Saturday, December 27, 2014

Lies and Falestine

On Lies:

O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of remorse for what ye have done. (Koran, Sura 49:6)

"One of Satan's most deceptive and powerful ways of defeating us is to get us to believe a lie. And the biggest lie is that there are no consequences to our own doing. Satan will give you whatever you ask for if it will lead you where he ultimately wants you." Charles Stanley

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic." John F. Kennedy

“The most enduring and destructive legacy of five centuries of European colonialism are borders that were drawn for the sake of political and military expediency but which, given the region’s underlying history, culture, and ethnicity, make no sense today.” Joseph V. Micallef


And now the lie that is Falestine:

The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastine a fictional entity." — Golda Meir quoted by Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, 25 November 1995

Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass. But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today . . . No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough. — from "Myths of the Middle East", Joseph Farah, Arab-American editor and journalist,WorldNetDaily, 11 October 2000

A while ago I came across a paper written by Jeremy R. Hammond  entitled “The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel”. In his diatribe he begins his bitter prolonged discourse based on the assumption; purveyed by those ever so sad losers of Nachba fame, that there was an entity or a "country" if you may called "Palestine". So allow me to debunk the false claim of a existence of a country whose sole inhabitants were "unjustly" usurped of "their" land known as “Falestine”.

Here are true historical facts regarding "Palestine".

Archaeologists working on Philistine sites on the western coastal areas of Israel, and in the past in Gaza, have shown that the Philistines were part of the Minoan-later the Mycenaean civilization, from the island of Thera (also called Santorini) in Greece.
Archaeologists  have shown that the word Philistia or Peleshet” first recorded by the ancient Egyptians strengthens the evidence that they were a member of the invading Sea Peoples.

The first actual written historical text reference is by Herodotus around.450 BCE in his "The Histories" Book 7 and it clearly states that the "Palestinians" were descendant from invaders from the Mediterranean Sea
"The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestina, according to their own account, dwelt anciently upon the Erythraean Sea, but crossing thence, fixed themselves on the seacoast of Syria, where they still inhabit. This part of Syria, and the entire region extending from hence to Egypt, is known by the name of "Palestina"."
The term never was used to refer to the whole land of Israel therefore it would be generally accurate to say that the southwestern coastal area was called Philistia (the "Way of the Philistines", or "Palestina"), while the central highlands were called the "Land of Canaan". Both the Canaanites and the Philistines had disappeared as distinct peoples at least by the time of the Babylonian Captivity of Judea (586 B.C.), and they no longer exist.
The word 'Palestinian' is never found in Scripture. The term 'Palestine' is used four times in the King James Version (Exodus 15:14) Philistia (פְּלָשֶׁת); Isaiah 14:29, 31 (O Philistia) but never as synonymous with either the land of Canaan or the land of Israel. The Hebrew word is פְּלִשְׁתִּים, Plištim and referred to a small region also known as Philistia (Psalms 60:10, 87:4, 108:10), the land of the Pelishtee, or Philistines. It occurs 286 times in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew bible (of which 152 times in Samuel 1), whereas in the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible, the equivalent term phylistiim occurs only 12 times, with the remaining 269 references instead using the term "allophylos" ("of another tribe").

"In the New Testament, the term Palestine is never used. The term Israel is primarily used to refer to the people of Israel, rather than the Land. However, in at least two passages, Israel is used to refer to the Land: (Matt. 2:20-21)
In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads:
20: Saying, Arise, and take the young
child and his mother, and go into
the land of Israel: for they are dead
21: which sought the young child's life.
And he arose, and took the young child and
his mother, and came into the land of Israel.

The World English Bible translates the passage as:
20: "Arise and take the young child
and his mother, and go into the
land of Israel, for those who sought
the young child's life are dead."
21: He arose and took the young child and
his mother, and came into the land of Israel.

And in the Aramaic Bible in Plain English (Matt. 10:23)

But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say to you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man shall have come.

"The first passage is when Joseph, Mary and Jesus returned from Egypt to Israel, and the second has reference to the proclamation of the Gospel throughout the Land of Israel. Jesus, Matthew and the angel speaking to Joseph use the term Israel with reference to the Land, even though the term was not then recognized by the Roman authorities.It is clear, then, that the Bible never uses the term Palestine to refer to the Holy Land as a whole, and that Bible maps that refer to Palestine in the Old or New Testament are, at best, inaccurate, and, at worst, are a conscious denial of the biblical name of Israel." Dr. Thomas McCall
When Titus destroyed Jerusalem, in 70 CE, the Roman government struck a coin with the phrase “Judea Capta,” meaning Judea has been conquered. All Roman references used the terms Judea, Shomron and Galilee to refer to the Land of Israel 135CE. It was not until the Romans crushed the second Jewish revolt under Bar Kochba against Rome in that year 135CE that Emperor Hadrian applied the term "Palestina" to the Land of Israel. Hadrian, like many dictators since his time, realized the propaganda power of terms and symbols. He replaced the shrines of the Jewish Temple and the Sepulchre of Christ in Jerusalem with temples to pagan deities. He changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitalina, and changed the names of Judea, Shomron and Israel to "Palestina". Hadrian’s selection of "Palestina" was purposeful, not accidental. He took the name of the ancient enemies of Israel, the Philistines, Latinized it to "Palestina", and applied it to the Land of Israel. He hoped to erase the name Israel from all memory. Thus, the term "Palestina" as applied to the Land of Israel was invented by the inveterate enemy of the Bible and the Jewish people, the Roman Empire under Emperor Hadrian. It may have pleased Hadrian to utilize this Hellenistic term for the Jewish land since the original Philistines were not Middle Eastern at all like the Romans. 

The Romans had referred to this land as a whole Iudaea (from the Greek Ioudaia). The land was mainly inhabited by Jews and was ruled by Jews. Therefore, Lord Robert Cecil, acting British foreign secretary, was right to use the name Judea for the whole land in his famous remark: "Our wish is that Arabian countries shall be for the Arabs, Armenia for the Armenians, and Judea for the Jews" (December 2, 1917).
The Christian Crusaders had typically called the country the Holy Land (Terra Sancta) and it was still the usual Western name for the country in the nineteenth century, although it alternated with Palestine, Judea, Zion, the Land of Israel, Land of the Bible, etc., and the Land was sometimes seen as part of Syria, the Levant, or other geographic notions. 
The highly respected Enciclopedia Italiana (Vol. 26, "Palestina"; ca. 1930) tells us that the name "Palestine" came "to prevail in modern times" over other names. This change apparently took place out of the "scientific" motive to avoid the religious connotations of Holy Land. 

This area known as the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem was created in 1872 under the Ottoman Empire . It had a special administrative status by the name the Sanjak of Jerusalem. The Ottoman Turkish Empire was basically a Sunni Islamic state founded by Oghuz Turks under Osman I in northwestern Anatolia in 1299.  The sultanate was abolished on 1 November 1922, and the last sultan, Mehmed VI who reigned  from 1918–22, left Turkey on the 17th of  November 1922. The Grand National Assembly of Turkey declared the Republic of Turkey on 29 October 1923 and the caliphate was finally abolished on 3 March 1924.

The Ottoman Empire that had fought on the side of the Central Powers Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire in World War I was soundly defeated. Not long after the conclusion of the First World War the allies, specifically Great Britain and France who were represented by the French diplomat François Georges-Picot and Briton Sir Mark Sykes divided up the former Ottoman Turkish Empire into spheres of influence under the Sykes –Picot agreement of 16 May 1916 into the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration.

Sir Mark Sykes had been a Protégé of Lord Kitchener, the British Secretary of State for War in World War I. Kitchener placed Sykes on the de Bunsen Committee which was established on 8 April 1915 by British Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, and was headed by Sir Maurice de Bunsen. The committee was established by the British government to determine their policy toward the Ottoman Empire during World War I and to determine it's fate in the aftermath.

Though Sykes never got to really know Kitchener well, he had Kitchener’s confidence as they shared a similar outlook on affairs in the Middle East. It was due to Kitchener’s backing of Sykes that he was soon the dominant person on the de Bunsen Committee, and thereby gained great influence on the outcome of British Middle Eastern policy.

The Arab Bureau as a section of the Cairo Intelligence Department during the First World War that was created upon Sykes's instigation. It was Sykes and his fellows in this group, Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Edward Lawrence the most famous of them, who revived ancient Greek and Roman names for Middle Eastern regions. Such terms in common use today includes "Syria", "Palestine", "Iraq" and "Mesopotamia". He also designed the "Flag of the Arab Revolt", in an effort to create a feeling of "Arab-ness" in order to fuel the revolt. The horizontal colors stand for the Abbasid (black), Umayyad (white) and Fatimid (green) Caliphates. The red triangle refers to the Hashemite dynasty - who had been allies of the British in the conflict against the Ottoman Empire. After the war ended, the Hashemites achieved or were granted rule in the Hejaz region of Arabia, Jordan, formally known as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, briefly in Greater Syria, and Iraq.
A combination of the colors red, green, black and white are seen today in the flags of nationalities that did not exist before the First World War. These countries are: Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, Kuwait, Yemen and the United Arab Emirates

Walid Shoebat once said that the "Palestinians" are the newest of all the peoples on the face of the Earth, and began to exist in a single day by a kind of supernatural phenomenon that is unique in the whole history of mankind, as witnessed by Walid Shoebat who said “Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?” that over night "...all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”.

The OETA was a joint British and French military administration over Levantine and Mesopotamian provinces of the former Ottoman Empire established between 1918 to 1920.The area of formerly Ottoman territory was under occupation  and Field Marshal Edmund Allenby (Dec 1917 – Jun 1918) was appointed a Chief Administrator for OETA South. He divided the country into four districts: Jerusalem, Jaffa, Majdal and Beersheba, each under a military governor.

OETA South, consisted of the Ottoman Sanjaks of Jerusalem or the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the Sanjak of Nablus and Sanjak of Acre, they formed the region that was commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" by the Arabs who did not see this land as a separate country but merely considered the area in question as an undifferentiated part of Bilad ash-Sham (usually translated as Syria or Greater Syria).

"What the British call Palestine was part of the Province of Syria [...] politically, the Arabs of the Mandated Area were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity."

(Faris Khoury Representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations in a statement to General Assembly in May 1947.)

Faris al-Khoury was born in Hasbaya in southern Lebanon. He was not only a die-hard Syrian nationalist but what was remarkable about him is that the fact that he was Christian. He served as Prime Minister of Syria twice from October 14, 1944 to October 1, 1945 and from October 1954 to February 13, 1955. Faris Khoury was also the first Syrian statesman to visit the United States and represent his country at the inauguration of the UN in 1945 .

This Arab view that the name "Palestine" was not identified with the Arabs living in the Mandated areas lasted until the end of the British mandate period. As we see from Arab writings and political declarations such as that of  Prof. Philip Hitti, an Arab-American historian, who taught at Princeton University when he testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946: " There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not." 

At the San Remo conference, an international meeting of the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council, held at Villa Devachan in San Remo, Italy, from 19 to 26 April 1920. Attended 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 Japan's Ambassador K. Matsui. Resolutions were passed at this conference that determined the allocation of Class "A" League of Nations mandates for administration of the former Ottoman-ruled lands of the Middle East Resolution adopted on 25 April 1920 that incorporated the Balfour Declaration of ‎‎1917.
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
The Balfour Declaration and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were the basic documents ‎upon which the League of Nations "British Mandate for Palestine" was constructed.
The declaration was in contrast to the McMahon-Hussein correspondence, which promised the Arab independence movement control of the Middle East territories "in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca" in exchange for revolting against the Ottoman Empire.

By the Balfour ‎Declaration, the British government had undertaken to favour the establishment of a Jewish ‎national home in "Palestine" - without "...prejudice to the civil and religious rights of existing non-‎Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other ‎country." Britain received the mandate for Palestine and Iraq; France gained control of Syria, ‎including present-day Lebanon in complete disregard to other League of Nations representatives who had been opposed to the Sykes-Picot agreement.

When the British received the mandate at the San Remo after the utter defeat and breaking apart of the Ottoman Turkish Empire in 1922 they called the land on both sides of the Jordan River, by the Roman term "Palestine". It was specifically employed to avoid the use of the name "Eretz Yisrael" by members of the British Foreign Office, who despised the Balfour Declaration. According to the Minutes of the Ninth Session of the League of Nations' Permanent Mandate Commission:

Lieutenant Colonel Sir George Stewart Symes (1882–1962)  explained; "... that the country was described as 'Palestine' by Europeans and as 'Falestina' by the Arabs. The Hebrew name for the area was the designation 'Land of Israel', and the British Government grudgingly agreed to meet Jewish wishes by allowing the use of the initials which stood for that designation 'Land of Israel' in Hebrew characters following the word "Palestine" in all official documents and monies.
As a set-off to this, certain Arab politicians suggested that the country should be called "Southern Syria" in order to emphasize its close relation with another Arab State."

During an Advisory Council meeting in 1920 his Excellency the High Commissioner of Palestine Herbert Samuel stated that: "I was aware that there was no other name in the Hebrew language for this land except 'Eretz-Israel'. At the same time I thought that if 'Eretz-Israel' only were used, it might not be regarded by the outside world as a correct rendering of the word 'Palestine', and in the case of passports or certificates of nationality, it might perhaps give rise to passports or certificates of nationality, it might perhaps give rise to difficulties, so it was decided to print 'Palestine' in Hebrew letters and to add after it the letters 'Aleph' 'Yod', which constitute a recognized abbreviation of the Hebrew name 'Eretz-Israel'."  

"English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic."


As I mentioned previously above, the Arabs who resided in the area of the Mandated territories, wished to be recognized as part of 'Southern Syria'. They wanted to emphasize their close relation with other Arab States and not the word "Palestine," which the Arabs saw as applied almost exclusively to Jews. Institutions founded by new Jewish immigrants in the first half of the 20th century, before independence were all prefixed by the word "Palestine". You can see it in this opening of the famous 1935 movie made during the British mandate period:  "The Land of Promise"


Some other examples include:

  • The badges that the members of the Jewish Brigade from WWII are labeled in Hebrew "Palestina" and with it the letters א"י - Aleph Yud - Eretz Yisrael!

  • The Jerusalem Post, founded in 1932, was called the Palestine Post until 1948.

  • Bank Leumi L’Israel was called the “Anglo-Palestine Bank, a Jewish Company.”

  • The Jewish Agency – an arm of the Zionist movement engaged in Jewish settlement since 1929 – was called the Jewish Agency for Palestine.

  • The house organ of American Zionism in the 1930s was called New Palestine.

  • Today’s Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, founded in 1936 by German Jewish refugees who fled Nazi Germany, was called the “Palestine Symphony Orchestra, composed of some 70 Palestinian Jews.”

  • The United Jewish Appeal (UJA) was established in 1939 as a merger of the United Palestine Appeal and the fundraising arm of the Joint Distribution Committee.

  • Australia and Palestine football game 1939  Who are the Palestinian team members, Jews or Arabs? 
"...The “indigenous people” who resided in the Ottoman Turkish Empire area prior to the Mandate in 1922 where a mixed group of peoples and there was no clamor made by them to be identified as “Falestinians”. Lt. Colonel Sir George Stewart Symes 

In Conclusion


Both sides do agree that God gave the land of Canaan (which became Israel) to Abraham and to his heirs forever and that Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn son, whereas Isaac was the second but the firstborn of Sarah and of the promise.
The custom in Abraham's day, acknowledged in the Torah, gave the firstborn prior claim to the inheritance. In fact the Torah relays the story that Abraham was satisfied with Ishmael as his child and that he considered him to be the son God had promised. Abraham didn't even want God to give him another son as mentioned in (Gen 17:18) It is by this story the Arab descendants of Ishmael believe of themselves to be the legitimate heirs. And as the Bible tells us God brought Abraham into the 'land of Canaan...and the Canaanite [not the 'Palestinian'] was then in the land' (Gen 12:5-6). God gave that land by an everlasting covenant to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen 24:7) - not to Ishmael. In obedience to God, Abraham 'settled in the land of Canaan' (Gen 13:12).Therefore there was no such land as 'Palestine' in Abraham's day and thus no such people as 'Palestinians' from whom any of today's Arabs could claim descent. In actual fact, Ishmael's descendants settled in the Arabian Peninsula hundreds of miles from the land God gave Abraham.

This claim by Semitic Arabs of being descendants of a non-Semitic people who allegedly lived for thousands of years in a land called Palestine is a blatant hoax intended to delegitimize the Israelis and claim the land of Israel for themselves. True the "Land of Israel" was then inhabited by Canaanites, Kenites, Kenizites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaims, Amorites, Girgashites and Jebusites' (Gen 12:6; 13:7; 15:18-21; 23:10; etc.). If today's 'Palestinian' Arabs are descended from the original inhabitants of the "land of Canaan", which ones of those listed above would it be? In fact, no descendants of the original inhabitants of Canaan have survived to this day. Yet the world continues to accept this fraudulent claim.  In any case, the original “Palestinians” had nothing to do, whatsoever, with any "Falestinian" Arabs.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Bamboozled

For some time now there has been an increased use of specific terminology by the Falestinian propagandists, and their trolls residing in foreign countries, accusing Israel of "Genocide" and equating Israel to the atrocities of Nazi Germany?" What ever could be their purpose for using these words over and over again in their propaganda. Why the determination to instill this equalisation by these specific terms into the minds of the western media audience?

Well we have just experienced the truth behind their plan with the recent vote in the European Union and in several European countries to recognize an entity that they themselves refused to establish after the 1947 Partition vote. Realizing their error the Falestinians have embarked on a plan to not only de-legitimize the State of Israel but hey have set in motion a diabolical plan to negate Israel entirely. The proof of this can be seen in a paper written by  Jeremy R. Hammond "The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel" where he outlines the Arab viewpoint (excuse) as to why they refused to accept the UN Partition vote.

As I had mentioned in my previous Blog entries, this is not "Just" an occurrence. I believe it to be a calculated scheme of demonization of Israel that derives from the lesson Yasser Arafat and his adjutant, Khalil Ibrahim al-Wazir - Abu Jihad learned while visiting North Viet Nam at the height of the US military's involvement in 1970. 
During their visit to Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh and his chief strategist, Võ Nguyên Giáp taught Arafat how to manipulate the sympathy of the Liberals in the West, just as they had in the USA. The North Vietnamese together with their KGB affiliates, instructed Arafat to use the hundreds of  Falestinian emigres and students living in Europe and the United States to  mobilize left-wing sympathizers and activists on campuses. These "Bamboozled" left-wing sympathizers and activists have overwhelmingly succeeded in changing the once perceived pro-Israel image of David versus Goliath of college students to that of Israel as an Imperialistic Colonizing power that "Occupies" and mistreats innocent Arabs" as outlined in Yasser Arafat's 1974 UN Speech.

As Khaled Abu Toameh said in his 2009 article; On Campus: The Pro-Palestinians' Real Agenda.  "We have seen in many videos that there is more sympathy for Hamas on many US campuses than there is in Ramallah."  "What is happening on the U.S. campuses is not really about supporting the Falestinians as much as it is about promoting hatred for the Jewish state. It is not really about ending the "occupation" as much as it is about ending the existence of Israel." "The so-called pro-Palestinian "junta" on the campuses has nothing to offer other than hatred and de-legitimization of Israel."

Throughout the world we have seen the videos posted on the social media of anti Israel demonstrations and marches as they gather chanting that Israel is committing "Genocide". Meanwhile they march and chant that Falestinian standard sentence-"From the River to the Sea Falestinia will be free." The hypocrisy behind the meaning of the chant lost on these naive and self duped fools.This statement is a Falestinian call for the ethnic cleansing or "Genocide" -of Israel. As Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar sees it, "Palestine is Islamic, and not an Islamic emirate, from the river to the sea, that unites the Palestinians. Jews have no right in it.”


We have seen more and more use of  Nazi imagery on the social media -in Facebook comments, YouTube videos and Tweeter. In demonstrations throughout the world wherever the pro-Falestinian HOIZ (Haters Of Israel and Zionism) and their anarchist trolls gather they hysterically scream out in rage Israeli's "ZioNazis". We can see and hear them chanting together as they strut down the streets of major cities in Europe and the USA. Few know that our "Peace Partner" Abbas graduated from that ostentatious institute of KGB terrorist indoctrination and training the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow. Abbas earned the Soviet equivalent of a PhD with a doctoral dissertation entitled;"The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism".

Through the use of "Falestinian" photojournalist, manipulation of foreign new journalists and the flagrant lies and distortions of truth in the antics termed as "Pallywood". The "Falestinian" propagandists have masterminded gruesome scenes and images of dead children many times to equate Israelis to bestial "Nazi" murderers. "Falestinian propagandists" have sought through the use of fictional Pallywood provocations and incidents, widely covered by their own photojournalists; who work with large media companies to create sensational stories to influence the Western media audience. The media, wanting advertisement revenues, readily believe the "incidents" filmed by their "Falesinian"photojournalists. I highly recommend that you read more about this media manipulation in an essay Matti Friedman wrote for the Jewish online magazine Tablet: "An Insider’s Guide to the Most Important Story on Earth" 

"Falestinian" photojournalists, that worked with Hamas cynically used the images of the local residents as "Human Shields" during the latest Israeli Operation "Protective Shield"to achieve their desired effect to equate the IDF and the Jews of Israel in the eyes of the naive and  uneducated world as cold blooded "genocidal" murderers and as usurpers of the "native" Arab population.
Canadian columnist Paul Schneidereit once wrote,
"[...] we've seen cases where the bodies of Palestinian martyrs carried on stretchers are inadvertently dropped, then, of their own volition, climb back on again. We’ve seen reports of massacres, as in Jenin in 2002, that turned out, after independent investigation, to have been greatly exaggerated. Needless to say, such episodes don’t instill an abiding trust in subsequent Palestinian claims, at least until they’re verified."
Pro-Falestinian propagandists  have consistently manipulated scenes to make the naive audiences of the Western press believe that Israel has imposed a draconian "Blockade" on the "innocent" civilians of the "Gaza Strip". The "Falestinian" photojournalists and their foreign press counterparts cynically use the view of the border crossings necessitated by the terrorist actions together with the border fence to give the appearance of a "Blockade."
The footage of tons of materials flowing daily into Gaza and the pictures of marketplaces full of food and new malls are blithely ignored. Nary a word is mentioned to remind the younger members of the world audience about the forced removal of Israeli citizens who had settled the land and farmed it peacefully until 2005.

Any story regarding the truth for the Israeli limitations on imports, and the Israeli Naval presence is to prevent the full scale arming of the Hamas, is ignored or brushed aside as lies. Even with the photographic proof and documentation from several ships bound to Gaza with deadly loads of weaponry hidden in supposedly innocent cargoes mean for one purpose to kill and maim Israeli civilians. Here are three prime examples of why Israel has imposed a strict blockade on Gaza:
In 2003, Israeli commandos in Operation "Noah's Ark"  intercepted the Karine A in the Red Sea, and seized 50 tons of missiles, mortars, rifles and ammunition which it said were destined for Gaza.
In 2009, the Israeli navy intercepted the Iranian vessel MV Francop off the coast of Cyprus, carrying hundreds of tons of weapons.
In March 2011  a military operation conducted by the Israeli Navy code name Operation Iron Law intercepted the German-owned, Liberian-flagged vessel Victoria on the high seas. On board were concealed approximately 50 tons of weapons, including C-704 anti-ship missiles, rocket launchers, radar systems, mortar shells and rifle ammunition.

What has been forgotten by the world media is that in 2006 when Israel arrested  Fuad Shubaki, an Arafat aide who was in charge of finances in the PA and, as such the mastermind behind the smuggling attempts. He told the Israelis that the "Falestinian Authority" usually spent between $7 and $10 million was every two years to purchase arms for the Gaza Strip. Additionally another $2 million was spent on weapons for the West Bank. According to Shubaki the money came mainly from EU and USA international aid to the PA. Just like in the recent misappropriations of millions in EU and US funds and supplies of building materials sent over the past years to Gaza to "rebuild" the sanitary facilities and infrastructure by Hama used in the construction of tunnels to attack Israel by.

The story behind of the lost the election by the Fatah movement of the "Falestinian Authority" to the Hamas terrorist group in 2007 who took over in a ruthless and deadly fratricidal act has been all but forgotten in the obsession to de-legitimize Israel. Instead of attempting to live in peace as hoped. Hamas turned the Gaza Strip into a base for countless terrorist attacks against he Israeli civilian population mainly in the form of deadly rocket attacks.

We have also been exposed to countless libelous news reports where these propagandists have created a fable that Gaza or the areas of the "West Bank" are open air 'concentration camps" further strengthening this view of equating Israel to Nazi Germany. I believe that the reason for this labeling of Israel as a country committing "Genocide", together with the sick massive pro-Falestinian and their lackeys attempt to associate Israel with the Nazi regime in Germany committing a "Holocaust", resides in the wording of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Pro-Falestinian propagandists and their lobby of bamboozled Western Libertards have labored to link Israel with  the language of "occupation" because it appears, in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Through the use of the term “occupied territory,”it has allowed the Pro-Falestinian propagandists to obfuscate historical facts and truth  as they have tried for years to negate Israel's very existence in the world. They found that the Fourth Geneva Convention can only be used against Israel's right to exist if they can equate Israel with the Nazi occupation of Europe.

So in order to create a connection to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and to form a legal basis for implementing the Fourth Geneva Convention. The pro-Falestinian propagandists and their trolls have brainwashed the world with the terms: Occupation, ZioNazis and Genocide. This brainwashing or if you prefer Dr Carl Sagan's term "Bamboozled" has allowed for the reversal of the image of the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences from that of the pre-1967 image of Israel to that of the poor deprived "Falestinians" of Pallywood fame.

A leading authority on the Law of Nations, Professor Julius Stone, once had categorically rejected the use of the term “occupied territory” to describe the territories controlled by Israel on the following counts:
(1) Article 49 relates to the invasion of sovereign states and is inapplicable because the West Bank did not and does not belong to any other state.
(2) The drafting history of Article 49 [Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War] – that is, preventing “genocidal objectives” must be taken into account. And according to Professor Julius Stone those conditions do not exist in Israel’s case.
(3) The settlement of Jews in the West Bank is voluntary and does not displace local inhabitants.(In actuality most of the "settlement" of the Jews in Judea and Shomron- aka the "West Bank" has been to those areas that were once inhabited by Jews prior to the "Partion" in 1948 that were ethnically cleansed of Jews residents.)

These three points have been a sore that has festered in the Falestinian camp and has galvanized them and their trolls into action in their, as I call it "Negation of Israel Plan".


Through their manipulation of the world press the pro-Falestinian propagandists have succeeded to label the ethnically cleansed Israeli residents of the re-established pre-1948 Jewish communities in Gush Etzion of which the four main villages were: Kfar Etzion, Massu'ot Yitzhak,Ein Tzurim and Revadim of Judea and the Old Quarter in Jerusalem as "occupiers" and as "settlers". The "Falestinians" have even gone so far as to brand  ALL Jewish residents of Israel, on both sides of the 1949 Rhodes Armistice "Green Line" not only as "occupiers" and as "settlers" but as "usurpers".

Few are aware of the actual historical fact that the Jewish communities that existed in the "West Bank" and Gaza Strip prior to 1919 and were recognized as legitimate by the Mandate for Palestine, which was adopted by the League of Nations. Even fewer are aware to the fact that the only administration that completely prohibited Jewish communities from existing in the territories, situated between the 1949 “Green Line”or  “Armistice Line” and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate, was Trans-Jordan (Jordan). Who conquered and "Occupied" the area from 1948 -1967.  No mention is ever given by the pro-Falestinians to the fact that King Abdullah of Jordan did not offer to allow the "Arabs of the Mandated Area" to establishment an independent "Falestinian" entity as they were entitled to do so under the "Partition" vote of UNR181. Instead King Abdullah of Jordan attempted to annex the area but his attempts to do so were never recognized by any country. In relation to the Jordanian 19 year occupation the International Court of Justice noted:
“...under customary international law as reflected (...) in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter “the Hague Regulations of 1907”), territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
The Fourth Geneva Convention was found to be not applicable to the West Bank and 
Gaza Strip, since, under its Article 2, it pertains only to "cases of…occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party" by another High Contracting party. (The representatives of states who have signed or ratified a treaty. .. the signatories) Territories are only "occupied" if they are captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign, but no state had a legitimate or recognized sovereignty over the West Bank, Gaza Strip or East Jerusalem prior to the Six-Day War. 
Therefore in all intents and purposes under International Law the area became terra nullius or "land belonging to no one". The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Israeli government websites support the view that the territories are not occupied.  Since they argue that use of the term "occupied" in relation to Israel's control of the areas has no basis in International law or history, and that it prejudges the outcome of negotiations.  So Israel in reality “liberated” this area in a defensive war in 1967.
It is worthy to note here that United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 calls for "secure and recognized boundaries", yet no borders have been established or recognized by the parties. Armistice lines do not establish borders, and the 1949 Armistice Agreements in particular specifically stated (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent or de jure borders.

Furthermore in respect to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention the Israeli government has not  forcibly transferred its population into the territories. The land that was being resettled and reclaimed never had been under the legitimate sovereignty of any state beforehand. What everyone is ignoring in relation to Article 49 is the fact that according to the League of Nations resolution for the establishment of the Mandate for Palestine, the area of Judea and Shomron had been recognized as a cestui sue trust  for the Jewish Homeland in April, 1922 in the Treaty of Sèvres (Section VII, Art 94-97) by 52 countries at the San Remo Conference which granted the Palestine Mandate to Britain. The League of Nations officially granted Britain the Palestine Mandate on July 24, 1922.

There are no clauses in the Fourth Geneva Convention that can be used to prohibit the voluntary return of individuals to towns and villages from which they or their ancestors had been previously ejected by forcible means.
ARTICLE 49 The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the International Criminal Court Rome Statute defines "[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" as a war crime. (*) This should be read only in the context of the World War II forcible migrations. It is only intended to cover forcible transfers and to protect the local population from displacement and not voluntary movement.
According to the argument, the "last legal sovereignty over the territories was that of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, which stipulated the right of the Jewish people to settle in the whole of the Mandated territory. According to Article 6 of the Mandate, "close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use" was to be encouraged."

However under Article 25 it allowed the League Council to temporarily postpone the Jewish right to settle (only) in what is now Jordan, if conditions were not amenable.

"Article 80 of the U.N. Charter preserved this Jewish right to settlement by specifying, "nothing in the [United Nations] Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing international instruments."

Shamgar further stated:
"There is no rule of international law according to which the Fourth Convention applies in each and every armed conflict whatever the status of the parties.... The whole idea of the restriction of military government powers is based on the assumption that there has been a sovereign who was ousted and that he was a legitimate sovereign."
The Israeli legal argument was dismissed by the International Court of Justice. The Court cited the Geneva Convention's travaux préparatoires, which recommended that the conventions be applicable to any armed conflict "whether [it] is or is not recognized as a state of war by the parties" and "in cases of occupation of territories in the absence of any state of war" as confirmation that the drafters of the article had no intention of restricting the scope of its application"
"High Contracting Parties"

Historically the area in question was called the "West Bank"  by members of the British Foreign Office to avoid the use of the name Judea and Shomron so as to negate Jewish rights to the area. 

The area of Judea and Shomron was part of the Ottoman Empire known as the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem or as the Sanjak of Jerusalem from 1299 until 1918. Later the area was under the British as part of  the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA South) established between 1918 to 1920 and after that with the Treaty of Sèvres (Section VII, Art 94-97) it became the Mandate for Palestine. 
This part of the Mandate for Palestine designated as part of the future Arab State in the November 29th, 1947 Partition vote (UNR181) was conquered and held by the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan from 1948 until 1967, who attempted to annex the area. Due to inter-sectarian violence and rivalries it was never controlled by an Independent Arab entity ruled by and for the Arabs of the Mandated areas.

Therefore by legal definition the "West Bank" and Gaza Strip have never been the legal territories of any High Contracting Party.

Thusthe current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision "to resettle" -to allow Israeli citizens the right to reside, in land that was once part of the Mandate for Palestine area rather than a result of a war imposed on Israel by a coalition of Arab states in 1967.

Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case:
 "Where the prior holder of territory ( Jordan) had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."
On the application of the fourth Geneva Convention, the Court noted:
"...for the purpose of determining the scope of application of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it should be recalled that under common Article 2 of the four Conventions of 12 August 1949"
“In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance."

(...) the Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that Convention is applicable when two conditions are fulfilled:
  • that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized);
  • and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties. (...)
The object of the second paragraph of Article 2 is not to restrict the scope of application of the Convention, as defined by the first paragraph, by excluding there from territories not falling under the sovereignty of one of the contracting parties. It is directed simply to making it clear that, even if occupation effected during the conflict met no armed resistance, the Convention is still applicable.
In 1971  Israeli Attorney-General, Meir Shamgar stated in his interpretation that: "The Convention did not pertain to the territories captured by Israel since they had not previously been recognized as part of a sovereign state and could not be considered "the territory of a High Contracting Party".
Therefore even if the Fourth Geneva Convention had applied at one point, they certainly did not apply once Israel transferred governmental powers to the Palestinian Authority in accordance with the 1993 Oslo Accords, since Article 6 of the convention states that the Occupying Power would only be bound to its terms "to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory....".

In 2005 Israel decided to dismantle all Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern West Bank. historian and journalist, Gershom Gorenberg noted that the Likud led Israeli government under Arik Sharon's decision was challenged in the Supreme Court by "settlers", and the government won the case by noting the "settlements" were in territory whose legal status was that of 'belligerent territory'. The government argued that the settlers should have known the settlements were only temporary.