Jordan is Palestine

What happened to the Mandated Area East of the Jordan River? Is Jordan actually "Arab" Palestine?

Henry McMahon had exchanged letters with Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca in 1915, in which he had promised to recognize the independence of the Arabs subject to certain exemptions:

The districts of Mersina and Alexandretta, and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo, cannot be said to be purely Arab, and must on that account be excepted from the proposed limits and boundaries.

McMahon's promises were seen by the Arabs as a formal agreement between them and the United Kingdom. On this understanding the Arabs established a military force under the command of Hussein's son Faisal which fought, with inspiration from 'Lawrence of Arabia', against the Ottoman Empire during the Arab Revolt.

In January 1918 Commander David Hogarth, head of the Arab Bureau in Cairo, was dispatched to Jeddah to deliver a letter written by Sir Mark Sykes on behalf of the British Government to Hussein (now King of Hejaz). The message assured Hussein that:

The Entente Powers are determined that the Arab race shall be given full opportunity of once again forming a nation in the world. This can only be achieved by the Arabs themselves uniting, and Great Britain and her Allies will pursue a policy with this ultimate unity in view.

In respect to Palestine and in the light of the Balfour Declaration Hogarth continued by stating:

Since the Jewish opinion of the world is in favour of a return of Jews to Palestine and in as much as this opinion must remain a constant factor, and further as His Majesty's Government view with favour the realization of this aspiration, His Majesty's Government are determined that insofar as is compatible with the freedom of the existing population both economic and political, no obstacle should be put in the way of the realization of this ideal.

"Was Trans-Jordan not part of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine specified as the 'Homeland for ‎the Jewish People'?"Article Two of the Mandate for Palestine states:‎

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for ‎placing the country under such political, ‎administrative and economic conditions as will ‎secure the establishment of the Jewish ‎national home, as laid down in the preamble, and ‎the development of self-governing ‎institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and ‎religious rights of all the inhabitants ‎of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."‎

‎‎"In August 1920, Sir Herbert Samuel's request to extend the frontier of British territory beyond the River Jordan and to bring Transjordan under his administrative control was rejected."

Okay so what happened to the 72% of the Mandatory lands east of the ‎Jordan River?”

"The British Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, proposed instead that British influence in Transjordan should be advanced by sending a few political officers, without military escort, to encourage self-government and give advice to local leaders in the territory. Following Curzon's instruction Samuel set up a meeting with Transjordanian leaders where he presented British plans for the territory. The local leaders were reassured that Transjordan would not come under Palestinian (meaning part of the Jewish homeland) administration and that there would be no disarmament or conscription. Samuel's terms were accepted, he returned to Jerusalem, leaving Captain Alec Kirkbride as the British representative east of the Jordan."(citation)

In July 1920, when Faisal bin Hussein was expelled from Syria by the French, he cancelled the proposed agreement that he had made with Dr. Chaim Weizmann on the 3rd of January, 1919 at the Paris Peace Conference. The two had negotiated and signed an agreement, which spoke of full cooperation in the development of the independent Arab state in present-day Syria and Iraq (as promised by the British to Faisal) and the Jewish home in Palestine (from the Balfour Declaration), and encouraging "the immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale".

Just consider for one moment the impact of how this last part of the statement by Emir Faisal:"I cannot be answerable for failing to carry out this agreement", changed history forever and condemned thousands if not a millions people to death and agony! One wonders just how many lives would have been saved had the Machiavellian maneuvers of the French and the British had not played out.

What happened next was that on the 21st of November 1920, Hashemite Emir Abdullah I bin al-Hussein, elder son of Britain's wartime Arab ally Hussein bin Ali and the brother of the deposed King Faisal, marched into Ma'an at the head of an army of 300 men. At the Cairo Conference, of March 1921 they appointed Hussein Emir of Transjordan, while assuring that no Jews would be allowed to settle in Transjordan. In that same month Abdullah and his army had effectively occupied most of Transjordan.

"On what legal basis did this 2/3 of the Palestinian ‎Mandate get handed over to Abdullah other than as an arbitrary whim of the British government?" Was not the area under the League of Nations authority? Article Five of the Mandate for Palestine states:‎

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded ‎or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign ‎Power."

The 1922 White Paper (also called the Churchill White Paper) was the first official manifesto interpreting the Balfour Declaration. It was issued on June 3, 1922, after investigation of the 1921 Moslem riots "disturbances" against the Jews in the Yishuv.
Although the White Paper stated that the Balfour Declaration could not be amended and that the Jews were in Palestine by right. The White Paper partitioned the area of the Mandate by excluding the area east of the Jordan River from Jewish settlement. The White Paper included the statement that the British Government:

"... does not want Palestine to become "as Jewish as England is English", rather should become "a center in which Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride."

The Transjordan memorandum was a British memorandum passed by the Council of the League of Nations on 16 September 1922. The memorandum described how the British government planned to implement the article of the Mandate for Palestine which allowed exclusion of Transjordan from the provisions regarding Jewish settlement.

That land, which encompassed 76% of the original Palestine Mandated land, was renamed Transjordan and was given to the Emir Abdullah by the British.

This one sided ‘partion’ is mentioned in article 25 and 27 of the The Palestine Mandate given below.

Article 25: 

In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, ;16 and 18.

Art 15

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.

The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.

Art 16

The Mandatory shall be responsible for exercising such supervision over religious or eleemosynary bodies of all faiths in Palestine as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government. Subject to such supervision, no measures shall be taken in Palestine to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of such bodies or to discriminate against any representative or member of them on the ground of his religion or nationality.

Art 18

The Mandatory shall see that there is no discrimination in Palestine against the nationals of any State Member of the League of Nations (including companies incorporated under its laws) as compared with those of the Mandatory or of any foreign State in matters concerning taxation, commerce or navigation, the exercise of industries or professions, or in the treatment of merchant vessels or civil aircraft. Similarly, there shall be no discrimination in Palestine against goods originating in or destined for any of the said States, and there shall be freedom of transit under equitable conditions across the mandated area.

Subject as aforesaid and to the other provisions of this mandate, the Administration of Palestine may, on the advice of the Mandatory, impose such taxes and customs duties as it may consider necessary, and take such steps as it may think best to promote the development of the natural resources of the country and to safeguard the interests of the population. It may also, on the advice of the Mandatory, conclude a special customs agreement with any State the territory of which in 1914 was wholly included in Asiatic Turkey or Arabia.

Art 27

The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.

So the answer to the question: "Was it not given as a payoff to the Hashemite Bedouin ‎Clan by the British ‎Government in detriment to the Palestinians?" The answer is obvious yes it was.

The Question of Legality for Israeli control of Judea and Shomron

Following the June 1967 War, a number of legal arguments were advanced to support Israeli claims to the remaining territory of the Palestine Mandate, from the “Green Line” 1949 “Armistice Line” to the Jordan River.
This area of Mandated Territory had been “illegally conquered and occupied” by Trans-Jordan (Jordan) from 1948 -1967. The Jordanians never did offer the Arab residents the chance to establish an independent Palestinian entity. Instead they attempted to annex the area.

According to the Fourth Geneva Convention: “...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.”

According to the League of Nations resolution for the establishment of the Mandate for Palestine, the area of Judea and Shomron the “West Bank”, were 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 "Stewardship" or Mandate for the Territory euphemistically named by Sir Mark Sykes after the geographical term "Palestine",on July 24, 1922. 

This "act" was further ratified later in the Treaty of Lausanne July 24th 1923.

Other facts to be noted are:

• There were Jewish communities that existed in Judea and Shomron the “West Bank” and Gaza Strip prior to 1919 and these had been recognized as legitimate by the Mandate for Palestine,which was adopted by the League of Nations.
• The communities of; Hartuv and Kfar Etzion had only been re-established after 1967 after exhaustive investigations making sure none were built on private land.
• Israel also argues that some of the communities in the area of Gush Etzion are built on land purchased by a Jewish land holding company in 1925.
• There were pre existing Jewish communities in Hebron and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and Silwan before the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Many of these "West Bank"Jewish communities were destroyed and residents massacred. or as the Arabs and detractors love to claim the Jewish residents were "ETNICALLY CLEANSED"

"Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired (Art. 26.1) and that the exercise of these rights shall be free from discrimination of any kind (Art. 2)."

— UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 13, 2007." Michael Calvo

Therefore, it seems reasonable to refer to the lands of these pre-state Jewish communities as liberated as they were "liberated" from the illegal occupation of Jordan and were returned to the possession of the owners, the Jewish People. 

Regarding Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Israeli government has NEVER forcibly transferred its population into the territories. The return of Jews to Judea and Samaria (aka West Bank) is voluntary and does not displace local inhabitants.

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.

Therefore, in these cases, the application of the Geneva Convention is an entirely different issue. It should also be emphasized that:

Much of the land, that was (and still is) being used to build new residential areas, villages and towns, in Judaea and Shomron - what detractors label "settlements"-, are "public lands" and have never had been under the legitimate ownership of any owner beforehand.

Justice Stephen M. Schwebel, who spent 19 years as a judge of the International Court of Justice at The Hague including three years as President. explained;

"...modifications of the 1949 armistice lines among those States within former Palestinian territory are lawful (if not necessarily desirable), whether those modifications are, in Secretary Rogers's words, "insubstantial alterations required for mutual security" or more substantial alterations - such as recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem.."

and in a footnote he added

"It should be added that the armistice agreements of 1949 expressly preserved the territorial claims of all parties and did not purport to establish definitive boundaries between them". Therefore the 1949 Armistice lines are not fixed, as purported by the Palestinians and their supporters. 

The territories, situated between the “Green Line” 1949 “Armistice Line” and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate, which were clarified in the British White Paper as being Mandated Palestine Territory- "west of the Jordan" which was intended by the League of Nations and the Balfour Declaration to be converted into a Jewish National Home and was thus excluded from the Arabs was "conquered" and occupied by Trans-Jordan (Jordan) from 1948 -1967.

During this “Occupation” Jordan did not offer to allow the establishment of an independent Palestinian entity, Instead they attempted to annex the area.

Therefore it can be argued Israel in all intents and purposes “liberated” this area in a defensive war in 1967.

Historian and journalist, Gershom Gorenberg, had once stated that outside of the pro-“settlement” community in Israel,this position was considered odd. He had stated that, while the Israeli government has used them for public relations purposes abroad, it takes entirely different positions when arguing real legal cases before the Israeli Supreme Court.

Listen to former Israeli ambassador to Canada, legal adviser and deputy director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Alan Baker who participated in the negotiation and drafting of the Oslo Accords with the Falestinians, as well as agreements and peace treaties with Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. Is the Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center and the head of the Global Law Forum spoke about; Israel Is Not an “Occupier”

Other great Attorneys who have come to the same conclusion are:
Howard Grief who wrote the book "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law" which is a forceful and erudite pleading for the respecting of the letter and spirit of the he San Remo Resolution and the Mandate adopted at the San Remo Peace Conference on April 24, 1920.

According to Grief the international law that came into existence in the wake of World War I gave de jure sovereignty to the Jewish People over the entire Land of Israel and Palestine as defined in the preamble of the Mandate For Palestine. This law, now largely forgotten or neglected, is still relevant today in regard to the status and borders of the Land of Israel.

"The moment of birth of Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty thus took place at the same time Palestine was created a mandated state, since it was created for no other reason than to reconstitute the ancient Jewish state of Judea in fulfillment of the Balfour Declaration and the general provisions of Article 22 of the League Covenant."

This meant that "Palestine" from the start was legally a Jewish state in theory that was to be guided towards independence by a Mandatory or Trustee, also acting as Tutor, and who would take the necessary political, administrative and economic measures to establish the Jewish National Home. 

The chief means for accomplishing this was by encouraging large-scale Jewish immigration to Palestine, which would eventually result in making Palestine an independent Jewish state, not only legally but also in the demographic and cultural senses.

The details for the planned independent Jewish state were set forth in three basic documents, which may be termed the founding documents of mandated Palestine and the modern Jewish state of Israel that arose from it. 

1) These were the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920, 

2) The Mandate for Palestine conferred on Britain by the Principal Allied Powers and confirmed by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922,

3) and the Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920. 

These founding documents were supplemented by the Anglo-American Convention of December 3, 1924" Dr. Jaques Gautier who investigated this subject for over 20 years and concluded that not only is Israel in accordance with International law but that the International community is in direct violation of it's own Agreements and Charters they have themselves formulated.

And Professor Eugene Kontorovich who teaches at Northwestern University School of Law. listen to him discuss the issue in this video; The Legal Case for Israel. 

In 2005 Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wanted to dismantle all Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern West Bank in a regretfully mistaken attempt to stimulate peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

The Sharon Government's decision to remove the “settlers” from the “settlements” was challenged in the Israeli Supreme Court by the Jewish “settlers”. 

At that time the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Sharon Government and won the case by noting;

"the settlements were in territory whose legal status was that of 'belligerent territory' or territory under "Military occupation" that: "Judea and Samaria" [West Bank] and the Gaza area were lands seized during warfare, and are not part of Israel." In the court proceedings, the Israel Government argued that the settlers should have known that the settlements were only temporary.

They “settlers” had argued that use of the term"'belligerent territory" 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.

The term “occupied territory,” which appears in the Fourth Geneva Convention, originated as a result of the Nazi occupation of Europe. Though it has become common parlance to describe the "West Bank" and Gaza as “occupied territories,” there is no legal basis for using the term “occupied territories,” in connection to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on the Law of Nations, 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 never did belong to any other state other that the Ottoman Empire. (The previous High Contracting Power)

2) 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.

Settlement of Jews in the West Bank is voluntary and does not displace local inhabitants.

Moreover, Stone asserted that" “no serious dilution (much less extinction) of native populations” [exists]; rather “a dramatic improvement in the economic situation of the [local Palestinian] inhabitants since 1967 [has occurred].”

"Irony would...be pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49(6), designed to prevent repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan territories judenrein, has now come to mean that...the West Bank...must be made judenrein and must be so maintained, if necessary by the use of force by the government of Israel against its own inhabitants. Common sense as well as correct historical and functional context excludes so tyrannical a reading of Article 49(6.)"

The Israeli legal argument for control over Judea and Shomron 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

A 1971 interpretation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 by Israeli Attorney-General, Meir Shamgar

states; “…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".

According to this argument, the last legal sovereign over the territories was that of the League of Nations who had decreed a Mandate for Palestine, which stipulated the right of the Jewish people to settle in the whole of the Mandated territory.
According to Article 6 of the Mandate:

"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." 

Accordingly, Article Six, makes it clear that Jewish settlements are not only permissible, but actually encouraged. Therefore, Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) are perfectly legal.

Here is Article 4:

"An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country."

"The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognized as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."

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

"In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18."

The Jewish people still have residual historical and legal rights in the West Bank emanating from the British Mandate that were never cancelled, but rather were preserved by the U.N. Charter, under Article 80 — the famous “Palestine Clause” that was drafted, in part, to guarantee continuity with respect to Jewish rights from the League of Nations.

Article 80 of the U.N. Charter preserved this Jewish right to settlement by specifying;

"Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements...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."

Meir 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
or the last "High Contracting Party."

As we all know the last legally defined High Contracting Party or “Sovereign Power” that controlled the area was the League Of Nations who had a Mandate for a Jewish Homeland in the area that ended in UNR181 from November of 1947.

Therefore the Turkish Empire, was "a sovereign who was ousted and that he was a legitimate sovereign" or the last "High Contracting Party".

With the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994, in accordance with the Oslo Accords, there is no longer an Israeli military government over the Palestinian population.
Indeed, the famous 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention on occupied territories stipulates that an Occupying Power is bound to its terms “to the extent that such a Power exercises the function of government in such territory (Article 6).”

In accordance with the Oslo Accords some functions of government were retained by the IDF, other functions were exercised by the Palestinians, and there were also shared powers. Though the Palestinians do not have an independent state, they technically can not be considered to be under “occupation” when at the same time they were being ruled by the Palestinian Authority;  Mahmoud Abbas.

In their propaganda war pro-Palestinian groups, and their allies on the far left, have embraced the use of the term “occupation” as part of their rhetorical arsenal, along with the terms advocated in Arafat's infamous 1974 speech that diabolically labeled Israel as a “colonialist, apartheid state.” They have succeeded in waging political warfare against Israel by manipulating the truth and facts.

The heinous charge of “occupation” has evolved into one of the most potent weapons in the delegitimization campaign against Israel. Therefore the decision to use the term “occupation” as a means of harsh criticism appears to emanate as much from political considerations as it does from any legal analysis.

According to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 13, 2007, the Jews are the indigenous people of the lands referred to as Judea, Samaria.

Furthermore, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights declared that "there is an international customary law norm which affirms the rights of indigenous peoples to their traditional lands".

The Balfour Declaration of 1917, the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), British Mandate for Palestine (1922), San Remo Resolution (1920), and Treaty of Sevres (1920) created international law, and recognized and re-established the historical indigenous rights of the Jews to their land. The signatories of these treaties and the Mandate (Britain, France, Turkey, Japan, Italy, etc.), are bound by them.

UN General Assembly Resolutions stating that the settlement of Jews in Judea Samaria is contrary to international law are no more than recommendations and have never led to amendments of existing binding treaties since ONLY resolutions taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter are binding on all UN member states.

The last word: The 3rd Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Versailles

All of the above is overshadowed by the 2013 decision by the 3rd Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Versailles. The French Court ruling over a previous decision found that Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria is unequivocally legal under international law, dismissing a suit brought by the Palestinian Authority (PA) against Jerusalem’s light rail built by French companies Alstom and Veolia

To rule on the suit, the Court of Appeals had to determine the legal rights of Palestinians and Israelis in the region.
Their conclusion was that the Palestinians have no right – in the international legal sense – to the region, unlike Israel, who is legitimately entitled to all land beyond the 1949 ceasefire lines to the Jordan River 1967 Ceasefire line and now 1995 Jordanian- Israeli negotiated peace border.

The Court explained that the PA misinterpreted the texts and they do not apply to Israel presence in Judea and Samaria.

All the international instruments put forward by the PLO were acts signed between states, and the obligations or prohibitions contained therein are relevant to states. Neither the PA nor the PLO are states, and therefore, none of these legal documents apply to them.

Likewise, the Court showed that these texts are binding only on those who signed them, namely the contracting parties. Neither the PLO nor the PA have ever signed these texts.
The Court, quite irritated by the arguments presented by the PA, boldly asserted that the law cannot be based solely on the PLO’s assessment of a political or social situation.

The Court of Appeal therefore sentenced the PLO and Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS), who was co-appellant, to pay 30,000 euros ($32,000) to Alstom, 30,000 euros to Alstom Transport and 30,000 euros to Veolia Transport.

Neither the PLO nor the Palestinian Authority nor the AFPS appealed to the Supreme Court, and therefore the judgment became final.

This was the first time that a NON ISRAELI Court has legally destroyed all Palestinian legal claim that Israel’s occupation is illegal.

From the Preamble of the Mandate For Palestine:

The Council of the League of Nations:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of theCovenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, "  

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, ...Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country..."

The Conclusion is always the same: the Jewish people have been betrayed many times over by the Nations of the world who do not abide by their own agreements that they have themselves formulated.

The Khazarian Lie Of the Nachbah Losers

A very intelligent and bright young Jewish woman, Leora, posted on Facebook: "One of the biggest arguments that I hear from the BDS is that "you're not a real Jew, since you're Ashkenazi." (And, thus not Semitic.)"

The Palestinians and their Trolls have consistently attempted to distort and pervert historical truth ever since Arafat's 1975 UN speech. They do this in order to discredit the claim of the Jewish people to Eretz-Yisrael and to "Negate" the Jewish Homeland basis in the Balfour declaration and the League of Nations Mandate. The "If " Jews are "white" and Middle Easterners are "not white", then obviously Jews are not from the Middle East and therefore Jews are not “really” the true descendants of the original Jews but are "Khazaian" Usurpers and therefore are not indigenous to the Middle East. Thereby defining the modern state of Israel as an illegitimate settler colony forced upon the poor natives by Imperialist forces.This specific horrendous fallacy has become known as the "Khazarian lie".

Regretfully this blatant and outrageous lie to label today's Jews / Zionists as settlers "colonizers"  if you will, as "Usurpers to the land" and to mark Israel as a "Pariah among nations", has become very prevalent among those whom I label HOIZs or the Haters of Israel and Zionism. This bizarre lie goes hand in hand with the Palestinian propaganda initiative I labeled the "Negation of Israel plan" begun under Yasser Arafat. 

This initiative was explained and laid out to Yasser Arafat by leading anarchists and Marxist communists in the 1970's; Võ Nguyên Giáp, a General in the Vietnam People's Army and Muhammad Yazid, who had been minister of information in two Algerian wartime ‎governments.

This "PR" ploy became the basis for the Palestinians agenda to negate the UNR181 Partition of the Mandate in 1947.

“Stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your terror war into a struggle for ‎human rights. Then you will have the American people eating out of your hand.”
Võ Nguyên Giáp

“Wipe out the argument that Israel is a small state whose existence is threatened by the Arab ‎states, or the reduction of the Palestinian problem to a question of refugees; instead, present ‎the Palestinian struggle as a struggle for liberation like the others. Wipe out the impression ‎‎…that in the struggle between the Palestinians and the Zionists, the Zionist is the underdog. ‎Now it is the Arab who is oppressed and victimized in his existence because he is not only ‎facing the Zionists but also world imperialism.”‎ Muhammad Yazid

‎This strategy of the "Palestinians" to "delegitimize Israel as an unwanted Apartheid racist, colonist entity" has had a remarkable success in inverting much of the world's perception of the Middle East; transforming tiny Israel, from its natural role of "David" against the massive Arab population and lands, to one of "Goliath" against the (poor) "stateless," "oppressed," and "occupied"  Palestinians. These three terms have become the keywords in the anti-Israel delegitimization plan. The purpose of the keywords is to elicit a demand from the nations of the world for the dissolution of the State of Israel by a cancellation of the Partition.

The Palestinians failed abysmally by rejecting the peaceful division of the Mandate offered to them in 1947. Instead the Palestinian people, whose leadership was divided and self motivated, opted to allow the Arab League to invade and conquer the area. They were told to leave and that once the Jews were exterminated "driven into the sea" they could not only return to their homes they could reap the plunder of the Jewish possessions. However the Arab armies failed. This Arab failure and ever lasting embarrassment has been immortalized in the "Nachbah," which has haunted the Arabs of the Mandated Area ever since.

Nearly every anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi website today denounces Zionists and Israelis as “Khazars.” This Khazar myth has been spread by Neo-Nazis and Islamofascists to invent a racialist argument against Jews being entitled to self-determination, independence, or a homeland in the Land of Israel. It is their belief that Jews are nothing more than converted Khazars, or so goes the argument of the anti-Semitic racialists. They use this lie to spread the falsehood and distortion of history that today's Jews are foreign interlopers (usurpers) in the Levant and have no right to statehood there. 

We can see that this is a consistent thread taken from the "Palestine Ministry of Propaganda and Fantasies" manual for Palestinian Trolls in all of the "Talkback" comments on the Internet and YouTube videos to brainwash and "bamboozle" the naive and uneducated.

Web chat “Talkbacks”; in which Jews, not just Israeli Jews, defending Israel are dismissed outright as “Khazarian usurpers”, are just too numerous to count.
These "Talkback Trolls" pervert historical fact and truth as they have attempted to claim that they are the true descendants of peoples who predated the Hebrews – a few years ago it was the Canaanites -or as in their latest Lie they claim to be descendants of the Philistines!(sic) They attempt to do this by quoting passages from the Bible where by the term Philistines is mentioned to show that "Palestine" existed as a country and they are the "true inhabitants"-"natives" if you may.
Their total ignorance of historical fact and the meaning of the term "P'lishtim- (Hebrew for invaders)" meant to indicate that the Philistines were part of the Minoan-later the ‎Mycenaean civilization from the island of Crete in Greece and not- Moslem Arabs!! Therefore in ‎Hebrew the word "Palestinians" lit means = INVADERS)‎

The fact that Jews came from Judea means nothing as does all the archaeological finds showing that Jews were inhabitants of the land. To them and their supporters the Jews / Israelis of today are “usurpers” and not “true Jews”. One of the most glaring absurdities of their claim is the fact that nearly 60% of ALL of today’s Israelis are descendants of Jews of Arab lands and NOT from Europe!

To explain this mind-numbing development, let’s take a few steps back.  Yes, there was indeed a Kingdom of Turkic peoples living north of the Black Sea in the Dark Ages called the Khazars, and – yes – its ruling family and part of its population did convert to Judaism. 

A myth was created, about the Khazars being an important component of European Jewry, in the 1976 book, The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler.  Koestler wrote his book largely in order to create interest and sympathy for Jews and Israel, believing the Khazar story would serve as a basis for respect and fascination with Jewish history.  In reality, there is very little evidence of any type, from genetic markers to family and place names, that there is any significant Khazar “blood” among Western or Ashkenazi Jews.

One of the favorite sources for this fable is Tel Aviv University  Professor Shlomo Sand, an Austrian-born member of the extreme "left wing" whose expertise is French history and  NOT a  geneticist, joined with Arabs and many non-Jews to argue for an end to Israel as a Jewish nation.‎
At the heart of Sand’s book we find the claim that the Jews of Eastern Europe, the ‎‎“Yiddish people” by his definition, do not originate with the Jews who came from the ‎Middle East via Ashkenaz to Poland, but with the Khazars, nomadic tribes that built an ‎empire between the Black and the Caspian seas, converted to Judaism in the eighth ‎century, and scattered to the four winds when their state was destroyed between the ‎tenth and thirteenth centuries.
Sand contests the historical connection between the Jewish people and the land of ‎Israel.‎ He argues that the Jewish people, to use his words, is an “invented” entity or ‎‎“implanted memory” with no connection, in fact, to the land of Israel. In his work Sand was bent on undermining the traditional Jewish narrative, which depicts the Jewish ‎people of today as the descendants of the biblical and Second Temple Jews who lost their ‎land, dispersed over the world, yet retained their bond to the land-of-Israel homeland, to ‎which – as the Scroll of Independence states – they have now returned. Sand and (his Falestian propagandist backers) have blatantly ignored the fact that even if Jews were not exiled from their ‎land, and many of them had not scattered all over the Roman Empire of their own free will. The very loss of Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel; as signified by the Romans’ change of its ‎name to Palestine out of a desire to erase all trace of Jews from it after the Bar-‎Kokhba Revolt was crushed, went down in Jewish collective memory as profound traumatic experience.  Sand and (his Falestian propagandist backers) deny and ignore the fact that a small Jewish community continued to exist in the land of Israel, particularly in the Galilee until Christianity became predominant in the Roman ‎Empire in the fourth century.‎The denial of ‎such a connection and the narrow definition of Jews as just a “religious community” – ‎a millet, a Turkish term used by the “Canaanites” to define "exilic Jewry" – aims to ‎influence Israeli Jews to change their self-image and open up to a civil concept of ‎identity; this would enable the State of Israel to become a “state of all its citizens,” ‎unrelated to diaspora Jews who are also just local religious communities (e.g. “Judeo-‎Americans,” as he calls them). When that happens, the discrimination practiced in the ‎State of Israel against its Arab citizens (“Palestino-Israelis”) on the basis of the Law of ‎Return will disappear, and they will be given the opportunity to fully integrate into an ‎Israeli state that will shed its undesirable Jewish identity yet enable Arabs to keep their ‎separate identity and unique culture. ‎

He had taken his thesis for his controversial book “The Invention of the Jewish People”‎ from novelist Arthur Koestler’s 1976 book, “The Thirteenth Tribe”.
Sand, claimed that European Jewry are not the children of Abraham but descendants of pagan Eastern ‎Europeans and Eurasians, concentrated mostly in the ancient Kingdom of Khazaria in ‎what is now Ukraine and Western Russia. The Khazarian nobility converted during the ‎early Middle Ages, when European Jewry was forming.‎
Although scholars challenged Sand’s selective manipulation of the ‎facts, specifically regarding the conversion of the Khazars which was actually limited to the tiny ruling class and not to the ‎vast pagan population. ‎
Harry Ostrer’s book "Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People" is an impressive counterpoint to the dubious historical methodology of ‎Sand and his admirers. And, as a co-founder of the Jewish HapMap — the study of ‎haplotypes, or blocks of genetic markers, that are common to Jews around the world and his book is the definitive response to this fabrication.‎

So was the story about the Khazars true?

The sources are very sparse; to the extent that there is any archaeological evidence, it is ‎very little. The whole subject straddles the seam between legend and historical reality. ‎The most esteemed scholar of the Khazar monarchy, by Sand’s own acknowledgment, is ‎Douglas Morton Dunlop (1909–1987) was a renowned British orientalist and scholar of Islamic and Eurasian history whose command of the languages needed to study the ‎Khazars, on whom information is found; in Arabic, Hebrew, Byzantine and Chinese ‎literature. Though the information available is fragmentary and at times contradictory. Dunlop, at the end ‎of his book; "The History of the Jewish Khazars", New York: Schocken Books, 1967, relates to the theory that the Jews of Eastern Europe are the descendants of ‎the Khazars; he states that “This can be dealt with very shortly, because there is little ‎evidence which bears directly upon it, and it unavoidably retains the character of a mere ‎assumption.”  With typical English understatement, he also adds that to speak of East ‎European Jewry, i.e. the Ashkenazim, as the descendants of the Khazars “would be to go ‎much beyond what our imperfect records allow.”

However despite all this proof to the contrary that the Khazar lie was a myth it has hijacked by anti-Zionists, anti-Zionistic Jews,Neo-Nazis and Islamofascists to invent a racialist argument against Jews being entitled to self-determination, independence, or a homeland in the Land of Israel.  If Jews are nothing more than converted Khazars, or so goes the argument of the anti-Semitic racialists, then they are foreign interlopers in the Levant and have no right to statehood there.

As usual the HOIZs ignore written historical facts.

It is a documented and recorded historical fact, described in the books of Josephus and other Roman historians of the first century period some 2,000 years ago, that substantial Jewish communities were already spread across the Greco-Roman and Persian Empires before the  mid-second century BCE.

These Jews of the "Diaspora" maintained links to Jerusalem and they numbered in the tens of thousands by the first half of the first century CE. We see this in the burial business in places in Israel like ancient Tzipori (Sepphoris) where Jews from abroad paid to have their bones interred in the Sepphoris ossuary.

By the end of the first millennium CE, Jewish communities in the Roman Empire were visible along the Rhine valley in Germany and through out Gaul. Jewish communities flourished throughout the old Babylonian and Greek empires as Jews had migrated after the Babylonian exile and before the Roman Empire to the area of the Khazarians .

Jewish merchants known as Radhanites or  Radhanim traveled East from Akko towards the area of today's Southern Russia along the Silk Road to China where they settled there. Jewish merchants settled in many provinces of the Greek and later Roman Empire after the Diaspora. So it’s only reasonable to suppose they interbred with the Asiatics who were already in Khazaria and who according to some converted between 620AD and 740AD according to The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906. 

"In 679 the Chazars subjugated the Bulgars and extended their sway farther west between the Don and the Dnieper, as faras the head-waters of the Donetz in the province of Lebedia…It was probably about that time that the chaghan (kagan=king) of the Chazars and his grandees, together with a large number of his heathen people, embraced the Jewish religion. According to A. Harkavy (“Meassef Niddaḥim,” i.), the conversion took place in 620; according to others, in 740. King Joeph, in his letter to Ḥasdai ibn Shaprut (about 960), gives the following account of the conversion:
(see Harkavy, “Soobshchenija o Chazarakh,” in “Yevreiskaya Biblioteka,” vii. 153)"

“Some centuries ago King Bulan reigned over the Chazars. To him God appeared in a dream and promised him might and glory. Encouraged by this dream, Bulan went by the road of Darlan to the country of Ardebil, where he gained great victories [over the Arabs]. The Byzantine emperor and the calif of the Ishmaelites sent to him envoys with presents, and sages to convert him to their respective religions.
Bulan invited also wise men of Israel, and proceeded to examine them all. As each of the champions believed his religion to be the best, Bulan separately questioned the Mohammedans and the Christians as to which of the other two religions they considered the better. When both gave preference to that of the Jews, that king perceived that it must be the true religion. He therefore adopted it”
According to Mas’udi (“Les Prairies d’Or,” ii. 8), the king and the Chazars proper were Jews; According to historian Shaul Stampfer, "even though it's a wonderful story", the mass conversion of Khazars to Judaism never took place.

What actually became of the Jewish Khazars is unknown. The Khazar kingdom was largely destroyed by the expanding Russian kingdom in the tenth century, and anything remaining was destroyed in the Mongol invasions. With the successive invasions and the destruction of Khazaria, the members of the Jewish community fled as refugees further northward into Germany and Russia. Some may have integrated themselves into other Jewish communities in the Middle East, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe.

As the centuries went by they interbred with those fair-skinned people too. In reality, there is very little evidence of any type, from genetic markers to family and place names, that there is any significant Khazar “blood” among Western or “Ashkenazi” Jews.

As to the question; "What is the source of the term Ashkenaz?"

By Talmudic times, however, both the Scythians and the Cimmerians had disappeared from the world, swallowed up by other nations. Casting about for the location of Gomer, who was the eldest son of Japheth (and of the Japhetic line), and father of Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah, according to the "Table of Nations" in the Hebrew Bible, (Genesis 10).
The rabbis of the talmudic period took it on the basis of phonetic resemblance to be Germania, as the Romans referred to the Teutonic areas west of the Rhine whose tribes they were constantly battling. “Gomer is Germamya [sic],” says the tractate of Yoma, while the tractate of Megillah tells us: “There are three hundred crown wearers [that is, petty kings] in Germamya and three-hundred-sixty-five lords in Rome, and every day they go forth and kill one another because they are too busy fighting to have time to unite under a single king.”

This is no doubt the reason that Ashkenaz, the biblical son of Gomer, came to be associated with Germany, too. This association may have been strengthened further by the name Scandza, as Scandinavia, the Germanic-speaking north of Europe, was often referred to in medieval times.

By the middle ages, we find Ashkenaz being widely used for Germany in Jewish sources (when the 11th-century Rashi, RAbbi SHlomo Itzhaki  for example, translates a Hebrew word into German in his commentaries, he gives it to us in “the language of Ashkenaz”), and before long it became the standard term.

Originally, therefore, an "Ashkenazi" in Hebrew was a Jewish inhabitant of Germany. (It doesn’t appear in any Jewish source in the sense of Scythian.) Yet as Jews migrated eastward and northward to Slavic lands from German ones, taking with them “the language of Ashkenaz” (which gradually turned into Eastern European Yiddish), “Ashkenazi” came to denote any Yiddish-speaking Jew, and eventually — as it does today — any descendant of Yiddish-speaking Jews.
Ashkenaz, on the other hand, continued to refer in Hebrew to Germany alone, until it was replaced in the 20th century by Germanya so as to avoid the ambiguity of Ashkenazim meaning both non-Jewish Germans and Jewish speakers of Yiddish. As for Germamya, it is gone from the world, along with the Cimmerians and Scythians.

After the wave of expulsions from Spain and Portugal during the Inquisition during the fifteenth century, Jews began to disperse once more, into Eastern Europe. It is also important to note that from the founding of the Kingdom of Poland, in 1025 through 1569, Poland was considered to be the most tolerant country in Europe known as “Paradisus Iudaeorum” (Latin for "Paradise for the Jews"). During the Spanish Inquisition and expulsion it became a shelter for the persecuted and expelled European Jewish community and it became the home to the world's largest Jewish community of the time. There are some references that show that up to three-quarters of all Jews lived in Poland by the middle of the 16th century.

Now, as a matter of fact, even if the Khazar myth were true, and Ashkenazi Jews were descendant from converted Khazars (and – we repeat – the myth is NOT true!), it still would not make the slightest difference.  Jews never defined themselves in genetic or racial terms.  They always saw themselves as an ethnic group marked off by religion, tradition, and language.  Converts are just as Jewish as are those born to a Jewish mother and just as entitled to participate in Jewish self-determination.  And, as I stated previously to top it all off, most Israeli Jews are not even Ashkenazi Jews.

Meanwhile, the popularity of the Khazar myth among anti-Semites represents a return of modern anti-Jewish anti-Semitic hatred and bigotry to the racialism of the 1930′s rise of the Nazi's and earlier.
It is the "in" thing now on every anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi website to denounce Zionists and Israelis as “Khazars.” Web chat lists in which Jews defending Israel are dismissed as “Khazar usurpers” are too numerous to count.

The racialism in vogue once again holds that Jews would only have legitimate claims to the right of self-determination in their homeland if they were appropriately "Real Jews" and true Semites from a racial point of view.
To them Palestine is part of the Semitic racial "Lebensraum" and those who do not possess the correct pure racial markings have no business being there.  Racial purity is suddenly the new basis for national rights. And the absurdity that this agenda of theirs is straight out of the stated Nazi policy in Adolph Hitler's "Mein Kampf" does not detract from their willingness to harangue Israelis as "ZioNazis"

If we take the racialist argument to its illogical conclusions, Palestinian Arabs have the right to exercise all claims to sovereignty in Israel due to their being true racial Jews, while Zionists are non-Jewish Khazars – racial impostors and usurpers.
But to make things even more hypocritical, Arabs themselves are, of course, a mixture of racial strains, They too are derived  from Arab intermixing with Spanish and Italian Europeans, Caucasian Berbers, Vandals, Goths, and even some Vikings.

So is it any wonder that so many Jews ended up looking like those with whom they live? Just like the blue eyed blonde Moslems who live in Serbia and other areas of the Balklands.

In conclusion this Khazarian story can be added to the long list of ludicrous attempts to negate the Jewish presence and connection to Eretz Yisrael and exemplifies the sickness that resides within those abject losers and their backers of the "Nachba" heritage.

Samir Kuntar - "Murderer of Nahariyah" Dead at last

Earlier in the month of July (2015) there had been a previous report of the neutralizing of the "Murderer of Nahariyah" Samir Kuntar  by an Israeli drone attack on a vehicle  at the entrance of the Druze village of Hader, in Quneitra Province.

At that time in a previous Blog entry of mine I had my suspicions that the report which was being spred through out the Social Media were not correct. I had written; "It is NOT YET confirmed that  Samir  Kuntar from Abey Mount, Lebanon was among those killed."

According to Hezbollah's mouthpiece Al-Manar, thirty-six years after murdering the Haran family and the Israeli policeman  Eliyahu Shachar  in a vicious terror attack in Nahariya, senior Hezbollah leader Samir Kuntar was killed in an airstrike on Saturday night, which the Lebanese terror organization attributed to the Israel Air Force. Two IAF jets infiltrated Syrian airspace and launched four long-range missiles at a six-floor high building in Jaramana, on the southern outskirts of Damascus, destroying the building and causing damage to surrounding structures.

According to reports in the Arab media, eight others were killed in the attack, including Farhan al-Shaalan, another senior leader who planned terror attacks against Israelis in the Syrian Golan Heights.
"At 10:15pm on Saturday December 19, Zionist warplanes struck a residential building in Jaramana city in Damascus countryside. The Dean of liberated detainees from Israeli prisons, brother Mujahid Samir Kuntar was martyred along with several Syrian citizens in the strike," Hezbollah said in a statement.
The Syrian government released a condemnation of "the terror attack that led to the death of innocent civilians in Jaramana, including the warrior Samir Kuntar."

The Murderer of Nahariyah

In 1979, when Kuntar was 16 years old, he infiltrated Israel on a rubber boat from Lebanon along with three other terrorists from the "Palestine Liberation Front." The four came ashore in Nahariya, shot dead police officer Eliyahu Shahar and broke into the apartment of the Haran family. There, they took Danny Haran and his four-year-old daughter Einat hostage, while mother Smadar hid in a crawl space with two-year-old daughter Yael.

Father Danny and daughter Einat were taken ashore, where a firefight ensued between the terrorists and police officers who arrived at the scene. Kuntar shot Danny Haran to death, and then cruelly smashed Einat's skull with the butt of his rifle, murdering her as well.
Two-year-old Yael was accidentally smothered to death while her mother was trying to stop her from crying and revealing their hiding place.
Another police officer was killed, along with two of Kuntar's cell members, in the gunfire that ensued.

Kuntar was jailed for almost 30 years, for which he was known in Lebanon as "The Dean of Lebanese Prisoners" for being the longest-held prisoner in Israel, and was freed in a prisoner exchange between Israel and Hezbollah in 2008, for the IDF soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, whose condition was unknown and cynically withheld from Israel during the negotiations. Hezbollah kept a vision of their being alive until the very last moment when the coffins were brought to the exchange point. Both had been reported to have been captured wounded but alive.

Upon his return to Lebanon Kuntar, 53, received a hero's welcome. Syrian President Assad awarded him the country's highest medal during a trip he made to Damascus that year.

In 2014, Kuntar, who is a Druze himself, was reportedly involved in attempts to recruit the Druze in Syria - both in the Golan Heights and in other areas - for a Druze militia to fight for the Assad regime, but these efforts were unsuccessful. As a Druse, Kuntar played a central role in Hezbollah and Iran's efforts to build up terrorist infrastructure in the Golan Heights in order to launch attacks against Israel, with recent reports in the Gulf States claiming Kuntar was in charge of the "Syrian Hezbollah."

Kuntar, recently gave an interview to the Lebanese Al Mayadeen TV channel, which is affiliated with Hezbollah. There he claimed that "Israel gives a lot of aid to the anti Assad fighters but they must not be too happy about that, because some of them will pay a very high price for it."

He was asked if he is worried of an attempt on his life, and answered that he was. "Even if they assassinate me or other resistance fighters, the Syrian resistance operation continues forward,"

In deference to the previous announcement in July 2015 this time Kuntar's his step-brother from his father's second wife Shiham acknowledged his death in a "Tweet"

If indeed Samir Kuntar was "neutralized" by Israel, it would bring some slight comfort to the Schachar and Haran families.

Judea and Shomron: What Occupied Territory?

Do pray tell what are the "Palestinian Territories"?

I do not remember anywhere in recorded history that there is or was such an area as the "Palestinian Territories".

I believe it is about time that when people write abut the Middle East one should learn to describe and relate the truth. It is to the everlasting disgrace through the negligence of the Israeli government and the Hasbara department of the Israeli Foreign Ministry that this LIE of “occupation” is repeated and it has been absorbed by governments abroad to give legitimization to a fairy tale known as the “West Bank” and "Palestine".

Let us review historical fact shall we?

When the Palestinian Mandate ended in UN Resolution 181 on November 29th 1947, there was supposed to be a Partition of the Mandated Areas between the Jews and Arabs of the "Mandated Areas". 

The Arabs, at the instigation of the leaders of seven members of the Arab League did not and still do not fully recognize the Jewish people the right to establish a "Homeland" in the "Mandated Territories" known as Israel.

Instead of the local Arab population agreeing to the "Partition" or "Division" of the League of Nations "Mandated" area there was a bloody war that ended in an "Armistice". 

Please note: an "Armistice" is defined as a:

Noun; an agreement made by opposing sides in a war to stop fighting for a certain time; a truce.
synonyms: truce, ceasefire, peace, suspension of hostilities (!!!!)

The "Armistice"in Rhodes in 1949 are a set of agreements which divided the "Mandated Territory" 9 between Israel and neighboring Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan,and Syria.The agreements ended the official hostilities of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and established Armistice Demarcation Lines between Israeli forces and Jordanian-Iraqi forces, also known as the "infamous" Green Line. 

It is extremely important to note that there was no Palestinian representation involved in the negotiations. (And no one has ever questioned; "Why was that?")

Few realize that in the 1948 invasion and seizure of the Mandated Area and the capture of Jerusalem by the Trans-Jordanian Legion. Jordan was in open violation of Article 2 clause 4 of the UN Charter at the time of the invasion and capture of Jerusalem.

To the detriment of the Jewish state the world governments did ABSOLUTELY nothing!! There was no UN Condemnation, no raised voices, no mass marches in the streets.

ABSOLUTELY nothing was ever done at that time by the members of the UN to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Jerusalem's centuries-old Jewish Quarter and desecration of the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. As well as many areas of Judea and Shomron which were Jewish owned lands purchased prior to 1948 such as the Etzion Block.

According to Article 2 clause 4 of the UN Charter the Mandated Area was “illegally occupied” by Jordan was therefore termed in International Law as terra nullius, or "land belonging to no one".

Israel, which according to the League of Nation Mandate was entitled to the part of the area, subsequently took that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense in 1967 has better title to it from the prior occupying power- Jordan - of the “West Bank” and the Eastern part of Jerusalem.

With the negotiated peace treaty, between Jordan and Israel in 1995, the "Mandated Area" for the Jewish Homeland (Article 8 Mandate for Palestine) was returned and therefore the "West Bank" officially became Israeli territory as per International Law termed;

Utipossidetis juris or uti possidetis iuris (Latin for "as you possess under law") is a principle of international law that states that:
"is a principle of customary international law originally applied to decolonized territories to preserve the boundaries of colonies emerging as States."

So legally there is no need to annex since neither the Jordanians nor the "Falestinians" never claimed sovereignty. 

Since no country or government had claimed sovereignty over it than according to International Law “terra nullius” which is a Latin expression deriving from Roman law meaning "land belonging to no one".

"Terra Nullius" is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty. Sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius may be acquired through occupation.

Furthermore, Israel's occupation of the West Bank is fully legal under the terms of UN Resolution 242 (1967), which was carefully drafted to guarantee Israel's rights to remain there until such time as there is a;

"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

In 1994 the so called “Green Line” is a “Cease fire line” between Israel and Jordan and was replaced by an official border along the Jordan River through a peace agreement with Jordan.

Therefore, until the “Palestinians” and the “Palestinian Authority” accepts a peace with Israel based on mutual recognition it is beyond proof that the land belongs to Israel and there is no such thing as "Palestinian Territories".