It Is Settled FACT
In International Law
Jerusalem,
& The West Bank
(Judea & Samaria)
Belongs To The
Jewish Home
Settled In International Law
For Over 90 Years
Israel Should Have
OFFICIALLY ANNEXED
The West Bank in 1967
or in 1988
And MUST NOW Officially Annex
The West Bank
Since The Palestinians Violate
The Fundamental Necessary
Agreement By Refusing To Negotiate
With Israel & Recognize The Jewish State
And Going Directly To The UN
Thus Making The Entire
So-Called OSLO or Road Map
Peace Process AND
Every Agreement In It
NULL and VOID
Israel MUST NOW Officially
Annex
The West Bank
Dr Jacques P Gauthier practices
international law in Toronto.
He spent twenty years studying for and writing his PhD thesis
that Jerusalem legally belongs to the Jews.
The matter according to him is res judicata. i.e. LEGALLY DECIDED.
In this presentation he authoritatively explains why.
Jacques Gauthier is first and foremost loyal to the law.
Click
Here For
The Best Explanation
From The Premier
Legal Expert
That
Jerusalem belongs to Jews
Settled In International Law
On This Page At the Bottom
You Will Find An Article - Why Palestine?
by David Solway - FrontPage Magazine, October 18th, 2011
This EXCELLENT Article by David Solway, IMHO is a MUST READ.
David Solway's Article Why Palestine?
really makes the point that this is an antichrist world and the majority of
people obviously are at enmity with God.
The one and only True God identified Himself to the world as The God of Israel.
It was the Lord Jesus Christ who IS the I AM who gave torah to Moses and
was in that pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night leading His
people Israel from bondage in Egypt to their promised land.
Jesus Christ was crucified on a Roman cross for the official crime of being King
of the Jews.
Let All Be Confirmed By 2 or
More Witnesses
The Following Analysis Is by my dear friend,
Mark Rouleau.
IMHO Mark is the attorney with the best legal mind and understanding of Justice
in America.
Beyond INTEGRITY, his mind is SHARP, regenerated, and renewed daily.
What a GREAT Difference a man like Mark could make if he were Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court.
Mark Rouleau has spent a great deal of time reviewing the historical legal
documents
and history of the Region of the Middle East called Palestine.
I have been devoting a lot of time recently to reviewing the significant international documents regarding the "home for the Jewish people" and from the surface of the whole deal, the Arabs have kept snatching away more land to make it Juden Rein. First Trans-Jordan then Resolution 181 both are in violation of the Mandate for Palestine, the San Remo Accords, the Treaty of Sčvres (Section VII, Art 94-97); the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. Winston Churchill and the English Monarchy violated both agreements when they gave all of the Trans-Jordan to the Hashemites after anointing the Saudis as the protectors of the oil fields as well as Mecca & Medina. The UN then violated it's charter that adopted all of the acts and agreements of the League of Nations which included both of those agreements.
Both the League of Nations and the
United Nations are at their very core an anathema to God. They deny his
sovereignty from the start by talking in terms of Human Rights instead of God
given rights. Human rights are doled out by the collective to individuals. The
very essence of the "collective" is as the possessor of these "Human" rights. In
fact such "rights" are merely human "preferences" as they can and have changed
over time. Despite what the UN or "international community" titles them they are
neither "universal" or "immutable." If they are not from God by definition they
are also subject to being corrupt because man's heart is evil from his youth,
and his heart is wicked and deceitful above all things. This problem is even
further compounded by the fact that the UN gives the fraudulent mirage of
"democracy" when in fact the majority of its member nations don't even come
close to being popular democracies.
If one is to trace this back through international law we learn that Great
Britain obtained control of tribal lands through conquest from the Ottomans and
placed the land under colonial rule. Under the Balfour Declaration which was
basically ratified by the League of Nations (Principle Allied Powers at San Remo
and again in the Treaty of Sevres) and the United Nations which adopted all of
the decisions and actions of the League, created the "Mandate for Palestine"
which was to cover all of what is now referred to as Israel, the West Bank,
Gaza, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Without returning to the League of
Nations or the British Parliament the MacDonald White Paper of 1938 (days just
before WWII) states because the Arabs and the Jews could not agree on a
partition plan (sound familiar) His Majesty's Government are free to formulate
their own policy. Britain was never given such carte blanche authority to
partition the land.
As originally and later contemplated there was to be one government over all of
the land constituting the "mandate" and that both Arabs and Jews would
participate together in most affairs of political and economic life and
expressly sharing together the governance of the land. The MacDonald White paper
states in part:
His Majesty's Government are unable at present to foresee the exact
constitutional forms which government in Palestine will eventually take, but
their objective is self government, and they desire to see established
ultimately an independent Palestine State. It should be a State in which the two
peoples in Palestine, Arabs and Jews, share authority in government in such a
way that the essential interests of each are shared. * * *
His Majesty's Government regret the misunderstandings which have arisen as
regards some of the phrases used. For their part they can only adhere, for the
reasons given by their representatives in the Report, to the view that the whole
of Palestine west of Jordan was excluded from Sir Henry McMahon's pledge, and
they therefore cannot agree that the McMahon correspondence forms a just basis
for the claim that Palestine should be converted into an Arab State. [But it was
when Churchill created Trans-Jordan with the stroke of a pen] * * *
The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve
consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the
termination of the Mandate.
The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in
such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are
safeguarded. * * *
His Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to create conditions
which will enable the independent Palestine State to come into being within 10
years. * * *
For each of the next five years a quota of 10,000 Jewish immigrants will be
allowed on the understanding that a shortage one year may be added to the quotas
for subsequent years, within the five year period, if economic absorptive
capacity permits.
In addition, as a contribution towards the solution of the Jewish refugee
problem, 25,000 refugees will be admitted as soon as the High Commissioner is
satisfied that adequate provision for their maintenance is ensured, special
consideration being given to refugee children and dependents. * * *
After the period of five years, no
further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are
prepared to acquiesce in it. * * *
His Majesty's Government are satisfied that, when the immigration over five
years which is now contemplated has taken place, they will not be justified in
facilitating, nor will they be under any obligation to facilitate, the further
development of the Jewish National Home by immigration regardless of the wishes
of the Arab population."
At a meeting of the Zionist
Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at
Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official
statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with
the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to
make the common home into a flourishing community, the up building of which may
assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."
Contrary to the binding San Remo Accord in 1921 the portion of the mandate now
known as Jordan was excised from the mandate to create a separate Palestinian
Arab homeland and in 1947 the UN (Resolution 181) further partitioned the land.
Winston Churchill, visited the Middle East and endorsed an arrangement whereby
Transjordan would be removed from the original territory of Palestine, with
Abdullah as the emir under the authority of the High Commissioner, and with the
condition that the Jewish National Home provisions of the (future) Palestine
mandate would not apply there. Effectively, this removed about 78% of the
original territory of Palestine and left about 22% where the application of the
Balfour Declaration calling for a "Jewish" national home could be applied.
In 1925, "King Ali bin al-Hussein, the eldest brother of Abdullah and Faisal,
lost the throne of the Kingdom of the Hijaz to Abdel Aziz bin Saud of Najd. The
loss, which was brought about by a partnership between Ibn Saud and followers of
the Wahhabi movement, led to the establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
and brought to an end over one thousand years of Hashemite rule in Mecca." (The
Making of Transjordan)
For the price of Saudi Arabian Oil the Palestinian Arabs, under the Hashemite
leaders, were given by Winston Churchill and the British Monarchy, about 78% of
the land of Palestine that was approved by the League of Nations to be "a
national home for the Jewish people." (San Remo Accord) This was done contrary
to both the Mandate and the San Remo Accords.
Then an even further partition of this land took place in 1947. See UN
(Resolution 181)
Interestingly the nations who most fervently press for the borders in Resolution
181 are the nations that voted against it. Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece,
India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
From the charters and true talk (in Arabic to their people) of almost all of the
Arab leaders do not truly believe in any partition. They are just using the
process to keep whittling away at any Zionist Jewish presence in the land and to
impose some version of Shariah on its inhabitants.
It is really too bad that the vision of the British Mandate could not have been
effectuated. On the surface at least it seems that Israel grants full
participation in political life to the Arabs who are its citizens allowing them
seats in Parliament etc. I am convinced that this everlasting hatred against the
Jews will only be resolved by the return of Yeshua and the recognition of the
people living there and elsewhere of his Godship and right to rule and reign.
In the 1920s, among their final acts as the winners of the First World War, the British and French created the states that now define the Middle East. They created these Arab states out of the ashes of the empire of their defeated Turkish adversary. In a region that the Ottoman Turks had controlled for hundreds of years, Britain and France drew the boundaries of the new states, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Before this division of the lands, and establishment of new Arab states in the Middle East, the British had promised the Jewish Zionists that they could establish a national home in a portion of what remained of the area, which was known as the Palestine Mandate.
In 1921 the British separated 80 percent of the Palestine Mandate, east of the Jordan, and created the Arab kingdom of Transjordan. It was created for the Arabian monarch King Abdullah, who had been defeated in tribal warfare in the Arabian Peninsula, and lacked a seat of power. Abudllah’s tribe was Hashemites, while the vast majority of Abdullah’s subjects were Palestinian Arabs.
What was left of the original Palestine Mandate, between the west bank of the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, had been settled by Jews and Arabs. Jews, in fact, had lived in the area continuously for 3,700 years, even after the Romans destroyed their state in Judea in AD 70. Arabs became the dominant local population for the first time in the seventh century AD as a result of the Muslim invasions. The Palestinian Arabs were largely nomads who had no distinctive language or culture to distinguish them from other Arabs. In all the time since, they had made no attempt to create an independent Palestinian Arab state west or east of the Jordan, and none was ever established.
The idea of a Palestinian nation, or a movement to create one, did not exist. At the time of modern Israel’s birth as a state, Palestinian Arabs lived on roughly 90 percent of the original Palestine Mandate. However, some of the Palestinian Arabs also lived in the new state of Israel. There were 800,000 Arabs living in Israel alongside 1.2 million Jews. At that time, though it was accepted that Arabs could live in the new state of Israel, the Jews were NOT allowed, and were legally barred from settling in the 35,000 square miles of Palestinian Transjordan, which eventually was renamed Jordan.
The Arab population in the small pieces of land called Israel had actually more than tripled since the Zionists first began settling the region in significant numbers in the 1880s.The reason for the Arabs moving to this area was that the Jewish settlers had brought industrial and agricultural development with them. This attracted Arab immigrants to what had previously been a wilderness and economically destitute area.
IF the Palestinian Arabs had been willing to accept this arrangement, which gave them 90 percent of the land in the Palestine Mandate, and where they benefited from the industry, enterprise and political freedom the Jews brought to the region, there would have been no Middle East conflict. However, the Arab League, representing five neighboring Arab states, declared war on Israel on the day of its creation. Five Arab armies invaded the new little state of Israel. During the fighting an estimated 472,000 Arabs fled their homes to escape the dangers. REMEMBER THAT NUMBER 472,000, according to the UN observers who were stationed there in that place at that time. Those 472,000 planned on returning after an Arab victory and the destruction of the Jewish state. The Arab Muslim states which told them to leave would NOT allow them to settle in the countries in which the were ordered by their so-called Muslim brothers to flee. Their so-called Muslim Arab brothers have cruely used them as Political Pawn REFUGEES for over 60 years. THIS IS ONE OF THE GREAT EXAMPLES OF MUSLIM INHUMANITY TO MUSLIMS IN HISTORY. Few ever mention how that there was absolutely no such thing as a Palestinian, or no such talk of self-determination, or the need for another Muslim Arab state to be carved out of little Israel, until AFTER the Muslim Arabs lost the 1967, Six Days War. The Middle East Conflict is NOT about Land, NOT about self- determination. The Middle East Conflict is about the Muslim Arab determination to kill all Jews and Christians, and destroy the State of Israel.
The Following are Significant
Slides From Dr. Gauthier
The Balfour Declaration
The UN Violates Its Own Charter
By Entertaining the Palestinian Propaganda Stunt
To Inflame Violence
And By This Palestinian UNILATERAL Stunt
INVALIDATES The Entire So-Called OSLO or Roadmap
Peace Process
Why Palestine?
by David Solway - FrontPage Magazine, October 18th, 2011
The macabre prepossession of the international community with the “problem” of Israel is now so widespread that it has become like a cultural neurosis or even a fact of nature, that is, something that is habitual, taken for granted and rarely questioned. One drinks it in with the morning coffee, if not with one’s mother’s milk. It is treated as the central issue in the geopolitical world beside which every other consideration fades into comparative insignificance.
The People’s Republic of China has overrun Tibet, resettled it with its own
citizens and imposed autocratic rule? Not on the radar. Zimbabwe has forcefully
dispossessed its white farmers and mercilessly persecuted its own people? Of no
account. Hundreds of thousands of Egyptian Copts are fleeing the country to
avoid killings, rapes, church burnings and forced conversions? A mere bagatelle.
Islamist and Salafist factions are emerging in Egypt in the wake of the
much-touted “Arab Spring,” promising renewed violence whether in Helwan, Imbaba,
Tahrir Square or Alexandria? A tepid reproof by EU foreign policy chief
Catherine Ashton and so on to other things, mainly Israel. The Muslim
Brotherhood is making inroads into the Islamic world and promulgating Sharia law
in the West? Of little interest. Iran is brutally suppressing its own population
and Syria is indiscriminately slaughtering its people? No flotillas. Russia is
systematically murdering and imprisoning investigative journalists? It’s an
internal Russian matter. Reports indicate that Venezuela and Cuba may construct
missile emplacements targeting the U.S.? Forget about it. Libyan rebels are
massacring black Africans? Nothing to worry about. Sudan is conducting an ethnic
cleansing campaign in Darfur? It doesn’t register. Somalia is imploding owing to
the bombings and depredations of the al-Shabaab terrorist network? Not our
problem. Pakistan-sponsored terrorists wreak havoc in India? It merits a passing
headline and is then dismissed. The Taliban is again turning Afghanistan into a
killing field? Unfortunate, but there it is. Turkey refuses to acknowledge and
apologize for the Armenian genocide it carried out? Well, that was long ago.
But when it comes to the
Israeli/Palestinian nexus, the focus is unswerving. The UN debates the issue
endlessly and propagates one denunciation of the Jewish state after another. The
EU and the U.S. are fixated on a resolution to what they appear to consider a
planetary imbroglio. Something called the “Quartet,” which has been aptly called
a “chorus of jackals,” has been concocted to deal with the matter to the
exclusion of far more pressing concerns. The media are pitching in with obscene
insistence. NGOs, churches and labor unions have exceeded their mandates and
competencies in engaging with a Levantine quarrel. And public opinion,
especially in Europe, has been galvanized by what is in essence a parochial
dispute and really none of its business.
The media and the political class
are especially culpable. As James Fallows argues in Breaking the News, the media
are busy practicing what is called predictive journalism and engaging in
professional spin, disguising editorial opinion as impartial news coverage and
thus adding political prejudice to the ostensibly neutral transmission of facts.
The political class is given to what Michael Freund has dubbed “selective
provocation syndrome,” that is, “when one deems Israel’s actions to be
provocative while ignoring similar moves by the Palestinians.” The Palestinians,
he points out, are building thirteen times the number of dwellings in Samaria
and Judea as are being built by Jews, in order to establish facts on the ground
in the disputed territories. “So why,” he asks, “is this too not regarded as a
‘provocation’ that undermines peace efforts?” And replies: “I guess not all
‘provocations’ are considered equal.”
Clearly, the debate is intensively
weighted on the side of the Palestinians, which means that the Israelis are
regularly condemned for defending themselves, for acting in accordance with
historical and legal principles, and for their reluctance to sign away
legitimate territory and, in effect, to jeopardize their very survival. There is
little recognition of the fact that Israel has constantly signaled its
willingness to embark upon realistic negotiations. As Barry Rubin writes, “So if
the world isn’t going to listen to Israel’s proposals, won’t credit its
eagerness to negotiate and won’t accept plans that also include Israel getting
something for its troubles, there is no way Israel is ever going to satisfy it.”
The situation is frankly preposterous and provokes two salient questions: why
such an unrelenting convergence of interest on this tiny slice of the world’s
geography, so scarce in natural resources and constantly threatened with
destruction, called Israel?; and in the context of consensual advocacy, why
Palestine?
The world remains focused on Israel
because Israel is a Jewish state, the Jewish family on the international block,
a distinctive presence which activates the latent—as well as the
manifest—content of a malingering and inexcisable anti-Semitism. For this is
anti-Semitism pure and simple and it would be disingenuous to try and mitigate
the truth by seeking for nuanced and textured evasions intended to downplay
mankind’s longest hatred. Jews, the feeling goes, do not deserve their own
state. They presumably form a collection of wandering tribes and disruptive
social interlopers, justly scattered among the nations and deserving of
marginalization, a historical “fossil” according to the celebrated historian
Arnold Toynbee and, according to the anti-Zionist delator Tony Judt, an
“anachronism.” But such pronouncements and convictions are merely an attempt to
launder one’s irrational bigotries or dissemble one’s innate aversions. The
current situation makes this blatantly evident. The name of the game is
Judeophobia.
For the disproportion between the
world’s response to a healthy, robust, legitimate and embattled democratic state
the size of New Jersey and the vast cesspools of tyranny, oppression,
insurgence, violence and depredation that litter the globe is incommensurable.
With only occasional exceptions, the world trains its gaze almost exclusively on
Israel. “One wonders,” writes Matthew Hausman, “how they can be so consumed with
Israel’s alleged indiscretions and yet ignore the totalitarian and theocratic
tendencies of the nations comprising the Arab-Muslim world.” Good question.
World leaders inveigh against every
defensive operation that Israel undertakes to protect its sovereignty and
safeguard its people. They condemn normal domestic projects, like building
apartments in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem, a city which also happens to
be the capital of the country. The blame for stalled “negotiations” is
inevitably laid at Israel’s door, in defiance of Palestinian intransigence,
bellicose chauvinism and unilateral actions. Material concessions are demanded
of Israel: little is required of the other side, except for a few paper
agreements of approximately the same value as UN assurances—that is to say, they
are worth nothing. The historicity of the Jewish sanction to the Jewish homeland
is ignored. The legal instruments that have validated the Jewish state are
vacated or deliberately misinterpreted. The laws of war which entitle Israel to
the territories it has conquered in a defensive struggle—and that are in any
case part of its ancestral allodium—are brushed aside, though recognized in
every other historical instance.
At the same time, the revisionist
Palestinian narrative of indigenous rights and immemorial nationhood, which has
no basis in reality and is demonstrably woven out of whole cloth, is vetted by
the international community and accepted without question. The Palestinian
program should be perfectly transparent. As Zahir Muhsein of the Palestinian
National Council told the Dutch newspaper Trouw as far back as 1977, “The
Palestinian people does not exist…Only for political and tactical reasons do we
speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people…to oppose Zionism.”
With regard to the Israelis and the
Palestinians, the maxim is: to the losers go the spoils. The anti-Israel bias
explains the spurious preoccupation, indeed the pathological obsession, with the
Palestinian cause, the acceptance of the Palestinian fable of dispossession (the
so-called Nakba), and the winking at the Palestinian terror franchises, the
anti-Jewish incitement industry and the genocidal charters of both Fatah and
Hamas. The declared goal of Hamas is the annihilation of Israel. Its mission
statement reads in part: “There is no solution for the Palestinian question
except through Jihad.” The cardinal purpose of the Fatah movement, according to
its constitution, is the “complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of
Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence,” to be effected by
“armed struggle [which] will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished.”
Further, Article 19 of the PLO Covenant rejects the 1947 UN partition of
Palestine and Article 20 denies the Jewish historical relationship to the Holy
Land.
The most effective way, then, to
shrink the Jewish state and render it increasingly vulnerable to successful
attack by the surrounding Muslim nations is to support the claims, strategies
and demands of the Palestinian leadership. Western leaders, the liberal
political elite, Third World parasites and various autocratic regimes are not
genuinely interested in the confection of a Palestinian state. A loose
collection of mendicant clans calling themselves a “people” or a “nation,” with
neither historical grounding nor political warrant and that offers nothing of
value to the world at large, is, or should be, by any reasonable estimation of
peripheral significance.
The agenda in play is something
quite different, in part an effort to curry favor with the Islamic umma and,
allied with this concern, the intent to siphon the lifeblood of the troublesome
Zionist upstart. Israel represents the collective Jew who must be put in his
place, not treated as an equal, but, at best, superciliously tolerated and, at
worst, deprived of status or erased from the book of the living. This is where
Palestine comes in. As others have remarked, Palestine is the Trojan Horse the
councils of the nations wheel up to the gates of Jerusalem; “their forces
join/To invade the town,” as Virgil writes in The Aeneid. Troy must fall to the
ruses of its enemies. The invention of Palestine has no other purpose, whether
for the Arabs, “progressive” political society or the rabble of confrontation
states and rogue regimes, than the reduction of the Jewish state, on which the
world’s baleful attention has fastened since at least the 1967 war.
Why Palestine? The answer is obvious. The answer is: Israel.