Showing posts with label 1922. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1922. Show all posts

Monday, May 01, 2023

On January 16, 1920, prominent leaders of Nablus - both Muslim and Christian - met in a conference where they pledged, under oath::

(1) To boycott the Jews completely as n counter-measure against their covetous spirit toward this country. 

(2) To refuse them dwelling space in our district, and to binder their admittance thereto in every way. 

(3) To persevere In this boycott and opposition until there remains no trace of the Zionist Idea, or until we perish to the last man. 

(4) To submit this decision to His Excellency the Chief Administrator of the Occupied Territory, and, through the medium of the Allied representatives In Jerusalem, to the delegates of their respective governments at the Peace Conference; and to publish the same in the newspapers for the information of the civilized world, so that It may be understood why the inhabitants of this country are forced to sacrifice their lives for its freedom.

(Seat of the Islamo-Christian Conference at Nablus.] (Signed) Youssuf. 

It was essentially a declaration of unending war against the Jews of Palestine until they returned to being the second class citizens they should be.

This wasn't the only boycott that Palestinian Arabs declared against Jews. 

The fifth "Palestine Arab Congress" in 1922 pledged a boycott of Jewish products and services including the nascent electricity lines being set up by Pinchas Rutenberg, and this was reiterated in at least one successive Congress.

There is not exactly room for compromise here. The Arab leaders said, either Jews remain subjugated under our control, or we keep fighting them forever.

Terrorism and Arab Jew-hatred is not a reaction to Jewish "occupation" or supposed crimes. It pre-dates all of that. And whether it is official or not, the pledge to keep opposing Jewish rights in the Holy Land has never been rescinded.




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Friday, April 28, 2023

Guest post by Tomer Ilan:
___________________________________________________

How Zionists made the land bloom by eradicating malaria

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has come under attack from Israel-haters for saying the truth that Israel “literally made the desert bloom.” The Palestinian foreign ministry condemned her, calling her statement a “racist trope”.

One of the ways the Zionists made the land bloom is by draining swamps and eradicating malaria.

 A 1920 British map shows the entire central and northern parts of the land infected with malaria, with the most severely affected areas being valleys and coastal regions with a high concentration of swamps.

 In 1921 British authorities reported that widespread malaria “has decimated the population” and is “an effective bar to the development and settlement of large tracts of fertile lands” and that “much well-watered and fertile land is at present lying waste on account of malaria”.

 

Just 20 years later, the Zionist anti-malaria campaign changed everything.

In 1941 the British Mandate reported that ‘In a number of areas where intense endemic malaria had resulted in no population for generations, recent antimalarial schemes have created large tracts of cultivatable land’ and that ‘very large areas of what is recognised by all as some of the most fertile land in the country have been reclaimed, after centuries of waste’.

Early attempts to drain the swamps relied on the Eucalyptus, a very ‘thirsty’ tree brought from Australia which uses up to 200 litres of water a day.

A 1911 report entitled ‘Zionist Work in Palestine’ reported that 400,000 eucalyptus trees had been planted to drain the soil.

EUCALYPTUS FOREST NEAR EIN HAROD


Despite the early efforts, pre-WW1 efforts to eradicate malaria generally failed. Many died of malaria and many others left.

In 1922, Dr. Israel Kligler, a Zionist Jew, started the first successful national malaria-elimination campaign in the world. Kligler introduced a methodical and systematic approach which relied on Arab and Jewish cooperation of entire communities to assist in the anti-malaria work.

Kligler focused on education. He pointed out that it was possible to obtain the population’s active cooperation only after the population understood fully the significance and value of the work.

The anti-mosquito campaign was concerned with limiting the breeding in wells, cisterns and other man receptacles by regular inspections and spraying of repellents.

One of the new methods that Kligler initiated was the introduction of Gambusia fish to water sources in the country in 1923. The fish eat mosquito larvae as soon as they hatch from the eggs. The fish turned out to be an effective biological means against mosquito's larvae. The result was the almost total eradication of malaria in the upper Jordan by using where appropriate combinations of anti-larval fish and drainage techniques.

Mosquito larvae


Male mosquito larvae eating Gambusia affinis


Swamps were dried by building drainage channels and the swamps were sprayed with pesticide.

The draining work in malaria-infected areas was very dangerous and many lost their lives.

Swamp draining at Yagur, 1924


A Jewish girl throwing larvicide in Emek Hefer.


After the State of Israel declared its independence, anti-malaria efforts continued, and in 1967 the World Health Organization declared malaria eliminated in Israel.

Yes, Ursula von der Leyen is correct. Zionists did make the land bloom.

____________________________________

Postscript by Elder:

My response to seeing the "racist trope" accusation on Twitter was to post this snippet of an article in Scientific American, April 1960:



You can also see a collection of how Israel has been a leader in green tech here.






Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Monday, November 28, 2022

I am not at all a fan of "Reconstructionist Judaism" and its founder Mordecai Kaplan.  But he was a foe of Reform Judaism as well, and a hundred years ago he railed against it in a lecture in Brooklyn which has a lot of truth in it.

From the Brooklyn Daily Times, November 28, 1922:

KAPLAN SEES JEWS SEEKING NEW GODS 
"Let Us Not Become Too Worldly for Our Faith," Professor Says. 

"You claim it is hard for you to be a Jew, because. you don't know what real true Judaism is. After the present reformers have gotten through, not even a Jew ran recognize, his own traditions, customs and religion. " 

This statement wars made by Prof. Modercai Kaplan, well-known lecturer on Jewish topics, speaking at the weekly open forum conducted by the Jewish Centre, 667 Eastern Parkway, last night. His topic was "Spiritual Self-Adjustment of the Jew." 

In a discourse that was enthusiastically received Prof. Kaplan outlined in an interesting manner the trials of Jewish educators in this country.

"In this land of promise," he said, "with every opportunity. and freedom, educators find it hard to attract Jewish youth to their religion because reformers and theorists have eliminated everything that would attract the young mind. Instead they have substituted modern versions of the Bible which acts upon the young mind not as an incentive to study religion but as a poison." 

"Judaism is not a religion," he continued. "It is the art of living according to the norms and ethical laws extolled by our fathers. Jews claim that It is hard for them to practice their religion due to their activities of anti-semitism, but I think they arc mistaken. The anti-Semites are not at fault. The Jews are at fault; they are trying to enter Gentile clubs, and they are trying to become members of the Y. M. C. A. That is the reason why so much propaganda is aimed at them, for poaching on other people's property and pleasures.

 "If they cannot participate in foreign  activities without losing their consciousness of being Jews, let them stop attending these clubs. 

"Jews are losing their individuality trying to modernize themselves to extreme degrees. They do not realize that their individuality and sectionalism is one of the factors that keeps the great multitude in the ranks, and when the modern theorists minimize this, the Jewish youth drifts away, to the new-fangled religions, searching for some thing that will interest them in life, instead of finding it in our own religion as our forefathers did. 

"Let us not become too worldly in our faith. It is only when we cheapen our religion, nationalism, and customs, that we lose faith in them and they are of no more value to us than something that will take up our time on the Sabbath and holidays." 

Ending his address, he urged that the new schools being built should not be devoted only to gymnasiums and clubrooms but also have them include a "syllabus for the instruction of our language, customs, and faith." 

He gave the lecture at the Brooklyn Jewish Center, which was at the time a brand new building, a major hub for Jews in Brooklyn, with a banquet hall, synagogue, gym and swimming pool.

The Brooklyn Jews of Crown Heights ended up doing exactly what Kaplan predicted - they became less interested in Judaism and moved out of the neighborhood.

In 1982, the board decided to sell the building, but it was important for them to keep it Jewish, so they sold it for far less than its value to Chabad.

Today, the building houses Chabad yeshiva Ohalei Torah, and it is only a block from Chabad's headquarters.

Kaplan's warnings about Jewish assimilation were quite valid. His own movement has been a dismal failure at fighting it. 

Chabad has taken Kaplan's warnings about revitalizing the religion far more seriously than his own failed Reconstructionist movement has. While disciples have replaced religion with wokeness, Chabad is doing what Kaplan urged Jews to do, albeit not in the way he envisioned.

It is ironic that in the very spot where Kaplan warned about the future of Jews as a religious group and as a nation, the revitalization he demanded is actually happening - and leaving his own followers way behind.





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Monday, November 14, 2022

From the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, November 13, 1922:



Then, as now, Jews and Blacks are the top targets of hate crimes.

Then, as now, the hate is spread by propaganda - instead of traditional wartime propaganda, it is social media Right vs. Left propaganda.

Then, as now, Jews are discriminated against in college admissions - then because they weren't white enough, now because they are too white.

Then, as now, some Christian groups like Presbyterians lead the charge against Jews, pretending that their hate is based on a twisted sense of morality and ethics.

It's been a hundred years since this was written. What has really changed?





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Thursday, October 20, 2022

By Tomer Ilan

 

Recently, there’s a wave of demands from Palestinian Arabs to the United Kingdom to apologize for alleged abuses during the British Mandate period.

Munib al-Masri, a rich Palestinian businessman submitted a dossier of evidence alleging abuses by the British between 1917 and 1948. Masri is planning to present the file to the UK government later this year and is reportedly demanding a formal acknowledgement and apology.

Separately, a Palestinian Arab is seeking an apology from the Royal Ulster Rifles for a 1938 incident in Mandatory Palestine in which he alleged the British troops forced civilians to drive over a landmine after a roadside bomb placed by Arabs killed two British troops.

The Jews have a right to demand an apology from Britain as well.

The Jews deserve an apology from the British for systematically discriminating against the Jews, in terms of official policy against Jewish immigration and Jewish land purchase and settlement in contradiction to international law, namely the Mandate of Palestine. The British government was also deeply involved in the illegal Arab invasion of Israel in the 1948 war.

The first major anti-Jewish move by the British government came in 1922, when The League of Nations, at Britain’s request, modified the mandate by withdrawing Transjordan from the area intended to provide a national home for the Jews. With a stroke of a pen, the Jews lost 78% of the national home promised to them by Britain and the League of Nations.

Then, as a response to Arab violence, including the 1920 Nebi Musa riots and the 1921 Jaffa riots, Britain published a series of White Papers with new anti-Jewish policies that contradicted the legally-binding League of Nations Mandate for Palestine that Britain was supposed to follow.

The Mandate resolution (Article 6) requires Britain to “facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes”. The Mandate states that this shall be done “while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced”.

However, in a series of White Papers published between 1922 and 1939, the British Administration restricted Jewish immigration and settlement rather than “facilitate” and “encourage” it as required in the Mandate resolution.

Initially, the 1922 White Paper vaguely stated that Britain would limit future immigration to "the economic capacity of the country". The 1930 White Paper called for stricter controls to be placed on Jewish immigration and land purchase.

The worst White Paper was published in 1939, on the eve of World War 2, with millions of Jews trying to escape from the Nazi threat in Europe, the paper severely limited Jewish immigration to just 15,000 a year for 5 years and made subsequent immigration to require Arab approval. Jewish purchase of land from Arabs was forbidden in 95% of Palestine.

In effect, the White Paper prevented the escape of millions of Jews from Europe before and during WW2. Six million of those Jews were murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust. If the British had not imposed the 1939 White Paper immigration restrictions, many of those Jews could have been saved.

The McDonald White Paper of 1939 was explicitly racist and openly discriminated against Jews. Jewish immigration was severely restricted, while Arab immigration was not. Jewish land purchase was forbidden in 95% of the land, while Arab land purchase was allowed in 100% of it. The language of the White Paper was explicit and racist: “Transfer of land save to a Palestinian Arab prohibited” (see map).

In today’s terms, it would be called an “apartheid” White Paper. Anti-Jewish apartheid.



British Land transfer Regulations of 1940 based on the White Paper of 1939

 

Starting from 1939, the British Authorities also restricted Jewish settlement on Jewish-owned land in direct contradiction to the Mandate resolution requiring them to “encourage close settlement by Jews on the land”. The Jews, however, found a way to establish new settlements anyway, the famous “Tower and Stockade” method.

In the 1948 War of Independence, Britain was deeply involved in favor of the Arab side. The Arab Army of Transjordan, more commonly known as the Arab Legion, was financed by Britain and commanded by British officers. The Legion was armed, trained and commanded by British officers and was considered the most effective Arab force in the 1948 war.

The British-backed Arab Legion illegally invaded Palestine in 1948 and helped Jordan illegally occupy eastern Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria between 1948 and 1967.

In 1948, Britain had dominant influence over Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon as well. Those countries would not invade Palestine to fight the Jews, without British involvement.

This is confirmed by Dr. Ezra Nishry’s research. His 2016 doctoral thesis (English Abstract – p. 510) based mainly on the documents of the British National Archives (as well as Israeli and American documents and previous research literature) confirms that the British organized, armed and pushed the Arab countries to invade Israel in the War of Independence.

Nishry shows that the British government used covert action and pushed for the Arab invasion that was actually carried out on May 15, 1948. According to British sources quoted in the research, the senior British leadership in London determined the end date for the evacuation of the British forces from Palestine, brought it forward, and returned to the original date according to the changing needs of the invasion plans which changed according to the circumstances on the ground. There was a direct connection between planning the timing of the Arab invasion and planning the timing of the British evacuation.

His findings were published in a book “The British Trojan horse in the Israeli War of liberation : 1947-1948”.

In many cases during the 1948 war, the British troops themselves helped the Arabs.

One of the worst incidents was at Radar Hill (near Jerusalem) on 23 April 1948. A Jewish force who tried to evacuate wounded Jewish troops in the Many Jewish fighters were killed and wounded in the Nebi Samuel battle, encountered British fire from Radar Hill which killed and wounded a number of Jews. The wounded Jews were collected by the British and handed over to the Arabs who murdered them.


A sign at Radar Hill mentions the battle on 23 April 1948 in which British troops handed wounded Jewish troops to the Arabs who murdered them.

 

Another example of British involvement against the Jews was in the Etzion Bloc. On 4 May 1948, the Arab Legion aided by the British and by a large number of local Arabs launched a major attack on the Etzion Bloc in which 12 Jewish defenders were killed. A few days later, the Kfar Etzion Massacre was committed and the Bloc was ethnically cleansed from Jews until it was resettled in 1967.

Great Britain should apologize to the Jews for:

  • ·         Giving 78% of the Jewish National Home to the Arabs in 1922
  • ·         Restricting Jewish immigration just before WW2, preventing the escape of millions of Jews from the Holocaust
  • ·         Imposing anti-Jewish “apartheid” laws restricting land purchase by Jews in most of Palestine
  • ·         Opposing the establishment of new Jewish settlements on Jewish-owned land.
  • ·         Britain backing the Arab Legion in 1948 leading to the illegal Jordanian occupation the Old City of Jerusalem and Judea & Samaria until 1967.
  • ·         Britain pushing other Arab states to invade Israel an attempt to annihilate her in 1948.
  • ·         British troops fighting against the Jews in the 1948 war.

These British policies and actions went against their commitment to the League of Nations and against the Mandate for Palestine, i.e. against international law.

The British have more reasons to apologize to the Jews than they do to the Arabs.




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 




Friday, August 12, 2022

In 1922, a Jew who graduated from harvard in 1900 wrote a letter to the president of the university Lawrence Lowell about newspaper reports that Harvard was limiting the number of Jews who would be accepted at the university.

Lowell's response was that limiting the number of Jews at universities was good for Jews.

The logic is convoluted and recognized at the time as being absurd, but this is how antisemites who don't consider themselves antisemites think.

The exchange of letters was published in the New York Times and various Jewish publications in June of that year. Here is Lowell's initial reply:

Dear Mr. Benesch: There is no need of cautioning you not to believe all that you see in the newspapers. As a colleague said to me yesterday, there is perhaps no body of men in the United States, mostly Gentiles, with so little anti-Semitic feeling as the instructing staff of Harvard University. But the problem that confronts this country and Its educational institutions is a difficult one, and one about which I should very much like to talk to you. It is one that involves the best interests both of the college and of the Jews, for I should feel very badly to think that these did not coincide. 
There is most unfortunately, a rapidly growing anti-Semitic feeling in this country, causing—and no doubt in part caused bya strong race feeling on the part of the Jews themselves. In many cities of the country Gentile Clubs are excluding Jews altogether, who are forming separate clubs of their own. Private schools are excluding Jews, I believe, and so, we know, are hotels. All this seems to me fraught with very great evils for the Jews, and very great perils for the community. 

The question did not originate here, but has been brought over from Europe—especially from those countries where it has existed for centuries. The question for those of us who deplore such a state of things is how it can be combated, and especially for those of us who are connected with colleges, how it can be combated there —how we can cause the Jews to feel and be regarded as an integral part of the student body. The anti-Semitic feeling among the students is increasing, and it grows in proportion to the increase in the number of Jews. 

If their number should become 40 per cent of the student body, the race feeling would become intense. When, on the other hand. the number of Jews was small, the race antagonism was small also. Any such race feeling among the students tends to prevent the personal intimacies on which we must rely to soften anti-Semitic feeling. 

If every college in the country would take a limited proportion of Jews, I suspect we should go a long way toward eliminating race feeling among the students, and, as these students passed out into the world, eliminating it in the community. 

This question is with us. We cannot solve it by forgetting or ignoring it. If we do nothing about the matter the prejudice is likely to increase. Some colleges appear to have met the question by indirect method,  which we do not want to adopt. It cannot be solved except by co-operation between the college authorities and the Jews themselves. Would not the Jews be willing to help us in finding the steps best adapted for preventing the growth of race feeling among our students, and hence in the world? 

The first thing to recognize is that there is a problem—a new problem, which we have never had to face before, but which has come over with the immigration from the Old World. After the nature of that problem is fairly understood, the next question is how to solve it in the interest of the Jews, as well as of every one else. 

Very truly yours, 
A. LAWRENCE LOWELL.
Lowell is saying that hating Jews is a natural part of being human. The more Jews, the more hate. If only there would be fewer Jews, then antisemitism can be limited. 

In fact, as Mr. Benesch pointed out in his response, if there were no Jews at all, then that would solve the problem, right?

The last paragraph says it all. Too many Jews on campus is the problem, and Harvard was looking for a solution - and it found one: discriminate against them.

People use similar convoluted logic to justify bigotry today, and they are just as certain that there is no prejudiced bone in their bodies. And in a hundred years, we will marvel at how today's intelligent people accepted today's version of antisemitism as normal. 




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Friday, July 29, 2022

The newspapers in Brooklyn in 1922, when reporting on all of the court cases, listed quite a few violations of the "Sabbath Laws," where it was forbidden to keep businesses open on Sunday.

And a large percentage of the people fined were Jews.


This happened throughout the decade; here's an article from 1925.


Like some speed traps today, it looks like this was used as a revenue generator.

Jews at the time would close their shops on Saturday, and Sunday was the most lucrative day available for them, and their customers were mostly Jewish as well, so it seems that many of them took the chance and paid the fine if caught.

One Jew in 1922 tried to fight back by claiming that he indeed closed his shop on the Sabbath, but the judge ruled that the Sabbath of the Bible wasn't the Sabbath of America:


One Jewish newspaper responded to this story with a joke considered old at the time:


The Sabbath laws, later known as Blue Laws, remain in force even today in many states although most have been repealed. The US Supreme Court has ruled that they are not religious and merely enforce a day of rest for the social good. The fact that Jews (and Seventh Day Adventists) are economically hurt by this was not enough to say that storeowners should be allowed to decide which day of the week to close. 




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Monday, July 18, 2022

(From a Twitter thread)

BDS in 1922.

The American Israelite, Cincinnati, Ohio, 09 Nov 1922 (JTA)
Image
BDS in 1923.

The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, 30 Mar 1923 (JTA)
Image
BDS in 1925.

The Tablet, Brooklyn, New York, 11 Jul 1925
Image
BDS in 1929.

Lansing State Journal, Lansing, Michigan, 19 Dec 1929,
Image
BDS in 1936.

The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, 30 Oct 1936
Image
BDS in 1937.

Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, the Evening News, 18 Feb 1937
Image
BDS in 1945.
The Daily Telegraph, London, 04 Dec 1945
Image
BDS in 1946.

AP, July 16, 1946
Image
BDS in 1947.

AP, October 16, 1947
Image
BDS in 1950.

AP, May 16, 1950
Image
BDS in 1956.

St. Louis Jewish Light, 27 Jul 1956
Image
BDS, 1963.

The Boston Globe, 10 Dec 1963
Image
BDS, 1975.

Clarion-Ledger, Jackson, Mississippi (AP), 13 Feb 1975
Image
And even as late as 1986, it was obvious that the Arab boycott was against Jewish goods and services - not "Zionist."

The Daily Telegraph, London
31 Jan 1986,
Image

All of these articles are clear that the boycotts were against Jews, not "Zionists" or "Israelis." And it became even more obvious after 1948, when Arab nations asked potential partners whether they had any Jewish officials before doing business with them. 
BDS today claims not to be antisemitic, but as these news clips show, it is a direct extension of the older boycotts.

And BDS today does not boycott Arab Israeli businesses - only Jewish.

The BDS movement is a century-old antisemitic movement. 



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, July 13, 2022


Peter Thomas, known as Baron Thomas of Gwydir, was a British Conservative politician. He was the first Welshman to become Chairman of the Conservative Party, serving from 1970 to 1972, and the first Conservative to serve as Secretary of State for Wales, holding that office from 1970 to 1974

This is the transcript of an address he made at the House of Lords on March 28, 1994:

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, says that the views of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel [that Israeli settlements do not violate Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions], are not widely shared. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, it is clear that his views are widely shared by those who have an aversion to the state of Israel. For many years he has demonstrated his views on that matter. I applaud what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. I thought his contribution important.

However, I am somewhat anxious about the way in which the debate is going. I understand that the Question before the House is: "whether the Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention". In anticipation of my noble friend Lord Gilmour giving the reasons why he was asking the Question, I obtained a copy of the Convention for the Protection of War Victims. I assume that my noble friend is referring to the last paragraph of Article 49. It states: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". That is the end of the article. It begins by dealing with individual or mass forcible transfers as well as the deportation of protected persons from occupied territories. It was put into the convention at the end of the war as a result of the dreadful activities of the Nazi administration, in particular the mass transfer of population in order to get rid of people regarded as being unacceptable; in name, the Jews. They were taken to be liquidated from one country to another and were moved from one place to another. That is why we have Article 49 in the convention.

I remind the House of Article 2. It states that, "the present convention shall apply to … armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties". The convention applies, to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party. I therefore ask the House to consider this question: which is the high contracting party whose territory is occupied? In other words, which state has sovereign title to the West Bank?

In 1967 Jordan was in occupation. It is generally accepted that after its annexation of the territories, Jordan had no sovereignty in international law. Its presence in Judaea and Samaria was only given de jure recognition by two countries out of the whole international community. Therefore, if one is dealing with points of law, as my noble friend's Question seeks, it seems clear that the West Bank, at present occupied by Israel, does not belong to any other state, and the convention therefore does not apply. The answer to the first and dominant part of my noble friend's Question is therefore no.

I shall raise another matter if I have time. The last legal sovereignty over the territories was that of the League of Nations mandate of 1922. It can be argued that its provisions still hold legal weight. The mandate stipulated that the area was to be part of the Jewish homeland, and that Jewish settlement there was to be encouraged.

I have referred the House to those two matters, namely, the effect of Article 2 and the mandate, to indicate how ridiculous it is even to contemplate that major national and ethnic issues can ever be solved by raising legal points.
That last paragraph seems to me that he is not so much saying that he is making a legal argument as saying that legal arguments are irrelevant since anyone can interpret them as they wish, and the only solution is political.




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive