Skip to comments.Gingrich Says ‘Enough Lying about the Middle East’
Posted on 12/11/2011 4:02:11 AM PST by Eleutheria5
Newt Gingrich broke though taboos against challenging Palestinian Authority double talk and re-writing history, forcing Mitt Romney to admit he is right but adding that saying so is incendiary.
Gingrich, who is leading the polls for the Republican presidential nomination, angered the Palestinian Authority with his remarks in a televised interview in which he stated that "an invented Palestinian people are in fact Arabs."
PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad told reporters in response, These are extremely trivial, demeaning and ridiculous remarks. Even the most extremist settlers of Israel wouldnt talk in such a ridiculous way. Our people have been here from the beginning, and they are determined to remain on their land until the end, Fayyad continued, without defining what he meant by the beginning.
In a Saturday night debate in Iowa, Gingrich continued to show his oratory skills and thorough knowledge about Israel. He not only did not budge an inch from his position but also went further than other significant presidential candidates, virtually all of whom adopt the two-state solution, calling for the Palestinian Authority to return to the negotiating table and declaring their "solid" support for Israel.
In the debate in Iowa, Gingrich said, "Is what I said factually true? Yes. Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth. These people are terrorists. It's fundamentally time for somebody to have the guts to stand up and say, 'Enough lying about the Middle East.'
"When the president keeps talking about a peace process while Hamas keeps firing missiles into Israel, if we had a country next to us firing missiles, how eager would we be to sit down and negotiate?"
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
Go play golf, Barry.
Gingrich is right.
Finally someone had the balls to say it.
The so called Palestinians are the dregs of the Arabs. The trash no one else wants.Can they be a state? Only if they learn to act in a civil manner, and I see no signs of that.Like a lot of other Arabs,(Muslims) they cannot even get along with each other.
I remember reading somewhere that they are really called Philistines which comes from the Jewish word “Phili” (if I remember right) which means “invaders”. So I was asking myself why would the Jews call them invaders unless the Jews were there first? Actually I prefer their proper name of “Islamo-Nazi-fascist psychopathic blood thirsty killers” but thats another story.
The other Arab countries have had chances to help the so called Palestinians. The Pal. are a useful tool in keeping the Arab populations focused on something besides their corrupt leaders.
Guess that hasn’t worked out so well for quite a few countries this year.
Steffie quoted some Pal negotiator who said “Gingrich’s remarks will fuel terrorists for years now...”
Newt put their jaws on the floor and there was a few moments of stunned silence by replying, “How would we know the difference?”
I.e., they don’t need Newt to turn them into the terrorists they already are. Home run.
In America, we call that "Community Organizin'".
Newt just quietly slices and dices them. Stunes their beebers.
I’ve decided to vote for Newt in my state primary. While he’s done some screwy things (Powerline is running a picture of him with a boa constricter around his shoulders)he’s the only one out there who comes close to telling hard truths.
Just can’t take Romney. He’s all things to all people...which means we don’t know who he is.
"The land of Israel is really the land of Palestine."
The term "Palestine" is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century BC, settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what is now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century AD, after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word Filastin is derived from Latin. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.
"The Jews have no historic claim to Israel."
Only one group of people have continuously lived in Israel for the past 3,700 years - the Jews. Jerusalem, in particular, has had a Jewish majority since the 1840s, 40 years prior to the beginnings of Zionism. Seventy-five percent of the land in east Jerusalem, which the press calls "historically Arab east Jerusalem," has been owned by Jews since 1947. The nations that inhabited the land prior to the Jews are no longer in existence, for they have been absorbed into various other peoples throughout the millennia. The Arabs of Israel only came to the land in 632AD with the Muslim invasion.
"The creation of the state of Israel in 1948 changed political and border arrangements between independent states that had existed for centuries."
The boundaries of most Middle East countries were arbitrarily fixed by the Western powers after Turkey was defeated in World War I and the French and British mandates were set up. The areas allotted to Israel under the UN Partition Plan had all been under the control of the Ottomans, who had ruled Palestine from 1517 until 1917. When Turkey was defeated in World War I, the French took over the area now known as Lebanon and Syria. The British assumed control of Palestine and Iraq. In 1926, the borders were redrawn and Lebanon was separated from Syria. Britain installed the Emir Faisal, who had been deposed by the French in Syria, as ruler of the new kingdom of Iraq. In 1922, the British created the emirate of Transjordan, which incorporated all of Palestine east of the Jordan River. This was done so that the Emir Abdullah, whose family had been defeated in tribal warfare in the Arabian peninsula, would have a kingdom to rule. None of the countries that border Israel became independent until this century. Many other Arab nations became independent after Israel.
"Israel violates the human rights of the Palestinian Arabs."
The facts are different. Israel granted full citizenship to all of the Palestinian Arabs who fell within its borders after the War of Independence. Arabic is an official language in Israel. Israel remains to this day one of the few countries in the Middle East where Arabs can legitimately vote--and it is the only one where women can vote.
"The West Bank is part of Jordan."
The West Bank was never legally part of Jordan. Under the UN's 1947 Partition Plan--which the Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected--it was to have been part of an independent Arab state in western Palestine. But the Jordanian army invaded and occupied it during the 1948 war. In 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank. Only two governments--Great Britain and Pakistan--formally recognized the Jordanian takeover. The rest of the world, including the United States, never did. During the 1950-1967 period of its occupation, Jordan permitted terrorists to launch raids into Israel. Amman lost the West Bank after the Jordanian army entered the 1967 war.
"Jerusalem is Islam's third most holy city."
Muslims try to connect Jerusalem to Islam by using a vague passage in the Koran, the seventeenth Sura, entitled "The Night Journey." It relates that in a dream or a vision, Mohammed was carried by night "from the sacred temple to the temple that is most remote, whose precinct we have blessed, that we might show him our signs. ..." In the seventh century, some Muslims identified the two temples mentioned in this verse as being in Mecca and Jerusalem. And that's as close as Islam's connection with Jerusalem gets--myth, fantasy, wishful thinking. Meanwhile, Jews can trace their roots in Jerusalem back to the days of Abraham.
"The Temple Mount has always been a Muslim holy place and Judaism has no connection to the site."
The area of Solomon's Stables is believed to date as far back as the construction of Solomon's Temple. According to Josephus, it was in existence and was used as a place of refuge by the Jews at the time of the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus in the year 70 A.D. More authoritatively, the Koran--the holy book of Islam--describes Solomon's construction of the First Temple (34:13) and recounts the destruction of the First and Second Temples (17:7). The Jewish connection to the Temple Mount dates back more than 3,000 years and is rooted in tradition and history. When Abraham bound his son, Isaac, upon an altar as a sacrifice to God, he did so atop Mount Moriah, today's Temple Mount.
"Under Israeli rule, religious freedom has been curbed in Jerusalem."
After the 1967 war, Israel abolished all the discriminatory laws promulgated by Jordan and adopted its own tough standard for safeguarding access to religious shrines. "Whoever does anything that is likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the various religions to the places sacred to them," Israeli law stipulates, "is liable to imprisonment for a term of five years." Israel also entrusted administration of the holy places to their respective religious authorities. Thus, for example, the Muslim Waqf has responsibility for the mosques on the Temple Mount.
Taken from the Rapture Ready web site.
Excellent analogy. Well stated.
I’ve read that the Philistines were a sea people that I believe had Phoenician origins.
The so called “Palistinians” are arab invaders who moved in after the diaspora.
FINALLY...someone speaks the truth. How utterly refreshing!
“When the president keeps talking about a peace process while Hamas keeps firing missiles into Israel, if we had a country next to us firing missiles, how eager would we be to sit down and negotiate?”
We do have a country next to us firing missiles in to us. Its called Mexico. It fires people missiles, drug missiles and crime missiles into America daily........
I always thought that it was the Romans who remamed the area Palestine, Latin for Philistine, the historic enemies of the Isralites.
If we had a country next to us who kept encouraging their people to colonize us, milk us like an ATM, transform us into a third world sh*thole of corruption like them and openly call for reconquest of lands which they owned for less than 40 years and sparsely settled, how anxious would we be to keep the borders open?
Ping for later.
Excellent point, and yet everyone there chose to ignore it.
I loved when McAin't brought Sarah into his "campaign". Finally somebody with some balls. Unfortunately, she was the only one who had them.
Newt might have warts, but I can deal with warts.
I'd rather have a fighter with warts, instead of a picture perfect panzy.
Last night Newt took his warts and dove into it. Said what needed to be said and was unapoligetic about it.
For anyone who appreciates hard hitting, unPC, straight forwardness, Newt hit homeruns and Mittens shot himself in the foot.
I haven't been much of a Mitt fan, but also haven't been very interested in learning about him. Last night showed me all I needed to know about him. Mitt is a coward, a populist. Mamby Pamby.
I'm really hoping what Newts been projecting is real, and not just some persona to get elected. Last night I saw somebody with testicular fortitude. The type of person WHO WOULD have John Bolton as Secretary Of State. Maybe he'll tap Sarah for VP. Yeah, that'll drive the left nuts. At least have her as Secratary Of Energy.
Quite ready to leave the borders open.
Of course they've been there from the beginning. The beginning of...the time they've been there.
Thank you for posting that...it is enlightening!
Did you see how that guy slid right past the fact that there was NO SYRIA for a thousand years (more or less) because those people in that part of the world were actually TURKISH TAX SLAVES.
The Ottoman Empire was "their country" ~ kinda.
It was their very own precious "Islamic Caliphate" that had crushed their higher cultural values into the dirt and turned them into a primitive people who lived in the dust. This business with Osama Bin Ladin was all about bringing back the "Islamic Caliphate".
They'd all prefer to sink back into the ignorance and brutality they'd known for so long than stand up and be men.
Go back to 1994 and look at Gingrich. He spearheaded the "Contract with America" and he fulfilled that promise even though he burned many bridges within his own party.
Gingrich is the only one who has led his party to cut an entitlement: welfare.
Gingrich is the only one to have led his party to a balanced budget.
What happened to the GOP after Gingrich left as Speaker? They started spending like crazy and supported socialism.
I will vote based on Gingrich's RECORD....which is solid.
For that clarity of thought alone and the courage to speak it unequivocally, Newt should be the nominee.
Enough “pussy-footing around”. I have watched the “peace talks” for almost 45 years—what a joke.
It does not matter how much land the Israelis give up, or concessions they make, or settlements they give away, it does not stop the long march of the Islamists—whose ONLY goal is never peace, but the eradication of the entire State of Israel, the killing of its populace, and the plunder of its wealth.
“US Senator says America welcomes Egypt election results”
IMHO, Kerry has become a semi-Weiner replacement.
How would you like to see John Bolton walking into foggy bottom with a broom and a list of thousands of names, and orders to clean it up.
God, it sends a chrissy girl type of tingle up and down my legs and spine.
I'm getting warm and wet... oh hell, I spilled my coffee.
If he doesn’t have a SS detail then he needs one now. The greater Jihad is not amused
Now that Newt has addressed the idiocy and fallacy of the “Palestinian Myth”, let's hope he has the brass cajones to speak truthfully about the inherent evil of multiculturalism and illegal immigration.
What about all the Jewish refugees?
800,000 Jews were driven from Arab nations after the 1948 war and founding of Israel. Same number of Palestinians fled from Israel (yes some were forced out) during that 1948 war. What I see is balance
Islam is an insane cult of inbred clans of hypocrites believing that only they can do things to others because the Koran sanctions this. That non-Muslim reciprocation and retaliation is impermissible. That all unMuslims must submit to those stupid enough to submit to fake allah and false prophet muhammad
They can’t run a sanitary sewer system.
Why expect them to become a “state.”
This is one of many reasons I want Newt as president. He will approach the middle east no different than Ronald Reagan.
The idiots in the press fear this guy like no others in the race.. He will absolutely embarrass them at a press conference and doesn’t need a Press Secretary.
What Newt should have gone on to say is that the Fakestinians don’t grow anything, don’t produce anything, don’t contribute anything to the world except terror and in general are a nest of cockroaches. They don’t need to be given statehood.
Technically and historically, yes, you know, under the Ottoman Empire, the Palestinians didnt have a state, but neither did Israel have a state then, too, Paul said.
And the Empire State Building didn't exist either. What a schmuck Ron Paul is!
Before the foundation of Israel, “Palestinian” refered to the Jews.
Palestine is a Fairytale
The ICJ, in noting it would briefly analyze the status of the territory concerned, and the Historical background, fails to cite the true and relevant content of the historical document, the Mandate for Palestine.1
The Mandate for Palestine [E.H., the Court refers to as Mandate] laid down the Jewish right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law and valid to this day.
The legally binding Mandate for Palestine document, was conferred on April 24 1920, at the San Remo Conference and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sevres on August 10 1920. The Mandates terms were finalized on July 24 1922, and became operational in 1923.
In paragraphs 68 and 69 of the opinion, ICJ states it will first determine whether or not the construction of that wall breaches international law. The opinion quotes hundreds of documents as relevant to the case at hand, but only a few misleading paragraphs are devoted to the Mandate. Moreover, when it comes to discussing the significance of the founding document regarding the status of the territory in question situated between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including the State of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza the ICJ devotes a mere 237 murky words to nearly 30 years of history when Great Britain ruled the land it called Palestine.
Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class A Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant, which provided that: Certain communities, formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire, have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.2
The judges choose to speak of Palestine in lieu of the actual wording of the historic document that established the Mandate for Palestine territory of Palestine.3 The latter would demonstrate that Palestine is a geographic designation, and not a polity. In fact, Palestine has never been an independent state belonging to any people, nor did a Palestinian people, distinct from other Arabs, appear during 1,300 years of Muslim hegemony in Palestine under Arab and Ottoman rule. Local Arabs during that rule were actually considered part of and subject to the authority of Greater Syria (Suriyya al-Kubra).
The ICJ, throughout its lengthy opinion, chooses to speak incessantly of Palestinians and Palestine as an Arab entity, failing to define these two terms and making no clarification as to the nature of the Mandate for Palestine.
Below is a copy of the document as filed at the British National Archive describing the delineation of the geographical area called Palestine:
Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30 E.
On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows:
North. From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.
East. From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Yapub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.
South. From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.
West. The Mediterranean Sea.
Like a mantra, Arabs, the UN, its organs and now the International Court of Justice have claimed repeatedly that the Palestinians are a native people so much so that almost everyone takes it for granted. The problem is that a stateless Palestinian people is a fabrication. The word Palestine is not even Arabic.4
In a report by His Majestys Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938, the British made it clear: Palestine is not a State but is the name of a geographical area.5
The ICJ Bench creates the impression that the League of Nations was speaking of a nascent state or national grouping the Palestinians who were one of the communities mentioned in Article 22 of the League of Nations. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Mandate for Palestine was a Mandate for Jewish self-determination.
It appears that the Court ignored the content of this most significant legally-binding document regarding the status of the Territories.
Paragraph 1 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations reads:
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.6
The Palestinian [British] Royal Commission Report of July 1937 addresses Arab claims that the creation of the Jewish National Home as directed by the Mandate for Palestine violated Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, arguing that they are the communities mentioned in paragraph 4:
As to the claim, argued before us by Arab witnesses, that the Palestine Mandate violates Article 22 of the Covenant because it is not in accordance with paragraph 4 thereof, we would point out (a) that the provisional recognition of certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire as independent nations is permissive; the words are can be provisionally recognised, not will or shall: (b) that the penultimate paragraph of Article 22 prescribes that the degree of authority to be exercised by the Mandatory shall be defined, at need, by the Council of the League: (c) that the acceptance by the Allied Powers and the United States of the policy of the Balfour Declaration made it clear from the beginning that Palestine would have to be treated differently from Syria and Iraq, and that this difference of treatment was confirmed by the Supreme Council in the Treaty of Sevres and by the Council of the League in sanctioning the Mandate.
This particular question is of less practical importance than it might seem to be. For Article 2 of the Mandate requires the development of self-governing institutions; and, read in the light of the general intention of the Mandate System (of which something will be said presently), this requirement implies, in our judgment, the ultimate establishment of independence.
(3) The field [Territory] in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, to be the whole of historic Palestine, and the Zionists were seriously disappointed when Trans-Jordan was cut away from that field [Territory] under Article 25. [E.H., That excluded 77 percent of historic Palestine the territory east of the Jordan River, what became later Trans-Jordan.]7
The inhabitants of the territory for whom the Mandate for Palestine was created, who according to the Mandate were not yet able to govern themselves and for whom self-determination was a sacred trust, were not Palestinians, or even Arabs. The Mandate for Palestine was created by the predecessor of the United Nations, the League of Nations, for the Jewish People.8
The second paragraph of the preamble of the Mandate for Palestine therefore reads:
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, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine 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 ...9 [italics by author].
The Inernational Court of Justice also assumed that the Mandate for Palestine was a Class A mandate,10 a common, but inaccurate assertion that can be found in many dictionaries and encyclopedias, and is frequently used by the pro-Palestinian media. In paragraph 70 of the opinion, the Court erroneously states that:
Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class [type] A Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the _Covenant 11 [italics by author].
Indeed, Class A status was granted to a number of Arab peoples who were ready for independence in the former Ottoman Empire, and only to Arab entities.12 Palestinian Arabs were not one of these Arab peoples. The Palestine Royal Report clarifies this point:
(2) The Mandate [for Palestine] is of a different type from the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon and the draft Mandate for Iraq. These latter, which were called for convenience A Mandates, accorded with the fourth paragraph of Article 22. Thus the Syrian Mandate provided that the government should be based on an organic law which should take into account the rights, interests and wishes of all the inhabitants, and that measures should be enacted to facilitate the progressive development of Syria and the Lebanon as independent States. The corresponding sentences of the draft Mandate for Iraq were the same. In compliance with them National Legislatures were established in due course on an elective basis. Article 1 of the Palestine Mandate, on the other hand, vests full powers of legislation and of administration, within the limits of the Mandate, in the Mandatory13, 14 [italics by author].
The Palestine Royal Report highlights additional differences:
Unquestionably, however, the primary purpose of the Mandate, as expressed in its preamble and its articles, is to promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
(5) Articles 4, 6 and 11 provide for the recognition of a Jewish Agency as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration on matters affecting Jewish interests. No such body is envisaged for dealing with Arab interests.15
48. But Palestine was different from the other ex-Turkish provinces. It was, indeed, unique both as the Holy Land of three world-religions and as the old historic homeland of the Jews. The Arabs had lived in it for centuries, but they had long ceased to rule it, and in view of its peculiar character they could not now claim to possess it in the same way as they could claim possession of Syria or Iraq16 [italics by author].
There is much to be gained by attributing Class A status to the Mandate for Palestine. If the inhabitants of Palestine were ready for independence under a Class A mandate, then the Palestinian Arabs that made up the majority of the inhabitants of Palestine in 1922 (589,177 Arabs vs. 83,790 Jews)17 could then logically claim that they were the intended beneficiaries of the Mandate for Palestine provided one never reads the actual wording of the document:
1. The Mandate for Palestine18 never mentions Class A status at any time for Palestinian Arabs.
2. Article 2 clearly speaks of the Mandatory as being:
responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home [italics by author].
The Mandate calls for steps to encourage Jewish immigration and settlement throughout Palestine except east of the Jordan River. Historically, therefore, Palestine was an anomaly within the Mandate system, in a class of its own initially referred to by the British as a special regime.19
Had the ICJ Bench examined all six pages of the Mandate for Palestine document, it would have also noted that several times the Mandate for Palestine clearly differentiates between political rights referring to Jewish self-determination as an emerging polity and civil and religious rights, referring to guarantees of equal personal freedoms to non-Jewish residents as individuals and within select communities. Not once are Arabs as a people mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine. At no point in the entire document is there any granting of political rights to non-Jewish entities (i.e., Arabs) because political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed in three other parallel Class A mandates in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Again, the Bench failed to do its history homework. For instance, Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine states explicitly that the Mandatory should:
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 [italics by author].
Eleven times in the Mandate for Palestine the League of Nations speaks specifically of Jews and the Jewish people, calling upon Great Britain to create a nationality law to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
There is not one mention of the word Palestinians or the phrase Palestinian Arabs, as it is exploited today. The non-Jewish communities the Mandate document speaks of were extensions (or in todays parlance, diaspora communities) of another Arab people for whom a separate mandate had been drawn up at the same time: the Syrians that the International Court of Justice ignored in its so-called Historical background of the Mandate system.20
Consequently, it is not surprising that a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, stated in his testimony in 1937 before the Peel Commission:
There is no such country [as Palestine]! Palestine is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries, part of Syria.21
The term Palestinian in its present connotation had only been invented in the 1960s to paint Jews who had adopted the term Israelis after the establishment of the State of Israel as invaders now residing on Arab turf. The ICJ was unaware that written into the terms of the Mandate, Palestinian Jews had been directed to establish a Jewish Agency for Palestine (today, the Jewish Agency), to further Jewish settlements, or that since 1902, there had been an Anglo-Palestine Bank, established by the Zionist Movement (today Bank Leumi). Nor did they know that Jews had established a Palestine Philharmonic Orchestra in 1936 (today, the Israeli Philharmonic), and an English-language newspaper called the The Palestine Postin 1932 (today, The Jerusalem Post) along with numerous other Jewish Palestinian institutions.
Consequently, the ICJ incorrectly cites the unfulfilled Mandate for Palestine and the Partition Resolution concerning Palestine as justification for the Benchs intervention in the case. The ICJ argues that as the judicial arm of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction in this case because of its responsibility as a UN institution for bringing Palestinian self-determination to fruition! In paragraph 49 of the opinion, the Bench declares:
the Court does not consider that the subject-matter of the General Assemblys request can be regarded as only a bilateral matter between Israel and Palestine [therefore] construction of the wall must be deemed to be directly of concern to the United Nations. The responsibility of the United Nations in this matter also has its origin in the Mandate and the Partition Resolution concerning Palestine.22 This responsibility has been described by the General Assembly as a permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine until the question is resolved in all its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy (General Assembly resolution 57/107 of 3 December 2002.) the objective being the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people [italics by author].
To the average reader without historical knowledge of this conflict, the term Mandate for Palestine sounds like an Arab trusteeship, but this interpretation changes neither history nor legal facts about Israel.
Had the ICJ examined the minutes of the report of the 1947 United Nations Special Committee on Palestine,23 among the myriad of documents it did examine, the learned judges would have known that the Arabs categorically rejected the Mandate for Palestine. In the July 22, 1947 testimony of the President of the Council of Lebanon, Hamid Frangie, the Lebanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, speaking on behalf of all the Arab countries, declared unequivocally:
there is only one solution for the Palestinian problem, namely cessation of the Mandate [for the Jews] and both the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate are null and valueless. All of Palestine, he claimed, is in fact an integral part of this Arab world, which is organized into sovereign States (with no mention of an Arab Palestinian State) bound together by the political and economic pact of 22 March 194524 [E.H., the Arab League].
Frangie warned of more bloodshed:
The Governments of the Arab States will not under any circumstances agree to permit the establishment of Zionism as an autonomous State on Arab territory and that Arab countries wish to state that they feel certain that the partition of Palestine and the creation of a Jewish State would result only in bloodshed and unrest throughout the entire Middle East25 [italics by author].
This is not the only document that would have instructed the judges that the Mandate for Palestine was not for Arab Palestinians. Article 2026 of the PLO Charter, adopted by the Palestine National Council in July 1968 and never legally revised,27 and proudly posted on the Palestinian delegations UN website, states:
The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.28
The PLO Charter adds that Jews do not meet the criteria of a nationality and therefore do not deserve statehood at all, clarifying this statement in Article 21 of the Palestinian Charter, that Palestinians,
reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine.
It is difficult to ignore yet another instance of historical fantasy, where the ICJ also quotes extensively from Article 13 of the Mandate for Palestine with respect to Jerusalems Holy Places and access to them as one of the foundations for Palestinian rights allegedly violated by the security barrier. The ICJ states in paragraph 129 of the Opinion:
In addition to the general guarantees of freedom of movement under Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, account must also be taken of specific guarantees of access to the Christian, Jewish and Islamic Holy Places. The status of the Christian Holy Places in the Ottoman Empire dates far back in time, the latest provisions relating thereto having been incorporated into Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin of 13 July 1878. The Mandate for Palestine given to the British Government on 24 July 1922 included an Article 13, under which:
All responsibility in connection with the Holy Places and religious buildings or sites in Palestine, including that of preserving existing rights and of securing free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, while ensuring the requirements of public order and decorum, is assumed by the Mandatory Article 13 further stated: nothing in this mandate shall be construed as conferring authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed.29
In fact, the 187-word quote is longer than the ICJs entire treatment of nearly three decades of British Mandate, which is summed up in one sentence, and is part of the ICJ rewriting of history:
In 1947 the United Kingdom announced its intention to complete evacuation of the mandated territory by 1 August 1948, subsequently advancing that date to 15 May 1948.30
The Preamble of the Mandate for Palestine, as well as the other 28 articles of this legal document, including eight articles which specifically refer to the Jewish nature of the Mandate and discuss where Jews are legally permitted to settle and where they are not, appear nowhere in the Courts document.31
The Mandate for Palestine was conferred on April 24 1920, at the San Remo Conference, and the terms of the Mandate were further delineated on August 10 1920, in the Treaty of Sevres.
The Treaty of Sevres, known also as the Peace Treaty, was settled following World War I at Sevres (France), between the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), and the Principal Allied Powers.
Turkey relinquished its sovereignty over Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Palestine, which became British mandates, and Syria (Lebanon included), which became a French mandate.
The Treaty of Sevres was not ratified by all Turks, and a new treaty was renegotiated and signed on July 24 1923. It became known as the Treaty of Lausanne.
The Treaty of Sevres in Section VII, Articles 94 and 95, states clearly in each case who are the inhabitants referred to in paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.32
Article 94 distinctly indicates that Paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applies to the Arab inhabitants living within the areas covered by the Mandates for Syria and Mesopotamia. The Article reads:
The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22.
Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognised as independent States subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone [italics by author].
Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres, however, makes it clear that paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations was not to be applied to the Arab inhabitants living within the area to be delineated by the Mandate for Palestine, but only to the Jews. The Article reads:
The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country
Historically, therefore, Palestine was an anomaly within the Mandate system, in a class of its own initially referred to by the British Government as a special regime.
Articles 94 and 95 of the Treaty of Sevres, which the ICJ never discussed, completely undermines the ICJs argument that the Mandate for Palestine was a Class A Mandate. This erroneous claim renders the Courts subsequent assertions baseless.
In paragraph 162 of the Advisory Opinion, the Court states:
Since 1947, the year when General Assembly resolution 181 (II) was adopted and the Mandate for Palestine was terminated, there has been a succession of armed conflicts, acts of indiscriminate violence and repressive measures on the former mandated territory [italics by author].
The Court attempts to overcome historical legal facts by making the reader believe that adoption of Resolution 181 by the General Assembly in 1947 has present-day legal standing.33
The Court also seems to be confused when it states in paragraph 162 of the opinion that the Mandate for Palestine was terminated with no substantiation [E.H., Unless the Court has confused the termination of the British Mandate over the territory of Palestine with the Mandate for Palestine document] as to how this could take place, since the Mandates of the League of Nations have a special status in international law and are considered to be sacred trusts. A trust as in Article 80 of the UN Charter does not end because the trustee fades away. The Mandate for Palestine, an international accord that was never amended, survived the British withdrawal in 1948 and is a binding legal instrument, valid to this day (See Chapter 9: Territories Legality of Jewish Settlement).
The Court affirmation of the present validity of the Mandate for Palestine is evident in paragraph 49 of the Opinion:
It is the Courts view that the construction of the wall must be deemed to be directly of concern to the United Nations. The responsibility of the United Nations in this matter also has its origin in the Mandate [for Palestine]
Addressing the Arab claim that Palestine was part of the territories promised to the Arabs in 1915 by Sir Henry McMahon, the British Government stated:
We think it sufficient for the purposes of this Report to state that the British Government have never accepted the Arab case. When it was first formally presented by the Arab Delegation in London in 1922, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) replied as follows:
That letter [Sir H. McMahons letter of the 24 October 1915] is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majestys Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahons pledge.
It was in the highest degree unfortunate that, in the exigencies of war, the British Government was unable to make their intention clear to the Sherif. Palestine, it will have been noticed, was not expressly mentioned in Sir Henry McMahons letter of the 24th October, 1915. Nor was any later reference made to it. In the further correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sherif the only areas relevant to the present discussion which were mentioned were the Vilayets of Aleppo and Beirut. The Sherif asserted that these Vilayets were purely Arab; and, when Sir Henry McMahon pointed out that French interests were involved, he replied that, while he did not recede from his full claims in the north, he did not wish to injure the alliance between Britain and France and would not ask for what we now leave to France in Beirut and its coasts till after the War. There was no more bargaining over boundaries. It only remained for the British Government to supply the Sherif with the monthly subsidy in gold and the rifles, ammunition and foodstuffs he required for launching and sustaining the revolt34 [italics by author].
Amen to that. A truer Post was never made.
Cain guy here, going to Newt. Israel/Middle East politics is a problem of Biblical proportion; Newt’s “no BS” approach is extremely impressive.
Priceless!! I didn’t watch last night but I’ll review it just fr that alone. Home run.
Thanks so much for posting the Israeli tutorial. Answered many of the questions I had been wondering about. Now I have ammunition.
Twenty rockets fired from GAZA in last 24 hours.
Waiting to see the end of Gaza soon.
Santorum just dropped off my short-list last evening when he took issue with Gingrich’s honest characterization of the “Palestinian” People.
Obviously, Santorum has “BBs” for balls. Maybe he can be a good Secretary of Something, but not State or Defense, let alone President or VP.
Give it up, Rick Santorum!
Santorum just dropped off my short-list last evening when he took issue with Gingrich’s honest characterization of the “Palestinian” People.
Obviously, Santorum has “BBs” for balls. Maybe he can be a good Secretary of Something, but not State or Defense, let alone President or VP.
Give it up, Rick Santorum!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.