs but did not create any political rights for them. The civil rights included individual rights but not the collective political right of self-determination. It did not and could not "preserve" any collective political rights or "national rights" in Palestine for local Arabs in Palestine as they had never in history had any. It follows, therefore, as to political rights, the local Arabs were no worse off than they were under the Ottoman rule from 1520 to 1920, the British suzerainty from 1920 to 1948, or the Jordanian rule from 1948 to 1967.

But the Arabs didn't want the Jews to have any land with political rights for religious reasons, because it violated Islam to have any inroads on the Dar-al-Islam.[35] They engaged in jihad against the Jews and the Arab Higher Committee brought in the Armies of the surrounding Arab and Muslims States.

What was the effect of the abandonment of the trust by the trustee in 1948? Howard Grief provides a more legally precise reason,[36] but a simple way to look at it was that when the trustee quit his obligation, the only equitable thing to do was to give the rights to the beneficiary of the trust or the ward of the guardian.

Going back to 1922, by 1922 the British Government's interests had changed and the government had changed. In addition to its problems with the deposing of King Feisal, it was defending itself from charges that it had conferred political rights to the same land to the French, the Arabs and the Jews in three different agreements, the Sykes-Picot agreement, the McMahon-Hussein correspondence, and the Lord Balfour Declaration. So in 1922, Churchill, in a White Paper, tried wiggle out of England's obligation to the Jews by hinting broadly that a "national home" was not necessarily a state. However in private, many British officials agreed with the interpretation of the Zionists that a state would be established when a Jewish majority were to be achieved.[37]

In the British cabinet discussion during final consideration of the language of the Balfour Declaration, in responding to the opposition of Lord Curzon, who viewed the language as giving rise to the presumption that Great Britain favored a Jewish State, Lord Balfour stated: "As to the meaning of the words 'national home', to which the Zionists attach so much importance, he understood it to mean some form of British, American, or other protectorate, under which full facilities would be given to the Jews to work out their own salvation and to build up, by means of education, agriculture, and industry, a real center of national culture and focus of national life. It did not necessarily involve the early establishment of an independent Jewish State, which was a matter for gradual development in accordance with the ordinary laws of political evolution." The key word here was 'early'; otherwise, the statement makes it quite clear that Balfour envisaged the eventual emergence of an independent Jewish state. Doubtless he had in mind a period somewhat longer than a mere thirty years; but the same could also be said of Chaim Weizmann."[38]

According to Lloyd George, one of Churchill's contemporaries, for example, the meaning was quite clear:

"There has been a good deal of discussion as to the meaning of the words "Jewish National Home" and whether it involved the setting up of a Jewish National State in Palestine. I have already quoted the words actually used by Mr. Balfour when he submitted the declaration to the Cabinet for its approval. They were not challenged at the time by any member present, and there could be no doubt as to what the Cabinet then had in their minds. It was not their idea that a Jewish State should be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants.

On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a National Home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then Palestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. The notion that Jewish immigration would have to be artificially restricted in order to ensure that the Jews should be a permanent minority never entered into the heads of anyone engaged in framing the policy. That would have been regarded as "unjust and as a fraud on the people to whom we were appealing."[39]

If there is any further doubt in the matter, Balfour himself told a Jewish gathering on February 7, 1918:

"My personal hope is that the Jews will make good in Palestine and eventually found a Jewish state. It is up to them now; we have given them their great opportunity." [40]

Following an opinion of the renowned international lawyer Julius Stone that focused on the settlement question,[41] President Reagan and succeeding Presidents through George W. Bush maintained a US view that the Jewish Settlements in the West Bank were legal but as a policy matter should be discouraged because of their tendency to discourage the Peace Process. President Obama while continuing the position on policy has not specifically stated his view on legality of the settlements but has referred to them as "illegitimate"...

As to Jerusalem, East Jerusalem fell in 1948 [42] to an attack of the Arab Legion supplied and trained by the British and led by Sir John Bagot Glubb frequently referred to as "Glubb pasha". The Arab Legion later became the Jordanian Army.

The Jordanians demolished 58 synagogues and their contents, uprooted the tombstones of Jewish cemeteries, and used them for paving or building latrines, and built a latrine against the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, the single most holy site for Jews.[43] They expelled all the Jewish inhabitants of East Jerusalem and it became, as Adolph Hitler liked to say, judenrein or cleansed of Jews. In 1967 in the Six Day War, Israel drove the Jordanians east to the Jordan River and became in control of East Jerusalem.[44] They did not use their conquest to deprive the Moslems access to their holy sites in East Jerusalem as the Jordanians had done to the Jews and Christians.

Has the UN's Partition Plan any remaining significance for either the Arabs or the Jews?

No. According to acclaimed International Lawyer Julius Stone, ""The State of Israel is ... not legally derived from the partition plan, but [in addition to the grants referred to above] rests (as do most other states in the world) on A. assertion of independence by its people and government, B. on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and C. on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control." The Partition plan had assigned the Jerusalem Metropolitan Area to the UN's International Control, at least temporarily for a period of 10 years. However in the war of 1948, the UN did nothing to vindicate that assignment by force of arms against the assault of the surrounding Arab states. Therefore nothing remains of that part of the Partition Plan either. [45]

In fact you read in the news and hear on TV a lot about Jewish settlements outside of Jerusalem and in East Jerusalem, but have you ever seen or heard a reference to new Arab settlements there? Since 1950 more than twice as many new settlements have been built by Arabs in the West Bank as have been built by Jews,[46] totally ignored by the press. They fill them with Lebanese, Iraqis, Jordanians and Egyptians, and, mirabile dictu, they are Palestinians. An Israeli Professor in Haifa named Steven Plaut suggests, tongue in cheek, that the Arabs must have changed the name of the area from Judea and Samaria to the "West Bank" so they wouldn't look silly in claiming that the Jews were illegally settling in eponymous Judea.

In June,1967, in the Six Day War , Israel recaptured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem.[47] In 1994 Israel agreed that in return for a quitclaim of Jordan, to CisJordan, or the land of Palestine west of the Jordan River, it would release its claim to TransJordan, the land East of the Jordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. [48]

MY UNDERSTANDING FROM MANY AUTHORS, IS that the Arab claims for the Arab population in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem are overstated. Annexing the so called West Bank would not currently jeopardize a Jewish democracy in Israel. Nor would it in the long run as correct population growth shows Jewish population increase in the West Bank greater than that of the Arabs.[49]

I would only offer citizenship to those, Muslim, Jewish or Christian, who would take a loyalty oath to Israel. Others could remain with the status of permanent residents.

What about Gaza? It it were to keep shooting missiles at Israel, that would be a casus belli and Israel should take it over. Also, when it ceded its sovereignty over Gaza to the Arabs living there, the cession was under a tacit agreement that the Arabs would quit their attacks on Israel. They haven't. [50] A material breach of that obligation also justifies a takeover. Although the people in Gaza were ceded Israel's political or national rights to the Gaza Strip, they never met the requirements for sovereignty

The first of these is: are the Arabs local to Palestine a "people"? No, as noted above they are an invented people. Another requirement of a separate nation-state is unified control. When armed truces were broken by the Gazans, Hamas, that claims control, always blames the problem on other terrorist organizations. Since Israel's takeover would not be taking land of another sovereign, the land would not be occupied, but disputed with Israel having the far better claim.[51] I would suggest that until further Jewish population increase over that of the non-Jewish population justifies annexation of Gaza, that the Gazans be authorized Home Rule, but no vote in Israel's policies.

Israel should retain the right to eliminate candidates or parties that are terrorists. That should meet the requirements of the French "procès verbal" as the Arabs in Gaza never had the right to vote on the policies of the Ottoman Empire.

IN SUM, IT APPEARS THAT THERE ARE FIVE SEPARATE VIEWS that justify Israeli sovereignty over CisJordan. These are

The San Remo Resolution of 1920 which is justification under International Law,
The Anglo-American Convention of 1924 makes the Balfour Policy Treaty law and therefore the Domestic Law of the US and the UK,
Facts occurring after 1948, including Jordan's aggressive war in invading a land in which the Jews had been awarded political rights, and the defensive war by the Jews retaking it resulted in acclaimed International Lawyers holding that the West Bank was disputed, not occupied, and the Jews had the better claim to it.
In the Partition of 1947, the UN General Assembly recommended an award of part to the Arabs, that was not a grant because it had already been granted to the Jews. The Jews assented, but the Arabs declined. The Jews still had their rights under San Remo. The Arabs had no rights, certainly not the inalienable rights continuously claimed by Arafat and Abbas or by the General Assembly that has no authority to avoid Article 80 of the UN Charter, or even to go beyond a recommendation for Partition that has no effect if both parties do not agree.
In 1948 Israel declared independence, established unified control over its territory and defended it by blood and treasure. That is historically the way sovereignty arises.
Under canon law the Jews had exclusive rights granted by G-d as provided in the Old Testament.
These San Remo rights make possible a one state solution to the current Arab Israeli conflict in Palestine. Those in the Diaspora are also intended as the beneficiaries of the San Remo grant. However in writing this from the relative safety of suburban Washington, DC, it is not our intention to urge this course on the heroic Israelis who currently face an added existential threat from Iran. Note we say relative safety.

With Iran's hurrying development of nuclear bombs and intercontinental ballistic missiles, no one is safe. This is only to confirm the necessity and legality of a "one Jewish state solution" that others, before us, have already suggested. It is the Israelis who must choose.

Mr. Salomon Benzimra contributed to this article. He is the author of "The Jewish People's Rights to the Land of Israel", available in "Amazon-Kindle edition".

End Notes

[1] Brand, Soviet Russia, The Creators of the PLO and the Palestinian People,

[2] Newt Gingrich, Campaign speech, 2012 Republican Primary

[3] Brand, Was there a Palestine Arab National Movement at the End of the Ottoman Period?

[4] Danny Ayalon, Israel's current Deputy Foreign Minister, The Truth About the West Bank /News/News.aspx/145836

[5] See the original documents in the Avalon Project at Yale University.

[6] The Balfour Declaration Text

[7] See the first two paragraphs of Article 22

[8] Mueller, Editor, Churchill as a Peacemaker, Feith, p. 224 n. 36 citing Sir Martin Gilbert, Exile and Return, p. 111-12

[9] Charles Hill, Trial of a Thousand Years, World Order and Islamism

[10] San Remo Convention Text of the Mandate

[11] Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law, p. 36

[12] The Future of Palestine" by Musa Alami with a foreword by Mr. Alami. Hermon Press, Beirut, London (1970)

[13] Id

[14] Id

[15] Salomon Benzimra, Jewish People's Rights to the Land of Israel, n. 68 See below

[16] David Lloyd George, The Jews and Palestine,

[17] Ronald Sanders, The High Walls of Jerusalem, A history of the Balfour Declaration and the Birth of the British Mandate for Palestine. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York (1983) p. 90-94

[18] High Walls at 189

[19] Sir Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews,Gilbert reveals the beliefs that moved the British government to issue the Declaration: "The War Cabinet hoped that, inspired by the promise of a national home in Palestine, Russian Jews would encourage Russia—then in the throes of revolution—to stay in the war,. . .


[21] Abu Mazen Charges that the Arab States Are the Cause of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2003)







[27] Mandate Article 5

[28] Article 15. It is preserved by Article 25






[34] Text of San Remo Resolution, section (a) I am advised it appears only in two paragraphs of the Agreement, written in French

Spain in the dar al Harb

[36] Grief refers to the doctrine of "acquired rights" codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 70 Article 70 1 b) and the legal doctrine of "estoppel" See: Grief at pp.175,176 (The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law)


[38] High Walls of Jerusalem, at 611

[39] David Lloyd-George, Memoirs 736-7.


[41] "Israel and Palestine: An Assault on the Law of Nations" which dealt with the legal aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In it, Stone set forth the central principles of international law upon which Israel's right to settle the West Bank is based and discussed the inapplicability of Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the case of Israeli settlement.

Stone drew upon the writings of Professor Stephen Schwebel, former judge on the Hague's International Court of Justice (1981-2000), who distinguished between territory acquired in an "aggressive conquest" (such as Japanese conquests during the 1930s and Nazi conquests during World War II) and territory taken in a war of self-defense (for example, Israel's capture of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967 war). He also distinguished between the taking of territory that is legally held by another nation (such as the Japanese occupation of Chinese territory and the Nazi Germany occupation of France, Holland, Belgium and other European lands) as opposed to the taking of territory illegally held. The latter applies to the West Bank and Gaza, which were not considered the legal territories of any High Contracting Party when Israel won control of them; their occupation after 1948 by Jordan and Egypt was illegal and neither country ever had lawful or recognized sovereignty. The last legal sovereignty over the territories was that of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate which encouraged Jewish settlement of the land. See also a discussion of Stone's work, by Andrew Dahdal: "A Reflection On The Views Of Julius Stone And The Applicability Of International Law To The Middle East Israel and Palestine: An Assault on the Law of Nations" which dealt with the legal aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Finally, see a video with Danny Ayalon, Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel, adopting and illustrating the position of Stephen Schwebel and Julius Stone.





[46] Draft Report of Arab Settlement Activity in the West Bank

[47] Best account is still Michael B. Oren, Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (2003)
See also, his Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present

[48] Israel - Jordan, Treaty of Peace


[50] 660 rockets and 404 mortar shells fired into Israel since the end of Operation Cast Lead until the end of February, 2012. 
March 1, 2012 Palestinians fired three rockets toward Ashkelon. The projectiles landed in the Ashkelon Coast Regional Council, causing no injuries or damage. 
March 2, Palestinians fired a Qassam rocket into the Eshkol Regional Council, causing no injuries or damage. 
March 3, After nightfall, Palestinians fired a Qassam rocket into the Eshkol Regional Council, causing no injuries or damage. 
March 4. Palestinians in the Gaza Strip fired two Qassam rockets at Israel. One exploded in the Sdot Negev Regional Council.


Wallace Edward Brand, JD, is an alumnus of Harvard and UCLA. He is a retired lawyer living in Virginia. This article is adapted from Part 1 of an article that is archived at A version of this article appeared in Arutz-7 in two parts ( and

 _________________________End of Story___________________________