Major Victory in War on Terror: US Court Says Iran, Hamas Liable for Stabbing Attacks

A federal court in Washington ruled that terror victims can sue state sponsors of terror like Iran and Syria and terrorist groups like Hamas.

By Yakir Benzion, United With Israel

TAYLOR FORCE, et al., Plaintiff, vs. THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., Defendant. Civil Action No. 16-1468 (RDM)

In a big victory in the war on terror, a U.S. federal court ruled that countries that encourage terror can be sued for their role in so-called “lone wolf” terror attacks.

The decision means that state-sponsors of terror like Iran and Syria, and terror groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, can be held liable for damages in wrongful death suits. This means they can hit with multi-million or even billion dollar judgments for attacks by individuals inspired by the terrorist ideologies coming from such countries or terror organizations.

Even though many lone wolf attacks are not directly connected to any group or country, legal experts from the Shurat Hadin legal group successfully argued that terror groups and state sponsors of terror work behind the scenes to facilitate terror attacks, which appear to be spontaneous, lone wolf attacks, but in reality are ideologically connected to other organizations or state actors.

Shurat Hadin filed the case five years ago, representing 44 plaintiffs including Americans, Israelis and dual-citizens. The group has won judgments against Iran, Syria, Hamas, and and other terror groups in the past, but this is the first time that anyone has won a U.S. judgment against such groups for inspiring individual attackers.

“This is a precedent and a significant victory for the victims of terror,” said Jerusalem attorney Nitzana Darshan-Leitner, who heads Shurat Hadin-Israel Law Center.

Among the victims Darshan-Leitner represented was Jerusalem resident and American-Israeli dual citizen Richard Lakin, who along with two others was murdered in a brutal terrorist attack by Hamas members in 2015.

“The court found that behind every terrorist is a terrorist organization, so it is not an uncontrollable wave of attacks in which anyone can take a knife and stab at random Jews, but it is a deliberate and scheduled campaign by the Hamas organization,” Darshan-Leitner said, adding that had the legal war against terrorist organizations started earlier, it might have reduced the number of terror attacks.

“Now it is clear to everyone that ‘lone wolf’ as it is called in the lawsuit is not really lone, but it is a gang of wolves behind an extensive terrorist infrastructure, so the war must be at its roots,” she said.

Yesha chief David Elhayani doubles down on criticism of Trump plan

Settlement chief saves Trump plan is like a ‘gun to the head while being offered cake’. ‘My duty is to save us from existential threats.’

Arutz Sheva – Israel National News

David Rosenberg , 04/06/20 15:48


David Elhayani

David Elhayani                                                                                                   Penny Elimeleh

A top settlement leader fired back at the Likud Thursday, doubling down on his criticism of the Trump administration’s Middle East peace plan and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s sovereignty plan.

In an interview with Galei Tzahal Thursday, David Elhayani, the chief of the Jordan Valley Regional Council who also serves as the chairman of the Yesha Council – the umbrella group representing Israelis living in Judea and Samaria – reiterated his concerns regarding the US peace plan, warning it could leave Israel vulnerable to an ‘existential threat’, and compared the offer for Israel to apply sovereignty to parts of Judea and Samaria in exchange for final status talks with the Palestinian Authority to being threatened ‘with a gun to the head’ while being ‘offered cake’.

“If someone comes to me with a cake while holding a gun to my head will I just take some cake and then say goodbye?” Elhayani said. “My duty is to save us from the existential threats.”

A day earlier, Elhayani came under fire for his comments on the Trump administration, including his claim that the Trump Administration “does not have Israel’s security and settlement interests in mind” and that “the only thing they’re concerned about regarding the plan is promoting their own interests ahead of the upcoming election.”

President Trump and Jared Kushner, continued Elhayani Wednesday, “are not friends of the State of Israel.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu chastised Elhayani for his comments, defending the Trump administration’s record vis-à-vis Israel.

On Thursday, Knesset Speaker Yariv Levin (Likud) – who is part of the joint Israeli-American committee mapping the boundaries of the sovereignty plan for Judea and Samaria – excoriated Elhayani, saying: “David Elhayani’s outrageous and irresponsible comments about the American president deserve to be completely rejected and criticized. With all due respect to the head of the Yesha Council, he should be thanking President Trump for his great work which has benefited the State of Israel and the settlement movement.”

Elhayani fired back Thursday, accusing him of laying the groundwork for a future Palestinian state and evacuation of Israeli towns in Judea and Samaria.

“Yariv Levin would be better off dropping his snake skin and looking the Likud voters in the eyes and admitting that he is responsible for drawing up the map for the evacuations and the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

Oslo: Hudaybiyyah ‘peace’ treaty =taqiyya

OSLO: Taqiyya, Taqiyya, Taqiyya!

Muhammad … took an expedient view on lying. It is well known, for instance, that he permitted lying in three situations: to reconcile two or more quarreling parties, to placate one’s wife, and in war.[11] According to one Arabic legal manual devoted to jihad as defined by the four schools of law, “The ulema agree that deception during warfare is legitimate … deception is a form of art in war.”[12] Moreover, according to Mukaram, this deception is classified as taqiyya: “Taqiyya in order to dupe the enemy is permissible.”


Speech by Yasser Arafat, Johannesburg: “This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our Prophet Muhammad and Quraish, and you remember the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and considered it “Sulha Dania” [a despicable truce]. But Muhammad had accepted it and we are accepting now this [Oslo] peace accord.” Note: Arafat compares the Oslo Accords with the Hudaybiyyah peace treaty – a 10-year truce agreed between Islam’s Prophet Muhammad and the Quraish Tribe of Mecca. However, two years later, Muhammad attacked and conquered Mecca.


PLO Leader Yasser Arafat Calls For a Jihad to Recapture Jerusalem

PLO Leader Yasser Arafat Calls For a Jihad to Recapture Jerusalem

May 10, 1994

In a closed-door address at a Johannesburg mosque, PLO chairman Yasser Arafat delivers a brief speech in which he calls for a jihad to liberate Jerusalem.  The speech is secretly recorded by a South African journalist and subsequently broadcast on Israeli radio.  Arafat’s remarks come just days after the signing of the Gaza-Jericho Agreement in Cairo and only three days before Israeli forces will withdraw from Jericho.  Arafat is in South Africa to attend the inauguration of Nelson Mandela as President.

Arafat declares,

And long after this agreement (1993 Oslo Agreement) which is the first step and not more than that, believe me. There is a lot to be done. The jihad will continue and Jerusalem is not for the Palestinian People. It is for all the Muslim Uma, all the Muslim Uma. You are responsible for Palestine and for Jerusalem before me.

In addition to calling for the jihad on Jerusalem, Arafat also compares the unpopularity of the agreement with Israel among Muslims with the Hudaybiyyah Treaty signed by Muhammed in 628.  In that treaty, Muhammad agreed to a ten year truce with the Quraysh tribe who controlled Mecca.  After Quraysh supporters murdered some of Muhammad’s allies, Muhammad declared the treaty void and conquered Mecca.  Some listeners will believe that Arafat’s comparison of the Oslo agreement with the Hudaybiyyah Treaty is proof that he was just waiting for the right moment to violate the agreement with Israel.

The speech will draw condemnation from Israeli and American officials who will demand clarification.  It will provide fuel for those who oppose an agreement with the PLO and Arafat.

The photo shows PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and Israeli President Ezer Weizman shaking hands in front of South African President-elect Nelson Mandela on May 9, 1994.

“The Tantrum By Abbas”

The Palestinian leader is in no position to threaten or pressure Israel. Is he cutting off his nose to spite his face?

By Amb. Alan Baker, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs via JNS

In his May 18 declaration, Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority and PLO, announced that “[t]he Palestine Liberation Organization and the State of Palestine are absolved from all agreements and understandings with the American and Israeli governments and from all the obligations based on these understandings and agreements, including the security ones.”

This latest tantrum by Abbas, and subsequent actions to unilaterally halt security, health and other forms of cooperation with Israel, raise several interesting legal and political questions regarding the veracity and credibility of all and any Palestinian commitments, whether in the various documents comprising the Oslo Accords, or in other international commitments entered into by the Palestinians.

For if the Palestinian leadership feels that it can glibly and freely revoke solemn obligations in signed agreements, witnessed and guaranteed by international leaders, merely at the whim of Abbas and his close advisers and merely because they disapprove of, and even object to, speeches or Israeli policy statements, then one may indeed ask what value or reliability do any Palestinian commitments—past, present or future—hold?

What is perhaps curious, if not even sad, in Abbas’s declaration and actions is the fact that they are ostensibly not in response to any specific Israeli action that might be interpreted as violating those agreements. Israel, true to its Oslo Accords obligations, has not made any unilateral alteration in the status of the territories.

The Palestinian actions are merely in response to a provision in the Israel government’s coalition agreement and a speech by Israel’s prime minister in the Israeli parliament, expressing possible intentions to apply Israeli law or sovereignty to parts of the territories at a later date, but without such actions having been actually taken and without any detail as to how and if such actions will indeed materialize.

To the contrary, the Trump peace plan invites the Palestinian leadership to involve itself in negotiating the implementation of the plan, with extensive financial and economic inducements that would greatly benefit the Palestinian population. But after having rejected the plan outright, and having removed himself from the negotiating table, Abbas is in no position to threaten or pressure Israel and the United States. He does not have at his disposal any right of veto.

In light of Abbas’s declaration absolving the Palestinians from all obligations, the question arises whether such abrogation, as well as the actual, unilateral violation by the Palestinian leadership of its commitments in the Oslo Accords, through actively obstructing and preventing security and other forms of bilateral cooperation, does not represent a material breach of those accords, rendering them frustrated and impossible to implement, and thereby enabling Israel to declare them void.

One may even ask the international community what value exists in the continued Palestinian fixation of acceding to international conventions in violation of their Oslo commitments, when they demonstrate so assertively that they can freely violate any commitments in such conventions and agreements, for no good reason.

Abbas justifies his actions against both the United States and Israel on the basis of his deep antipathy towards the Trump peace plan, to the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city, and his personal aversion to President Trump himself. But the Trump plan, in and of itself, violates no agreement as such. It merely sets out an ostensible framework for peace between the Palestinians and Israel, including the establishment of a Palestinian state and the granting of considerable economic benefits for the Palestinian people.

Indeed, one may ask how any of this could be seen to justify—legally or politically—Abbas’s declaration absolving the Palestinians from all agreements and understandings, and the subsequent instructions to obstruct and impede security cooperation with Israel, much of which serves the interests of the Palestinian leadership itself as well as the Palestinian population.

By the same token, practically speaking, one may ask how Abbas and his colleagues intend to free themselves from such obligations as that specified in the September 1993 Exchange of Letters of Mutual Recognition between PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, in the name of the Palestinian People, and Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, according to which the PLO head declared that “all outstanding issues relating to the permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.”

Similarly, the question arises how the abrogation of security cooperation obligations will affect the very central and vital Palestinian commitments in the Oslo Accords to “take all measures necessary in order to prevent acts of terrorism, crime and hostilities.”

By the same token, their specific obligations to prevent and to act against incitement and hostile propaganda as well as to cooperate in preventing criminal activity, drug trafficking and the like, represent central obligations which, inasmuch as they are not already being repeatedly violated by the Palestinians, constitute a fundamental component of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship.

The implications of the violation of such commitments could be considerable and most serious inasmuch as they represent the very heart of the neighborly relationship between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Freeing Israel to Pursue its own Interests

Their formal abrogation by the Palestinian leadership, for no apparent or justifiable reason, could indeed be seen to be a fundamental breach of the accords, entitling Israel to consider them void and to pursue its own vital security and territorial interests without being limited by any obligations emanating from the Oslo Accords. This is particularly significant in relation to those provisions dealing with security of the airspace and security along the Gaza coastline and provisions granting rights of Palestinian VIP and police passage.

Even in the long list of non-security-related fields of cooperation and coordination covered by the Civil Affairs Protocol to the Interim Agreement, including health, agriculture, water and sewage, telecommunications, fisheries, fuels, quarries, tourism and transportation, as well as the other protocols to the agreement covering legal cooperation, economic and financial relations, Abbas’s whimsical termination of the agreement with Israel would cause considerable harm and suffering to his own population.

The Palestinian declaration should be taken very seriously, both by Israel, the United States and the international community, all of whom have a serious stake in maintaining the integrity of the peace process.

Alan Baker is director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center and the head of the Global Law Forum. He participated in the negotiation and drafting of the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians, as well as agreements and peace treaties with Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon. He served as legal adviser and deputy  director-general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry and as Israel’s ambassador to Canada.

The Farhud

The outbreak of mob violence against Baghdad Jewry known as the Farhud (Farhud is an Arabic term best translated as “pogrom” or “violent dispossession”) erupted on June 1, 1941. It was a turning point in the history of the Jews in Iraq.

In the 1940s about 135,000 Jews lived in Iraq (nearly 3 percent of the total population), with about 90,000 in Baghdad, 10,000 in Basra, and the remainder scattered throughout many small towns and villages. Jewish communities had existed in this region since the 6th century BCE, hundreds of years before Muslim communities established a presence in Iraq during the 7th century. The Jews shared the Arab culture with their Muslim and Christian neighbors, but they lived in separate communities. Jewish assimilation into Muslim society was rare.

With the establishment of the Iraqi state under the British Mandate in 1921, Jews became full-fledged citizens and enjoyed the right to vote and hold elected office. The Jewish community had between four and six representatives in the Parliament and one member in the Senate. The community was headed by a president, Rabbi Sasson Khedhuri (1933-1949; 1954-1971), an elected council of 60 members, and two executive committees—the spiritual committee for religious issues and the secular committee for managing the secular affairs of the community organizations. Its elite included also high-ranking officials, prominent attorneys and dignitaries, and wealthy merchants. This status of the Jews did not change in 1932, when Iraq gained independence under British informal rule.

In the spring of 1941, Britain was enduring one of its worst periods in World War II. Most of Europe had fallen to the Axis forces, German planes were bombing British cities in the Blitz, and German submarines were exacting a tremendous toll on British shipping. Having driven the British out of Libya, the Afrika Korps under General Erwin Rommel was camped along the Egyptian border and poised to thrust eastward to the Suez Canal. The German Wehrmacht (armed forces) had driven the British out of Greece and Crete, eliminating their last beachhead on continental Europe. British chances of winning the war appeared slim.

Such catastrophic setbacks severely impacted Britain’s presence in the Middle East. Since June 1940, the Vichy government had controlled Syria and Lebanon, and pro-Axis sentiment was prevalent among Egypt’s indigenous government bureaucracy.

In this context, Rashid ‘Ali al-Kailani, an anti-British nationalist politician from one of the leading families in Baghdad, carried out a military coup against the pro-British government in Iraq on April 2, 1941. He was supported by four high-ranking army officers nicknamed the “Golden Square,” and by the former Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husayni. Since his arrival in Baghdad in October 1939 as a refugee from the failed Palestinian revolt (1936-1939), al-Husayni had been at the forefront of anti-British activity. Following the coup, the supporters of the deposed pro-British rule, headed by the Regent, Abd al-Ilah, and foreign minister, Nuri al-Said, fled to Transjordan. In Iraq, Rashid ‘Ali al-Kailani formed a pro-German government, winning the support of the Iraqi Army and administration. He hoped an Axis victory in the war would facilitate full independence for Iraq.

The rise of this pro-German government threatened the Jews in Iraq. Nazi influence and antisemitism already were widespread in Iraq, due in large part to the German legation’s presence in Baghdad as well as influential Nazi propaganda, which took the form of Arabic-language radio broadcasts from Berlin. Mein Kampf had been translated into Arabic by Yunis al-Sab’awi, and was published in a local newspaper, Al Alam al Arabi (The Arab World), in Baghdad during 1933-1934. Yunis al-Sab’awi also headed the Futtuwa, a pre-military youth movement influenced by the Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) in Germany. After the coup d’etat, al-Sab’awi became a minister in the new Iraqi government.

Concerned that Iraq, as a pro-Axis bridgehead in the Middle East, would inspire other Arab nations, and increasingly worried that their access to oil supplies as well as their communications and transportation routes to India were now seriously threatened, the British decided to occupy the country. On April 19, British Army units from India landed in Basra while the British-led Arab Legion troops (Habforce) moved east into Iraq from Transjordan. By the end of May, the Iraqi regime collapsed and its leaders fled first to Iran and from there to German-occupied Europe.

Because the British did not wish to appear to be intervening in Iraq’s internal affairs, they preferred Iraqi troops, who were loyal to Regent Abd al-Ilah, to be the first to enter Iraq’s cities. British authorities also hoped to transfer control of Iraq directly to the Regent and his government. After occupying Basra in the middle of May, the British refused to enter the city and, as a consequence, there occurred widespread looting of goods in the shops in the bazaars, many of which were owned by Jews. Arab notables sent night watchmen to protect Jewish possessions and many gave asylum in their homes to Jews.

In Baghdad the results of this policy were much more severe. On the afternoon of June 1, 1941, when the Regent and his entourage returned to Baghdad and British troops surrounded the city, the Jews believed that the danger from the pro-Nazi regime had passed. They ventured out to celebrate the traditional Jewish harvest festival holiday of Shavuot. Riots broke out, targeting the Jews of Baghdad. These riots, known as the Farhud, lasted for two days, ending on June 2, 1941.

Iraqi soldiers and policemen who had supported Rashid Ali al-Gailani’s coup d’etat in April and Futtuwa youths who were sympathetic to the Axis incited and led the riots. Unlike in previous incidents, rioters focused on killing. Many civilians in Baghdad and Bedouins from the city’s outskirts joined the rioters, taking part in the violence and helping themselves to a share in the booty. During the two days of violence, rioters murdered between 150 and 180 Jews, injured 600 others, and raped an undetermined number of women. They also looted some 1,500 stores and homes. The community leaders estimated that about 2,500 families—15 percent of the Jewish community in Baghdad—suffered directly from the pogrom. View This Term in the Glossary According to the official report of the commission investigating the incident, 128 Jews were killed, 210 were injured, and over 1,500 businesses and homes were damaged. Rioting ended at midday on Monday, June 2, 1941, when Iraqi troops entered Baghdad, killed some hundreds of the mob in the streets and reestablished order in Baghdad.

The causes of the Farhud were political and ideological. On the one hand, the leaders of this pogrom View This Term in the Glossary identified the Jews as collaborators with the British authorities and justified violence against Jewish civilians by linking it to the struggle of the Iraqi national movement against British colonialism. Other Arab nationalists also perceived the Baghdad Jews as Zionists or Zionist sympathizers and justified the attacks as a response to Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine. Nevertheless, killing helpless Jews, including women and children, was an unprecedented phenomenon that contradicted Muslim law. In this situation, antisemitic ideology, derived in part from Nazi propaganda, helped to legitimize murdering Jews in Iraq.

The consequences of this pogrom View This Term in the Glossary stunned the Jewish community in Baghdad. Generally unarmed and lacking military training and self-defense skills, Baghdad Jews felt vulnerable and helpless. Many decided to leave Iraq. Hundreds fled to Iran, others went to Beirut, Lebanon, and some even obtained temporary visas for India. A few hundred Jews tried to reach Palestine, but most of them were forced to stop at some point on the way, either by the Iraqi police, which did not allow Jews to immigrate to Palestine, or by Palestinian police, enforcing strict immigration quotas (the White Paper of 1939). Most of the refugees, however, returned to Baghdad after the political situation had stabilized and the Iraqi economy had begun to prosper again.

The Jewish community in Baghdad experienced a rapid return to economic prosperity under British occupation during the remainder of the war years. Wealthy Baghdad Jews and the remittances of Iraqi Jewish émigrés contributed significantly to the reestablishment of commerce and restoration of property. As a further incentive to returning refugees, the Iraqi government paid compensation to the victims of the community in the sum of 20,000 dinars. The emotional and psychological wounds following the Farhud, however, were not so easily healed. Many members of the community remained in a state of profound shock that undermined their sense of security and stability, eventually prompting them to question their place within Baghdad’s society.

Following the Farhud, Jewish leaders also faced a difficult political dilemma. The Farhud had demonstrated that Jews were perceived by many in the Arab nationalist movement and the religious and conservative right as collaborators with and beneficiaries of British colonialism and its alleged Iraqi puppets. On the other hand, Jewish leaders were in fact well-integrated in urban society in Baghdad. Some held public office, others were prominent in economic life, and many had friendly relations with politicians and leaders. Moreover, the hostility of the Arab nationalists toward the Jews only increased their dependence on the pro-British regime. Jewish leaders therefore chose to downplay the potential for danger and tended to dissuade community activists from steps that might have incited an Arab nationalist response. Jewish leaders preferred quiet, personal, indirect diplomacy to overt political activism. The Jews in Parliament adopted the same policy: they never voted against the Iraqi government and never publicly defended the rights of the Jewish minority.

The middle-class intelligentsia in the Jewish community also faced a profound political and cultural crisis. Educated, generally well-to-do, and active as journalists, authors, and poets, Jewish intellectuals in Baghdad had perceived themselves as partners in creating Iraqi culture; they now felt rejected and betrayed. Their faith in the prospect of Jewish integration in Iraqi society had suffered a severe shock. More profound still was the sense of disillusionment among the youth. The bloodshed prompted many of them to reject the cautious policies of the traditional leadership and to respond in a radical fashion. The nationalists among them were attracted to the Zionist movement; young Jewish socialists sought meaning in the Communist party. While the former envisioned the future in Palestine, the latter imagined a just and socialist order for all people with the triumph of socialism in Iraq. Young people who did not identify with either camp sought to emigrate to the United States, England, France, Canada, and elsewhere in the West. In Iraq itself, a few groups of young people formed self-defense organizations and sought to arm themselves. These organizations had been the basis of the ‘Haganah’ (defense) Organization in Iraq, which functioned until 1951.

The Farhud ultimately intensified anxiety among Baghdad’s Jews, who now worried about Axis victories in the war, escalating violence in Palestine, growing Iraqi nationalist opposition, and the departure of the British from Iraq. The Farhud also marked a new era of Muslim-Jewish relations in Iraq, when discrimination and humiliation became further compounded by concerns about a direct physical threat to Jews’ survival.

Among Arabs the whole event was repressed and nearly forgotten. Arab writers of the time mentioned the Farhud only vaguely, and explained it as a consequence of Zionist activity in the Middle East. In contrast, Iraq’s Jews now perceived that threats to Jewish lives existed not only in Europe but also in the Middle East. In 1943, because of both the ongoing murder of European Jewry as well as antisemitism in Arab countries, Iraq’s Jewish communities were included in Zionist plans for immigration and establishing the Jewish state.

By 1951, ten years after the Farhud, most of the Iraqi Jewish community (about 124,000 Jews out of 135,000) had immigrated to the State of Israel.

PA policeman to be indicted for murder of Ben Yosef Livnat

9 years after murder at Joseph’s Tomb, prosecution will submit indictment against PA police officer involved in the attack.


Arutz Sheva Staff , 31/05/20 14:45


Ben Yosef Livnat

Ben Yosef Livnat                                                                             Courtesy of the family

The military prosecution on Sunday will indict Salah Muhammad Salah Hamad, a Palestinian Authority police officer involved in the murder of the late Ben Yosef Livnat 9 years ago.

Salah was in protective custody until a few weeks ago in the Palestinian Authority, and upon release, Israeli security forces arrested him.

After the investigation today, the military prosecution will indict him for murder in the Samaria military court.

Attorney Haim Bleicher of the Honenu legal organization, which is accompanying Livnat’s family, said, “Today an important indictment will be filed for the murder of Ben Yosef Livnat by a squad of Palestinian police officers who came to Joseph’s Tomb, saw worshipers there and began spraying their vehicles with bullets for no reason other than that they were Jews.”

“We are strengthening the military prosecution to do justice and finally bring the murderers to prison for their entire lives. We hope that also with the additional terrorist who is tried, and now we are in his appeal proceedings, justice will be done and he will go to prison for his entire life, as will the rest of the squad who are in protective custody in the Palestinian Authority,” Bleicher added

Kingdom of Eretz Yisrael: Official Gazette No. 4


Kingdom of Eretz Yisrael

Official Gazette

No. 4

Jerusalem Material Claims Conference

Justice, Justice shall you pursue….” Deut. 16:18-20

Zion shall be redeemed with justice, And they that return of her with righteousness.” Isaiah 1.27

“And Judah also shall fight for Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the nations round about shall be gathered together, gold, and silver, and apparel, in great abundance.” Zechariah 14.14


Whereas, it is the OFFICIAL POLICY of the “Kingdom of Eretz Yisrael” that the Jewish Tribal territories of Judea, Shomron/Samaria, Gad, Reuven and Manasseh should be held as Trust Territories by the State of Israel; and,

Whereas on or about 24 July 2018 the Secretary General for the Tzionist Liberation Organization recommended that Jews, Christians and Muslims hold  a “material claims conference” in Jerusalem to secure reparations and restitution against the Arab League; and,

Whereas, “ the participants of the conference “Justice for Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries”, declared that they fully support the rights of Jews displaced, expelled or who fled Arab countries, to justice, rights and redress. [….] As the organizing body in the Arab world and the organization which drafted legislation against the Jewish communities in 1947, we hold the Arab League responsible for the exodus of Jews from Arab countries.”

Read the full Jerusalem Declaration on Justice for Jews from Arab Countries

Whereas, it is the OFFICIAL POLICY of the “Kingdom of Eretz Yisrael” that  “For any peace process to be credible and enduring, it must address the rights of all Middle East refugees, including Jewish and other minority populations that were displaced from Arab countries.”

Whereas, on or about 19 May 2020 the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) officially announced an end to the Oslo Accords; and,

It is the opinion of the Secretary General for the Tzionist Liberation Organization that on or about 13 October 2020 Jews, Christians and Muslims hold  a “material claims conference” in Jerusalem to secure reparations and restitution against the Arab League and the PLO; and,

Nothing Follows ////