The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel

/* Another zionist MYTH BUSTED !  – QCpal */

An examination of facts and circumstances surrounding General Assembly Resolution 181 exposes the myth of the U.N. creation of Israel.

By Jeremy R. Hammond

“” There is a widely accepted belief that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 “created” Israel, based upon an understanding that this resolution partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority or legitimacy to the declaration of the existence of the state of Israel. However, despite its popularity, this belief has no basis in fact, as a review of the resolution’s history and examination of legal principles demonstrates incontrovertibly.

/… Detailed analysis of the history of Resolution 181: …/

Conclusion

The partition plan put forth by UNSCOP sought to create within Palestine a Jewish state contrary to the express will of the majority of its inhabitants. Despite constituting only a third of the population and owning less than 7 percent of the land, it sought to grant to the Jews more than half of Palestine for purpose of creating that Jewish state. It would, in other words, take land from the Arabs and give it to the Jews. The inherent injustice of the partition plan stands in stark contrast to alternative plan proposed by the Arabs, of an independent state of Palestine in which the rights of the Jewish minority would be recognized and respected, and which would afford the Jewish population representation in a democratic government. The partition plan was blatantly prejudicial to the rights of the majority Arab population, and was premised on the rejection of their right to self-determination. This is all the more uncontroversial inasmuch as the UNSCOP report itself explicitly acknowledged that the proposal to create a Jewish state in Palestine was contrary to the principle of self-determination. The plan was also premised upon the erroneous assumption that the Arabs would simply acquiesce to having their land taken from them and voluntarily surrender their majority rights, including their right to self-determination.

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The U.S., Syria, and other member nations were correct in their observations that, while the Security Council did have authority to declare a threat to the peace and authorize the use of force to deal with that and maintain or restore peace and security, it did not have any authority to implement by force a plan to partition Palestine contrary to the will of most of its inhabitants. Any attempt to usurp such authority by either the General Assembly or the Security Council would have been a prima facie violation of the Charter’s founding principle of respect for the right to self-determination of all peoples, and thus null and void under international law.

In sum, the popular claim that the U.N. “created” Israel is a myth, and Israel’s own claim in its founding document that U.N. Resolution 181 constituted legal authority for Israel’s creation, or otherwise constituted “recognition” by the U.N. of the “right” of the Zionist Jews to expropriate for themselves Arab land and deny to the majority Arab population of that land their own right to self-determination, is a patent fraud.

Further corollaries may be drawn. The disaster inflicted upon Palestine was not inevitable. The U.N. was created for the purpose of preventing such catastrophes. Yet it failed miserably to do so, on numerous counts. It failed in its duty to refer the legal questions of the claims to Palestine to the International Court of Justice, despite requests from member states to do so. It failed to use all means within its authority, including the use of armed forces, to maintain peace and prevent the war that was predicted would occur upon the termination of the Mandate. And most importantly, far from upholding its founding principles, the U.N. effectively acted to prevent the establishment of an independent and democratic state of Palestine, in direct violation of the principles of its own Charter. The consequences of these and other failures are still witnessed by the world today on a daily basis. Recognition of the grave injustice perpetrated against the Palestinian people in this regard and dispelling such historical myths is essential if a way forward towards peace and reconciliation is to be found “”

Read the detailed analysis at: The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel – Jeremy R. Hammond

Advertisements

A HISTORY OF JEWISH DISINFORMATION AND DECEPTION

News For The Blind

http://adf.ly/1Wjpwy
Disinformation and Intimidation

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which describes itself as a civil rights organization, has been in the forefront of an ongoing attempt to label legitimate American-Arab and American-Muslim charitable, political, and informational organizations as fronts for terrorism. This attempt is part of a long-standing ADL policy of discrediting any individual or organization opposed to Israel or supportive of Palestinian rights. The ADL’s strong political loyalty to Israel as well as its acknowledged ties to Israel’s external intelligence agency in addition to its past practices of spreading disinformation and intimidating those who have spoken out against Israeli policies should however serve as a warning about the ADL and the nature of its claims.

When the ADL was founded in 1913 it defined its mission as opposing the defamation of the Jewish people. Over the years, the organization won respect for its active support of civil rights and its opposition to segregation…

View original post 1,451 more words

Israel’s former Military Intel head: Hezbollah main threat, Golan main area of concern & it’s vital to bring down Assad

The Mideastwire Blog

Amos Yadlin, the former Israeli military intel head, has this new INSS brief that clearly sets out what one thinks is the establishment strategic thinking:
Read it here
“Five Years Back and Five Years Forward: Israel’s Strategic Environment in 2011-2015 and Policy Recommendations for 2016-2020”
The key determinations are what some of us have long pointed out:
–Iran is the overall main military threat to Israel and Hezbollah is the greatest immediate threat. This assessment has arguably had a huge impact on Western thinking and approaches towards both actors, even though both only marginally affect the security of Western countries.
— ISIS and Sunni radicals are believed to be far less of a threat to Israel and
(it is believed) can be dealt with – when need be – mostly by deepening ties with their primary drivers/sponsors in the Monarchies, the Gulf, Turkey etc. In the end, the Israeli assessment…

View original post 618 more words

“Holocaust Victims Accuse” … the zionists!

Shonfeld,Moshe-HolocautVictimsAccuse
Free eBook: “Holocaust Victims Accuse” … the zionists!, by Rav Moshe Shonfeld – 1977

Contains rarely seen info on zionist-Nazi collaboration and zionists role in blocking Jewish immigration in the West to favor “selective immigration” to Palestine”. As an example  Alfred Nossig, a highly prominent Polish zionist  was executed for treason by the Jewish Resistance of the Warsaw Ghetto for collaboration with the Nazis.

Also contains testimony  on the zionist disdain for anything but young, healthy and qualified immigrants who could be useful and productive in preparing the , thus the old and the weak were not welcomed in the secular Ashkenazim “rebirth of the Maccabee”…

zionists were the pioneers of SELECTIVE IMMIGRATION even if not being chosen meant death ,,,  That’s how    was founded so it’s no wonder it now happily lives with  and OCCUPATION …

“” FOREWORD

At a national conference of Tzirei Agudas Yisroel, which took place during the establishment of the “State of Israel,” the delegates came to one decision which aroused a furor even am factions of Agudas Yisroel, and “Hamodia” refused to publish it, as a matter of principle. The controversial resolution stated: “We declare that, at this time of the establishment of the state, our belief of the past remain the same: Zionism constitutes a danger, spiritual and physical, to the existence of our people.”

Last year, a new printing of the book, “Yaldei Teheran Maashimim” (“The Teheran Children Accuse”), appeared. It was meant especially for Bnei Torah, and was distributed in yeshivos and kollelim. That frightening manuscript enumerates what the Zionist movement can do to the spirit of our people. The booklet which we are publishing here, “Serufay. Ha Kivshbnim Maashimim” (“The Holocaust Victims Accuse”), serves as an attempt to show, by means of testimonies., documents and reports, how Zionism and its high-level organizations brought a catastrophe upon our people during the era of the Nazi holocaust. If the Yaldei Teheran affair serves as an example of the Implications of, “greater is the (sins of) one who causes another to sin than the (sins of) one who kills another”, analagous to destroying the soul and leaving the body, then what the heads of the Zionist movement did to the European Jews during World War II cannot be defined except as the one who actually “does” the killing. “Serufay Ha Kivshonim Maashimim” is a collection of nine essays which were printed in “Digleinu” in the years 1961—64 under the heading, “Ani Maashim – Min HaMaitzar” (I Accuse – From the Depths”). The fruit of the pen of Reb. Moshe Shonfeld, it constitutes a continuation of the revelations of the gaon and tzaddik, Rabbi Michael Ber Weissmandel, who devoted his life to saving his brothers, and endlessly alerted the Jewish world. But there was no one listening to him. Several paragraphs in corporated into the first nine essays and the last essay in its entirety are being published here for the first time.

The reading material in the pamphlet before us is very bitter, but it is essential that we look into it and absorb it in order to know the secular enemy and to understand his character and nature.

The essays printed in the booklet include just a small part of a serious accusation, which exposes the leaders of Zionism as war criminals, who contributed their share to the destruction of six million of our people. In the archives of the Goodman Family in London, Eisz Of Zurich Sternbuch of Montreux and Griffel and Weissmandel in the United States, arehidden documents and reports which are hair-raising and are waiting to be brought to light. Therefore, one must end the pamphlet with, “finished, but not ended”, in the hope that these matters will be completed. This is our obligation to millions of victims, as well as to clarify our consciousness and our world outlook. The Kotzker Rebbe said, “who increases knowledge, increases pain; even though he will add pain, a person must increase his knowledge.”

The Zionist approach, that Jewish blood is the anointing oil needed for the wheels of the Zionist state, is not a thing of the past. It remains operable to this very day.

What occurred in recent months to 600 Jews from Russia, who left Eretz Yisroel for Belgium, is again an illustration of the Zionist principle that Jews only exist to serve as a footstool of the Zionist state, and they are only powder and cannon fodder for its establishment and the forging of its strength. Not in an organized fashion, but separately, these 140 families arrived in Belgium, including babies, children and the elderly. They arrived with practically nothing after first paying all their debts to the Jewish Agency. The rumors that they came under the sponsorship of the missionaries were designed to make them hated by the Jews outside of Eretz Yisroel.

As is the way of Jewish people, they first went to the Jewish relief organizations. It became clear to them that the pressure of the Jewish Agency had cut them off. from any aid from relief organizations, both worldwide and local. Having no other choice, they turned to Christian social organizations, which had nothing to do with the missionaries. They agreed to help them only after they became aware, to their great astonishment, that the Jewish organizations were withholding all aid The Gentiles learned for the first time in history, Jews were hardening themselves against refugee brothers, abandoning them and their children to starvation, disease – and to the mercy of the Gen tiles.

The Orthodox Jews of Belgium hurried to help them, without considering that their concept of Judaism was nil, since they were innocents long under the rule of the atheistic Soviets. If not for this, who knows if the plans of the Zionists wouldn’t have succeeded and 600 Jews, who did not cut off their ties to Judaism during 50 years of Communism, would have been forced to choose between mass suicide and accepting Christianity? Again it was reiterated where the love of Jews can be found: who nurtures it and who destroys it.

Since the existence of Zionism, one constant trend of thought has been the direction of Weizmann, Greenbaum, Sharett, Ben Gurion, Ehrenpreisz, Kastner, Stephen Wise, the councils in the ghettoes and the rescue committees of the free world: The only yearning was for the State. The people as a whole, or a segment thereof, were merely the means for the realization of a “homeland”. Whoever did not serve this purpose might as well have not been created.

… “”

Source: Holocaust Victims Accuse

The McCarthyist Mole Who Came With ‘’All That’s Left” to Susiya

The Leftern Wall

Shabbat in Susiya. Photo by A. Daniel Roth. 

June 2015.

He looked lonely.

That’s the first thing I remember about him from that weekend. He looked lonely, and his nose was very pink from the sun. I went over to talk to him. Mostly, I just wanted to run around with the hilarious, wonderful kids from Susiya — whose homes and community garden and playground were threatened with erasure at the hands of the Israeli government —  and to spend time talking strategy and politics with Nasser Nawaja, a brilliant community organizer from Susiya, and with my comrades from All That’s Left, together with whom I’d helped plan this weekend of action, in which around 100 Jews from the Diaspora and from Israel spent the weekend in Susiya, and worked on a road in Bir al-Eid, and planted thyme in Umm al-Kheir, and fought against the occupation which wants to…

View original post 933 more words

Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s “The Iron Wall” – 1923

/* The following article contains the foundation of #APARTHEID #israel Likud Party’s position towards Palestinians: Be their Colonial Masters or their neighbors if they “transfer out” of Palestine … */

“The Iron Wall”

By ZE’EV JABOTINSKY (November 4, 1923)

“IT IS AN EXCELLENT RULE to begin an article with the most important point, but this time, I find it necessary to begin with an introduction, and, moreover, with a personal introduction.

I am reputed to be an enemy of the Arabs, who wants to have them ejected from Palestine, and so forth. It is not true.

Emotionally, my attitude to the Arabs is the same as to all other nations – polite indifference. Politically, my attitude is determined by two principles. First of all, I consider it utterly impossible to eject the Arabs from Palestine. There will always be two nations in Palestine – which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority. And secondly, I belong to the group that once drew up the Helsingfors Programme , the programme of national rights for all nationalities living in the same State. In drawing up that programme, we had in mind not only the Jews, but all nations everywhere, and its basis is equality of rights.

I am prepared to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall never try to eject anyone. This seems to me a fairly peaceful credo.

But it is quite another question whether it is always possible to realise a peaceful aim by peaceful means. For the answer to this question does not depend on our attitude to the Arabs, but entirely on the attitude of the Arabs to us and to Zionism.

Now, after this introduction, we may proceed to the subject.

There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting “Palestine” from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.

My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.

The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage.

And it made no difference whatever whether the colonists behaved decently or not. The companions of Cortez and Pizzaro or ( as some people will remind us ) our own ancestors under Joshua Ben Nun, behaved like brigands; but the Pilgrim Fathers, the first real pioneers of North America, were people of the highest morality, who did not want to do harm to anyone, least of all to the Red Indians, and they honestly believed that there was room enough in the prairies both for the Paleface and the Redskin. Yet the native population fought with the same ferocity against the good colonists as against the bad.

Every native population, civilised or not, regards its lands as its national home, of which it is the sole master, and it wants to retain that mastery always; it will refuse to admit not only new masters but, even new partners or collaborators.

This is equally true of the Arabs. Our Peace-mongers are trying to persuade us that the Arabs are either fools, whom we can deceive by masking our real aims, or that they are corrupt and can be bribed to abandon to us their claim to priority in Palestine , in return for cultural and economic advantages. I repudiate this conception of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are five hundred years behind us, they have neither our endurance nor our determination; but they are just as good psychologists as we are, and their minds have been sharpened like ours by centuries of fine-spun logomachy. We may tell them whatever we like about the innocence of our aims, watering them down and sweetening them with honeyed words to make them palatable, but they know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want. They feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico, and the Sioux for their rolling Prairies.

To imagine, as our Arabophiles do, that they will voluntarily consent to the realisation of Zionism, in return for the moral and material conveniences which the Jewish colonist brings with him, is a childish notion, which has at bottom a kind of contempt for the Arab people; it means that they despise the Arab race, which they regard as a corrupt mob that can be bought and sold, and are willing to give up their fatherland for a good railway system.

There is no justification for such a belief. It may be that some individual Arabs take bribes. But that does not mean that the Arab people of Palestine as a whole will sell that fervent patriotism that they guard so jealously, and which even the Papuans will never sell. Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised.

That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of “Palestine” into the “Land of Israel.”

Some of us have induced ourselves to believe that all the trouble is due to misunderstanding – the Arabs have not understood us, and that is the only reason why they resist us; if we can only make it clear to them how moderate our intentions really are, they will immediately extend to us their hand in friendship.

This belief is utterly unfounded and it has been exploded again and again. I shall recall only one instance of many. A few years ago, when the late Mr. Sokolow was on one of his periodic visits to Palestine, he addressed a meeting on this very question of the “misunderstanding.” He demonstrated lucidly and convincingly that the Arabs are terribly mistaken if they think that we have any desire to deprive them of their possessions or to drive them our of the country, or that we want to oppress them. We do not even ask for a Jewish Government to hold the Mandate of the League of Nations.

One of the Arab papers, ” El Carmel,” replied at the time, in an editorial article, the purport of which was this :
The Zionists are making a fuss about nothing. There is no misunderstanding. All
that Mr. Sokolow says about the Zionist intentions is true, but the Arabs know
that without him. Of course, the Zionists cannot now be thinking of driving the
Arabs out of the country, or oppressing them, not do they contemplate a Jewish
Government. Quite obviously, they are now concerned with one thing only- that
the Arabs should not hinder their immigration. The Zionists assure us that even
immigration will be regulated strictly according to the economic needs of
Palestine. The Arabs have never doubted that: it is a truism, for otherwise
there can be no immigration.

This Arab editor was actually willing to agree that Palestine has a very large potential absorptive capacity, meaning that there is room for a great many Jews in the country without displacing a single Arab. There is only one thing the Zionists want, and it is that one thing that the Arabs do not want, for that is the way by which the Jews would gradually become the majority, and then a Jewish Government would follow automatically, and the future of the Arab minority would depend on the goodwill of the Jews; and a minority status is not a good thing, as the Jews themselves are never tired of pointing out. So there is no “misunderstanding”.

The Zionists want only one thing, Jewish immigration; and this Jewish immigration is what the Arabs do not want.

This statement of the position by the Arab editor is so logical, so obvious, so indisputable, that everyone ought to know it by heart, and it should be made the basis of all our future discussions on the Arab question. It does not matter at all which phraseology we employ in explaining our colonising aims, Herzl’s or Sir Herbert Samuel’s.

Colonisation carries its own explanation, the only possible explanation, unalterable and as clear as daylight to every ordinary Jew and every ordinary Arab.

Colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim. It lies in the very nature of things, and in this particular regard nature cannot be changed. We cannot offer any adequate compensation to the Palestinian Arabs in return for Palestine. And therefore, there is no likelihood of any voluntary agreement being reached. So that all those who regard such an agreement as a condition sine qua non for Zionism may as well say “non” and withdraw from Zionism.

Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.

That is our Arab policy; not what we should be, but what it actually is, whether we admit it or not. What need, otherwise, of the Balfour Declaration? Or of the Mandate? Their value to us is that outside Power has undertaken to create in the country such conditions of administration and security that if the native population should desire to hinder our work, they will find it impossible. And we are all of us ,without any exception, demanding day after day that this outside Power, should carry out this task vigorously and with determination.

In this matter there is no difference between our “militarists” and our “vegetarians”. Except that the first prefer that the iron wall should consist of Jewish soldiers, and the others are content that they should be British.

We all demand that there should be an iron wall. Yet we keep spoiling our own case, by talking about “agreement” which means telling the Mandatory Government that the important thing is not the iron wall, but discussions. Empty rhetoric of this kind is dangerous. And that is why it is not only a pleasure but a duty to discredit it and to demonstrate that it is both fantastic and dishonest.

Two brief remarks:

In the first place, if anyone objects that this point of view is immoral, I answer: It is not true: either Zionism is moral and just, or it is immoral and unjust. But that is a question that we should have settled before we became Zionists. Actually we have settled that question, and in the affirmative.

We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmet agree with it or not.

There is no other morality.

In the second place, this does not mean that there cannot be any agreement with the Palestine Arabs. What is impossible is a voluntary agreement. As long as the Arabs feel that there is the least hope of getting rid of us, they will refuse to give up this hope in return for either kind words or for bread and butter, because they are not a rabble, but a living people. And when a living people yields in matters of such a vital character it is only when there is no longer any hope of getting rid of us, because they can make no breach in the iron wall. Not till then will they drop their extremist leaders, whose watchword is “Never!” And the leadership will pass to the moderate groups, who will approach us with a proposal that we should both agree to mutual concessions. Then we may expect them to discuss honestly practical questions, such as a guarantee against Arab displacement, or equal rights for Arab citizen, or Arab national integrity.

And when that happens, I am convinced that we Jews will be found ready to give them satisfactory guarantees, so that both peoples can live together in peace, like good neighbours.

But the only way to obtain such an agreement, is the iron wall, which is to say a strong power in Palestine that is not amenable to any Arab pressure. In other words, the only way to reach an agreement in the future is to abandon all idea of seeking an agreement at present. ”

Source: Likud Anglos: Jabotinsky’s “The Iron Wall”

Zeev Jabotinsky | The Likud Party

#APARTHEID #israel’s Likud, an extreme Right party being proud f their TERRORIST ROOTS (from top to bottom):

– Jabotinsky: Great fan of Mussolini, founder of Betar (zionist youth fascist league) and Irgun (Etzel)
– Begin, Irgun (aka “Etzel”): Bombings, murders, massacres including Deir Yassin, King David and Jaffa Ottoman House bombings and the hanging of 2 British Sergeants.
– Shamir, LEHI (aka “Stern Gang”): Bombings, murders, massacres Deir Yassin, political assassinations of UK’s Lord Moyne and UN Envoy Count Folke Bernadotte.
-Sharon (Unit 101):  Massacres of civilians including the massacre of Qibya by its IOF “Unit 101,the Revenge Commando”, he was Also found responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacre in Lebanon.

Well all they are missing is a page on Meir Kahane:  After all Jabotinsky was a family friend of the Kahane’s and visited them often in NY including while Bibi Netanyahu’s father was his personal secretary … Well the apple never falls far from the tree …


See the Likud’s page: Zeev Jabotinsky | The Likud Party