Oy Bernie! What a putz!

“What is on my mind?” The Bernie Sanders 10,000 Dead quote.

I ask how is it possible that a person running for the Presidency of the United States can be so lacking of knowledge. I see by his inane statement that Bernie is like the majority of the world and has become totally duped by biased media.

Consider if you would that when Hamas or one of it's proxies in Gaza fires rockets or shoots mortars, from time to time indiscriminately against Israeli civilian residents. Every movement the IDF makes and every sortie conducted by the IAF in response to an uncalled for attack on Israeli civilians, is covered endlessly by massive media coverage from inside Gaza by well placed Pallywood “Palestinian Stringers” –local residents paid for new footage by the news media.

No foreign news correspondent or non-Israeli politician ever dares to mention that the biased footage comes from these pre placed “Palestinian Stringers” teams, under Hamas supervision, inside Gaza who rush to show the damage from Israel’s response. 

This cynical arrangement makes out the news image that ONLY Israel is the “villain” in the minds eye of the unknowing viewer. The footage of “collateral damage” many times of “Human Shields” together with the damning catch phrases used by news desk commentators of; the “disproportionate use of force” and “indiscriminate attacks”  brainwashes the duped and unknowing into condemning Israel outright for “aggression” and “over response”.

So when Israel retaliates for attacks on its civilians, massive protests by “Bamboozled pro-Palestinian Liberals” erupt and sweep through major cities around the world. The violent and utterly disgusting virulent anger revealed by these “duped Palestinian sympathizers” could only be justified if Israel were in fact actually slaughtering the thousands of Palestinian civilians as Bernie alludes to.

No news correspondent or politician ever dares to ask or think why the world media NEVER covers similar conflicts through out the world the same way and with the same misleading terminology, commentary or headlines as they use in reports against Israel.

No news correspondent or politician ever points out that the Palestinians / Hamas, who have received millions and millions of aid dollars to build badly needed housing, hospitals, schools and proper infrastructure for water supply, electricity and proper sewage systems to treat raw sewage never do so but instead either pocket the funds or at best assemble more weaponry. Why is there, God forbid!, NEVER any public outcry against the Palestinian "Leadership"?
Have you ever thought for a moment; "Why is it that Israel is consistently singled out for what is extensively the shortcomings of the Palestinians for the improvement of the housing, infrastructure and health of their own people!"
No one ever, ever questions or criticizes the Hamas leadership regarding the reason for the Israeli limitations on Gaza.
The fact that the Hamas leadership is so bent on acquiring weaponry and building tunnels and positions to launch attack on Israel that they willing to deprive their own citizenry from basic necessities. They are depriving their own people because they want to destroy Israel and to take back all that they lost in the Nacbah of 1948.  

No news correspondent or politician ever points out that the in deference to our enemies Israeli civilians have NOT been murdered in massive amounts because Israel builds bomb shelters, reinforces schools, kindergartens, Day Care Centers and defensive locations for the protection of our civilians, Jews and Arabs alike, from the indiscriminatory rockets and mortar rounds fired at our civilian population.

No news correspondent or politician wonders or queries the viewer audience why there is no arranged massive response of angry protesters like the herd of “Bamboozled pro-Palestinian Liberal sympathizers” taking to the streets to protest the savagery of the Islamic State. No matter how many thousands of Arabs are butchered in Syria, Iraq, and Libya there is just silence and empty thoroughfares.

When was the last time you saw a protest about any event that received the massive news coverage, let alone the anger that Israeli DEFENSIVE actions against a genocidal terrorist group does?

But of course this does not and will not happen.

Because of this "Bamboozling" through biased media reports naïve college students who wish to stand out and be recognized by their professors and peers in almost all the major universities in the west realize “It is ‘Chic’ to be anti-Israel.

 

To be considered for the status of being classified as a "progressive caring for humanity" and equal rights #Blacklivesmatter member of today’s “IN” society  one must be identified with BDS and the "Palestinian underdog".

Students on campuses today aspire for the status symbol of the Khaffiyeh and Palestinian flag as it was with Che Guevara, the Viet Cong flag and the Maoists in Bernie's days on campus. 

They memorize the Mantra and the “Battle Cries” if you will or slogans against the “Occupation” by “Apartheid” Israel who is carrying out “Genocide”. The battle against Israel and of course the Evils of Zionism, referred to by the use of the terms; “ZioNazi” or “Israhell” has replaced all the other political battles for many young men and women.

The situation is just as I have pointed out before in a previous Blog entry of mine regarding Yasser Arafat's "Negation Of Israel Plan" outlined in his infamous Zionism equals racism speech inverted 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 "stateless," "oppressed," and "occupied" "Palestinians.

During Yasser Arafat's visit to Hanoi in 1970, Arafat was particularly struck by Ho Chi Minh’s success in mobilizing left-wing sympathizers in Europe and the United States to the Vietnamese cause. Ho’s chief strategist, Võ Nguyên Giáp, a General in the Vietnam People's Army and a politician, made it clear to Arafat and his lieutenants that in order to succeed, they too needed to redefine the terms of their struggle. 

Giap’s counsel was simple but profound: the PLO needed to work in a way that concealed its real goals, permitted strategic deception, and give the appearance of moderation.

Arafat sent his adjutant, Khalil Ibrahim al-Wazir - Abu Jihad (later the leader of the PLO’s military operations), to North Vietnam to study the strategy and tactics of guerrilla warfare. Arafat was struck by Ho Chi Minh’s success with left-wing sympathizers in the United States and Europe.

Young college student activists on American campuses were enthusiastically following the North Vietnamese "line" in re-framing the Vietnam war from a Communist assault on the south to a struggle for national liberation.
“Progressive” activists on American campuses, enthusiastically following the line of North Vietnamese operatives, had succeeded in re-framing the Vietnam War from a Communist conquest of the South into a struggle for national liberation.

An insight into this North Vietnamese PR campaign, which provided the key to the Communist victory and a lesson for PLO operatives, was offered by Ho’s chief strategist, General Giap: “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.”

At the same time that he was getting advice from General Giap, Arafat was also being tutored by Muhammad Yazid, who had been minister of information in two Algerian wartime governments (1958-1962):

“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.” 

This new approach has become wildly successful, especially with the moderate Left, which had generally supported the somewhat socialist state of Israel. At the 2001 UN Durban Conference on Racism, this approach was refined, focused and amplified. Now Israel was presented as not only denying Palestinians their rights, but as doing so out of an essential racism. The false analogy with South African apartheid was pushed and similar remedies were proposed: de-legitimization, boycotts, divestment, etc.

Thus in addition to the power of the anti-colonialist theme, the potent element of racism has been added in the aftermath of Ferguson as I pointed out in yet another blog.

Bernie Sander's recent Tweet regarding his intention to "apologize" shows once again the success of Arafat's "Grand Strategy". Since the incident in Ferguson Missouri the horror of America's own racist history had been coming to the surface — along with powerful feelings of guilt. It has not been difficult for Israel’s enemies to make anti-Zionism almost a religion on the Left, especially on college campuses.

And the first Jew who has a chance to be in the White House has chosen to swallow the “Big Lie” rather then acquiring the truth. Kumbayah Bernie!

The New Red Badge of Courage

I have not been commenting on Facebook for a while and as usual Facebook asks; "What's on my mind?".

Well after spending only a mere few minutes online I see that the tsunami of abject hatred of Jews is still there and my mind goes to to the famous quote by William Shakespeare from "The Merchant Of Venice Act III Scene I"

‎“He hath disgraced me, and‎
hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses,‎
mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my
bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine
enemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath
not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,‎
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,‎
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?‎
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that.”  ‎


I have not been commenting "Publicly" on Facebook for a while do to the tsunami of abject and utterly vile hatred of Jews that led to me being blocked. Like Émile Zola,  I too have stated "J'accuse" and was blocked for a month for supposedly violating the Facebook "Community Standards".

Regretfully, no matter what we sane individuals do or say we are literally outnumbered and shouted and beaten down by those whose utter blind hatred and disgusting gutter filth of inane comments are so historically and factually incorrect that the mind boogles at the abject stupidity of illiteracy and ignorance.

This "Wave" of abject bile filled hatred is so utterly disgusting that good people are literally frightened into silence. And the viral hatred being posted is condoned and considered to not impose on the "Community Standards".

A Jew may not use the term "anti-Semitism" to refer to this filth because even this term is now contended by those who so vilely hate the "Jewish Usurpers" (Khazarim) who "ONLY" because of the Holocaust -which to many of them never occurred. Lead to the European displacement of the poor Arab population for the Jewish interlopers.
To the left we have a perfect example by a "Bizarro" conspiracy ignoranus by the name of David Ickes. He is really off the wall with his theories of the "Illuminati" aka Rothschilds = Jews. 
In this "Meme" by him which is being gleefully used and spread by pro-Palestinian Trolls he has grasped one of the newer anti-Israeli "Islamofascists" themes advanced by the Neo-Nazis William Luther Pierce III a prominent American white nationalist He was one of the most influential ideologues of the white nationalist movement for some 30 years before his death.And the other David Ernest Duke (born July 1, 1950) is an American White nationalist, writer, right-wing politician, and a former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.
This myth was to a large extent the invention of the 1976 book, The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler, a writer better known for his lifelong battles against totalitarianism in all its forms. 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.

Another "Loser"  of the “Jews-Not-Being-Jews” hoax is none other than Tel Aviv University history professor Shlomo Sand. Sand is best known for being an old hard-core Stalinist and Jewish self hater fanatic anti-Zionist and he has made no attempt to hide his desire to see his own country obliterated. He was active for a while in the 1960s and 1970s in a tiny Israeli Maoist splinter named "Matzpen".

The "Matzpen" group gained notoriety in the 1970's when Israeli Jewish and Arab members of the group went to Syria to be trained as terrorists. And were caught and later imprisoned.
Sand who writes primarily in French, has built much of his “academic” career by publishing diatribes against Zionism from the purity of pure Stalinistic communism.

In his book, "The Invention of the Jewish People"  Sand aligned himself with the pro-Palestinian anti-Zionists seeking to annihilate Israel by publishing his pseudo-history. In his "study" published by Verso Books, a publishing house set up by “New Left Review” specializing in communist and Bash-Israel books, he reprises the Neo-Nazi mythology about Israeli Jews being converted Khazar interlopers.
Israel Bartal, dean of the humanities faculty of the Hebrew University, wrote that Sand's claims about Zionist and contemporary Israeli historiography are baseless, calling the work "bizarre and incoherent," and that Sand's "…treatment of Jewish sources is embarrassing and humiliating."
According to Bartal, "No historian of the Jewish national movement has ever really believed that the origins of the Jews are ethnically and biologically 'pure'."
Bartal furthermore writes that Sand applies academically marginal positions to the entire body of Jewish historiography and, in doing so, "denies the existence of the central positions in Jewish historical scholarship.
That if submitted as a student paper I suspect it would be rejected as plagiarism of the contents of anti-Jewish web sites."
Sand, for example, does not mention the fact that, from the year 2000 onwards, a team of scholars from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has labored on the production of a three-volume study on the true historical origins of the Jews of Russia. Sand's "Study" is no other then a deliberate work designed to discredit the Zionist theory and linkage of the Jews of Europe to Eretz Yisrael by negating the biological origins of the Jews in order to their homeland as pure fantasy.

Few realize that this Khazarian anti-Jewish theme was enthusiastically embraced and converted for use by the Palestinians as a replacement for their failed attempts to label themselves as predecessors to the Jews in Eretz-Yisrael as decedents of the Canaanites and as Philistines.

So when we hear of the narrative of the sad tales of woes of the self inflicted Nacba and the almost 70 year old story of the ONLY group of refugees in the world who have never been resettled and have their own United Nations organization that provides them with sustenance while the refugees of other conflicts receive hardly any attention.

Oh and of course only rarely any mention is ever given of the ethnic cleansing of the Jews nor the forced exile of more then 900,000 Jews of Arab lands.
To be a proud Jew and wish to return and live in the land of our ancestors the return to Zion as in Zionism has been corrupted by those who so jealously despise us that they call us "Zionazis". Even the name of our beloved country has been "crucified" as "Israhell".

To the world,and some anti-Zionist Jews, ALL the Jews of Israel are hate filled baby killers and "settlers". To them we are the "scapegoat" of the worlds hate.

What persecution, merciless and blind,
Drove o'er the sea - that desert desolate--
‎    These Ishmaels and Hagars of mankind? ‎
They lived in narrow streets and lanes obscure,
‎    Ghetto and Judenstrass, in mirk and mire;
Taught in the school of patience to endure
‎    The life of anguish and the death of fire. ‎
All their lives long, with the unleavened bread
‎    And bitter herbs of exile and its fears,
The wasting famine of the heart they fed,
‎    And slaked its thirst with marah of their tears. ‎
"Anathema maranatha! was the cry"

It is time for them to look in the mirror and realize just how contorted and tortured their souls really are. For as history has shown us there really is one "most high" who does sit in judgement. Let them take heed of the fate of those who have cursed us.

I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunk-less legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‎"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.‎

As in the "Thousand year Reich"  he will have the final word once more. Just wait and see.

Where is this country called "Palestine"?

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

In a previous Blog entry of mine I laid out the historical facts regarding this supposed entity that never existed as an independent country known as "Palestine". Since the"Falestinians" and their admirers love to distort history and spread lies and disinformation, I will cite the historical facts once again for clarity.

Where does the name “Palestine” come from?

The name "Palestine" is derived from the biblical name for the Philistines who were called Philistim from the Hebrew term for invaders or (Hebrew: פלשת‎, Pleshet). According to Joshua 13:3 and the First book of Samuel 6:17, they arrived on the coastal area of, what is today southern Israel; Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, Gath and the "Gaza Strip" around 1525 to 1500 BCE.

The origins of the Philistines are not clear and is the subject of considerable research and speculation in biblical archaeology. Some scholars have connected the Biblical Philistines with the Egyptian "Poleshet" inscriptions of "Sea Peoples" (see photo) found in 1873 in a mural found on the walls of a mortuary Temple from the time of the Pharaoh Ramesses III. This discovery of the mural has strengthen the view that the "Pleshtim / Philistim" and the Aegean "Pelasgians" are one in the same, the Philistines.

Archaeologists working on Philistine sites on the western coastal areas of Israel, and in the past in the "Gaza Strip", have shown that the Philistines were part of the Minoan- later the Mycenaean civilization, from the island of Thera (also called Santorini) in Greece.

The first actual written historical text reference is by Herodotus around 450 BCE in his "The Histories" Book 7. In his writings 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 origin of the term "Palestine"

The historical term "Palestine" actually refers to, a geographical and historical region in the Middle East. Historically the term "Palestine" has not, nor has it EVER been the name of a "entity" or sovereign country. 

In ancient times the Old Testament Bible  referred to a pentapolis in the Southern Levant, established by Philistines circa 1175 BC and existing in various forms until the Assyrian conquest in 8th century as "Philistia".
The ancient Greek and Romans referred to parts of the Levant during the Persian and Hellenic periods as Palaistinê or Palaestina. The coastal eparchy was called Paralia which some associate with (Palestine).
There was a Roman province (135-390 CE) (135-330 CE), of the Roman Empire following merger of renamed Iudaea with Roman Syria called Syria Palaestina or Roman Palestine.

From 390 to 636 CE there were three Byzantine provinces in the Levant:

• Palaestina Prima which comprised the area of the Galilee and northern Jordan Valley 
• Palaestina Secunda, which comprised the area of the shoreline and hills of the Southern Levant (Judea and Samaria)
• Palaestina Salutaris alias Palestina Tertia, which comprised the area of the Negev and Transjordan

In the period from 638 CE through the 10th century one of the military districts of the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphate province of Bilad al-Sham (Syria) was called Jund Filastin.
During the period of the Ottoman Empire within the Levant divisions of the "Ottoman Syria" the area was divided into administrative divisions know as Sanjaks:
The Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (1872-1917), was also known as the "Sanjak of Jerusalem", an Ottoman district commonly referred to as "Southern Syria" or "Palestine". The district encompassed Jerusalem, Gaza, Jaffa, Hebron, Bethlehem and Beersheba.

Faris Khoury who was thee representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations stated to the General Assembly in May 1947:

"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."

The Mandate for "Palestine"

Mandatory Palestine (1920–1948), a geopolitical entity under British administration

"The Palestine Mandate was a League of Nations mandate for the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern part of the Vilayet of Syria, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros." 

The Armistice of Mudros (Turkish: Mondros Mütarekesi), which was concluded on 30 October 1918, ended the hostilities, at noon the next day, in the Middle Eastern theater between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies of World War I.The armistice was followed by the occupation of Constantinople (Istanbul) and the subsequent partitioning of the Ottoman Empire.

The Treaty of Sèvres (10 August 1920) which was signed in the aftermath of WWI was never ratified by the Ottoman Parliament in Istanbul (the Ottoman Parliament was disbanded by the Allies on 11 April 1920 due to the overwhelming opposition of the Turkish MPs to the provisions discussed in Sèvres). It was later superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne (24 July 1923) following the Turkish victory at the Turkish War of Independence (1919–1922) which was conducted by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey in Ankara (established on 23 April 1920 by Mustafa Kemal Pasha and his followers, including his colleagues in the disbanded Ottoman military, and numerous former MPs of the closed Ottoman Parliament in Istanbul.)

Why was the Mandated area called “Palestine” if it was meant to be as stated in the Balfour Declaration: “…the national home for the Jewish people”? ‎ 

When the British received the mandate at the San Remo conference, after the utter defeat and breaking apart of the Ottoman Turkish Empire in 1922. The leading members of the British Foreign Office, who despised the "Jewish" Balfour Declaration, elected to call the land on both sides of the Jordan River, by the Roman term "Palestine". The Roman term of the Hated Enemy of the Jews was specifically employed to avoid the use of the name "Eretz Yisrael", which would indicate to the Arabs a "Pro-Zionist Jewish stance" and foil their colonial intentions.

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."

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 Husayn bin Ali'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 inasmuch 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.

In conclusion:

Facts are facts, and it is dependent on how much honesty and integrity the speaker or writer shows to relaying the truth.

Nakba or The Palestinian Failure

Regarding the "Nakba (Catastrophe)".

I previously wrote in detail about the Nachbah or Nackba in an earlier Blog entry of mine. After seeing comments from readers and in Talkbacks, the one question never asked is why this fictional country Palestine was not created after the Partition vote in 1947.

It is a historically recorded fact that the "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" or as they called themselves the "Arabs of the Mandated areas" refused to accept the UNR181 ‎‎(The Partition Plan) in 1947 to create a “Palestinian State.”

 Instead they allowed the seven armies of the Arab League, who not only outnumbered the Israeli forces but had superior arms and funds, ‎to invade the League of Nations Mandated territory only to be humiliated in an overwhelmingly inglorious defeat at the hands of the fledgling Israeli army.

The question that begs to be asked is; "Why did  these "Arabs of the Mandated areas" allow themselves to be shunted aside and "invaded" by the Arab League?"

"Was there no "Palestinian Arab" shadow government and leadership like that of the "Jewish Zionists" to take control?"

The answer to this is a resounding "NO"! And they still do not!

So who were the “Palestinian Leaders”?

The "Arabs of the Mandated Area" were divide between two powerful extended family groups the Nashashibi and the al-Husayni clans who dominated Palestinian affairs during the British Mandate period, from 1920 until 1948.
Throughout the British mandate period, the Husayni and Nashashibi clans constantly competed for power. At the end of World War II, the Palestinian Arabs were divided and leaderless.

While the two families did not differ on their long-term goals (stopping the influx of European Jews and preserving the future Arab Palestinian state), they disagreed on the best way to achieve those goals. The al-Husayni family rejected the British mandate and Zionism as a whole, while the Nashashibis felt that the best approach was through political compromise.

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni was appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem by the British High Commissioner in 1921, a position he used to promote Islam while rallying a non-confessional Arab nationalism against Zionism. He was also President of the Supreme Muslim Council.
Haj Amin al-Husseini had been in exile since 1937 after evading an arrest warrant and spent the war years in occupied Europe. He actively collaborated with both Italy and with the Nazi leadership in Germany by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping the Nazis recruit Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS. On meeting Adolf Hitler he requested backing for Arab independence and support in opposing the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish national home. At the war's end he came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution.

In June 1946, the Arab League imposed upon the Palestinians the Arab Higher Executive, renamed as "Arab Higher Committee" in 1947, with Amin al-Husayni (then living in Egypt) as its chairman and Jamal al-Husayni as vice-chairman.

On the left above is a copy of a leaflet, distributed by the Mufti High Command after the U.N partition resolution, which calls on the Arabs to attack and conquer all of Palestine, to ignite all of the Middle East and to curtail the U.N partition resolution.

In September of 1948 with the defeat of the Arab League armies and the failure of the Arabs of the Mandated Areas to found a state.  The Mufti participated in the creation of an All-Palestine Government within the Egyptian controled Gaza Strip. All-Palestine Government won limited recognition by Arab states but was eventually dissolved by Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1959.
After the creation of the Jewish State of Israel in the 1948 War. The Mufti's claims at leadership were shunned aside as he had been discredited in the defeat. In 1964 with the establishment of the PLO - Palestine Liberation Organization, he had lost all credibility and political influence. He died in July of 1974 in Beirut, Lebanon.
It has been a matter of historical dispute whether this highly controversial figure's fierce opposition to Zionism was grounded in nationalism or antisemitism or a combination of both.

Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni  was the nephew of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti. Abd al-Qadir led the Jaysh al-Jihad al-Muqaddas or Holy War Army a force of Palestinian irregulars against the Haganah and other Jewish militias during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
Abd al-Qadir's  army consisted of a force of 5,000 to 10,000, both foreign fighters from Arab states, They conducted a blockade of Jerusalem by attacking the Jewish convoys that attempted to breach the closure and bring relief and supplies to the starving population in the city.
Abd al-Qadir was killed during the battle for control of Qastal Hill on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem road, on 8 April 1948 and his death was a factor in the loss of morale among his forces.
Abd al-Qadir was the father of Faisal al-Husayni, born July 17th,1940 and died May 31st 2001. Faisal was the founder and leader of Arab Studies Society and he was considered to be a possible future leader of the Palestinian people. He also served as head of Fatah organization in the West Bank and Palestinian Authority Minister for Jerusalem Affairs from his headquarters,in the Orient House.

The Nashashibi family was considered to be politically moderate compared to the more militant views of the Husayni family. The Nashashibis favoured political, rather than violent, opposition to the British mandate and Zionism. They were also willing to compromise in some areas that many Palestinians were not. For example, the Nashashibi family favoured the partition proposed by Britain.

The bickering and diverse political views of these two partisan families largely created a rift of factionalism among Arabs of the Mandated areas that crippled them in fighting the "Zionists" and this is the story of why there is no "Palestinian" country.

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.