Netanyahu agrees to expel Jews from their homes

June 2, 2012

(CARL) warned you all five years ago. Who listened?
Prime Minister Netanyahu announced this evening that the Netanyahu-Barak-Lieberman government is going to expel 30 Jewish families from their homes in Beit El (which means House of God) in Samaria. Netanyahu tried to throw a sop to the revenants saying that for every home that the Supreme Court asks him to destroy, the Netanyahu-Barak-Livni Lieberman government will build ten more, but apparently he’s no better at Math than he is at telling it straight. He’s destroying 30 homes and will build 50 new ones instead (maybe, eventually, if there’s money and if he gets around to it and if Ehud Barak agrees and if the homes cannot be rebuilt elsewhere).

As part of Netanyahu’s decision, the government will reimburse and relocate the settlers. The homes themselves will not be demolished, according the the Channel 2 report, but will rather be detached from their infrastructure and physically moved to a nearby settlement. In addition, Netanyahu will allow 50 homes to be built in Beit El – 10 times the number of homes being evacuated in Ulpana, Channel 2 reported.
“The settlement enterprise will be advanced through building,” Channel 2 quoted Netanyahu as saying. “For every home we are forced to evacuate, we will build 10 in its place.”
The prime minister came out against MKs calling for legislation that would legalize the settlements, calling the solution unhelpful and saying that it would harm Israel’s standing within the international community.

And moving the homes elsewhere in Samaria (assuming they get there intact) will help our standing in the international community? And building 50 more homes (assuming Ehud Barak ever approves them – fat chance – will improve our standing in the international community? You’ve got to be kidding. Here’s the Supreme Court’s Knesset member.

Meretz leader Zehava Gal-On congratulated the prime minister on his decision, stating that she hoped his intentions would be carried out. Gal-On, however, criticized Netanyahu’s alleged desire to build 50 new structures in the Beit El settlement in place of those being evacuated in Ulpana.
“Netanyahu’s promise to increase building in Beit El grants a reward to law-breaking settlers in the territories and encourages committing more crimes. The prime minister is applying a death blow to the peace process, leading to the establishment of one state, and exposing the unity government for what it really is,” Gal-On stated.

Just like the Arabs, she takes any concession she’s given and then reopens the point asking for more.
YNet adds:

MK Arieh Eldad (National Union) slammed the decision. “Netanyahu’s behavior is befitting the ‘liar’ label that was given to him by his partner, (Minister Shaul) Mofaz,” Eldad said. “Only legislation can prevent destruction.
“He is displacing Migron and Ulpana,” he added. “All that’s left for Netanyahu to do in order to achieve world peace is to shift Jerusalem to New York.”

Peace Now Director General Yariv Oppenheimer [Googleheimer. CiJ] voiced similiar sentiments. Oppenheimer expressed contentment with the decision, but asserted that the decision to expand settlement construction is detrimental to Israel’s interests.
“Netanyahu’s decision to implement the High Court’s ruling is in line with the founding principles of democracy, and should be obvious,” he said. “His decision to apply a price tag and expand the settlements will hurt the State of Israel first and foremost, and will reward law-breaking settlers.”

And the Times of Israel reports that the commitment to build ten new homes for each one destroyed will only go into effect if the homes being destroyed cannot be rebuilt. And if Attorney General Weinstein agrees. I guess Netanyahu is taking lessons from Hussein Obama in leading from behind.

Netanyahu said that if everything went according to plan, Ulpana’s five contested buildings — home to some 30 families, and built on what the state accepts is privately owned Palestinian land — would be transplanted several hundred meters away. However, in the event that the houses would have to be demolished rather than transplanted, 10 more would be built in Judea and Samaria, pending the approval of Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein.
“The settlement enterprise will be strengthened by construction; in place of every house we are forced to evacuate, we will build 10,” said the prime minister.

And Israel Radio reports (11:00 pm) that the government is only ‘investigating the possibility‘ of moving the homes someplace within Beit El.
But the biggest consequence is the one raised by MK Zevulun Orlev (National Religious Party) as reported by Israel Radio: There will be dozens more claims brought to the Supreme Court (and under Israel’s bizarre system they can be brought directly to the Supreme Court) that hundreds of houses are built on ‘private Palestinian land.’ What could go wrong?


Samaria in a sewage stalemate

February 4, 2012

Sewage west bankJooos Good For Terrorists to POOP ON! – Ecological Intifada (Image: Sewage west bank part of Israel complains of Palestinian ecological damage) – (SHARON UDASIN – The Jerusalem PostIMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis – Website: www.imra.org.il via WritingTW) All but one of 22 Palestinian villages refuse connection to sewage line, Environmental Protection Ministry says. Swirling in the strikingly green valley below the southern Samaria community of Nofim is a rambling stream amid grass and trees – filled with dangerous quantities of sewage.A subterranean sewage pipe connects to the underbellies of four of the five
surrounding settlements – Nofim, Yakir, Etz Ephraim and Sha’arei Tikva – and will within a few months also connect to that of Ma’aleh Shomron, bringing all of the effluent to a treatment facility in Eliyahu.
Despite Israeli offers to connect the 22 surrounding Palestinian villages to the same pipe, all but one of them refused the proposal, Environmental Protection Ministry and Shomron Regional Council officials explained during an exclusive tour of the area on Thursday.
Instead, their sewage flows into the aquifer below and ends up directly in the stream, according to the officials.
“That’s a testament to the fact that we are doing everything we can to prevent pollution in Judea and Samaria, but nevertheless, the Palestinians refuse to cooperate,” Environmental Protection Minister Gilad Erdan told The Jerusalem Post during the tour.
Although planned about 15 years ago, the pipeline was only constructed about eight years ago, and a decade ago sewage from the settlements as well flowed directly into the stream, according to Shomron Environmental Association director Itzik Meir. Erdan expressed hope that donor countries would agree to only continue giving the villages financial support if they agree to connect to the sewage pipeline. Meanwhile, he also said he hoped that the relationship between the local Palestinian and Israeli communities would improve, though he certainly has doubts about this matter.
“Hopefully I will be surprised,” he said.

Piece Activist

When the leader of Palestine AKA Abbas AKA Abu Mazen speaks at the U.N., when he isn’t talking about his fake Piece, he is usually tipping his hat to Al Gore and the lemmings in America by talking about a clean environment. You would think with all the U.S tax payer dollars going to the Muslims in Israel to prop up a fictional Nazi State called Palestine that he would do something about this. …but the problem is that the Muslims don’t love their land. They just don’t want the Jews to have it.“It’s important for me to reveal whether they’re making political use of water,” Erdan said. “Or maybe it’s a problem of misunderstanding – but that is hard for me to believe.”
Another Environment Ministry official was slightly more optimistic, explaining that one of the 22 villages had, in fact, recently agreed to hook up to the sewage pipe, a deal that would be finalized in a few weeks time. The official said he could not reveal the name of the village at this point. Yet a third official told the Post he suspected that the local Palestinian governments were unwilling to connect their villages due to “political
reasons” – simply “because they don’t want to recognize Israel as a presence in the area.”
The Palestinian Water Authority could not be reached by press time.

Shit!


Anti-Zionists freak over "Judea and Samaria"

December 26, 2011

(EOZ) Anti-Zionist activists are at it again, freaking out over a week-old story in Arutz-7:

According to a report in Israel National News, the commander of Israel Army Radio, the national radio station in Israel operated by the Israel Defense Forces, has determined that all the station’s reporters should refer to the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria.” The report states the decision was made as a result of complaints made by Israel Media Watch that the radio station’s referral to the area as the “West Bank” gives the impression to listeners that the territory does not in fact belong to Israel.
Israel Army Radio is a popular mainstream station in Israel listened to by people from across the political spectrum. It is thus significant that it is now being directed to use the same terminology used by the settler movement when invoking the Biblical, divine notion of “Greater Israel” that is completely detached from reality, diplomacy and human rights.

The author added:

I just chose to point out this news item since it is a good example of the “zeitgeist” in Israel, the slow unraveling of rhetoric that exposes the reality on the ground.

I love how these guys believe that “West Bank” is a historic term and “Judea and Samaria” are modern, rightist settler terms, a phrase daring enough to ring alarm bells in their little heads that cannot conceive of a Middle East before the 1970s.
So here’s a quick look through the news archives from the 1950s through the 1970s.
From a National Geographic News Bulletin, from 1956:

The Free Lance-Star, 1965:

The term “west bank” was used between 1948 and 1967, almost exclusively without capitalization.
Before there were any settlements, the Labor-led Israeli government called the area “Judea and Samaria” as this 1968 UPI article shows:

Soon, the anti-Israel crowd started to push the use of the term “West Bank” as a proper name. Note that happened after 1967, showing that it wasn’t a Jordanian initiative, Here’s an example of one of the earliest uses of the term as a proper name from an AP article written in 1971, referring to the “so-called West Bank:”

Soon the “so-called” part was dropped, but the two terms were used together for a while still. Here’s one from 1974, still with lower-case, from UPI:
But soon the Big Lie that only Israelis referred to the area as Judea and Samaria started to take hold. From Reuters, 1975:

And this lie spread so quickly that only two years later AP accused Israel of trying to rename the “West Bank” to Judea and Samaria!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a lie is created.
So today the use of the correct historical term for the area is considered extremist, and the use of the anomalous term created when Jordan illegally annexed the area for 19 years is considered normative.
(To their credit, most leftist commenters to the article cited noted that there is nothing political about referring to the area as Judea and Samaria. Calling it The West Bank, on the other hand, is purely political – first to make it appear as part of Jordan and later to avoid giving it any Biblical connotation.)


Freeze would be ethnic cleansing says Boogie

October 23, 2011
The IDF’s former chief of staff who resigned over the Gaza expulsion, and who is now number 3 on the Likud’s list, has openly allied himself with Feiglin. And again Binyamin Netanyahu is not pleased about losing the loyalty of Ya’alon. 
“The demand for territory without Jews anywhere else would be called ethnic cleansing,” Ya’alon said. “We cannot accept a demand for ethnic cleansing in the land of Israel.”
Vice Premier Moshe Ya’alon came out fiercely against a reported proposal for an Israeli construction moratorium in Judea and Samaria Saturday night, calling the prohibition of Jewish building “ethnic cleansing.”

Speaking to a packed audience at Jerusalem’s Great Synagogue, Ya’alon referred indirectly to a Haaretz report that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is willing to freeze all construction on government land in West Bank settlements if Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas resumes direct diplomatic negotiations.

Ya’alon said that Israel was under pressure from people who incorrectly believe the cause of the Middle East conflict is the building of homes in Judea and Samaria. He denounced that theory as “a corrupt way of thinking” and explained why the true cause of Middle East instability was the Islamic fundamentalism emanating from Iran.

The vice premier expressed confidence that an International Atomic Energy Association report set to be released on November 7 would expose to any remaining skeptics in the international community the military intentions of Iran’s nuclear program. He said he hoped sanctions on Iran could then be tightened.

Ya’alon called the Arab Spring “a regional earthquake” that exposed young Muslims to Western ideals such as human rights, women’s rights, freedom of speech, and “the sanctity of life as opposed to the sanctity of death.”

But he said he was not encouraged by radical elements apparently gaining the upper hand in Egypt and Tunisia, al-Qaida infiltrating Libya and Iran attempting to export its Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Arab world.

He made a point of not explaining his vote against the Gilad Schalit deal beyond what he had said before about his heart saying yes and his head saying no.

“We should be happy about the reunification of Schalit’s family but prepared to deal with the consequences for the future as a government and a society,” he said.


Arabs throw ROCKS at a Baby

September 22, 2011
(EYE on WORLD) Sadly, I blame Israel. They should have showered the Arabs with bombs, as a repercussion. Even a fool learns from experience.

(INN) Arabs threw rocks Wednesday at an Israeli car between Migdalim and Tapuach Junction in Samaria. A 20 month old girl was injured in the face.
The baby girl received treatment from Samaria Regional Authority medics and evacuated to a hospital. The Authority Head Gershon Mesika said: “The ‘men of peace’ of the Palestinian murder authority provide yet more proof, to those who still need it, as to just whom we are facing. We face low life terrorists who try to murder babies.”

“They hold an olive twig in their mouths and murder weapons in their hands. To these barbarian terrorists they want to give a state. The Nation of Israel is strong, the government needs to learn from it and be strengthened by its spirit – no to folding and surrendering, yes to construction and stamping out terrorism.”
An Israeli citizen was lightly wounded from rocks hurled by Arabs as he drove near Halhoul. Three Arabs were arrested Wednesday afternoon in confrontations with security forces near the Kalandiya checkpoint. Earlier, they threw rocks at IDF forces and burned tires.

Several dozen Arabs threw rocks at Border Policemen near Har Adar, not far from Jerusalem. No one was hurt. The policemen used riot dispersal gear to scatter the rioters.


Demographic trends in the Land of Israel

June 9, 2011

Clearly, Obama and Rahm Emanuel anchored their arguments in the conjured estimates of the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. A 2006 World Bank study found a “32% ‘inflation’ in the number of Arab births, ” alleged by the Palestinians.

A more recent comprehensive study on Jewish-Arab Demographic Trends in the Land of Israel, published earlier this year by Yakov Faitelson, found that “ in 2011 there is a 66% Jewish majority … in the combined area of pre-1967 Israel, Judea and Samaria.”
The study demonstrated that “Despite 120 years of demographic calamity projections, the Jewish population in the Land of Israel succeeded to grow from a 5% minority to a 60% majority.”

“In 2010, the Jewish fertility rate is 63% higher than Lebanon’s, 53% higher than Iran’s, 33% higher than Turkey’s and Kuwait’s, 23% higher than Saudi Arabia’s, slightly higher than Egypt’s and only 7% and 4% lower than Jordan’s and Syria’s respectively.” “Israeli Arab fertility rate has collapsed since the 1970s [due to a most

successful integration into the infrastructures of education, employment, finance, politics, culture, sports, etc.]…It declined to 3.5 births per woman in 2009.”
“In 1995, there were 2.34 Jewish births per 1 Arab birth. In 2009-10, there were 3.12 Jewish births per 1 Arab birth.”

“The demographic trends within pre-1967 Israel are identical to those in Judea and Samaria…but, in a much faster pace. The fertility rate of Judea and Samaria Arabs dropped from 6.44 births per woman in 1990 to 3.12 births in 2010…lower than Israeli Arabs and substantially lower than the Jewish fertility rate in the Jerusalem region.”

1.  “Despite 120 years of demographic calamity projections, the Jewish population in the Land of Israel succeeded to grow from a 5% minority to a 60% majority.”
2.  “The expanded Jewish population (6,122,000) grows faster than the highest scenario of the 2007 projection made by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics.  The Arab population (1,573,000) grows in accordance with the lowest scenario.”
3. “According to the UN Population Division, the overall Middle East fertility rate peaked during the 1950s (6.33 births per woman) and declined gradually to 2.95 births in 2010.”
4. “The Jewish fertility rate has risen since 1995, reaching 2.9 in 2010.”
5. “In 2010, the Jewish fertility rate is 63% higher than Lebanon’s, 53% higher than Iran’s, 33% higher than Turkey’s and Kuwait’s, 23% higher than Saudi Arabia’s, slightly higher than Egypt’s and only 7% and 4% lower than Jordan’s and Syria’s respectively.”
6. “The growth in Jewish fertility is driven by secular and not by religious or ultra-religious Jews. Since 2003, there has been a decline in ultra-religious fertility…The surge in secular fertility is driven mainly by the Olim (immigrants) from the former USSR…Their children and grandchildren has adopted typical Israeli fertility rates. According to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, Israeli-born Jewish fertility rate was over 3 births in 2009.”
7. “Israeli Arab fertility rate has collapsed since the 1970s [due to a most successful integration into the infrastructures of education, employment, finance, politics, culture, sports, etc.]…It declined to 3.5 births per woman in 2009…By 2009 only 8.4% of 15 year old Arab women did not enroll in school.”
8. “In 1995, there were 2.34 Jewish births per 1 Arab birth. In 2009-10, there were 3.12 Jewish births per 1 Arab birth.”
9. “The demographic trends within pre-1967 Israel are identical to those in Judea and Samaria…but, in a much faster pace. The fertility rate of Judea and Samaria Arabs dropped from 6.44 births per woman in 1990 to 3.12 births in 2010…lower than Israeli Arabs and substantially lower than the Jewish fertility rate in the Jerusalem region.”
10. “Net-emigration from the Palestinian Authority was 321,239 during 2007-1994, averaging about 23,000 annually.”
11. “Mustafa Khawaja of the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics: Net-emigration in 2007 reached about 60,000…Jordan recorded 44,000 and 63,000 net-emigration, during the first eight months in 2009 and 2008 respectively, through its-controlled international passages along the Jordan River.”


Judea and Samaria leaders write a letter to the United Nations

May 4, 2011

Please see below letter signed by Shomron Governor Gershon Mesika, Beit El mayor Moshe Rosenbuam, Benyamin residents head Yitzchak Shadmi and others. In this letter local leaders demand that the Unite Nations rocognize Jewish rights to the area of Judea and Samaria AKA “West Bank”. This offers a just alternative to notions of establishing an Islamic regime in the area like was done in Gaza after Israeli pullout in 2005. (I received this letter via email from Shomron Liaison Office Executive Director David HaIvri).

Secretary-General of the United Nations
Mr. Ban Ki Moon
Dear Mr. Secretary-General:
In this letter we respectfully wish to draw your attention, inter alia, to the repeated references by the UN to the territories liberated by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War – territories until then illegally occupied by the Kingdom of Jordan – as “occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)” in UN communiqués. For your own most recent use of this term, see UN News Service, 23 March 2011, “UN Chief condemns bomb attack in West Jerusalem”. By repeatedly referring to the “occupied Palestinian territory” (or “occupied Palestinian territories” (as in UN News Service, 1 April 2011), you are unwittingly concealing from the public the true legal status of the lands to which you refer and causing the Jewish people unwarranted anguish. We describe hereunder in concise fashion the facts relevant to the topic:
The territories liberated in 1967 from the illegal Jordanian occupation that had lasted from the signing of the Israeli-Jordanian Armistice Agreement in 1949 to the second week of June 1967, are lands belonging eternally, legally and unambiguously to the Jewish People, as clearly shown as follows:
1.
The entire Land of Israel was promised and granted to the Jewish People, the descendants of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by the Almighty for all time, as recorded time and again in the opening Five Books of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Genesis 15:21; Deuteronomy 1:8 et al.), accepted by the adherents of the Christian faith whose Bible encompasses the aforementioned Books, and confirmed in various places in the holy book of Islam, the Kur’an (e.g., Sura 2 et al.). This fundamental precept of Jewish faith is reinforced by various expositions in another Jewish holy book, the Talmud, study of which is common not only in Jewish schools but also in those of South Korea.
2.
Despite the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and the expulsion by force of the Jewish People from their Land by the Roman Empire at the outset of the common era (70 C.E.) after over a thousand years of consecutive Jewish presence in the Land, the various Jewish communities throughout the world maintained their spiritual and historical connection with their Holy Land, and this connection was then recognized by the entire international community during the period from November 1917 (the issuance of the Balfour Declaration), through 1920 when Great Britain was entrusted with the Mandate for Palestine and enjoined thereby to ensure the implementation of the Balfour Declaration, and 1922 (with the 52 member-states of the League of Nations confirming the Mandate) to December 1925 (when the Anglo-American Convention Relating to the Mandate for Palestine signed a year earlier was proclaimed before Congress by President Coolidge). Thus was the de jure sovereignty of the Jewish People over all of its Land, which the nations called “Palestine”, confirmed, while attributes of sovereignty were entrusted to the United Kingdom in order that it might prepare world Jewry for the successful administration of its nascent Jewish State, soon to be established in all of the Holy Land, i.e., on both sides of the Jordan River – all this as determined by the World War I Principal Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920 and formalized in the Mandate for Palestine. For the entire Mandate period, Great Britain worked assiduously to wreck the implementation of the Mandate by means of a series of “White Papers” that distorted the original aim of the Mandate beyond recognition.
3.
Even as the League of Nations disintegrated, the founders of the UN organization, the new body intended to replace the now-defunct League and at the head of which you, Mr. Secretary-General, now stand, guaranteed the continuity of Jewish legal rights to the Land of Israel by means of Article 80 of the UN Charter. The UN General Assembly, however, brushed this article aside and recommended the partition of “Palestine”, (1947) an illegal recommendation rejected out of hand by the Arabs of the Land and by the leaders of the Arab states who were unwilling to concede even a square inch of land to the returning Jewish People. This GA resolution was never legal, was never of an obligatory nature, has been dead for over 63 years and cannot be resurrected. The very opposite is what is required of the UN at this time: to recognize the continuity of Jewish legal rights to the entire Land of Israel under Article 80 of the UN Charter!
4.
The ensuing war (1947-9) forced on Israel by the invading armies of five Arab states ended in the signing of armistice agreements perpetuating until the achievement of peace the military lines held by the sides when the cease-fire went into effect and stating explicitly that these lines were not to be considered final borders nor were they to influence in any way the final borders when these should be determined in peace agreements. This, Mr. Secretary-General, is the infamous Green Line, which the UN seems to regard illogically as a border (“the 1967 borders”) between Israel and the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria, who were never a party to any armistice agreement and who had never considered themselves a separate people to either exercise or even demand a theoretical right to self-determination – as demonstrated by their resounding silence during over 18 years of Jordanian occupation and unrecognized illegal annexation (1949-1967). This silence still echoes significantly through the corridors of time and serves to interpret subsequent “Palestinian” Arab maneuvering.
5.
In 1967, war – the Six-Day War – was once again forced on Israel by four Arab states: Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, as the inevitable result of the Egyptian dismissal of the small UN force that had for the previous decade maintained the fragile ceasefire between Egypt and Israel, of the naval blockade imposed by Egypt on shipping to and from Israel’s port of Eilat; of international reluctance to intervene; and of the placing of the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian armed forces under a unified command. One of the spectacular results of this war was the expulsion of Jordanian forces from the regions of Judea and Samaria (the regions Jordan had called her “West Bank”) and the summary end of the 18-year-long illegal Jordanian occupation of those lands.
6.
Naïvely hoping that the Arab states, after their stunning defeat, would realize there was no logical alternative but to come to terms with Israel and sign peace treaties with her in return for the territories they had lost in the war, the Israeli government unwisely refrained from incorporating Judea and Samaria into the State of Israel – as she was legally obligated to do, the Jewish people having been awarded de jure sovereignty over this territory at San Remo long before (1920) and this having been confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922 – and, instead of applying Israeli law to the liberated territories, voluntarily applied the humanitarian provisions of the Laws of War, as embodied inter alia in the Fourth Geneva Convention. This was a step taken by Israel, Mr. Secretary-General, not out of legal compulsion (as would have been the case had the areas held been captured from a legal sovereign), but merely to protect the inhabitants of Judea and Samaria for what was naïvely expected to be a short interim period. This demonstrates clearly, Mr. Secretary-General, the absurdity of considering this land “occupied”, despite contrary interpretations provided even by some of Israel’s own jurists of international acclaim, who have, in a sense, turned out to be no less than the Muammar Ghaddafi of the Jewish People.
7.
As even a beginning student of Middle East history is well aware, the Arabs responded with a resounding “NO!” to peace, “NO!” to negotiations with Israel and “NO!” even to the possibility of Arab recognition of the Jewish State.
8.
It was only in 1979 that Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel and much later, in 1994, that Jordan did likewise. The Arabs living in the Land of Israel have refused to this day to end their hostilities, incitement and criminal terrorism against the Jews and the Jewish State; indeed, some “Palestinian” factions have entered into negotiations with Israel, but never have they been prepared to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion, despite the painful concessions Israel has offered them in order to achieve peace.
9.
The time has undoubtedly come – in fact, it is long overdue, Mr. Secretary-General – for the international community as represented by the UN to recognize the fact that the Arabs of the Land of Israel do not want their own state, nor do they want to conclude a peace agreement with the State of Israel; all they desire is the destruction of Israel; the time has indeed come to reaffirm international recognition of the immutable rights of the Jewish People to all of their historical homeland.
10.
Let us consider two cases in modern history, Mr. Secretary-General, [1] that of Namibia and [2] that of Jordan:
[1] Just as the Principal Allied Powers of World War I granted a mandate for Palestine to Great Britain at San Remo in 1920, so they granted the Union of South Africa a mandate for South-West Africa. Unlike the British, who informed the UN in 1947 of their desire to rid themselves of their mandate, South Africa refused to surrender the mandate with which they had been entrusted. While the UN – instead of transforming the Mandate for Palestine into a Trust Territory under the Trusteeship System, the successor to the earlier Mandate System, as the UN Charter required it to do – recommended by means of its General Assembly the illegal partition of Palestine, contrary to the express stipulations of the Mandate Charter and entailing the gross violation of the rights of the national beneficiary of the Mandate – the Jewish People, in the case of Namibia the UN brought pressure to bear on South Africa until that country relinquished its mandate and the new Republic of Namibia finally came into being in 1990.
Mr. Secretary-General, the blatant injustice of the UN position on the Land of Israel stands out clearly when compared with the UN position on Namibia. In the case of the Land of Israel / Palestine, the national beneficiary of the Mandate – the Jewish People – has been forcibly deprived of its rights, while in the case of Namibia, the UN acted forcefully to ensure that the aim of the Mandate for South-West Africa was achieved in full. It is no wonder, Mr. Secretary-General, that the UN – the organization which you head – is widely considered a biased, unfair and even anti-Semitic organization.
[2] The Kingdom of Jordan exists on some 75% of mandated Palestine. Its ruling class, the Hashemite family with the support of nomadic Bedouin tribes, accounts for no more than 30% of the population of the Kingdom, perhaps even less. The other 70% of the population of that country is made up of “Palestinian” Arab people, the very same people the Arabs of the Land of Israel consider themselves. It is thus untrue that the Arabs of the Land of Israel are stateless; on the contrary, in the neighboring Kingdom of Jordan they are an unshakable majority of the population living on “Palestine” soil. If the Arabs at present sojourning in the Land of Israel prefer to live in their own country, rather than in a Jewish state, they are free to join their brethren on the east bank of the Jordan River, where they can live in peace and tranquility among people of their own flesh and blood, and even more important, people of their own culture.
11.
We must also consider the ramifications of the illegal establishment of yet another Arab state in the heartland of the Land of Israel, Mr. Secretary-General. We could learn from the rhetoric of Lebanon’s Hizbullah and from that of the Hamas of Gaza what fate would be in store for the nearly 600,000 Jews living legally in Judea, Samaria and “East Jerusalem”, but there is no need to go so far afield: the representatives of the Palestinian Authority make it abundantly clear that the territory they hope some day to control must be given to them judenrein – without any Jewish inhabitants whatever. Do you appreciate, Mr. Secretary-General, what it would mean to displace illegally over half a million men, women and children? Israel finds it difficult to provide permanent homes for the eight or nine thousand persons uprooted from their homes and sources of livelihood in 2005, when Israel unilaterally and unwisely pulled out of the Gaza district. Are you aware of the catastrophe suffered in the 1920s by the millions of Bulgars, Greeks and Turks forced to flee their homes and relocate elsewhere? The Palestinian Authority has even enacted a death penalty to be imposed on any of their own people who sell real-estate to Jews.
In addition, it is clear how a so-called “Palestinian” state, illegal though it would be, would relate to the Jewish state, which to this day it actually refuses to recognize as such. By demanding of Israel to cede her own land to the Arabs, you are not only sentencing to relocation in refugee camps at best over half a million Jews, but also condemning the Middle East to yet another fierce war of Arab aggression, the possible results of which are too unspeakable to mention. Is this indeed your intention, Mr. Secretary-General? Can you reconcile this with International Humanitarian Law?
These, Mr. Secretary-General, are the historical and legal facts. One must conclude that demanding of Israel to cede to the Arabs any land belonging to the Jewish People by divine grant and by international law is tantamount to requiring of Israel to commit national suicide and render null and void recognized legal Jewish territorial rights to its national patrimony. It is thus your responsibility to advise and guide your organization to reaffirm the recognition by the international community of these legal Jewish rights under Article 80 of the UN Charter, while seeking to provide the Arabs at present living on this Jewish land with a simple solution to their desire to exercise political rights in their own country – i.e., in the Kingdom of Jordan.
Should you choose, Mr. Secretary-General, for any reason whatever to ignore the historical and legal facts enclosed in this letter, and continue with the present unjust and illegal policies of the UN, we shall feel free to act in accordance with the best interests of the Jewish people. This will entail at very least putting our case before an appropriate international judicial authority and suing for damages the persons responsible for this illegality.

Indeed. And it’s about time we started to assert our rights, no matter how politically incorrect that might be considered.