Friday, April 25, 2014

Part II: Israeli Sovereignty Over Judea and Samaria

Part II: Israeli Sovereignty Over Judea and Samaria

Worth a careful read. Has the UN's Partition Plan any remaining significance for either the Arabs or the Jews?

Wallace Edward Brand, JD
Balfour 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.[24]

Perfidious Albion did not maintain the 1920 form of its proposed trust for very long. Circumstances changed, British interests changed, and the British Government also changed. President Wilson'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.[25] 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] The land East of the Jordan River became TransJordan and then Jordan and the Mandatory, despite the specific terms of the mandate, 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 its beneficiary and as guardian, with 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, that 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.

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

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. 

In the San Remo Resolution, the Allies agreed "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 political or electoral 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 was 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

1.  The San Remo  Resolution of 1920 which is justification under International Law,

2. The Anglo-American Convention of 1924 makes the Balfour Policy Treaty law and therefore the Domestic Law of the US and the UK,

3. 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.  

4. 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.    

5.  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
[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
[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
[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

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Why Muslims Must Hate Jews

Why Muslims Must Hate Jews

By Nonie Darwish

Recently, a Pakistani religious leader, Pirzada Muhammad Raza Saqib Mustafai, said: "When the Jews are wiped out ... the sun of peace [will] begin to rise on the entire world."  The same preaching is routinely done not only by clerics, but by politicians -- in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere.  This is not just Ahmedinijad; it is at the heart of Islamic theology that world peace will be established only when all the Jews are wiped from the earth.  But few people in Western media are alarmed by this kind of rhetoric or care to expose this dreadful dark side of Islam's obsession with Jew-hatred.

I do not believe that one has to be an authority on human behavior or group thinking to find out the obvious pathology in Islamic Jew-hatred.  It is time for all of us to uncover and expose this atrocity against the Jewish people.  We owe that to humanity and the truth.

No true Muslim can see that such hatred is unbecoming and unholy for a world religion to focus on and that the credibility of Islam is tarnished by such hatred.  No Muslim is allowed to go far enough to self-analyze or ask why such hatred.  Muslims defend Jew-hatred by claiming that Jews betrayed Muhammad and thus deserve of this kind of treatment.  Even when I was a Muslim, I believed that the one-sided story against Jews by Islam was enough to justify all the killing, terror, lies, and propaganda by Islamic leaders against Jews.  To the average Muslim, routinely cursing Jews in mosques feels normal and even holy!

After a lot of thinking, analysis, research, and writing, I discovered that Jew -atred in Islam is an essential foundation to the Islamic belief system that Muslims cannot seem to be able to rid themselves of.  Jew-hatred masks an existential problem in Islam.  Islam is terrified of the Jews, and the number-one enemy of Islam is the truth, which must be constantly covered at any cost.  It does not matter how many Muslim men, women, and children die in the process of saving Islam's reputation.  The number-one duty of Muslims is to protect the reputation of Islam and Mohammad.  But why would a religion burden its followers like that?  This is why:

When Mohammed embarked on his mission to spread Islam, his objective was to create a uniquely Arabian religion, one created by an Arab prophet, which reflected the Arabian values and culture.  Yet to obtain legitimacy, he had to link it to the two previous Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Christianity.  He expected the Jewish tribes who lived in Arabia to declare him their Messiah and thereby bring him more legitimacy with Arabs, especially with his own tribe in Mecca, the Quraish.  Because his own tribe had rejected and ridiculed him, Mohammed needed the approval of the Jews, whom he called the people of the book.  But the conversion of Jews to Islam was part of the scenario that Mohammed had to accomplish in order to prove to Meccans that they had made a mistake by rejecting him.

That was one of the reasons Mohammed chose to migrate to Medina, a town that had predominantly been settled by Jewish tribes and a few impoverished Arabs who lived around the Jews.  The Jews allowed Mohammed to move in.  At the beginning, the Koran of Mecca was full of appeals to the Jews, who were then described as "guidance and light" (5:44) and a "righteous" people (6:153-154), who "excelled the nations" (45:16).  But when the Jews rejected the appeasement and refused to convert to Islam, Mohammed simply and completely flipped.  The Quran changed from love to threats and then pure hatred, cursing, and commandments to kill Jews.  Rejection by the Jews became an intolerable obsession with Mohammed.

Not only did the Jews reject him, but their prosperity made Mohammed extremely envious.  The Jewish Arabian tribes earned their living from legitimate and successful business, but Mohammed earned his living and wealth through warfare -- by attacking Arab tribes, some of whom were from his own tribe -- and trade caravans, seizing their wealth and property.  That did not look good for a man who claimed to be a prophet of God.  The mere existence of the Jews made Mohammed look bad, which led Mohammed to unspeakable slaughter, beheading of 600 to 900 Jewish men of one tribe, and taking their women and children as slaves.  Mohammed had the first pick of the prettiest woman as his sex slave.  All of this senseless slaughter of the Jews was elaborately documented in Islamic books on the life of Mohammed -- not as something to be ashamed of, but as justified behavior against evil people.

One does not have to be psychiatrist to see the obvious: that Mohammad was a tormented man after the massacre he orchestrated and forced his fighters to undertake to empower and to enrich himself and his religion.  To reduce his torment, he needed everyone around him, as well as future generations, to participate in the genocide against the Jews, the only people whom he could not control.  An enormous number of verses in the Koran encouraged Mohammed's fighters to fight, kill, and curse Muslim fighters who wanted to escape fighting and killing Jews.  The Quran is full of promises of all kinds of pleasure in heaven to those who followed Mohammed's killing spree and curses and condemnation to those who chose to escape from fighting.  Muslims were encouraged to feel no hesitation or guilt for the genocide because it was not they who did it, but rather "Allah's hand."

Mohammed never got over his anger, humiliation, and rejection by "the people of the book" and went to his grave tormented and obsessed that some Jews were still alive.  On his deathbed, Mohammed entrusted Muslims to kill Jews wherever they found them, which made this a "holy commandment" that no Muslim can reject.  Muslims who wrote sharia understood how Mohammed was extremely sensitive to criticism, and that is why criticizing Mohammed became the highest crime in Islam that will never be forgiven even if the offender repents.  Mohammed's message on his deathbed was not for his followers to strive for holiness, peace, goodness, and to treat their neighbors as themselves, but rather a commandment for Muslims to continue the killing and the genocide against the Jews.  Killing thus became a holy act of obedience to Mohammed and Allah himself.

Mohammed portrayed himself as a victim of Jews, and Muslims must avenge him until judgment day.  With all Arab power, money, and influence around the world today, they still thrive at portraying themselves as victims.  Sharia also codified into law the duty of every Muslim to defend Mohammed's honor and Islam with his own blood, and allowed the violation of many commandments if it is for the benefit of defending Islam and Mohammed.  Thus, Muslims are carrying a huge burden, a holy burden, to defend Mohammed with their blood, and in doing so they are allowed to kill, lie, cheat, slander, and mislead.

Mohammed must have felt deep and extreme shame after what he had done to the Jews, and thus a very good reason had to be found to explain away his genocide.  By commanding Muslims to continue the genocide for him, even after his death, Mohammad expanded the shame to cover all Muslims and Islam itself.  All Muslims were commanded to follow Mohammed's example and chase the Jews wherever they went.  One hundred years after Mohammed's death, Arabs occupied Jerusalem and built Al Aqsa mosque right on top of the Jewish Temple ruins, the holiest spot of the Jews.  Muslims thought they had erased all memory of Jewish existence.

Mohammed's genocide of the Jews of Arabia became an unholy dark mark of shame in Islamic history, and that shame, envy, and anger continues to get the best of Muslims today.  In the eyes of Mohammed and Muslims, the mere existence of the Jewish people, let alone an entire Jewish state, delegitimizes Islam and makes Mohammed look more like a mass murderer than like a prophet.  For Muslims to make peace with Jews and acknowledge that Jews are humans who deserve the same rights as everyone else would have a devastating effect on how Muslims view their religion, their history, and the actions of their prophet.

Islam has a major existential problem.  By no will of their own, the Jews found themselves in the middle of this Islamic dilemma.  Islam must justify the genocide that Mohammad waged against the Jews.  Mohammad and Muslims had two choices: either the Jews are evil sub-humans, apes, pigs, and enemies of Allah, a common description of Jews still heard regularly in Middle Eastern mosques today, or Mohammad was a genocidal warlord not fit to be a prophet of God -- a choice that would mean the end of Islam.

Then and now, Mohammad and Muslims clearly chose the first worldview and decreed that any hint of the second must be severely punished.  Jews must remain eternally evil enemies of Islam if Islam is to remain legitimate.  There is no third solution to save the core of Islam from collapsing; either Mohammed was evil, or the Jews were evil.  Any attempt to forgive, humanize, or live peacefully with Jews is considered treason against Islam.  How can Muslims forgive the Jews and then go back to their mosques, only to read their prophet's words, telling them they must kill Jews wherever they find them?  It does not add up, if someone wants to remain Muslim.

That is why the number-one enemy of Islam is, and must remain, the truth.  If the truth exposes Islam's unjustified Jew-hatred, Muslims will be left with an empty shell of a religion, a religion whose prophet was a murderer, a thief, and a warlord.  Without Jew-hatred, Islam would self-destruct.

Nonie Darwish author is the author of The Devil We Don't Know. 

Why Middle East Muslims are taught to hate Jews

Why Middle East Muslims are taught to hate Jews

For far too long the pervasive Middle Eastern qualification of Jews as murderers and bloodsuckers was dismissed in the West as an extreme view of radical fringe groups. But it is not. It is time for the region's secular movements to start a counter-education in tolerance.

By Ayaan Hirsi Ali 

Egypt’s newly elected president, Mohamed Morsi, was caught on tape about three years ago urging his followers to “nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred” for Jews and Zionists. Not long after, the then-leader of the Muslim Brotherhood described Zionists as “bloodsuckers who attack the Palestinians,” “warmongers,” and “descendants of apes and pigs.”

These remarks are disgusting, but they are neither shocking nor new. As a child growing up in a Muslim family, I constantly heard my mother, other relatives, and neighbors wish for the death of Jews, who were considered our darkest enemy. Our religious tutors and the preachers in our mosques set aside extra time to pray for the destruction of Jews.

For far too long the pervasive Middle Eastern qualification of Jews as murderers and bloodsuckers was dismissed in the West as an extreme view expressed by radical fringe groups. But it is not.

All over the Middle East, hatred for Jews and Zionists can be found in textbooks for children as young as 3, complete with illustrations of Jews with monster-like qualities. Mainstream educational television programs are consistently anti-Semitic. In songs, books, newspaper articles, and blogs, Jews are variously compared to pigs, donkeys, rats, and cockroaches, and also to vampires and a host of other imaginary creatures.

Consider this infamous dialogue between a 3-year-old and a television presenter, eight years before Mr. Morsi’s remarks.

Presenter: “Do you like Jews?”

3-year-old: “No.”

“Why don’t you like them?”

“Jews are apes and pigs.”

“Who said this?”

“Our God.”

“Where did he say this?”

“In the Koran.”

The presenter responds approvingly: “No [parents] could wish for Allah to give them a more believing girl than she ... May Allah bless her, her father, and mother.”

This conversation was not caught on hidden camera or taped by propagandists. It was featured on a prominent program called “Muslim Woman Magazine” and broadcast by Iqraa, the popular Saudi-owned satellite channel.

It is a major step forward for a sitting US administration and leading American newspapers to unequivocally condemn Morsi’s words. But condemnation is just the first move.

Here is an opportunity to acknowledge the breadth and depth of the attitude toward Jews in the Middle East, and how that affects the much desired but elusive peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

So many explanations have been offered for the failure of successive US administrations to achieve that peace, but the answer is in Morsi’s words. Why would one make peace with bloodsuckers and descendants of apes and monkeys?

Millions of Muslims have been conditioned to regard Jews not only as the enemies of Palestine but as the enemies of all Muslims, of God, and of all humanity. Arab leaders far more prominent and influential than Morsi have been tireless in “educating” or “nursing” generations to believe that Jews are “the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs.” (These are the words of the Saudi sheik Abdul Rahman al-Sudais, imam at the Masjid al-Haram mosque in Mecca.)

In 2011, a Pew survey found that in Turkey, just 4 percent of those surveyed held a “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” view of Jews; in Indonesia, 10 percent; in Pakistan, 2 percent. In addition, 95 percent of Jordanians, 94 percent of Egyptians, and 95 percent of Lebanese hold a “very unfavorable” view of Jews.

In recent decades Israeli and American administrations negotiated with unelected Arab despots, who played a double game. They honored the formal peace treaties by not conducting military attacks against Israel. But they condoned the Islamists’ dissemination of hatred against Israel, Zionism, and Jews.

As the Islamists spread their influence through civil institutions, young people were nursed on hatred.

In the wake of the Arab Spring, as the people take a chance on democracy, they and their new leadership want to see their ideals turned into policy.

For too many of those who fought for their own liberation, one of those ideals is the end of peace with Israel. The United States must make clear to Morsi that this is not an option.

This is also a crucial opportunity for the region’s secular movements, which must speak out against the clergy’s incitement of young minds to hatred. It is time for these secular movements to start a counter-education in tolerance.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a fellow at the Belfer Center’s Future of Diplomacy Project at the Harvard Kennedy School, and author of the books “Infidel” and “Nomad: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations.”

A Letter written by Mohammad Zoabi to the Undergraduate Student Association Council

To the Undergraduate Student Association Council

As an Israeli Muslim Arab, I was subjugated to brainwashing against the Jews while i was growing up. I was taught that we should hate them because they took our land, and that no Jewish person should be
living here. I was told by a few of my own family members that the Jews were planning to throw us into the sea and until that happened I would be suffering in Israel because I was an Arab. I decided to explore the situation on my own, I went out and started meeting new people, I met a lot of Jews... What struck me at first is that they didn’t hate me like I was taught to hate them, but rather I felt care, respect, love, and a want to co-exist.I began to realize how lucky I was to be born in Israel, to live in a free, democratic, and first world country with lots of opportunities. Last year, I started learning in a Jewish school.

Its not easy to be an Israeli Arab Zionist in an Arab Society. I was attacked physically several times, and insulted a lot by my Muslim neighbors. But with the support of my amazing mother and my friends in the only country in the entire Middle East where freedom of speech is allowed, I will continue to speak out for what is right. I know that there are other many other Israeli Arabs that feel the same because almost 90% of us said that they would rather remain an Israeli than become a Palestinian citizen, but they are afraid of being hurt. That is why I am asking the world to please listen and protect the truth about Israel. The world needs to wake up.

I see myself as a lucky Arab for being born in Israel. I am lucky to be born in a democratic country. I
have an opportunity to live as an equal human being who lives in the 21st century. The true apartheid
is the Arab world’s views against the Jews and Zionists like myself of Israel. All these talks of peace will only come true when the Arabs will stop educating their children to dream about killing and eliminating the Jews. Golda Meir once said, “Peace with the arabs will be achieved only when the arabs start loving their children more than they hate us”. She was right. World wake up. Shame on you for being anti hope, democracy, and freedom in the middle east. Shame on you, to be anti Israel.

In Israel, we are equal.

In Israel, we overcame discrimination a long time ago.

In Israel, there exists a democracy, which is something that the rest of the Middle East lacks.

Israel is the only democratic country in the Middle East and is surrounded by countries that educate
their children to dream about destroying Israel, and to achieve it whenever its possible. Israel will not be destroyed by anyone,not because it has a strong Defense Force, but because it is justice. The democratic world should be ashamed of themselves when they support boycotting and divesting from the only democracy in the region.

I urge you to vote no on divestment and support our only hope for democracy in the Middle East.

In Regards,

Mohammad Zoabi

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Palestinian Deception and the Unwarranted Trust of the West: The Case of Palestinian Accession to International Conventions

Palestinian Deception and the Unwarranted Trust of the West: The Case of Palestinian Accession to International Conventions

Amb. Alan Baker

Institute for Contemporary Affairs, founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation 

On 1 April 2014, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas signed letters requesting that “the State of Palestine” be granted accession to 15 international conventions and treaties.

This action by the Palestinian leadership, and the consequent, hurried acceptance of the Palestinian applications by the UN and by the Swiss government, raise serious questions both regarding the flawed perception as to the very existence and legal status of a sovereign state of “Palestine,” as well as to the potential implications of what are serious violations of the Oslo Accords and of the very integrity of the international law of treaties.

If the UN and the governments of Switzerland and the Netherlands acted in accordance with their legal and moral duties pursuant to international treaty law and practice, they would have determined that the requests by the Palestinian leadership for accession to the conventions fail to meet the requirements of international law.

Statehood can be achieved only in accordance with the accepted international law criteria of a permanent population, a defined territory, government and the capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Pending fulfillment of these criteria, the Palestinians cannot represent themselves as a sovereign state that can accede to international conventions, especially when such conventions specifically condition accession to states only.

In 2011 the UN Security Council rejected a Palestinian request for membership, citing disagreements on whether “Palestine” fulfills the requirements set forth in the UN Charter for membership. Nothing has changed since then.

All 15 conventions listed in the Palestinian requests for accession require that only states be permitted to accede. By rushing to accept the Palestinian accession requests, the depositories are in fact undermining the very integrity of international treaty law and creating dangerous precedents.

In a highly publicized ceremony on 1 April 2014, and pursuant to a unanimous decision by the Palestinian leadership, Palestinian Authority President and PLO head Mahmoud Abbas signed letters addressed to the United Nations and to the governments of Switzerland and the Netherlands, requesting that “the State of Palestine” be granted accession to 15 international conventions and treaties.1

The official website of the PLO justified this action by citing “a right which Palestine gained following its upgrade to observer state status by the UN General Assembly in November 2012”2 – a right the realization of which it claims to have postponed as part of the arrangements negotiated with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry for returning to the negotiating table. These arrangements included an Israeli commitment to release Palestinian prisoners and a reciprocal Palestinian commitment to postpone its “right” to accede to international instruments.

In light of the evident lack of progress in the negotiations and consequent attempts by Secretary Kerry to engineer their continuation beyond the nine-month period initially envisaged for their completion, Israel delayed the release of the fourth and final batch of Palestinian prisoners pending agreement to continue negotiations.

However, in the midst of the discussions to extend the negotiations, the Palestinian leadership decided to act unilaterally and to activate what they consider to be their “right” to accede to international conventions, following the upgrade of their status in the UN to a non-member observer state, claiming also that such conventions are “vital to continued Palestinian institution building, good governance and the upholding of human rights.”

This was evidently in realization of a pre-determined, long-term strategy document circulated in March 2014 by their chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, in which he set forth the steps the Palestinian Authority must take to achieve the goal of applying Palestinian sovereignty to the territories demarcated by the 1967 lines, including

Submit a request to immediately join the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the accompanying protocols of 1977. Upon receipt of the request to join, the president of the Swiss Federation will announce the acceptance of the state of Palestine as a member that has signed these conventions.3

Pursuant to the request by Mahmoud Abbas, both the UN and the Swiss government hurried to accept the Palestinian request. In a statement issued by the UN spokesman on April 10, 2014:

“The secretary general has ascertained that the instruments received were in due and proper form before accepting them for deposit.” In keeping with procedure, all member states had been informed.4

Similarly, on the same day, the Swiss Federal Council issued a formal notification to the governments of states parties to the Geneva Conventions of the fact that the Palestinian accession “took effect on 2 April 2014.”5

This action by the Palestinian leadership, taken in the name of both the “State of Palestine” and the PLO (the Palestinian umbrella organization), and the consequent, hurried acceptance of the Palestinian applications by the United Nations and by the Swiss government, raise serious questions both regarding the flawed perception as to the very existence and legal status of a sovereign state of “Palestine” in the international community, as well as to the issue of the potential implications of what are, in effect, serious violations of the 1995-9 Oslo Accords and of the very integrity of the international law of treaties.

It is perhaps logical to assume and to expect that the depositories of those international conventions to which the Palestinian leadership addressed its requests for accession – specifically the United Nations and the governments of Switzerland and the Netherlands – if acting in accordance with their legal and moral duties pursuant to international treaty law and practice, would have indeed determined in no uncertain terms that the requests by the Palestinian leadership for accession to the conventions fail to meet the requirements of international law.

Similarly, one might assume that the depositories would not have permitted themselves to fall for this deception, or to be manipulated by political or ideological pressures or by economic or energy-related interests, all of which would damage the integrity of international law and custom.

The reasons for this are as follows:

A State of Palestine Does Not Exist
Despite the commonly-held perception relied upon by the Palestinian leadership and evidently prevalent in the international community, the 29 November 2012 UN General Assembly resolution 67/196 upgrading the status of the Palestinian representation in the UN to that of a non-member observer state did not establish a state, and therefore did not grant statehood to the Palestinians.7

The United Nations – whether the General Assembly or the Security Council – does not have the power to grant statehood. It only has the prerogative to invite existing states to apply for UN membership and to consider if such states fulfill the criteria for membership as set out in the UN Charter.

By all accepted international legal and customary criteria, no sovereign Palestinian state exists. Such statehood can be achieved only in accordance with the accepted international law criteria of a permanent population, a defined territory, government and the capacity to enter into relations with the other states.8

Clearly, despite the illusions disseminated by the Palestinian leadership and bought into by the international community, the Palestinians are not yet in any position to indicate a defined territory, which is still subject both to an open conflict with the Hamas terror organization ruling the Gaza Strip, and is still an agreed-upon negotiating issue between the PLO and Israel. Nor can the Palestinian Authority leadership claim to represent the population of the Gaza Strip, which openly rejects its authority and jurisdiction as well as the presidential status and representative authority of Mahmoud Abbas himself. By the same token, the Palestinian leadership cannot thus indicate to the international community any clear and stable form of governance, and any capacity to take upon itself and to observe international obligations, or to represent itself as a “peace-loving state.”

Pending fulfillment of these criteria, it should be clear that the Palestinians cannot represent themselves vis-à-vis the international community as a sovereign state imbued with the capacity to accede to international conventions, especially when such conventions specifically condition signature and accession to them to states only.

In 2011 the UN Security Council rejected a Palestinian request for membership, citing disagreements between the Council members on whether “Palestine” fulfills the requirements set forth in the UN Charter for membership of the organization, which requirements include being a peace-loving state, accepting the obligations of the U.N. Charter, and a commitment and capability to carry out those obligations.9

Thus, the very basic premise cited by the Palestinians as justification for their claim to accede to international conventions would appear to be fundamentally flawed and to constitute a gross misrepresentation and over-estimation of their international status and prerogatives. 

Violation of the Integrity of International Treaty Law
International treaty law, as set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,10 calls for accession to treaties by states, whether members of the UN, Specialized Agencies or parties to the ICJ statute. The clear assumption is that the term “states” means genuine states that exercise the qualities and capabilities of statehood and sovereignty, and not entities, artificially termed “states,” that do not exercise such qualities and capabilities.

All 15 conventions listed in the Palestinian requests for accession, including the Geneva Conventions,11 require that only states be permitted to accede. By rushing to accept the Palestinian accession requests, knowing that there exists no genuine Palestinian state, the depositories are in fact both misleading themselves and the international community as a whole and undermining the very integrity of international treaty law and creating dangerous precedents.

Serious Violations of the Oslo Accords
The act of requesting accession to international conventions constitutes a clear violation of Palestinian obligations pursuant to Article IX of the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip of 28 September 1995,12 which sets out the agreed-upon powers and responsibilities of the Palestinian Council.

In this provision the Palestinians agreed and undertook not to exercise powers and responsibilities in the sphere of foreign relations, and to restrict agreements with states or international organizations solely to those serving “the benefit of the Council.” Such agreements are defined in the Interim Agreement as economic agreements, agreements with donor countries for the provision of assistance to the Council, agreements for the purpose of implementing regional development plans, and cultural, scientific and educational agreements.

In a similar vein, the Palestinian leadership is violating another central obligation set out in Article XXXI(7) according to which they agreed that “neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.”

These violations of the Oslo Accords place the integrity of the accords into serious question. The fact that the international community appears to be playing along with these Palestinian violations runs counter to the fact that those same Oslo Accords were counter-signed by leading figures in the international community, including the Presidents of the U.S. and Egypt, the King of Jordan, and representatives of the EU, Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Norway, all of whom solemnly signed the agreement as witnesses. The agreement was also endorsed by the United Nations.

In view of the above, the question may well be asked whether the “peace process,” that has for so many years been an integral part of the international narrative regarding the Arab-Israel dispute, can now continue in its present format when both the Palestinian leadership and the international community, through the UN and the Swiss government, have, to all intents and purposes – in accepting the Palestinian request to accede to international treaties – undermined it, and predetermined the very central issues that were to have been negotiated between the parties, i.e., the final status.

Practical Consequences of Accession to International Conventions
Accession to international conventions by the Palestinians, even before they can claim to be a genuine state, raises some interesting issues with which the international community, as represented by the UN, Switzerland and the Netherlands, will have to cope after accepting Palestinian accession to international treaties:

Pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations, states will be required to enable the establishment of full diplomatic and consular missions and to accord to Palestinian diplomatic and consular representatives the rights, privileges and immunities involved.
In accepting Palestinian accession to the 1907 Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land, to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocol, the Palestinians will be accountable for every rocket fired from territory under its control (including the Gaza Strip), the use of schools, mosques and private homes to store and use weaponry, as well as all acts of terror emanating from their territory, and every other violation of international humanitarian law, aimed at Israeli civilians, towns and villages.

Pursuant to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965, the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention against Discrimination against Women, the Palestinians will be accountable for their extensive internal legislation and policies discriminating against Jews, and their involvement in, and ongoing direction of, economic and cultural boycotts against Israel and Jews, as well as the in-built discrimination suffered by women in Palestinian society.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, 198913 and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, 200214 will render the Palestinians accountable for the involvement of Palestinian children in acts of violence and terror against Israel and its citizens.

The UN Convention against Corruption (2000)15 will require the Palestinians to prevent, criminalize and cooperate internationally in the fight against corruption – a particularly unique challenge in light of the extensively reported and widespread corruption among Palestinian leaders, including the siphoning of funding into private bank accounts.16

The UN Convention against Torture will place accountability on the Palestinians regarding the cruelty exercised both by Hamas and Fatah authorities against each other.
Derailing the Peace Process

The enthusiasm with which the international community appears to encourage and pamper the Palestinians, and to play along with their attempt to accede to international conventions, under the flawed illusion that there exists a sovereign state of Palestine, will only serve to encourage the Palestinian leadership in its refusal to return to a negotiating mode in order to reach a final status agreement with Israel, solving all the relevant and outstanding issues that can be solved only through negotiation.

As such, the Palestinian leadership assumes that the international community will go along with any Palestinian demand, thereby obviating any need for negotiation and agreement.

This international pampering of the Palestinians, and utter ignoring of international law and solemn commitments, as well as the massive prejudgment of issues that should remain on the negotiating table, in effect signals a serious turning point in the peace process and raises the question whether there is any hope for progress in its present format.

*     *     *


2 See more at:
3 See Jonathan D. Halevi, “The Crisis in the Peace Talks Was Pre-Planned by the Palestinians,” Jerusalem Issue Brief, April 10, 2014,
7 See Alan Baker, “The Palestinian UN Upgrade: Setting Things Straight,” Jerusalem Issue Brief, December 5, 2012,
8 These criteria are set out in Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States,
9 See UN Security Council report, See also
11 Article 5 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV, Article 60 of Geneva Convention I, Article 59 of Geneva Convention II, Article 139 of Geneva Convention III, Article 155 Geneva Convention IV, Article 94 of Additional Protocol 1, Article 48 of the 1961 Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations and on Consular Relations, Art. 46 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, as well as all the other conventions listed.
12 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip Washington, D.C., September 28, 1995,