antisemitism, amending the the Israeli Law of Return, the Diaspora and UNGA Resolution 194(11)

B”H

Rabbi (Et. Al.) –

 

My thoughts on the rise of antisemitism, amending the the Israeli Law of Return, the Diaspora and UNGA Resolution 194(11) :

First, “Anti-Semitism has become mainstream – from the halls of Congress to the leader of the opposition in Britain,” Ya’acov Berman, Chabad Activist, NY.

In order to counter “antisemitism” and the [Palestinian] Arab’s claim for a right of return based on UNGA Resolution 194 (11); the State of Israel should amend the Law of Return and collectively naturalize (viz “PATRIATE”) all Jews of the Diaspora (e.g. Orthodox, Conservative and Reform) under the Law of Return – In this way, all Jews would be provided Israeli Consular Services and “enhanced protection services” at Synagogues and Jewish Community Centers would be ensured  and Jews would outnumber, that is, hold a demographic majority over the Arabs even if all Arabs of Palestinian extraction were absorbed by M’dinat Yisrael (the State of Israel)!
Second, UNGA Resolution 194(11) is premised on two conditions: the “return of Palestinians to Eretz Yisrael at the earliest practicable date, & on those wishing to live at peace with their neighbor” – Given the rise in antisemitism in the Arab world it does not appear that the Palestinians wish to live at peace with their Jewish neighbor.
The earliest practicable date at which the Palestinians could have “returned to Eretz Yisrael” is any time before they were “collectively naturalized” by King Abdullah I which is December 13, 1949. See my argument below for why they chose their status in international law; whether or not that decision was a good one or a bad one is not my concern. The Palestinian’s case is one against the Hashemites, not the State of Israel.

According to wikipedia – the total number of people who hold or are eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return — defined as anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent, and who does not profess any other religion — is estimated at around 23 million, of which 6.6 million were living in Israel as of 2015. Figures for these expanded categories are less precise than for the core Jewish population.

Based on these 2015 figures, there are an estimated 17 million Jews in the Diaspora who are eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return. This number may not include the number of converts to Judaism or those Anusim (descendants of Jews forced to convert to a non-Jewish religion) who might be eligible under the Law of Return.

****

King Abdullah I of Jordan collectively naturalized all Arabs of Palestinian extraction.
The subject of collective naturalization is discussed at length in Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135, (1892) and many cases cited and illustrations given.

Collective Naturalization can occur by legislation or by treaty.

In the case of Jordan –

On December 13, 1949, King Abdullah of Jordan passed a law amending the Law of Nationality of 1928. Accordingly, Jordanian citizenship was granted to all persons who were holding Palestinian citizenship and were habitually residing in Transjordan or in the “western area that [was] administered by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” (i.e., Jerusalem and the West Bank). (Of note is that this law excluded Jews from possessing Jordanian citizenship! But of course the Jews were ethnically cleansed from Jordan and Judea and Samaria by the Hashemites in violation of Article 15 of the Mandate for Palestine and the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 –

Talk about APARTHEID….)

(On the matter of why the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was established in violation of Articles 5, 15, and 25 I can make a clear argument on each point but that is not the purpose of this –  Article 15 states, “No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.” The ethnic cleansing of Jews from “Palestine” was an official act of antisemitism. No different than that of the ethnic cleansing of the rest of the Jews of the “Middle East Diaspora”…! The Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 while it replicated the Mandate for Palestine, and has expired; the right guaranteed under it to the Jewish People [see Article 80 of the UN Charter] do not expire. This is particularly true since that Treaty became the Supreme Law of the Land (USA) under our Constitutional law system, [enshrining the Mandate for Palestine and the Balfour Declaration into the official PUBLIC policy of the USA] see Howard Grief’s Book: The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law (9789657344521).)

On April 11, 1950, parliamentary elections took place in Jordan, covering both the East Bank and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Following these elections, the Jordanian House of Commons approved the amended law and parliament’s decision concerning the “unification of the two Banks.” Thus, Palestinians who were living in East Jerusalem and the West Bank became Jordanian citizens [by collective naturalization].
The recent de-naturalization of Jordanian citizens of “Palestinian Extraction” by King Hussein and by King Abdullah II has been found to violate the Jordanian Nationality Law. See HRW Report “Stateless Again” – The act of “disengagement” from Judea and Samaria by the Hashemites and declaring those Arabs of Palestinian Extraction (who have been de-naturalized) as Palestinian Citizens can not confer “Palestinian citizenship” on them as Palestine is not a state under the criteria of “Statehood” and must be viewed as a political stratagem designed to demographically destroy the State of Israel! (See Joel Gilbert’s documentary, “Farewell Israel” – Bush, Iran and the Revolt of Islam.) His attempt to cede Judea and Samaria in 1988 to the PLO is null and void as he renounced all claims to “the West Bank” and “what was not his to begin with was not within his power to cede!”
King Hussein explained his decision as one of deference to Palestinian wishes for national autonomy.
This statement flies in the face of the Jericho Conference of December 1948 led by Sheik Muhammad Ali Ja’abari, Mayor of Hebron and the April 1950 Parliamentary Elections wherein the Arabs of Palestinian Extraction exercised political independence and elected King Abdullah as their Sovereign!
Thus, the Palestinians acquired national autonomy when their duly elected representatives voted at the Jericho Conference in December 1948. Within a year all “non-Jewish Palestinians” were all “collectively naturalized” with the consent of the people through their elected Monarch, Abdullah I.
Just because the Hashemites have suspended the rights of the Arabs in the Lower House of Deputies and de-naturalized them should not place the onus on the State of Israel to accommodate them with a “right of return” under UNGA Res. 194(11) as they have exercised “self-determinism” under the Jericho Conference and the April 1950 Parliamentary Elections.
The US Dept. of State 1950 Report states the Jericho Conference determined the political status of the Arabs of “Central” Palestine “which took place as a result of a free expression of the will of the people.” Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume V, Page 1096
How many times do the “Palestinians” get to decide their political status? It is evident that they chose their status (as monarchists) and are barred by the doctrine of estoppel in pais from asserting a claim of the “right of return” (to wit, a claim of Palestinian Citizenship) based on inconsistent “political” positions.
Anyways, these are my thoughts on the subject of Collective Naturalization.
Be well, blessed and a success,
Yochanan Ezra ben Avraham

The Hashemites – A Foreign Power

The Hashemites are a “foreign power” having their origins in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

Since it is alleged that Schizophrenia is a gene trait of the Hashemites and it is admitted that the Hashemites are descended from Muhammad (a schizophrenic pedophile) and the establishment of the Hashemite kingdom of trans-Jordan by the United Kingdom of Great Britain violated Articles 5, 15 and 25 of the Mandate for Palestine in the following points; we demand the abdication of Abdullah II King of Jordan and a dissolution of the Hashemite Monarchy:

No establishment of a foreign power in Eretz Yisrael (the Mandate Territory);

Freedom of Immigration to Eretz Yisrael without respect to religion – No Apartheid

In the Eastern Territories of “trans-Jordan” the Articles of the Mandate were withheld as a temporary measure – Article 25’s clause to “postpone or withhold provisions of the mandate” did not contemplate the establishment of a permanent foreign power, (the Hashemites, a Muslim foreign entity) ruling over territory allocated to the Jews.

The clause “the administration of the territories” in Article 25 of the Mandate does not contemplate political independence or territorial sovereignty for the Hashemites in Eretz Yisrael. The Hashemites were given political independence in Iraq and Syria!

Political independence was guaranteed to the Arabs by the Treaty of Versailles in the Mandates for Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Syria, and as agreed upon in the Faisal- Weizmann Agreement; while political independence was guaranteed to the Jews of Eretz Yisrael and of the Diaspora in the Mandate for Palestine by Treaty Law in the San Remo Resolution of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.

(5) The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

(15) No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.

(25) In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.

 

the “NEW” Jordan – Sharia compliant?

Mudar Zahran: Will the “NEW” Jordan be Sharia compliant or will it be exclusively a Democratic state with a dissolution of the Monarchy? Inquiring minds want to know….
By Sharia compliant I mean to ask, will the New Jordan allow punishment for blaspheme against Muhammad, or will there be freedom of expression? Currently, Jordanian law permits punishment for the crime of blaspheme against the sensibilities of Jordanian Muslims even if “committed” in another country over the internet <https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/…/national-laws-on…>
It is an acknowledged fact that Muhammad had sex with Aisha when she was 9 years old. It can be demonstrated that Muhammad was a false prophet as Daniel prophesied: “he shall put down three rulers” (7.24) (this transpired in Yathrib
three large Jewish clans — the Banu-Nadir or “Sons of Nadir,” the Banu-Korayzeh and the Banu-Kainuka — dominated the city until Muhammad ordered their men to be slaughtered)
“he shall think to change the seasons and the law” (7.25)
“he shall not regard the desire of women” (11.37)
“he shall honor the god of war” (11.38); and,
“he shall speak words against the Most High” (Devarim 30.1-10 prophesies a restoration of the Children of Israel to HaShem and to the land of Israel; while Surah 1 condemns the Children of Israel as invoking the wrath of G-D…!)

Also, he changed the Qiblah contrary to King Solomon’s tefillah 1 Kings 8.41.

Muhammad got four historical facts wrong and therefore could not be a prophet:

1) He claims Miriam, the sister of Moshe was the mother of Yeshki (Jesus);

2) he claims Haman of Megillat Esther was in the “court” of Pharaoh;

3) and he claims that Pharaoh used the Roman method of crucifixion as a method for the death penalty;

4) and conflicting Islamic sources claim either Isaac or Ishmael was offered on the Altar by Avraham.

Moreover, Muhammad claims Yeshki was a prophet but it can be demonstrated that Yeshki falsely prophesied the restoration of the Kingdom of David within the lifetime of his disciples – Matthew 16:28, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

According to the Torah, every matter of false prophesy has to be established by two or three witnesses. Here, Matthew and Luke are witnesses AGAINST Jesus and establish his false prophesy twice!

So, again, I ask, in the “New Jordan” will freedom of expression be allowed?

Yochanan Ezra ben Avraham

Mudar Zahran Addresses Oxford Union

Watch Mudar Zahran | The Arab World Has Failed The Palestinian People (3/8) | Oxford Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Mudar Zahran in Jerusalem

Mudar Zahran (born 19 April 1973) is a Jordanian Palestinian writer who has been described as the secretary general of the Jordanian Opposition Coalition.[nb 1] In 2010, Zahran moved to live in the United Kingdom. In 2014, Zahran was indicted by a Jordanian military court on four separate charges against him.

Biography

Born on 19 April 1973, Zahran is a Jordanian national opposition writer of Palestinian origin.[1] Zahran’s parents were born in Jerusalem, and moved to Jordan during the period when the West Bank was under Jordanian control (1950–1967).[1] He has two master’s degrees and was reported in 2012 to have been completing a Ph.D in finance.[1] Before seeking asylum in the UK, Zahran was serving as assistant policy coordinator at the United States Embassy in Amman.[1]

In 2010, Zahran wrote an article in The Jerusalem Post that described Jordan as an apartheid state in its treatment against Palestinians;[2] he also claims the Jordanian state resembles that of former apartheid South Africa.[3] The article provoked an uproar of criticism by both Jordanians and Palestinians alike.[4] Shortly after the article was published, Mudar sent a letter of apology through Ammon News after his father Adnan Zahran threatened to cut off relations if the former wrote anything else and considered Mudar’s continuation of writing as “ingratitude” on a personal level against his father, and as an “ungratefulness” towards Jordan.[2] The father described Mudar’s writings as far from truth and reality.[2] Mudar vowed through the letter dating 26 July 2010 to “not publish any articles or reports in any language related to Jordanian domestic or foreign affairs.”[2] He continued: “This decision comes because of I have sensed clearly that my articles are being misunderstood and exploited by some against my precious country whether by ill intention or misunderstanding.”[2]

After leaving Amman to live in the United Kingdom in 2010, a local gazette published an announcement on 31 May 2011 by Amman’s Magistrates’ court calling on Mudar to present himself at court for a lawsuit filed against him by the HSBC bank branch in Jordan.[5] The announcement said he was called for failing to repay the bank amounts totaling up to 47,000 Jordanian dinars (about US$66,000).[6]

He told The Times of Israel in 2012, “The King (Abdullah II) is not going to survive, it’s out of the question… I give him until next summer, more or less. And even if I am wrong, I can’t see the King making it to 2014 by any stretch.”[1]

In December 2013, Zahran was charged by a Jordanian military court and scheduled to be tried in absentia for four separate charges against him: “inciting hatred against the regime, sectarian strife and insulting the king as well as security services.”[7] According to the Jordanian newspaper Al Ghad, “Zahran’s social networking sites carry articles and phrases offensive to Jordan and his own people (Palestinians).”[8] In February 2014, The Jerusalem Post reported that Zahran had been convicted and sentenced in absentia to jail with hard labor.[9] The reports concerning the length of his sentence differed, with AFP reporting earlier that he might face up to 15 years.[9]

According to The Jerusalem Post’s deputy managing editor Caroline Glick, she was contacted by three of her acquaintances in October 2017 who discouraged her from writing in support of Zahran. “They did not coordinate their calls. Each one told me independently that Zahran is not a credible source. He is not a leader of an opposition movement. He doesn’t have an organization. He has multiple websites, they said…” Her sentiment was shared by other Israeli right-wing writers and publications including the Elder of Ziyon blog.[10]

Personal life

Zahran lives in London and has two daughters and a son.

Saar: ‘Autonomy yes, state no’

Arutz Sheva – Israel National News

Shimon Cohen, 29/01/19 19:05

Gideon Sa’ar supports canceling ambiguity in Syria, demands Gantz express clear positions, says ‘There’s no division in Likud.’

 

Sa'ar

Sa’ar

Flash 90

Former minister and political security cabinet member Gideon Sa’ar spoke to Arutz Sheva about a series of issues from Likud primaries to Benny Gantz’s speech to Israeli policy in Judea and Samaria and the northern border.

Sa’ar began the conversation with reference to the difficult incident in Jerusalem where a synagogue was desecrated, a Holy Ark broken into, and holy books vandalized. We asked Sa’ar if the cause of the act might be growing polarization in Israeli society in light of the election campaign. Sa’ar is in no hurry to judge:

“I don’t want to get into speculation because facts aren’t known and the conjectures aren’t helpful, but I want to express shock at the harsh images. I can’t believe such things are happening here in the Land of Israel and I’m convinced the police will act decisively to locate and punish the criminals – sick souls infected with terrible hatred.”

As for Benny Gantz’s speech, we asked Sa’ar if he did not find a connection between Gantz’s There’s no Left and no Right campaign and Meir Shitrit’s statements when Kadima was founded, on striving for a party that has no “baggage” as he put it, of Jabotinsky or Katznelson.

In Sa’ar’s opinion, the statement that emerges from Gantz’s campaign is more serious than Shitrit’s statement: “Here we’re told more than Shitrit’s words, that there is no Right and no Left here; this is absurd, because there is a Right and there is a Left, there were always Left and Right and always there will be. Or he has no worldview or path but he wants to blur it, hide it, and mislead the voters.

“Out of respect for Gantz’s many years in the IDF uniform, I say it’s good that people who want to contribute and have rich life experience come along, but the ideological path is very important. It’s the most important thing. What’s your way? Are you for or against establishing another Arab state? Are you in favor of strengthening settlement? What are your positions on the tradition of Israel? In these things there is Right and Left, and people have to choose between them after a penetrating clarification that must be conducted in respectful language,” says Sa’ar, emphasizing that “in everyday life there are many ideological issues that require reference and decision.”

Sa’ar with supporters at Likud event

Flash 90

Perhaps, we asked, so much support for Gantz’s party before he expressed himself indicates the desire of the general public to find leadership that’s not clearly located on the Right or on the Left, but rather one whose statements are more obscure. Perhaps the general public is fed up with the struggles of the Right and the Left? Sa’ar replies: “The public is much more intelligent, the citizens want answers on social and economic issues, and the public has the right to hear answers to decide between the different paths, and I tell Ganz and his friends, do you have a path? Present it and let’s argue.” He believes the past experience of the Israeli public, which has been disappointed by leaders who have dulled down their position, will also be reflected in the upcoming vote at the polls.

On reports that Gantz is expected to call the government of Israel in his speech a corrupt government that is dividing the people, Sa’ar was asked to take a stand: “He hasn’t yet said what he has to say and I wouldn’t like to address what hasn’t yet been said. Even this refusal to relate to what hasn’t yet been said is part of serious discourse. With this I think there’s no room for collective accusations, which isn’t right for any public.”

On the possibility that Gantz’s might join Lapid, Sa’ar says it’s quite possible such a union should bother the right-wing and the Likud less. Sa’ar estimates that a joint run will reveal some of Gantz’s hidden positions. “The public knows better what Lapid’s views on tradition and the Land of Israel are and doesn’t know what Ganz’s positions are. Joining would be to their disadvantage.”

From here, the conversation revolves around the political issue and assessments that after the US elections the American president will present his political plan and the right way to respond to this plan. Gideon Sa’ar also notes that seriousness requires hearing the plan and only then responding.

“I have to say that I told American Ambassador David Friedman that I oppose establishing an Arab state in the heart of the Land of Israel, I believe this is dangerous and won’t lead to peace. I hope this administration that is very friendly to Israel won’t repeat mistakes made by previous administrations such as the Clinton and Obama administrations that presented guidelines based on establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria.

“I proposed alternative ideas that are regional arrangements based on existing states and not on establishing another Arab state in the heart of the Land of Israel,” Sa’ar said. “Since thirty years ago, the Arabs of Judea and Samaria were Jordanian citizens and the one who deprived them of their citizenship is the Jordanian King,” he said. “We can consider a connection between autonomy and Jordan.”

Sa’ar sees the dangers of a Palestinian state not only from the security aspect but also from the demographic point of view, since it has the ability to open its gates to absorb millions of Muslims. “This is a very dangerous scenario of loss of security and demographic control,” Sa’ar says, noting that his position was clarified in his talks with the American Ambassador.

“They tell us in a somewhat demagogic way, do you want a binational state? It’s like giving a person a choice whether to commit suicide by strangulation or shooting. There’s no need to commit suicide on a binational state or by establishing another Arab state. The Palestinian autonomous government may have a connection to Jordan within the framework of a regional arrangement. It cannot be that our enemies have security and demographic control over the territory.”

Gideon Sa’ar and Rabbi Yitzchok Dovid Grossman

Flash 90

Sa’ar also rejected the idea of ​​a “state minus” that was heard in the past: “A lot of slogans are being thrown around. They say ‘a state minus’, which means a demilitarized state. I ask the same people: Is Gaza demilitarized after the Israeli withdrawal? The power building there that threatens Israel and its citizens only grows. We mustn’t do anything like this in Judea and Samaria. If I’m elected as a public representative I will act to prevent such a danger and to implement the decision of the Likud Central Committee to impose Israeli sovereignty over Jewish settlement areas in Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley. The issue of the Palestinian state in the Land of Israel should be removed from the agenda. It will not happen and we won’t let it happen. Autonomy yes; a state, no. Even today they have autonomy where they control civilian and municipal life, but in the areas of security and demography, we cannot allow them independence.”

As a member of the security cabinet in the past, Gideon Sa’ar was asked about the policy of ambiguity that seems to have dissipated vis-à-vis the Syrian arena: “Not only do I have no problem with this, but I think it’s correct, and I’ll explain: There wasn’t exactly ambiguity beforehand. It was clear that Israel was opposed to Iranian consolidation in Syria and was acting by means of attacks to prevent this establishment. Reality has changed. There was a long civil war and there was chaos, and there were Israeli military operations under the term ‘battle between wars’. Today things have stabilized, the internal war has been decided, the survival of the Assad regime has been assured, and there’s no question of who’s working with the Iranian elements.”

In his opinion, canceling ambiguity is important because “Iran’s trying to create capability for a qualitative strike on the Israeli home front from neighboring countries like Syria and Lebanon, because it’s far from here and wants to hit any target in Israel from the front line. We cannot allow this and we must be determined to prevent it. Therefore I not only back the IDF operations under the government’s guidance, but also think they should be intensified, because in a year’s time conditions won’t be better, and all the players must understand our determination on this issue. I believe the Russians will respect those who will be determined in this struggle.”

Toward the end of the conversation we asked Sa’ar about the internal struggle in the Likud, whether the tense feelings had already dissipated between the Netanyahu camp and the Sa’ar camp, which marked the beginning of his return to the political arena. Sa’ar replies: “There’s no tension on my part, there’s no division in the movement, we’re all one camp that must ensure the victory of the Likud and the national camp headed by Prime Minister Netanyahu, and so I’ll act in the future after the primaries are over. We’ll face a battle that won’t be easy because it’s vital for the future of Israel that the right wing and the Likud at its center continue to lead Israel in the coming years.”

On one issue Saar refuses to speak absolutely, that is the issue of the ministry he wants to receive in the next government: “I don’t talk about this, the bear hasn’t yet been hunted, so there’s no reason to divide up his hide,” he says.

Gideon Sa’ar

Flash 90
Video Player

00:00 | 21:59
אין מחנאות. סער

The Lost Jewish Communities of the Arab world

This memorial day commemorates the tragedy of people who were forced to flee from their homes and to leave the countries where they had lived for millennia, solely because of their Jewish identity. ?

 

The lost Jewish communities of the Arab worldThis memorial day commemorates the tragedy of people who were forced to flee from their homes and to leave the countries where they had lived for millennia, solely because of their Jewish identity. ​
The lost Jewish communities of the Arab world
​On 30 November, Israel and the Jewish world remember the fate of more than 850,000 Jews who were forced out of Arab countries and Iran in the 20th century.
This memorial day commemorates the tragedy of people who were forced to flee from their homes and to leave the countries where they had lived for millennia, solely because of their Jewish identity. Many were deprived of their belongings and many suffered from violence and persecution.
The story of the expulsion of entire Jewish communities from Arab lands is an important part of modern Jewish history that profoundly affected the Jewish nation as a whole as well as the demographic composition of the Middle East and North Africa. This is a story that has to be told.
Current research estimates that the number of Jews living in Arab countries and Iran totaled more than 850,000 at the time of Israel’s independence. Some scholars even think the number is closer to one million. In the North African region, 259,000 Jews fled from Morocco, 140,000 from Algeria, 100,000 from Tunisia, 75,000 from Egypt, and another 38,000 from Libya. In the Middle East, 135,000 Jews were exiled from Iraq, 55,000 from Yemen, 34,000 from Turkey, 20,000 from Lebanon and 18,000 from Syria. Iran forced out 25,000 Jews.
The following descriptions typify what Jews living in Arab countries and Iran went through in the 1940s and following Israel’s declaration of independence up to the second half of the 20th century.
Iraq 
In Iraq, where a large community of Jews lived for 2600 years, violent riots known as the Farhud erupted in June 1941, targeting the Jewish population, mainly in Bagdad.  Dejected soldiers of a failed coup took advantage of a power vacuum and swarmed into Jewish communities together with a bloodthirsty mob, killing 179 innocent people, injuring more than 2,100, and leaving 242 children orphans. This act of violence was celebrated across the Arab world and in Nazi Germany.
In 1948 as a response to UNGA Resolution 181 (“the Partition Plan”)  and Israel’s independence, laws were passed making Zionism a criminal offense, allowing the police to raid and search thousands of Jewish homes for any evidence of Zionism. Jews were removed from thousands of government positions and their homes were valued at 80% less than those of their Arab neighbors.
In the years 1948-1951, over 120,000 Iraqi Jews immigrated to Israel to forge a new life. In doing so, they forfeited their citizenship and (after March 1951) their property. The ancient Jewish community in Iraq (which at one time constituted nearly one-third of the total population of Baghdad) is now non-existent.
Egypt 
The story of the Jewish population of Egypt is similar. In the 1940s, hostility against the Egyptian Jewish community, which numbered around 80,000 people, increased. Laws were passed setting limitations for employing Egyptians of Jewish descent, as well as requiring majority shareholders of companies to be Egyptian nationals. Since Jews were denied citizenship as a rule, many Jews lost their jobs and businesses.
During the 1948 War of Independence, thousands of Egyptian Jews were put into internment camps, forced from their jobs, and arrested for supposed collaboration with an enemy state, Jewish synagogues, homes, and businesses were bombed; many Jews were killed and wounded. More than 14,000 Jews immigrated to Israel during this time seeking safety. Between 1948 and 1958, more than 35,000 Jews fled Egypt. While much of this immigration was due to systematic oppression, another contribution factor was Zionism and the desire to live in the newly reestablished Jewish homeland in Israel.
Between 1956 and 1968 another 38,000 Jews fled Egypt, mostly to Israel, to escape systematic injustices such as government expropriation of their homes and businesses and arbitrary arrests of Jewish citizens.
Yemen
The Yemeni Jews faced some of the worst persecution. At the end of November 1947, the Arab population of Aden in Yemen decided to hold a 3-day strike in protest against UNGA Resolution 181 (the Partition Plan). The protest quickly turned violent. Over 80 innocent Yemeni Jews were slaughtered, over 100 Jewish-owned businesses were completely looted, and homes, schools, and synagogues were burnt to the ground. This was one of the most violent attacks on any Jewish population in the Arab world.
A unique and creative solution was found for saving the persecuted Yemeni Jews. From 1949 to 1950, the Israeli government enacted Operation Magic Carpet (known in Hebrew as “On the Wings of Eagles”). The operation was implemented by US and British aircraft, which flew to Aden and airlifted the Jews from Yemen to Israel. By the end of the operation, over 47,000 Yemeni Jews were rescued from persecution and taken to their new home in the State of Israel.
Libya
Jews had lived in Libya for more than 2,300 years, and had a thriving culture, with a population of over 37,000. During World War II, The Libyan regime implemented their own Nazi-inspired holocaust, where more than 2,000 Jews were transported to desert concentration camps, and hundreds of them died. In post-war Libya, Arab nationalism grew in popularity, resulting in violent pogroms against the Jewish community. In 1945, in the city of Tripoli, more than 140 Jews were killed in a violent antisemitic riot, and a few years later in 1948, another pogrom erupted, resulting in 12 Jewish deaths and the destruction of over 280 Jewish homes. In the three years between 1948 and 1951, 30,972 Jews fled to Israel due to the hostile Arab government of Libya.
Remembering their stories
The descendants of these immigrants from Arab countries now account for a majority of Israel’s Jewish population. The Jewish exiles who were forced to flee their homes overcame personal and communal tragedy and not only persevered, but thrived; many have risen to important positions in the national government and in the public and private sectors. They have made an invaluable contribution to the fabric of Israeli society, and their vibrant cultures are an integral part of the colorful mosaic of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. It is time for the world to hear their story.

The Jericho Conference and Palestinian Self-Determinism

The 1948 Jericho Conference and Palestinian Self-Determinism –

Why is the Arab “Palestinian” case any different from all other cases of political expression? For instance, is Kurdish Independence entitled to special treatment (a special referendum) or like all other bodies politic do they require a simple “Declaration of Independence” to gain independence?

I posit that because Delegates from “Western” Palestine attended the Jericho Conference in December 1948 and voted for King Abdullah I of the Hejaz as their independent sovereign, they fulfilled the terms of UNGA Res. 181 (Chapter 3, [1]).

Why should Arab refugees from Judea and Samaria be treated any differently than other refugees since all Arabs of “Palestinian extraction” have Jordanian Citizenship based on Jordanian collective naturalization in February 1949?

Collective Naturalization by Annexation

“When territory is transferred to a new sovereign by conquest or cession the inhabitants become nationals of the new government only by their own consent, express or implicit. …. If the inhabitants remain within the territory their allegiance is transferred to the new sovereign.” American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, I Pet. 511, 542, 7 L. Ed. 242.

The subject of collective naturalization is discussed at length in Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135, (1892) and many cases cited and illustrations given.

The case before us, however, is not one of a treaty of cession, but that of collective naturalization before a treaty of cession transpired!

Since All Arabs of Palestinian extraction were “collectively naturalized” as Jordanian Citizens in February 1949 and all West Bank Palestinian hold Jordanian Passports; there is no need for an independent “State of Palestine,” a [Palestinian] right of return under UNGA Resolution 194,  UNRWA or the PLO!!!

The Islamic Kingdom of Jordan is Eastern Palestine.

Should the Arabs of Palestinian extraction be held to their exercise of self-determinism at the 1948 Jericho Conference or are they entitled to a second vote for a new sovereignty as an independent body politic at a new “conference” based on the 1993/95 Oslo Accords?

Was King Hussein entitled in 1988 to ceed to the PLO Judea and Samaria; or, what was not his to ceed based on his illegal Islamic Occupation could not be ceeded to the PLO since by terms King Hussein and the Jordanian Administration relinquished all claims to “the West Bank;” the PLO is not an independent sovereignty and Judea and Samaria (“Western Palestine”) are Treaty Landsin situ by virtue of the 1919 Faisal-Weizzman Agreement, the San Remo Resolution, the Treaty of Sevres and by virtue of the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924!

King Hussein could not ceed what was not his to occupy!!!

The right of self – determinism for the Arabs of Palestinian extraction were given under treaty law by the Mandates for Syria, Lebanon and Mesopotamia (Iraq)…, while the right of self-determinism for Jews were given to the Jews by the Mandate for Palestine!

Election of Jordanian Citizenship and Independent Sovereignty by the Arabs of Palestine was the “free expression of the will of the people” and, absent the 1948 Israeli War of Independence; fullfilled the terms of Chapter III (1) of the UNGA Resolution 181 (notice of intention, option of Citizenship and election of an independent sovereign).

Lest we forget, the Jordanian Kingdom’s Civil War of September 1970 (Black September) determined the fate accompli of the PLO; preventing the establishment within the Islamic Kingdom of Jordan of an independent “Eastern [non-Islamic] Palestine”….

Under the terms of Article 25 (postpone or withhold) of the Mandate for Palestine, the Mandatory (the UK) illegally established trans-Jordan in violation of Article 5 of the Mandate since the HaShemites are a foreign Islamic power having their origins in Mecca and Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine only allowed for the [temporary] administration of Eastern Palestine during the time while the terms of the rest of the Mandate were withheld or postponed within that territory!!!

Moreover, by virtue of Article 80 of the UN Charter, the rights granted to the Jews under the Mandate for Palestine did not terminate merely because the Mandate had expired since no trusteeship was established for Eastern and Western Palestine.

 

OBVIOUSLY if one Palestinian party to UNGA Resolution 181 exercised “the free will of the [Jewish] people” before war broke out, and the other Palestinian party to 181 after the cessation of hostilities exercised “the free will of the [Arab] people” then both parties have expressed their “Political Will” and nothing except recognition of the facts on the ground and within our history books needs to be done.

The fact is when King Hussein abolished the Jordanian Lower House of Deputies in 1988 he sequestered the Palestinian Arabs right to self-rule as a strategem of war in collusion with the PLO and the Arab League!

To answer our question, Why is the Arab “Palestinian” case any different from all other cases of political expression? I think there is no unique difference, the Arab Palestinians have been afforded self-determinism as an expression of the free will of the people at the December 1948 Jericho Conference!

Doesn’t the fact that Jews of “Palestinian extraction” (under the Mandate) when give the opportunity to exercise political will, having exercised those political rights May 1948; lend credence to our answer?

****

The Jericho Conference was held in December 1948 to decide the future of the portion of Palestine that was held by Jordan at the end of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, led by Sheikh Muhammad Ali Ja’abari.

Pro-Jordanian personalities called for the annexation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, to Jordan.

History

In October 1948, King Abdullah began a series of steps in order to effect the annexation of those parts of Palestine that his army and other Arab forces had captured and held during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. He did this while the cease-fire line was settled or agreed in February 1949.

The first step was a congress session in Amman, convened upon the initiative of the Transjordanian government, in which King Abdullah’s representatives and a large number of Palestinian refugees called for a wider Palestinian congress to declare Palestinian unity and acknowledge King Abdullah as King of Palestine. On 1 December 1948, a conference in Jericho called for the annexation of what was left of Palestine under the Hashemite crown in light of the reality that the remaining Palestinian territory was effectively administered by the Jordanian authority. The Conference was attended by numerous delegations including the mayors of Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah, the Arab Legion Military Governor General, military governors of all the districts, and other notables. The audience was estimated at several thousand.

Six resolutions were proposed but only four were adopted. They contained the following provisions:
1. Palestine Arabs desire unity between Transjordan and Arab Palestine and therefore make known their wish that Arab Palestine be annexed immediately to Transjordan. They also recognize Abdullah as their King and request him proclaim himself King of new territory.
2. Palestine Arabs express gratitude to Arab states for their efforts in behalf of liberation of Palestine. (The delegates indicated that the object of this was to hint to the Arab states that their job was done).
3. Expression of thanks to Arab states for their generous assistance and support to Palestine Arab refugees.
4. Resolve that purport of first resolution be conveyed to King at once.

The Transjordanian cabinet and parliament agreed within the following two weeks.

Reactions to the resolution

Support

A Palestinian conference in Ramallah personally attended by King Abdullah on 26 December 1948 declared its support for the Jericho Conference resolution, as did a subsequent Nablus conference, calling for unification of the two banks of the Jordan under the Hashemite crown.

The termination of the Palestine Mandate gave the Arabs of Palestine the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination. That meant they could determine their own political status and form or dissolve unions among themselves or with other states.

In December 1948 the Secretary of State authorized the US Consul in Amman to advise King Abdullah and the officials of Transjordan that the US accepted the principles contained in the resolutions of the Jericho Conference, and that the US viewed incorporation with Transjordan as the logical disposition of Arab Palestine

The United States subsequently extended de jure recognition to the Government of Transjordan and the Government of Israel on the same day, 31 January 1949.

The 1950 State Department Country Report on Jordan said that King Abdullah had taken successive steps to incorporate the area of Central Palestine into Jordan and described the Jordanian Parliament resolution concerning the union of Central Palestine with Jordan. The report said the US had privately advised the British and French Foreign Ministers that it had approved the action, and that “it represented a logical development of the situation which took place as a result of a free expression of the will of the people.” (Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume V, Page 1096)

The major problems of concern to the United States were the establishment of peaceful and friendly relations between Israel and Jordan and the successful absorption into the polity and economy of Jordan of Arab Palestine, its inhabitants, and the bulk of the refugees now located there.

Opposition

The Arab League condemned the Jericho Conference, and the Syrian press considered its resolution a violation of self-determination. Iraqi prime minister Nuri as-Said called upon King Abdullah to hold his moves towards annexation which succeeded in delaying the implementation of the Transjordanian plans of unity for a year and a half. Hajj Amin al-Husseini protested against King Abdullah’s measures, declaring them null and void and calling to boycott them, but his voice was ignored.

Unification

Notables from Ramallah and Jerusalem in particular were reluctant to give King Abdullah a carte blanche. Although they were prepared to recognize him as monarch, they were unwilling to give up their claim to the whole of Palestine, and refused to endorse his policy of consolidating the partition.

The Transjordanian government gradually assumed the civil functions of the West Bank, paying the salaries of civil servants and absorbing local governors into what was henceforth called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. In February 1949, the Jordanian Nationality Law was amended to grant every Palestinian Jordanian citizenship.

****

SOURCE: Wikipedia Jericho Conference