The Legal Israeli Settlements
Many people have argued that it is illegal for Israelis to live beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines (east of the Green Line, EGL/Judea and Samaria/West Bank). The question of “legitimacy” (not legality) has been repeated often by the USA’s Obama Administration. Those comments are more harsh towards Israel than prior American administrations that simply viewed new settlements as “unhelpful” to a peace agreement between Israel and the Arab states. Jimmy Carter was the only US president that actually called the settlements “illegal”. Below is a review of the international laws that apply towards the settlements.
Street sign in Judea and Samaria
Fourth Geneva Convention
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention deals with the treatment of “occupied territory“. It is unclear whether it applies to territory obtained in both offensive and defensive wars, but this review will assume that the law stands in either case.
The majority of Article 49 is about the treatment of the inhabitants of the occupied territory and not about the “Occupying Power” transferring in its own population. The opening paragraph:
“Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected personsfrom occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”
This paragraph does not relate to Israelis living in EGL for several reasons:
- The language is about people from the occupied territory, not to the occupied territory. It underscores the flagrant illegal eviction of Jews from Judea and Samaria by the Jordanians in 1949.
- As the Arabs living in EGL were not forcibly transferred to any country, Israel did nothing counter to this law.
The next paragraphs deal with exceptions to the main directive stated above for military reasons:
“Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.”
- The law permits operations involving security. This clause allows the building of the security barrier inside the West Bank that Israel erected in reaction to the Second Intifada, and relocation of people impacted to construct such barrier.
“The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated. The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuationsas soon as they have taken place. The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.”
- These paragraphs seek to protect people, even in the case of a necessary evacuation. The only Arabs that Israel moved out of the West Bank were people who were arrested and therefore not relevant to this clause.
As seen above, almost the entirety of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention has to do with the local population- in this case, a theoretical transfer of Arabs out of EGL/Judea and Samaria/West Bank. Only the last paragraph addresses the civilians of an “Occupying Power”.
“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own
civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
- Israelis moving and living in EGL/J&S do so of their own free will. The government does not “deport or transfer its own civilians” to EGL.
- The “territory” in question, Judea and Samaria, was settled by Jews long before the Jordanians occupied the area and evicted the Jews. As such, Jews were part of the indigenous population before being illegally evicted in 1949. Returning to the region is in keeping with Article 49’s goal above stating “Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.“
- Additionally, this territory was never a distinct country, but part and parcel of the Mandate of Palestine which specifically called for “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” As such, Jews moving to Judea and Samaria is part of the ongoing provision established internationally in 1922.
The Hague Regulations
Another law that people contend relates to Israel’s administration of EGL/West Bank isArticle 55 of the Hague Regulations:
“Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, andadminister them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.”
This rule clearly affirms Israel’s role as administrator for public lands. The Hague regulations – and this provision in particular – deal with situations that are temporary in nature, and are impractical for those that last for decades. To wit, the Arab population in the West Bank has grown four times since 1967, in one of the largest population increaseson the planet. New infrastructure was established to accommodate the growth in the region, and Israel authorized these new homes, roads and other infrastructure, thereby necessitating a change to public lands.
In terms of minimizing the changes to public lands, it is unclear whether the role of Israel is to maintain a status quo according to the laws of Jordan, which illegally seized and annexed the area, or to administer the region according to British laws which had an international mandate before the Jordanians took control.
- The Jordanians took this area in an offensive war against Israel in 1948-9
- The Jordanian annexation in 1950 was never recognized by the United Nations
- The area in question was part of the internationally approved British Mandate of Palestine (from 1922-1948).
Therefore, to comply with Article 55 above, which rules were appropriate for Israel to maintain: the illegal occupying Jordanian laws of 1949-1967 or those accorded in international law in the British Mandate 1922-1948?
If the British laws regarding property were to be maintained, then those laws state that no person should be forbidden to live in any part of the entirety of the Mandate (including Gaza, Israel and the West Bank) on the basis of religion, per Article 15 of that 1922 Mandate:
“The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.”
As it relates to the use of public lands (which is the focus of Article 55 of the Hague Regulations), the British Mandate clearly states that public land is to be used for Jewish settlement:
“The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall 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.”
Administration under British law encouraged Jews to live throughout Judea and Samaria, including state lands, and it can therefore not be illegal for any Jew to live there.
The only possibility that Jews moving to and living in the West Bank could be considered illegal, was if Jordanian law was to be maintained in the area. However, even if one were to assume that despite the Jordanian’s forcible seizure and illegal annexation of the area, that their laws should still be maintained, could any law possibly suggest that it be a requirement to maintain particular laws that were flagrant violations of the Geneva Convention such as the racist Jordanian laws that evicted and barred Jews from living in the land?
Even further, if Israeli actions of Jews moving to EGL/West Bank were somehow considered illegal (which is not the case), Article 3 of the Hague Resolution states that a “belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation,” so remedy would be a fine, not eviction of the Jews.
(Also note that Hague Regulation Article 40, specifically gave Israel the right to attack Jordan after Jordan broke the 1949 armistice agreement in 1967.)
United Nations Reinterpretation for Israel
Since 1967, the United Nations crafted various resolutions condemning Israel for a wide variety of perceived “sins” such as the infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution in 1975. Many resolutions have inverted the meaning of the Geneva Convention such as a UN Security Council Resolution in 1980 which “Deplor[es] the decision of the Government of Israel to officially support Israeli settlement in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967.” It continued further:
“[A]ll measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have
no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population andnew immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the
Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive,
just and lasting peace in the Middle East;”
no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population andnew immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the
Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive,
just and lasting peace in the Middle East;”
Arguing that “new immigrants” (many of whom were actually returning residents from 1949) are a threat to the security of the existing population is xenophobia at its most extreme. Arguing that is a “flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention” is disproved above.
Status of Jerusalem
The inclusion of Jerusalem in the United Nations attacks on Israel is telling. Greater Jerusalem and Greater Bethlehem were planned to be an international “Holy Basin” according to the UN 1947 Partition Plan – neither Arab nor Israeli. After Jordan attacked Israel and seized the eastern half of Jerusalem and annexed it, the United Nations remained silent. The UN issued no declaration against the Jordanian invasion and land grab for the entire period it held the territory through 1967. However, when Israel took control of Jerusalem and later annexed it in 1980, the United Nations went on tirades about the illegal nature of Israel’s authority. The UN’s motions are absurd and duplicitous in granting tacit approval to the Jordanian Arab illegal annexation of Jerusalem and condemning Israel for its annexation. If Jordan’s offensive war to take a planned international city was viewed as permissible, how can Israel’s defensive war be viewed any less so?
The ongoing dynamic in Jerusalem is also different than the rest of EGL/West Bank since the eastern part of the city was annexed by Israel and all of the residents were offered citizenship (almost all of the Arabs declined and took residency papers instead). As such, clauses in international law about offering citizenship to people are not applicable to the eastern half of Jerusalem (while still relevant in the remainder of EGL/West Bank).
As reviewed above, Israel abides by the global rules of international law relating to Jews living in EGL. However, the United Nations reinterpretation of law solely as it relates to Israel – whether for national movements like Zionism, or for allowing Jews to move and live freely like other peoples in lands they lived in for thousands of years – is not law, but anti-Semitism.
Source:
Fourth Geneva Convention:https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/c525816bde96b7fd41256739003e636a/77068f12b8857c4dc12563cd0051bdb0?OpenDocument
Hague Resolution: https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/WebART/195-200065?OpenDocument
Hague Resolution Article 3: https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/195-200004?OpenDocument
Hague Resolution Article 40: “Any serious violation of the armistice by one of the parties gives the other party the right of denouncing it, and even, in cases of urgency, of recommencing hostilities immediately.“
British Mandate of Palestine: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp
Israel-Jordan Armistice agreement: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm03.asp
UN Security Council Resolution 465 (1980):http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5AA254A1C8F8B1CB852560E50075D7D5
UN Security Council Resolution 476 (1980) attacking Israel on Jerusalem:http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/6DE6DA8A650B4C3B852560DF00663826
UN call that Zionism is racism (1975):http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/761C1063530766A7052566A2005B74D1
FirstOneThrough article on the Green Line:https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/the-green-line/
FirstOneThrough article on Judea and Samaria/ West Bank terminology:https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/names-and-narrative-the-green-line-west-bank-judea-and-samaria/
Summary of US administrations attitudes towards Israeli settlements:http://www.cmep.org/content/us-statements-israeli-settlements_short#ObamaRELATED
12 THOUGHTS ON “THE LEGAL ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS”
A Disservice to Jewish Community
Summary: There is a Jewish community in New York with a long-standing effort to maintain a strong Community: among the various denominations of Judaism within the city, and in staying connected with the Jewish State. For the 67th birthday of Israel, it opted to destroy all of those efforts.
The Jewish community of White Plains NY is not a typical New York City suburb. The five synagogues of the city (5SWP) – Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative and two Modern Orthodox – all sit within 1.5 miles of each other and actively seek to maintain a sense of close community. Each temple helped to establish the communal eruv around the residential neighborhood. The rabbis have study groups together. And lastly, the members of the shuls do their Israeli programming together.
In the spring of 2015, a group from the Israel Action Committee of the 5SWP decided that it was time to invite a left-wing speaker to address the group, as past speakers included right-of-center speakers including Bret Stephens and Malcolm Hoenlein. While voices of dissent came from within the committee as information about the proposed speaker’s line of work as a lawyer for Palestinian Arabs that sues the government of Israel, the group elected to invite Danny Seidemann to speak anyway – on Israel’s Independence Day,Yom Ha’atzmaut.
Danny Seidemann was presented to the audience as a “Leading Israeli Expert on Contemporary Jerusalem.” He spoke to the group for roughly one and one-half hours, including Q&A. If Danny is an expert, it is in deception. For 90 minutes, the group of 70 attendees heard deliberate misstatements and lies of omission. However, Danny’s views and message were very clear: that Jerusalem has never been united and can never be a united capital of Israel.
Seidemann’s Lies
Here is a selection of some of Danny’s lies to support his position.
Palestinians are deliberately excluded from Jerusalem society. Danny made several remarks early in his talk that he clearly knew to be untrue. He stated that Palestinians in East Jerusalem are “deliberately and permanently disenfranchised” and “are not allowed to be leaders” in Israel. However, in Q&A at the end of the talk, he admitted that Palestinians in East Jerusalem are permitted to ask for Israeli citizenship and thousands have already become citizens. How can the Palestinian Arabs be “permanently disenfranchised” if they can become Israelis, similar to the over 1 million Arabs that are currently citizens of Israel? Those Israeli Arab citizens include members of the Israeli Knesset and the Supreme Court.
A minority of Jerusalem’s residents celebrates Israel Independence Day. Danny asserted that the capital of Israel barely celebrates Yom Ha’azmaut, undermining the claim that the city can truly be the capital of Israel. Along with Palestinian Arabs living in Jerusalem who are not Israeli citizens, are roughly one-quarter of the population that are Ultra-Orthodox Haredi who are not Zionists according to Danny, leaving only a minority of the population in Israel’s capital celebrating the holiday. However, Danny later admitted that the Haredi do actively participate in Israeli elections and actively seek roles in the Israeli Knesset. Does he not like the black hat brand of patriotism? Further, these Haredi Jews predominantly live in the western half of Jerusalem- does Danny question the legitimacy of the western part of the city too?
No Jew enters East Jerusalem. Danny claimed that “80% of East Jerusalem is off-limits to Jews.” First, that is untrue as many Jews go into East Jerusalem all of the time (and not just the Old City). For example, Pisgat Ze’ev, the largest Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem, lies next to Shu’afat. Further, would a neighborhood being dangerous or consisting of a single ethnic group mean it ceases to be part of a city? If few Jews visit Umm al-Fahm, an Israeli city that is nearly 100% Arab (compared to the eastern part of Jerusalem which is 60% Arab), would that mean that the city is not part of Israel? When few white people entered areas of black Harlem in the 1970s, did Harlem cease to be part of New York City?
No Arab enters West Jerusalem. Danny said that Arabs no longer enter the western part of the city. That is patently false. On most days, there are more Arabs in Independence Park than there are Jews. Danny may claim that these are Israeli Arabs and not Palestinians from East Jerusalem, but how could he make such claim without speaking to the hundreds of Arabs that anyone can see in the streets of western Jerusalem every day without talking to each one?
Countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel because of East Jerusalem. Danny argued that Jews pretend that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital but that such claim is untrue as no country places its embassy in the city. His point deliberately led the audience to believe that this international action is a direct result of Israel’s annexing the eastern half of the city. That is completely false. No country moved their embassy BEFORE Israel annexed the eastern half of the city because the entirety of Greater Jerusalem and Greater Bethlehem (known as the “Holy Basin” in the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan) was planned to be an international city. World governments are waiting for final status negotiations before moving any embassy, as they viewed the 1949 Jordanian annexation of East Jerusalem and the Israeli annexation of West Jerusalem as contrary to that 1947 Plan. It has NOTHING to do with Israel’s taking East Jerusalem in 1967.
United Nations 1947 proposed map for an international “Holy Basin”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not want Peace. Danny claimed that the four-term Israeli Prime Minister “is a terrible person who preys on Israelis’ fears of security.” Not only did Seidemann ignore Netanyahu’s numerous statements supporting a two-state solution (without any part of Jerusalem for Palestine), but Danny also failed to relay that it was Netanyahu that handed over half of the Holy Basin (Bethlehem) to the Palestinian Authority back in 1994.
The US Democratic Party Considers East Jerusalem too Controversial. Danny relayed how the 2012 Democratic National convention had removed its long-used platform language that Jerusalem would be the capital. He said that Americans were “tired of being bullied” about the contested city. What Danny failed to say was that the 2012 platform also removed the standard language that: Palestinian refugees would be settled into a new state of Palestine, not Israel; that it is unreasonable to expect that the borders of Israel would follow the 1967 “borders”/ the 1949 Armistice Lines; and that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Are Democrats tired of believing all of these platform items too? Are they now welcoming Hamas? Danny made it appear that the status of East Jerusalem was the only reason Democrats were breaking with Israel, while in fact, it was the entire pro-Israel platform that was either intentionally or unintentionally gutted.
Olmert ultimately realized the need to give up East Jerusalem. Danny said that former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ultimately concluded late in his career that the only way to get to a final status agreement with the Palestinians was to give up East Jerusalem. What Danny failed to say was that Olmert only pitched this approach as he was about to get indicted on bribery charges, and was hoping that he could win over the liberal Israeli press to save him for going off to jail (it was too late and he has sentenced). Further, Danny failed to mention that acting President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas never responded to Olmert’s plan for Jerusalem.
If Jews move to East Jerusalem, then Arabs will have an added case for the Right of Return. The “expert” on Contemporary Jerusalem has no understanding of the Palestinian claim of the “Right of Return.” Danny spoke about recent “terrible” news of Jews legally (according to Israeli law) buying homes in an East Jerusalem neighborhood called Sheik Jarrah. He described that some of these homes had been owned by Jews before the 1948 Israeli War of Independence, which were then taken over by Arabs at the war’s end.
For starters, it should have been noted at some point in the speech that the Israeli War of Independence started when several Arab armies initiated an attack to destroy Israel when it declared independence from England. That is, Israel did not declare independence from Arabs- it declared independence once England ended its mandate. The land wasn’t “Arab” and Israel’s war was of self-defense.
Secondly, Danny failed to clarify that the Jordanians (and Palestinians who accepted Jordanian citizenship), evicted all Jewish inhabitants from East Jerusalem and all of the West Bank, and then further barred their reentry after the war. Conversely, after the war, Israel granted citizenship to roughly 160,000 Arabs.
Third, Jews acquiring homes in East Jerusalem is legal according to Israeli law in the same way that Arabs may buy homes in West Jerusalem; there is no discrimination either way. These are private transaction between private people, and the government does not get involved. Danny’s commentary left the exact opposite impression that the Israeli government acted in a discriminatory manner.
Lastly, and perhaps most telling, the private purchases of homes have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Palestinian Arab claim for a Right of Return. A quick review for this “Israeli expert”:
- Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “[e]veryone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his COUNTRY (emphasis added).” The law is about returning to a person’s country, not a particular house where someone’s grandparent may have lived.
- In regard to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, UN Resolution 194 Article 11 “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and LIVE AT PEACE WITH THEIR NEIGHBOURS (emphasis added) should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.” Palestinian Arabs are not refugees, but the children and grandchildren of refugees. And as Seidemann makes clear throughout his talk, they have no intention of living at peace with Israel.
Jews acquiring properties in Silwan or Sheik Jarrah or any other parts of East Jerusalem have absolutely nothing to do with these laws and give Palestinian Arabs no additional rights or claims to any “Right of Return” to any part of Israel or western Jerusalem.
Daniel Seidemann at Yom Ha’atzmaut Discussion
These were just some of the false comments that the speaker made about Jerusalem. Seidemann did say that Jerusalem is holy to Jews and referred to “Jewish Jerusalem,” but he made the comment only about the western part of the city. He gave no historical context that the area called “East Jerusalem” was an artifice of war. That its creation was solely from a war started by Arabs to utterly destroy any Jewish state, and the only reason that there are fewer Jews than Arabs in that part of the city was because of the ethnic cleansing committed by the Palestinian and Jordanian Arabs.
- There was no clarification that Jews have been a majority in ALL of Jerusalem since the 1860s.
- No mention that the Ottomans never limited where Jews could live in Palestine for 400 years.
- No mention that the British Mandate of Palestine allowed Jews to live throughout the region, including what some today refer to as the “West Bank.”
Overall, Seidemann’s speech was an attempt to portray Israel as an evil, racist occupier. To the more informed in the audience, all his speech actually conveyed was that the Palestinian Arabs hate the Jews, hate Israel and will never want to be part of the Jewish State.
That may be true, but it certainly does not make Israel an evil racist occupier and does not mean that Jerusalem isn’t completely part of Israel.
Seidemann’s Call to Action
An hour into the Seidemann story, he became particularly excited.
Call for BDS of the “Settlement Enterprise”. Danny gave a short preamble that what he was about to say was illegal. He then raised his hand and voice and declared that that all settlers living in the West Bank should be boycotted. That all businesses in the territory should be boycotted. That he, as a “true Zionist” that paid taxes and served in the army needed to protect his country from “right-wing idealogues” who threatened his vision of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
At that point, people in the audience finally began to leave.
Seidemann Refusal to Engage
At the reception after the talk, Seidemann continued to lie (or being more generous, show how uninformed he was):
- Palestinians support Abbas. Seidemann claimed that Abbas enjoyed broad support of the Palestinians. When he was confronted that it was not true as shown in every poll conducted by Palestinians themselves, including recent university elections, he refused to back off his claim.
- Abbas is in control. When Seidemann was asked how Israel can possibly negotiate with Abbas since he lacked control of the people and territory, he reiterated that Abbas had complete control. After it was pointed out that if Abbas was in control, he was therefore responsible for the Gaza war that fired thousands of rockets into Israel, Seidemann ripped off his yamulke and stormed away.
While the speaker demanded total silence and respect from the audience, he showed the group none.
A community that sought to be educated about Israel was lied to for 90 minutes. A group that wanted to bond with fellow Jews and Israel, heard from a speaker that called for Jews to punish and economically strangle Israeli Jews.
As this self-declared Uber Zionist drove away, the community was left with bitter feelings. At least it was no longer on the Israeli Independence Day.
Related First One Through articles:
5 THOUGHTS ON “A DISSERVICE TO JEWISH COMMUNITY”
- Wonderful piece! I hope it’s run in the Jewish Press and all other American Jewish newspapers. That’s a huge market, particularly in NY City. Yated and Hamodia, being the other two major papers about which I’m thinking.
- As a member of this community I objected in advance to his coming. Having heard him speak, he was much worse than I knew when I objected. During the course of his speaking he repeatedly referred to himself and his Palestinian clients as “we.” Clearly he identifies with them and not with the Jews of Israel. In fact he seemed quite hostile to observant Jews.At the outset he dismissed the threat of Iran as nothing compared to the threat coming from inside Israel. Ironically, I thought his type, blind to Palestinian unwillingness to co-exist, is the real internal threat. But how could anyone dismiss Iran.He also mentioned that very few synagogues would have him to speak. I wish we had not been the exception. The problem is, that while many in YIWP and HIWP would object had they heard him, very few attended. It is hard to make sure our voice is heard if we do not show up and speak up.
- I heard Danny’s tirade.My thoughts:Danny Seidemann, an attorney for Arab residents of Judea and Samaria, did his job. He represented his clients. He does the same with his various websites, speeches, and lobbying in Washington and the world.
The question is: Why was he given the opportunity to push his agenda on Israel’s day of Independence? Why in White Plains?His lies and misrepresentations are not a surprise. For him it’s probably just business as usual. His life’s work is dedicated to creating a chasm between the Jewish People and Jerusalem.A close look at his words and actions in White Plains last week:He promotes making a vast territory west of the Jordan River Judenrein, but feels no Arab in Israel should be encouraged to leave his/her home. That’s a double standard. It’s one of Sharansky’s 3D’s in the test for anti-Semitism (see link)
http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-sharansky-f04.htmHe blamed “Young Jewish Vigilantes” for decreased freedom of movement into Israel for some Arabs. Not the Arab bombings and murders of Jews.His assertion that “This conflict will end with a border” is a dangerous lie. Muslims don’t recognize Statehood, they long for a Caliphate. Anyone who truly knows Islam knows this. Danny knows this, he’s trying to sell us his clients’ lies and duplicity.
He told us that the Palestinians will agree to 1967 borders in exchange for a State. He did’t explain that the “State” would be Judenrein and there would be an end to the conflict. The Arabs would continue to fight until every Jew is dead.“Don’t purchase settlement products.” This is the message the 5SWP wanted to send to our community? Boycott Israel? Thats the message of the day?“Occupation is a disease.” Jews living in their historic homeland is a “disease?’ Mull that comment over. Your reaction to it will tell a lot about you.Danny had just gotten an award from the British.
Remember the Jew and Israel loving Brits? Watch as they drag a bodies of Holocaust survivor Jews they had just killed for the crime of…wanting to leave Europe and go to their historic homeland of Palestine/Israel
Go to US Holocaust Museum Website and search for:
“refugee ship Theodor Herzl”The Community was likely not aware of what happened in Westchester on Israel Independence day. The leaders did.Shame on the leadership. - Danny, where are you?
“STATE DEPARTMENT SENDS $6 MILLION TO TERROR-TIED PALESTINIAN UN ORGANIZATION”
With the Palestinians’ latest gambit of signing on to the ICC and accusing Israel of “war crimes” through its settlements in Judea and Samaria, it bears repeating that the settlements are not illegal at all. Read the following blog post by First One Through who provides a thorough background of the legality of the settlement enterprise. The blogger also explains and the ins and outs of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is a very popular stick used by the Palestinians, the extreme left and all their supporters with which to beat Israel.