Do the West & the Arabs Have the Right to Set Up a State to Be Called "palestine"?

The people of Israel, later called Jews, have lived in and been connected to the Land of Israel for about 3450 years since the going out from Egypt. From the time of Alexander of Macedon [died 323 CE] till Roman Emperor Hadrian, Greeks and Romans called the country Judea, that is, the Jewish land, the land of the Jews. The name is also spelled Judaea and IVDAEA in Latin. The name is confirmed in the Greek and Latin writings of that long period. It was not a land inhabited by Arabs, although there were some there and in the vicinity, no doubt. It was Hadrian who changed the country's name to Syria Palaestina [in 135 CE]. This was an act of hostility to the Jews who had rebelled against the Empire three times. Changing the name was meant as a punishment for the Jews and a way of obliterating the Jewish identity of their country. The Jews also suffered in that many were sold as slaves and otherwise driven off their lands, although Jews remained the predominant population in the country. Today, in a way not far different from Hadrian's, world empires use the name "palestine" in order to deny the Jews rights in their own homeland. The empires and much or most of the West, as well as the Arab and Muslim world, demand that Israel, the national state of the Jews, allow establishment of an Arab state to be called "palestine" in the heart of the ancient Jewish homeland. They follow in the footsteps of Emperor Hadrian.

Yet there never was a "palestinian people" in all history. Such a people is a modern invention of psychological/cognitive warfare, probably by British psywar experts. The notion that Israel was fighting not Arabs but a "palestinian people" came to world attention in 1964 with foundation of the Palestine Liberation Organization. At that time, the PLO declared to the king of Jordan, Hussein, that the land that they wanted for a state was NOT any land under his rule, not the "West Bank" of Jordan, but the part of the ancient Land of Israel under Jewish control, that is, the State of Israel within its 1949 armistice lines, since Israel had no land borders at that time. But if we examine this newly minted people, "the palestinians," we may ask how they differ in essential ways from the Arabs east of the Jordan? Or from the Arabs in Syria? Do they speak a different language? The PLO's declaration of a state of Palestine in November 1988 in Algiers expressed loyalty to the general Arab culture and cultural legacy. Indeed, the PLO has long been a member of the Arab League, another Arab state waiting to take power, as it were.

Today, now that Israel won in 1967 --in the face of Arab genocidal threats-- the lands of Judea-Samaria, formerly under Jordanian rule, and now that the PLO collaborates diplomatically with major world powers supposedly with the aim of setting up an Arab state in Judea-Samaria to be called "palestine," the Powers, the UN, the EU, and just about everybody overlook the basic refusal of the PLO/PA to make peace with Israel in any boundaries. Abu Mazen published an op ed [ghost written] in the NYTimes the other day in which he said that if the UN would recognize a PLO/PA state, the PLO/PA would use this status to prosecute Israel, to delegitimize Israel in world legal forums, such as the World Court at the Hague, the Int'l Criminal Court, the misnamed UN "Human Rights Council," etc. So no peace can come out of concessions made to the PLO/PA or out of negotiations with the PLO/PA. Actually, Abu Mazen has refused to negotiate with Israel for more than 2 1/2 years, since September 2008 when olmert was still prime minister. Further, the PLO/PA has made a pact with the Hamas for a joint govt of the territories already ceded by Israel to the racist, anti-Jewish PLO/PA. And the Hamas is brutally frank in its aim of genocide against the Jews. This aim appears in Article 7 of the Hamas charter. Obviously, Israel should not negotiate with a Nazi-like body such as Hamas. Hitler, to be sure, was never as frank in his genocidal purposes as the Hamas now is. But Obama may demand in today's speech that Israel negotiate with the Hamas Nazis nevertheless. He is part of the problem today.

Now let us return to the Jews' ties to the Land of Israel. Jews were a substantial part of Israel's population until the Crusader conquest. Between the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and 1112 or 1113, a dozen years later, the Crusaders massacred the bulk of the Jews in the country [according to historian Moshe Gil & others]. The Jews were ground down between two millstones, Islam and militant Christendom. Even after the Crusader massacres had subsided, the Jews were still a noticeable part of the population. After the Crusades, of course, the Jews returned to their pre-Crusades status of subjects of the Islamic state, dhimmis. And the Mamluk Empire, succeeding the Crusaders probably treated the worse Jews than they had been treated before, if that were possible. The flow of Jews to the Diaspora continued. Those who want to deny that Jews in the Dispersion were of Judaic descent, should bear in mind that the pagan Roman Empire had begun to forbid conversion of non-Jews to Judaism and this prohibition was made more severe under the subsequent Christianized empire. The prohibition served to preserve the original Jewish stock over the centuries. The genetic ties between Jews in the Diaspora from Minsk to Marrakesh and from Berlin to Baghdad have been confirmed by modern DNA studies, which even show a genetic affinity to some of the Arabs and other Mediterranean peoples, albeit there is not much affinity in cultural or moral terms between Jews and Arabs.

In recognition of --among other things-- the preservation of Jewish ethnicity since Roman times, the international community at the San Remo Conference [1920] and in the League of Nations [1922] recognized the Land of Israel --which they unfortunately called "palestine"-- as the Jewish National Home. Britain accepted the League's mandate to foster development of the National Home, including fostering "close settlement" of Jews on the land [Article 6 of the Mandate]. Needless to say, Britain betrayed its commitment to the Mandate, and in fact prevented Jews from finding refuge in the Jewish National Home when the Jews most needed a home, that is, during the Holocaust. Today, the National Home as a legal entity binding on the international community is largely forgotten, certainly at the UN, and by Britain in particular. This teaches us that Jews cannot trust Britain or the international community in general. Unfortunately, the United States is now following the anti-Jewish, anti-Israel path earlier trod by the United Kingdom. The Powers cannot be considered morally competent to judge Israel or to determine its future. The Jews cannot rely on the promises of the Powers.

Obama's speech can only be awaited with suspicion at best.

- - - - - - - - -
Jackson Diehl explains why suspicion is justified [here]

Anti-Jewish Racism & Apartheid in the name of "Peace" -- Obama & Clinton back to FDR's Bad Old Days of Fostering the Holocaust

UPDATING 9-17-2010 see at bottom

When fascism comes to America, it will
be called anti-fascism.
[attributed to Huey Long]

Official Washington is in a tizzy. Jews who are simply not pliable enough actually believe that they have a right to live and build new homes in what the international community designated as the Jewish National Home [San Remo 1920; League of Nations 1922, etc].

The Administration of Palestine. . . shall facilitate Jewish immigration . . . and shall encourage . . . close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands. . .
[League of Nations mandate, Article 6; 1922]

Needless to say, Britain reneged on its duties as Administrator of the Jewish National Home fairly quickly, making if difficult for Jews to immigrate into the country and to settle the land. This obstruction of Jewish exercise of Jewish rights culminated on the eve of the Holocaust with an official British statement, the 1939 "White Paper on Palestine," which severely limited Jewish immigration into the country, the internationally designated Jewish National Home, when Jews most urgently needed a home, a refuge. Further, Jews were forbidden by the British White Paper policy to buy real estate in most of the country. Thereby, Britain, the UK, was imposing an anti-Jewish apartheid policy on the country through Land Purchase Regulations promulgated in 1940, a year after the White Paper but in line with it. Britain was a silent partner in the Holocaust and the Foreign Office's hostile policy towards Israel since then should be seen in that light. Incidentally, the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations ruled that the 1939 White Paper policy was a violation of the mandate. That didn't stop the British from applying the restrictions on Jewish rights embodied in the White Paper. So much for British respect for international law.

Now, Washington follows the old UK policy. It's bad enough that Washington wants Israel to share its scarce territory with a state [Palestinian Authority] that even now, in its embryonic stages incites murderous hatred of Jews, but Washington, particularly Hilary Clinton's State Department, is pressuring Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu not to allow Jews to resume building homes in Judea-Samaria even after the unjust 10-month moratorium expires shortly. In Sharm ash-Shaykh, Clinton and veteran facilitator of Arab terrorism, George Mitchell, pressed Israel to give in once again on this important issue of human rights. But Clinton, Mitchell and Obama don't give a damn about the human rights of Jews, just as an earlier American Liberal, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, avoided trying to save Jews' lives during the Holocaust, thereby giving auxiliary support to British policy towards the Holocaust.

Now that the conference between Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas, Mubarak, King Abdullah [Plucky Little King #2] and Clinton has ended --supposedly to resume-- Hilary Clinton, US Secretary of State, has come to Jerusalem to nag and pressure our leaders more in order to persuade them to divest Jews of human rights. In fact these are also national rights made into international law by the League of Nations mandate for a Jewish National Home [1922], in Article 6. So the United States under its present leadership works against the international law which recognized Jewish rights. Bear in mind that the Israeli people have suffered greatly from "peace processes" and "peace efforts" and "peace accords." Need we mention Oslo? Thousands of Israelis have been murdered and wounded since Oslo was signed on the White House lawn on 13 September 1993, seventeen years ago. The rate of deaths from Arab terrorism rose astronomically after Oslo, although lying shills for mass murder like the Norwegian Terje Larsen pretended that Oslo had benefited the Israeli people, falsely claiming that fewer Israelis had died from terrorism since Oslo.

As to Liberal American presidents, we don't really know what "liberal" means. Franklin Roosevelt was considered a Liberal. As said above, he did not try to save Jews from the Holocaust. Although American and British bomber aircraft reached the Auschwitz area in Poland to strike at military targets, they never tried to bomb the death camps in that region, to bomb the gas chambers or the crematoria -- or even the railroad tracks that led to the camps. The concern of those governments for the Holocaust and its victims is a pretense at best. In that period, Britain violated its international commitment to the Jews, to the Jewish National Home, by preventing Jewish refugees from finding refuge there. Britain went so far as to pressure governments in southern Europe to prevent Jewish refugees from embarking from their ports. This is not a matter of conjecture or interpretation. It is fact but not what is usually taught in schools and universities. Instead we hear the big lie, also propounded by the so-called "Left", that Britain favored the Jews and helped create the State of Israel. Shameless big lies coming forth from the mouths of academics, politicians, diplomats, and officials of so-called [misnamed] "non-governmental organizations." [see Notes below]

There is another case that shows how official Washington discriminates against Jews and Israel, doing so with the collaboration of fake "human rights" and "civil rights" groups. Jonathan Pollard has been in jail since 1985, for 25 years. Yes, he was a spy. Yet, his sentence is virtually a life sentence. He has never been given pardon or clemency. His sentence violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States constitution. This amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and states:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Yet other spies were sentenced around the same time as Pollard, the Walker family, Christopher Boyce, Andrew Daulton Lee, an Egyptian spying for his country, and others. Their sentences were nearly all lighter than Pollard's, although Pollard had spied for a friendly country, not an enemy like the Soviet Union which Boyce, Lee and the Walkers had done. The Egyptian was sentenced to several years. Boyce and Lee are already out of jail. Pollard's sentence is a virtual lifetime sentence. The US Justice Department even broke --even violated-- a plea bargain agreement with Pollard, after he had confessed to spying as his part of the accord. The secretary of defense even intervened in the case, sending the judge a special letter that has never been disclosed to the public. Nevertheless, despite the unfair sentence and the unfair procedure, no self-designated "civil rights" group or "human rights" group has ever taken up the defense of Pollard's civil and human rights. Neither the American Civil Liberties Union, led by former US attorney general, Ramsey Clark [a sympathizer of Khomeini & Saddam Hussein -- yes, look it up], nor "Human Rights Watch" nor Amnesty International has ever made a public statement in favor of Pollard or complained of his mistreatment. Professor Eugene Narrett once inquired of Amnesty if they had taken a position on Pollard's case. They answered him that they had not since they felt it was not of interest --or some similar excuse to avoid defending Pollard's rights.

Of course, official Washington can get very humanitarian and very human rights conscious when it involves someone working for Washington. Consider the case of a Chinese-American sentenced to only eight years by China for spying on China's oil industry. This spy's name is Xue Feng.

US consular officials have visited Mr Xue nearly 30 times during his detention, and President Barack Obama raised the case with President Hu Jintao during a state visit to Beijing last November. The US ambassador to China, Jim M Huntsman Jr, was in the Beijing courtroom when the sentence was handed down Monday.
"Now that the Chinese legal system has ruled, I believe the time has come for Dr Xue, who has already been detained for two and a half years, to be released," Mr Huntsman said in a statement. I urge the Chinese authorities to take into account the long ordeal he has suffered and in the spirit of justice allow him to return home and be reunited with his family."
The statement said the US government was dismayed by the verdict and was concerned about both his right to due process under Chinese law and his well-being while in prison.
[International Herald-Tribune, 6 July 2010].

So US diplomats know how to talk the civil rights talk [as in the reference to "due process"] and play on the heartstrings with the hope that he can go back to his family. And Obama whom some regard as a Great Emancipator, intervened on Xue's behalf when in China on other business. But at eight years, even if added to the 2 1/2 years awaiting trial, Xue's sentence is nothing compared to Pollard's. But it seems that few in the United States care about Pollard. Those groups that one might naturally assume should be concerned for the unconstitutionality and cruelty and abuse of power in the Pollard case, have been silent. As said, not a peep from the ACLU or HRW or Amnesty.

So the Jews --both in Israel and the United States-- are much in the position of the Black slave Dred Scott. The US Supreme Court ruled in his case that:
"The negro . . . had no rights which the white man was bound to respect"
[Dred Scott v. Sandford, US Supreme Court decision, 1857]

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Notes:
On the British diplomats trying to prevent Jewish refugees from escaping Europe, see:
William Perl, The Four Front War (New York: Crown 1979).
On US policy to do nothing to stop the Holocaust, see:
Arthur Morse, While Six Million Died (New York 1968).
David Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews (New York: Pantheon 1984)

Also the website of the David Wyman Institute:
http://www.wymaninstitute.org/
Also authors such as Laurel Leff, Rafael Medoff, Monty Penkower, Ben Hecht, even "Leftist" journalists like Lawrence Lipton, Sidney Zion, Sol Stern and others.

On British pro-Holocaust policy, see books by Walter Z Laqueur, Martin Gilbert,William Perl, Bernard Wasserstein, William Ziff, and others plus previous posts here at Emet m'Tsiyon [& here].
UPDATE
Obama statement in favor of continued anti-Jewish apartheid policy in Judea-Samaria [here] & [here]
Also note that George Mitchell stressed the US government's desire to see the "settlement freeze" continue in his press conference after yesterday's conference at Sharm ash-Shaykh.
Hilary butts in with her obnoxious two cents in favor of denying Jewish rights: "Clinton told reporters that the U.S. wants the construction halt extended." [Bloomberg report here]
Khaled Abu Toameh's view of Abbas' policy on settlements [here & here].
Jewish efforts to pressure Obama against his pro-apartheid position [here]

UPDATING 9-17-2010 Obaminable gang supports apartheid against Israel at the UN [here]
10-5-2010 Caroline Glick asks whether Jews have civil rights [here]. I have written that Jews today, particularly Israelis, are in the position of Dred Scott, the Black American slave in whose case the US Supreme Court wrote: ". . . the negro had no rights which the white man was bound to respect" [see above]