Via JPost:

Despite all of the Arab attacks in 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936, the British response was to reward Arab aggression against the Jews and impose draconian restrictions on Jewish immigration. The pattern of Arab attacks and rewards would repeat itself time and again. Arab states, terrorist groups and the Palestinian Arabs believed that they could wage “wars of limited liability.” They could unleash attacks with impunity in an attempt to wipe out Israel, convinced that if they were defeated they could return to a status quo ante, or even achieve diplomatically what they couldn’t win on the battlefield. Territories captured by Israel would be returned and not annexed, terrorist leaders would be honored and not condemned, and Jews/Israel would be blamed.

Despite Arab aggression against the Jewish communities in Palestine in 1947 and 1948, Palestinian Arabs still demand today a “right of return” to areas within Israel’s borders since the 1949 Armistice. In 1956, Egyptian-commanded fedayeen terrorist attacks led Israel to join Britain and France in the Sinai campaign against Egypt. Two days into the war, President Dwight Eisenhower called Israel’s Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. According to a biographer of Jewish leader Max Fisher, Eisenhower admonished Prime Minister Ben-Gurion: “You ought not forget that the strength of Israel and her future are bound up with the United States.” This was followed by specific threats: If Israel did not leave Sinai and Gaza there would be UN condemnation, U.S. aid would be terminated, the tax-status of charitable contributions would be challenged.”

In 1957, the U.S. pressure forced Israel to withdraw from Sinai without securing ironclad guarantees against Egyptian aggression and blockades. In October 1965, Max Fisher visited Eisenhower at his Gettysburg farm.

Eisenhower admitted to him: “Looking back at Suez, I regret what I did. I never should have pressed Israel to evacuate the Sinai.”

This is an absolutely sickening case of pandering to Islamism, but I shouldn’t be surprised, considering how deeply the British Empire loathes the Jewish people.  Time to divest from BMI.  Tell them how you feel.  Via INN:

The British airline, BMI, has removed Israel from the electronic maps displayed to passengers in some of its planes, Army Radio reports. The report claimed that the reason was to avoid offending Muslim passengers. However, the maps showed passengers the direction of Mecca.

Israel does not appear in maps on BMI flights between London and Tel Aviv, and Khefa, the pre-independence Arabic name for Haifa, appears on the maps.

In addition, the electronic maps display the distance between the plane and Mecca. The airline claims that the map has not been changed due to a “logistical problem.” Instead, it has presently been removed from the two planes that transport passengers to Tel Aviv.

A new book by Marcus Wilder, due out in April.   More info at NaiveAbroad.  An excerpt:

In 1844, the first modern census of Jerusalem found 7120 Jews… 5760 Muslims… 3390 Christians.

In 1869, Mark Twain wrote of the emptiness of the land, of traveling all day without seeing a human being on the roads or in the countryside.

Mark Twain wrote of Arab sloth and filth and flies.

In the 1880s, Americans forced Indians from their land to resettle Indian land with whites. Many Indians had to be killed.

In the 1880s, Australians forced Aborigines from their land to resettle Aborigine land with whites. Many Aborigines had to be killed.

In the 1880s, white New Zealanders forced Maoris from their land to resettle Maori land with whites. Many Maoris had to be killed.

In the 1880s, European Jews bought idle land in what is now Israel, joining Mizrachi Jews continuously there since Abraham.

Beginning in 1882, forty Jewish families settled at Rishon L’Tzion. Four hundred Arab families settled around them. Some of the Arab families were Bedouin.  Some came from Egypt.

A British official reported Arabs sought employment, clean drinking water, better health care, and lower infant mortality. The official reported this pattern was repeated across areas where Jews settled.

In the 1890s, Belgians cut off the hands of Africans who did not gather enough rubber.

In the 1890s, Arabs flocked to Jewish areas of Palestine for jobs created by Jewish investment and enterprise.

After WWI, Britain tried to set up a Palestinian governing body of twelve… eight Arabs… two Christians… two Jews. Arabs said two Jews were too many. A cynic might say Arabs knew then two Jews outnumbered eight Arabs.

In 1917, the British Balfour Agreement promised a national home for Jews in Palestine.  The British did not mean it.

Arabs turned down two-state solutions in 1917, 1937, 1948, and 2000.

After a Nazi supported Arab revolt in 1936-1939, British-backed Arab religious leader Husseini fled to Germany. Husseini is revered throughout Islam today.

In 1939, A British White Paper severely restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine.

After WWII, European Jews sought refuge in what is now Israel. The Arabist British did all they could to keep Jews out of Palestine. Under United Nations mandate, Jews established the State of Israel despite Arab objections and Britain perfidy.

In the United Nations document authorizing the formation of the state of Israel, an Arab/British/African clause weighted population numbers in favor of Arabs. In 1948, the Arab population was still largely transient. This clause identified any Arab who had been in Palestine for two years as a permanent resident.

Do we give casual Mexican labor citizenship after two years in the United States?

In 1948, Arab countries attacked the infant Jewish nation. Jewish citizen soldiers decisively defeated combined professional armies of five Arab nations.

In 1948, 850,000 Arab residents of Israel fled and/or were expelled. There is evidence Arabs residents were encouraged by Arab invaders to flee to give Arab invaders a freer hand.

Only Jordan offered refugees citizenship. In all other Muslim countries, Palestinian refugees remain in camps sixty years later…anti-Israeli propaganda pawns.

In the months following the 1948 war, 850,000 Sephardic/Mizrachi Jews fled or were expelled to Israel from the Arab countries who lost the war. We do not know how many Jews fled to other nations. We do not know how many Jews were killed. Arab nations claim no knowledge of this flight/expulsion.

Sephardic Jews had been in the Middle East since 1492, Mizrachi Jews since Abraham.

If Palestinians wanted their own country, Palestinians would call a constitutional convention…write a governing document…declare a nation. There is precedent.

Since the 1967 War, these Arabs have been called Palestinians. Palestinians are Arab-speakers…not Arabs. Palestinians are probably Turkish Hittites who reached Palestine via Crete and Cyprus. Palestinian origins are muddy.

Palestinians are the Philistines of the Bible…the Sea People. What is now Gaza was Philistia. Gaza is theirs…unless Gaza belongs to Canaanite peoples Philistines displaced…peoples who had been there since time before memory.

Romans called the province Palestine to insult rebellious Jews. Ottomans kept the name.

If Palestinians had lived in peace beside Jews in democratic Israel, Palestinians would own Israel. With the differential in birth rates, Palestinians could have taken democratic Israel with the vote.

The story of modern Israel & Palestine is not what you have been told.

Palestinian leader Musa Alami said in 1948, “The people are in great need of a myth to fill their consciousness and imagination.”

The King of Jordan also denied the displacement of Arabs by Jewish settlements.  The king said, “The Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in…weeping [about it].

The popular history of Palestine is myth.

A ceremony in memory of the 67 victims of the 1929 Hebron Massacre was held on Tuesday evening in the ancient Jewish cemetery in the city.

What was the 1929 Hebron Massacre?

In 1929, 67 Jews of the ancient holy city of Hebron were brutally murdered by a bloodthirsty Arab mob.

The mob, fueled with anti-Jewish incitement, false reports that the mosque of Omar had been vandalized by “Zionists,” attacked a synagogue and slaughtered all the Jews they found inside. Men, women, and children were massacred – while they were praying. The Arabs then proceeded to the Hebron yeshiva, butchered students, and burned sacred books. The remaining Jews barricaded themselves inside the house of Rabbi Eliezer Dan Slonim.

The lynch mob managed to break into the house, and an orgy of bloodshed ensued.

Pierre Van Paassen, a journalist on the scene, wrote the following description:

What occurred in the upper chambers of Slonim’s house could be seen when we found the twelve-foot-high ceiling splashed with blood. The rooms looked like a slaughterhouse. When I visited the place in the company of Captain Marek Schwartz, a former Austrian artillery officer, Mr. Abraham Goldberg of New York, and Mr. Ernst Davies, correspondent of the old Berliner Tageblatt, the blood stood in a huge pool on the slightly sagging stone floor of the house. Clocks, crockery, tables and windows had been smashed to smithereens. Of the unlooted articles, not a single item had been left intact except a large black-and-white photograph of Dr. Theodore Herzl, the founder of political Zionism. Around the picture’s frame the murderers had draped the blood-drenched underwear of a woman. We stood silently contemplating the scene of slaughter when the door was flung open by a British solder with fixed bayonet. In strolled Mr. Keith-Roach, governor of the Jaffa district, followed by a colonel of the Green Howards battalion of the King’s African Rifles. They took a hasty glance around that awful room, and Mr. Roach remarked to his companion, “Shall we have lunch now or drive to Jerusalem first?”

In Jerusalem the Government published a refutation of the rumors that the dead Jews of Hebron had been tortured before they had their throats slit. This made me rush back to that city accompanied by two medical men, Dr. Dantziger and Dr. Ticho. I intended to gather up the severed sexual organs and the cut-off women’s breasts we had seen lying scattered over the floor and in the beds. But when we came to Hebron a telephone call from Jerusalem had ordered our access barred to the Slonim house. A heavy guard had been placed before the door. Only then did I recall that I had inadvertently told a fellow newspaperman in Jerusalem about our gruesome discoveries.

What do the news services have to say about the events of 1929? A Reuters article published on MSNBC dismissed it in one sentence:

“On August 23, 1929, during anti-Jewish riots in British Mandate Palestine, 67 Jews were butchered in Hebron and the Jewish community withered and left.”

From reading the rest of the article, one might get the impression that “the settlers” committed the atrocity. After all, Reuters blames Jews for everything else.

For example, a Muslim family complains that “the settlers” are trying to drive them out of the home they have lived in “for centuries” (since 1929), by using the brutal coercion technique of offering them money to live elsewhere.

From reading the news services, it would seem that the Jewish residents of Hebron are responsible for all the violence in the Mideast, the spread of AIDS, the rising unemployment, the hole in the ozone, and the Windows Me operating system.

Click here to read more on the Arab massacre of Jews that occurred 38 years before there ever was an “occupation” in 1967.

What happened in 1967 that caused Israel’s borders to change? Did Israel just decide they wanted more land?

No.  Israel was attacked by warring Arab Muslim nations.

But before we discuss 1967, let’s roll back the clock to the year 1917. 1917 is the year Great Britain issued the Balfour Declaration which stated that the British government favored “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. . . .”

As you may already know, Palestine was ruled by the Ottoman Empire for 400 years before the British came along in 1917. At the end of World War I, the Ottoman Empire and other imperial powers agreed to surrender their colonies. In 1919, Emir Faisal, the son of Sherif Hussein who led the Arab revolt against Turkey, signed a declaration in support of the Balfour Declaration, even supporting all necessary measures “…to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil.”

As a result, Great Britain issued the British White Paper of June 1922, agreeing to give Arabs almost 80% of Palestine, which was severed from the rest of the colony and called Transjordan (later re-named Jordan). All of the land given to Arabs was to the east of the River Jordan. Then came The Palestine Mandate. It is from this time that the Arabs living in this area get the name Palestinians. Of course, at that time the Jews living in the region of the Palestine Mandate were called Palestinians too.

In August of 1929, due to the instigation of Muslim clerics in the mosques, a series of riots broke out in which many Jews were massacred. In the Jewish Holy City of Hebron, 67 innocent men, women and children were slaughtered by Arabs while praying in their synagogue. The 1930s saw more rioting and more massacres, especially in Jaffa and again in Hebron. In response, the British convened the Peel Commission which almost totally did away with the Balfour Declaration that had originally promised a Jewish homeland in Palestine on both sides of the River Jordan.

In July of 1937, the Peel Commission issued a report that gave Jews only a tiny, 1-3 mile strip of land that could not possibly become the Jewish National Home because it was far too small and included only one major city – Haifa, but not Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, etc. It also included a small piece in the north abutting the west side of the Lake Kineret (“Sea of Galilee”). Such actions went totally against Article 5 of the Mandate which explicitly state that the British shall not divide the land.

This was an example of British perfidy at its worst. The Brits betrayed their legal document, their legal contract, with the Palestinian Jews.

The Arabs greeted the Peel Commission recommendation with a revolt which lasted until 1939. In 1939, Britain issued the White Paper of 1939 almost shutting down Jewish immigration, thus violating the League of Nations Mandate which calls on the Brits to promote Jewish immigration. The White Paper of 1939 also stated that Palestine shall not become a Jewish National Home and instead should be converted into an Arab state. From a legal point of view, UN resolutions were not needed to establish a Jewish state in Palestine because such state could be legally based on the League’s Mandate.

And that’s when on November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly passed resolution 181 recommending division of the land given to Jews under the Mandate. Great Britain did not support the resolution. From a political and practical point of view, the 1947 U.N. partition plan served as reason for the legal declaration of a Jewish State.

However, the 1967 lines are not a border. After the 1947- 48 war, the Arabs refused to recognize Israel, and insisted the boundaries were only ceasefire lines, and this remained their legal status. The eastern borders of Israel are yet to be decided. Moreover, UN Resolution 242, the foundation stone of Arab-Israeli negotiations, explicitly avoided requiring an Israeli retreat to the 1967 lines, its drafters believing those were indefensible.

Resolution 242 calls for the recognition of Israel’s right to exist, an end to the state of war maintained by the Arab world against Israel and secure and recognized boundaries for Israel. 242 does NOT require Israel to return to the non-secure borders of pre-1967.

What does 242 say?

“Termination of all claims or states of belligerency… ”
“…respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every State in the area… ”
“…[every State's] right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”
“Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories in the recent conflict.”

What does 242 mean?

- The Arab states must end the state of war initiated and maintained by them since 1948.
- The Arab states must recognize Israel’s right to exist.
- Israel is entitled to clearly defensible borders.

This is not a privilege, but rather a right guaranteed by international law.

- Israel should withdraw from some, not all, of the territories captured in the 1967 Six-Day War.
- Israel’s indefensible pre-1967 borders provided no security.
- The Arab states should sit down with Israel, without preconditions, to negotiate peace.

A few days before the UNSC vote on 242, President Johnson summoned UN Ambassador Arthur Goldberg and Undersecretary Eugene Rostow to formulate the US position on the issue of ’secure boundaries’ for Israel. They were presented with the Pentagon Map, which had been prepared by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Earle Wheeler. The map displayed the “minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes,” which included the entire Golan Heights and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria. The participants of the meeting agreed that the Pentagon Map fulfilled the requirements of 242 for ’secure borders.’ (Prof. Ezra Sohar, A Concubine in the Middle East, Geffen Publishing, p. 39; Makor Rishon weekly, March 10, 2000).

242 does not refer at all the 1949/1967 Lines;
242 mandates negotiation – give and take, rather than give and give;
242 never refers to withdrawal from ALL the territories, which would negate the principle of negotiation;

242 calls for the introduction of a NEW reality of ’secure and recognized borders’, which indicates that the OLD reality of the 1949/1967 Lines is neither secure nor recognized.

The reality is that if Israel is to protect itself, it must achieve a comprehensive military victory over the Palestinians, so that the latter give up their goal of obliterating it.

Not one of the land suggestions addresses the real problem: the Palestinians’ conviction that, by continuing to hammer away at Israel, they can defeat and destroy it. Every piece of evidence suggests and every opinion poll confirms that the Palestinian assault on Israel is a wildly popular undertaking.

Ending the Palestinian assault will be achieved not through some negotiated breakthrough but by Palestinians (and Arabic-speakers more generally) concluding that their effort to destroy the Jewish state will fail, and so give up this ambition. There is a war under way, but nearly all prefer to ignore this unpleasant reality, preferring instead to suggest meaningless fixes and solutions.

Let’s not leave out the San Remo Resolution. The last legally binding document to be adopted regarding the areas of Israel in question remains the 1920 San Remo resolution, which deeds full sovereignty to the Jewish people. This resolution, consisting of the Balfour Declaration and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, is the basic document upon which the Mandate for Palestine was constructed. The San Remo Resolution concerning Palestine and the Jewish National Home was adopted at the San Remo Peace Conference on April 25, 1920 by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the Prime Ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George), France (Alexandre Millerand) and Italy (Francesco Nitti) and by the Ambassador of Japan (K. Matsui).

The Resolution was a binding agreement between these Powers to reconstitute the ancient Jewish State within its historic borders “from Dan to Beersheba”, an agreement that was incorporated into the Treaty of Sevres and the Mandate for Palestine.

But it really is futile to have a discussion about a “legalized framework” when a “legalized framework” was already in place with document after document after document that I cited above.

The Arabs have deceived the world for decades with their mendacious protests that their land has been “stolen” from them. One might take such proclamations seriously if it came from a pacifist people such as the Tibetans, who had quietly inhabited their land for ages before it was seized by the Communist Chinese in 1950.

The claim is laughable coming from the Arabs, who in the early Middle Ages conquered and reduced to slavery and penury ancient peoples and civilizations stretching from the borders of Persia to the Atlantic; who in 1947 rejected an Arab state in Palestine alongside a Jewish state and sought to obliterate the nascent Jewish state; who never called for a distinct Palestinian Arab state until the creation of the terrorist PLO in 1964—sixteen years after the founding of the state of Israel and three years before the Six Day War in 1967; and who to this moment continue to seek Israel’s destruction, an object that would be enormously advanced by the creation of the manufactured entity of “palestine”, the Arab state they demand.

The only religious argument that makes sense is to point out how so many Jewish holy places exist in Israel. It’s hardly irrational that Jews should want to live near the Wailing Wall or other sites of great importance in Jewish history and Jewish religion, particularly given how poorly Muslims have treated such sites.

The fact is that the West Bank and Gaza were annexed by Jordan and Egypt fifty years ago with no Arab complaints. Israel has absorbed a million Jewish refugees from Arab lands and the Soviet Union with no complaints. The 3.7 million seething refugees who live abject poverty on the West Bank, and who have received more than a billion dollars in aid from Israel and the rest of the world are refugees only because the Arab states themselves have rejected them and kept them in poverty so they can be cannon fodder for the holy war to push the Jews into the sea. The “Palestinian problem,” is entirely a creation of the Arabs themselves, a product of their refusal to live side by side with any infidels they think they can destroy. If they want peace, they can start with rejecting the Hamas Covenant and the Palestinian National Charter, the only document that I know of where a state defines its national vision by calling for the destruction of another state.

I don’t believe in a two-state solution at all, and a one-state solution with the “law of return” will turn the entire nation of Israel into a land where only Arabs may live – with the goal to supplant Israel – not to live side by side with it. Therefore, there is no solution.