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


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 abdication runs in the family; (Talal abdicated the throne due to Grandiose Schizophrenia and Hussein bin Ali abdicated the throne of the Kingdom of the Hejaz after claiming to be Caliph of All Muslims;)  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 the Kingdom of the Hejaz, and 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 <…/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.


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.’




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.
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.
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.
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.
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.


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


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.


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.


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

‘Send Waqf back to Jordan’

MK Yehuda Glick says Israel should respond to Jordan cancelling part of peace treaty by kicking Wafq out of Temple Mount.


Arutz Sheva – Israel National News
Hezki Baruch, 23/10/18 18:55


Yehuda Glick

Yehuda Glick

Yoni Kempinski

MK Yehuda Glick (Likud) called Tuesday afternoon for a response to the Jordanian announcement of the cancellation of the annex to the peace treaty between the two countries which leases regions of the Arava and Naharayim to Israel.

“Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman al-Safadi announced yesterday that the Jordanian government had decided not to renew the annexes to the 1994 peace agreement in accordance with their wording and the law,” Glick said at the start of his speech.

Glick quoted the Jordanian minister as saying that “the move serves the Jordanian interests, and if there is pressure on Jordan, the king will be able to deal with them. We acted according to the law and have the tools to defend our interests.”

“Indeed, Jordan has laws and interests,” Glick noted. “The State of Israel is an independent state and has laws and interests.”

“I called upon the Prime Minister today to act in accordance with our interests and to inform the King of Jordan that if they act independently in accordance with their interests, we will act in accordance with those of our own. We will send the Waqf people that Israel generously allows to move around the Temple Mount back to Jordan, and we will apply full Israeli sovereignty to the Temple Mount,” Glick concluded.

Charter – Tzionist Liberation Organization


The Tzionist Liberation Organization

Article 1:

Eretz Yisrael (Tzion – The Land of Israel/Palestine) is the ancient homeland of the Jewish people; our forefathers Avraham, Yitzchaq, Ya’acov (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and Y’hoshua (Joshua) settled Tzion and Melech (King) David conquered it’s enemies making them tributaries and established the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael which is an indivisible part of the Tzionist Jewish homeland, and the Jewish people are an integral part of the Tzionist (Jewish) Kingdom.

Article 2:

Eretz Yisrael, with the boundaries it had under Melech David and Melech Shlomo (King David and King Solomon) as described in our Jewish Bible [Tanach] (the Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim) is an indivisible territorial unit. By virtue of and through the 1969 Convention on the Laws of Treaties, Article V of the Mandate For Palestine, amongst other international legal instruments requires Jewish territorial integrity within the boundaries of the Kingdom of Eretz Yisrael. Jewish presence in Israel/Tzion (Eretz Yisrael) has existed from Time Immemorial and Jewish presence is of historical right and not of sufferance. Modern Jewish settlement on the Land of Eretz Yisrael is the fulfillment of Jewish prophesy (Devarim (Deuteronomy) 30.1-10, and, Va’Yikra (Leviticus) 26.42). The Tzionist Nation (Kingdom) is an integral and essential component of Eretz Yisrael with Y’rushalayim (Jerusalem) as it’s Inalienable and Unalienable, Undivided and Eternal Capital. Without the Tzionist people’s presence in Eretz-Israel there is no sanctification of the Kingdom of HaShem, the House of David, the land, it’s Sabbaths, the Holy Festivals and Jubilees.

Article 3:

The Jewish people possess the legal right to settle their homeland, Tzion and have the right to determine their own Tzionist destiny while achieving the liberation of their country and it’s Holy Places from pagan supercessionist ideologies in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will as defined by our own laws (halachah). The Jewish people have an inherent right to re-establish the Kingdom of David within Tzion, as defined by our own laws and in accordance with the Tanach (Jewish Bible). The re-establishment of the House of David for the Kingdom of David in Eretz Yisrael constitutes the establishment of the Tzionist Kingdom of Hashem; for it is written “Thou art enthroned upon the praises [Tehillim] of Yisrael.”

Article 4:

The Jewish identity is a genuine, essential, and inherent characteristic of the Tzionist nation (kingdom); the Jewish Identity is transmitted from parents to children and from Rabbi to student. The Babylonian, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, British and the Islamic [e.g. Hashemite] occupations and the dispersal of the Jewish people; the persecutions, disasters, expulsions, pogroms and the holocaust which befell them, do not make them lose their Tzionist identity and their membership in the community of the Kingdom of Eretz Yisrael, nor do they negate them. Rather, these tragedies strengthen their Tzionist identity!

Article 5:

The Tzionist are those Jews who prior to 14 May 1948 normally resided in the Middle East regardless of whether they have been evicted from it, become displaced from the Middle East or have stayed there. Anyone born [or converted], after that date, of a Jewish parent [or of a Tzionist Bet Din]- whether inside Eretz Yisrael or outside it (galuth exile) – is also a Jew and an integral member of the Tzionist Kingdom. All Jews everywhere have an inherent inalienable and unalienable right of return to Tzion as prophesied in Devarim (Deuteronomy) 30.1-10; for it is written, “VaYikra 19.23 “And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees ….” “For is the tree of the field the life of a man?” Devarim 20.19 (Here, man is compared to a tree of a field, which when planted takes root, produces fruit (Praise) and is pleasing to [HaShem] the recipient of that fruit.)

Article 6:

The Jews who had normally resided outside of Eretz Yisrael until the beginning of the Tzionist revolution will be considered Tzionists. The Tzionist revolution is the present day unarmed and armed struggle which began with the First Aliyah for the liberation of Eretz Yisrael and it’s Holy Places; particularly Har Habayith (Mountain of the House) – the Temple Mount. Jews who resided within the Middle East prior to the establishment of the State of Israel who were expelled or forced from their homes as a result of the IKWAN’s movement opposing the establishment of the State of Israel have a right of restitution and reparations and they and their descendants have an inherent right to return to their National Homeland, Eretz Yisrael to re-establish the Kingdom of HaShem in Eretz Yisrael irregardless of passage of time. Educating the masses concerning the Kingdom of HaShem and Tzionism is an integral part of the unarmed struggle for the liberation of Eretz Yisrael and it’s Holy Places (from avodah zara [idolatry]).

Article 7:

That there is a Jewish community and that it has material, spiritual, and historical connection with Eretz Yisrael are indisputable facts. It is a national duty to bring up individual Jews in a Messianic Tzionist manner in all public and private discourse. All legitimate means of information and education must be adopted in order to acquaint the Tzionist with his Kingdom in the most profound manner, both spiritual and material, that is possible. He must be prepared for the unarmed and eventually the armed struggle and ready to sacrifice his honor, wealth and his life in order to win back his homeland and bring about the liberation of it’s Holy Places from avodah zara [idolatry].

Article 8:

The phase in their history, through which the Jewish people are now living, is that of an International struggle for the liberation of Eretz Yisrael and it’s Holy Places and the re-establishment of the Kingdom of HaShem on Earth. This struggle is essentially one rooted in a Tzionist education concerning the Kingdom of HaShem and the House of David. Thus, the conflicts amongst the Jewish (Tzionist) sects are secondary, and should be ended for the sake of the basic conflict that exists between the forces of Tzionism, and of it’s inherent material and spiritual liberty on the one hand; and of fascism and the [Palestinian] Arab people’s aggression on the other. On this basis the Jewish masses, regardless of whether they are residing in our national homeland or in diaspora constitute – both in their branches, organizations and of the individuals – one national front working for the retrieval of Eretz Yisrael and its liberation through armed and unarmed struggle according to the visions of our Neviim (“Tzion shall be redeemed through righteousness”).

Article 9:

Unarmed struggle is not the only religious way to liberate Eretz Yisrael and the Temple Mount. This is not the overall strategy, but merely a tactical phase. The UNARMED struggle is one of education which leads to greater prayer and prayer leads to greater praise. The establishment of the Kingdom depends on Praise, which is the Foundation of all that is Good: Tehillim (Psalms) 22.4 “Yet Thou art holy, O Thou that art enthroned upon the praises [Tehillim] of Israel.” The Jewish people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed and unarmed struggle and to work for an armed popular Messianic revolution for the liberation of their country, their return to it and to it’s Holy Places. The Jewish people also assert their right to normal life in Eretz Yisrael and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it and it’s Holy Places. The armed struggle does not utilize the stratagems of the anti-Tzionist enemy. The Tzionist struggle is an open struggle without resort to terrorism. The Tzionist Liberation Organization emphatically rejects all forms of terrorism!

Article 10:

Legitimate Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) action constitutes a nucleus of the Tzionist popular liberation war. This is a war to eradicate terrorism and idolatry from the Middle East. For it is written, “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft and stubborness as idolatry!” This requires a comprehensive mobilization of all the Jewish popular and international educational efforts and their organizations and involvement in the Messianic Tzionist revolution. It also requires the achieving of International Solidarity for the national struggle among the different groupings of the Jewish people, and between the Jewish people and the Jewish masses, so as to secure the continuation of the Messianic revolution, its escalation, and victory. Victory is the eradication of idolatry and those idolatrous places of worship from Eretz Yisrael. For it is written, “Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong.” — Joel 3:10 Furthermore, it is written, “By Myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from My mouth in righteousness, and shall not come back, that unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.”

— Zechariah 14.9 “And the L-RD shall be King over all the earth; In that day shall the L-RD be One, and His name one.”

Eradication of avodah zarah requires that one not pronounce the names of false or foreign deities; as it is written, Shmoth 23.13 “And in all things that I have said unto you take ye heed; and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.”

Article 11:

The Tzionist Jews of the Tzionist Liberation Organization have one motto: One G-D, One Torah, One People, and One Land. The Centrist Tzionist Peace platform rests on the premise that there is but one Tzionism embracing the two covenants: The Tzionist Liberation Organization asserts that there are two covenants, the one of Mount Ararat and the other of Mount Sinai – The Universal Covenant of Noach (Noah) and the Covenant of Moshe (Moses), respectively. Jewish Unity is achieved through a comprehensive Jewish education of the masses about these covenants. Achieving Jewish Unity through the embracing of these covenants is an integral part of the popular Messianic Tzionist revolution.

Article 12:

The Jewish people believe in Jewish unity and universal harmony under the Covenant of Noach. In order to contribute their share toward the attainment of that objective, however, they must, at the present stage of their struggle, safeguard their Tzionist identity and develop their consciousness of that identity, and oppose any plan that may dissolve or impair it. In order to develop that unified Tzionist consciousness, Jews must bear in mind what is written in our Tanach.

“ ‘A Redeemer shall come to Tzion, and to those of Ya’acov who repent from willful sin,’ the words of Hashem.” – Isaiah 59.20

“And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of

the L-RD, to the house of the G-D of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways,

and we will walk in His paths: for out of Tzion shall go forth the law, and the word

of the L-RD from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall

rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their

spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither

shall they learn war any more.” — Isaiah 2:3–4

Unifying a Tzionist consciousness, as espoused by the Tzionist Liberation Organization envisions a Universal Brotherhood of Unity, Peace and Harmony enforced by the Covenant of Noach and the Seven Universal Laws of Noach!

Article 13:

Jewish unity and the liberation of Eretz Yisrael are two complementary objectives, the attainment of either of which facilitates the attainment of the other. Thus, Jewish unity leads to the liberation of Eretz Yisrael, the liberation of Eretz Yisrael leads to Jewish unity; and work toward the realization of one objective proceeds side by side with work toward the realization of the other. Without Jewish Unity and Liberation of Eretz Yisrael/Tzion, there is no Sanctification of Eretz Yisrael!

Article 14:

The destiny of the Jewish nation, and indeed Jewish existence itself, depend upon the destiny of the Noachide and Jewish cause. From this inter-dependence springs the Jewish nation’s pursuit of, and striving for, the sanctification and liberation of Eretz Yisrael and it’s Holy Places. The people of Israel play the role of the vanguard in the realization of this sacred goal. Secondary to this destiny is the Noahide consciousness which is achieved through recognition of the the Universal Covenant of the Children of Noach and the enforcement of the Seven Universal Laws of Noach.

Article 15:

The liberation of Eretz Yisrael, from an Jewish viewpoint, is a national and sacred duty and it attempts to repel the Islamic and Christian imperialist aggression against the Jewish homeland, and aims at the elimination of Islam and Christendom in Eretz Yisrael. The Zionist Liberation Organization asserts that the Islamic IKHWAN Movement and the Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation) must be replaced with the Covenant of Noach and the Seven Universal Noachide Laws. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Noachides and the Jewish nation – peoples and governments – with the Jewish people of Eretz Yisrael in the vanguard. Accordingly, the Noahides and the Jewish nation must mobilize all its military, human, moral, and spiritual capabilities to participate actively with the Jewish people in the liberation of Eretz Yisrael. The Tzionist Liberation Organization must, particularly during the initial phase of the unarmed Jewish revolt, offer and furnish the Jewish people with all possible help, and material and human support, and make available to them the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the unarmed and armed revolution, until they liberate their homeland and it’s Holy Places and the Jewish People are restored to their Holy Land as envisioned by our prophets; viz a Limited Monarchy.

Article 16:

The liberation of Eretz Yisrael, from a spiritual point of view, is a daily struggle in study, prayer and praise and provides the Holy Land with an atmosphere of holiness, safety, and tranquility, which in turn safeguards the country’s religious sanctuaries and guarantees freedom of worship and of visit to all, without discrimination of race, color, language, or ethnicity. Accordingly, the people of Eretz Yisrael look to all legitimate spiritual forces in the world for support in liberating the Holy Places from Islamic military Occupation or replacement theological entities (supercessionists, e.g. Christians or Islamists) who would undermine the righteous endevour to liberate Eretz Yisrael from avoda zara!

Article 17:

The liberation of Eretz Yisrael, from a human point of view, will restore to the Noachide and the Jewish individual his dignity, strength, and freedom. Accordingly the Jewish people look forward to the support of all those who believe in the dignity of man and his freedom in the world according to the Universal Covenant of Noach.

Article 18:

The liberation of Eretz Yisrael, from an international point of view, is a defensive action necessitated by the demands of self-defense. Accordingly the Jewish people, desirous as they are of the friendship of all people, look to freedom-loving, and peace-loving states for support in order to restore their legitimate rights in Eretz Yisrael, to re-establish peace and security in the country, and to enable its people to exercise national sovereignty and religious freedom, particularly on Har HaBayith (the Temple Mount).

Article 19:

The partition of Palestine, as envisioned by Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine, the UN Resolution 181 or in the Oslo Accords and the Quartet’s proposed establishment of a state of Palestine are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they are contrary to the will of the Jewish people and to their natural right in their homeland, and because they are inconsistent with the principles embodied in Article 80 of the Charter of the United Nations; particularly the right to self-determination of Am Yisrael within historical Eretz Yisrael. The Oslo Accords require the establishment of a Jew Free portion of Palestine (Eretz Yisrael) reminiscent of the Nazi era of WWII and reminiscent of the unlawful Jordanian Islamic Occupation which is incompatible with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations and the Fourth Geneva Convention which prohibits ethnic cleansing.

Article 20:

The establishment of the Tzionist State of Israel as embodied in the the Balfour Declaration, the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, the San Remo Resolution, the Mandate for Palestine and enshrined in the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 espouses close Jewish Settlement on the Land of Eretz Yisrael. The Tzionist Liberation Organization asserts that historically “settlement activity” is perfectly legal under International Law and strengthens the Tzionist cause.

The establishment of the apartheid Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Oslo Accords and everything Judenrein or Judenfrei that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Arabs to a “National Palestinian Identity” or the Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation) within Palestine (Eretz Yisrael) are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Islam, being a pseudo-religious political ideology, is not an independent nationality and has never been an independent sovereign entity over historical Eretz Yisrael (Palestine). Nor do Palestinian Muslims constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are Arab citizens of the Islamic states in which they have emigrated to Eretz Yisrael from, or in which they reside or to which they indigenously belong.

Article 21:

The Jewish people, expressing themselves by the unarmed Tzionist Messianic revolution, and embracing the Universal Covenant of Noach, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Eretz Yisrael and reject all UN proposals aimed at the elimination of the question of Tzionism.

Article 22:

Palestinian Nationalism being rooted in Islamic fascism is a political movement organically associated with international terrorism and the imperialist struggle of the Communist Bloc and is antagonistic to all action for liberation from barbarism and the progressive movements in the world. It has it’s roots in Replacement Theology (super-secessionism) which asserts that Islamic jurisprudence (Shaaria) will dominate Dar Al Harb. It is racist and fanatical in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonialist in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Palestinian Nationalism is the instrument of the international IKHWAN movement, and has by super-secessionism created a geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Jewish homeland to combat the hopes of the Jewish nation for liberation, unity, human progress and universal brotherhood under the Kingdom of HaShem. The Palestinian Nationalism espoused by Hamas, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) or the Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation) and other terrorist organizations is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the formulation of the Oslo Accords, fundamentalist Islam [terrorism] has spread expotentially into a world-wide IKHWAN movement which espouses a global Caliphate. Because the liberation of Eretz Yisrael will destroy the Islamist colonial and imperialist presence in Eretz Yisrael and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Jewish people look for the support of all legitimate progressive and peaceful organizations and urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to offer the Jewish people all aid and support in their just struggle for the liberation of their homeland and the establishment of a Union of Middle Eastern States and a Regional Human Rights / Terrorism Court in Jerusalem that the Tzionist Kingdom may safeguard liberty, progress and human dignity throughout the Middle East.

Article 23:

The demands of security and peace, as well as the demand of human rights and justice, requires all legitimate states to consider Palestinian Nationalism as reflected in the IKHWAN movement or the Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation), the Abu Nidal Organization, the PLFP, the Hamas and PLO Charters (which espouses a Judenrein or Judenfrei Eretz Yisrael) et. al.; as an illegitimate movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its writings, activities and operations, in order that co-existence, religious tolerance and friendly relations among peoples and nations may be preserved, and the loyalty of citizens to their respective governments safeguarded.

Article 24:

The Jewish people believe in the principles of justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, human dignity, and in the right of all peoples to exercise them. In accordance therewith, the Zionist Liberation Organization asserts Islam, as espoused by the IKHWAN movement or the Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation), is a pseudo-religious ideology which transcends national boundaries, espouses a Universal Islamic despotism (Caliph) and is incompatible with the principles of justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, human dignity, and in the right of all peoples to exercise them within the framework and spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter.

Article 25:

For the realization of the goals of this Charter and its principles, the Tzionist Liberation Organization will perform its role in the liberation of Eretz Yisrael in accordance with the Constitution (Basic Laws) of the State of Israel and in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 26: The Tzionist Liberation Organization, representative of the Jewish revolutionary forces, is responsible for the Jewish people’s movement in its struggle – to retrieve its homeland, liberate and return to it and exercise the right to self-determination in it – in all religious, scientific, military, political, and financial fields and also for whatever may be required by the Jewish case on the inter-Jewish and international levels.

Article 27:

The Tzionist Liberation Organization shall cooperate with all legitimate states, each according to its potentialities; and will adopt a neutral policy among them in the light of the requirements of the war of liberation; and on this basis it shall not interfere in the internal affairs of any legitimate state.

Article 28:

The Jewish people assert the genuineness and independence of their Messianic Tzionist revolution and reject all forms of intervention, trusteeship, and subordination of the Jewish people to Christianity, the IKHWAN, the Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation) or the Waqf.

Article 29:

The Jewish people possess the fundamental and genuine legal right to liberate and retrieve their homeland and to secure freedom of worship for the Jewish people and the Noachides. The Jewish people determine their attitude toward all states and forces on the basis of the stance they adopt vis-a-vis to the Tzionist National Messianic revolution to fulfill the aims of the Jewish people as written by our prophet: “They [the Nations] will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they learn war anymore.” and, “But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig-tree; And none shall make them afraid; For the mouth of the L-RD of Hosts hath spoken.”

Article 30:

Unarmed Fighters and open carriers of arms in the war of liberation of Eretz Yisrael are a nucleus of the popular Messianic army which forms the protective force for the advancement of the Jewish people. The unarmed fighters of the Tzionist Liberation Organization carry the Tzionist message – “And They [the Nations] Shall Learn War No More!”

Article 31:

The Organization has the Tzionist flag, shall have an oath of allegiance, and has the HaEmunah National anthem. The Oath of Allegiance shall be decided upon in accordance with a special regulation! Membership in the Tzionist Liberation Organization shall be limited to those who affirm an Oath of Allegiance to the Kingdom of HaShem and the Davidic Dynasty (Kingdom of David); to those having espoused Maimonides 13 Principals of Faith.

Article 32: The Regulations of the Tzionist Liberation Organization, shall be published consecutive to the publication of this Charter. The Regulations of the Tzionist Liberation Organiztion will lay down the manner in which the Organization, and its organs or institutions, shall be constituted; the respective competence of each; and the requirements of its obligations under this Charter.

Article 33: This Charter shall not be amended save by [vote of] a majority of two-thirds of the total membership of the Tzionist Liberation Organization [taken] at a special session of the Tzionist Congress convened for that purpose.

Annex A

HaEmunah National Anthem

Eternally lives in our hearts,

the loyal faith [Haemunah]

to return to our holy land,

the city where David settled.

There we shall stand [to receive] our destiny,

[which the] father of many [nations] acquired,

there we shall live our life

the life of the innumerable community.

There we shall serve our G-D

with joy, happiness and song

there we shall pilgrimage

three times a year.

Torah of life is our desire,

given from heavenly mouth

forever it is our heritage

from the desert it was given.

HaEmunah – Rav Kook in Response to HaTikvah

[Example] Oath of Allegiance

I, ______________________________________, hereby affirm and declare that I will bear true allegiance to Hashem’s Indivisible Kingdom, that I will support the establishment of the Kingdom of David within Eretz-Israel (historical Palestine) and that I will follow the lawful directions of the Tzionist Liberation Organization should I be called upon to act as a shliach (emissary) for the Organization.

Furthermore, I attest to the verity of Maimonides Thirteen Principals of Faith; that I will endevour to promote the eradication of avodah zara [idolatry] from within the Kingdom of HaShem and that I will promote the immutable 613 Laws of Torah where ever I may be at any given time.

Annex B

Biblical Boundaries of Tzion

In that day the L-RD made a covenant with Abram, saying: ‘Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates; the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Rephaim, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Girgashite, and the Jebusite.’

And I will set thy border from the Red Sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness unto the River; for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee.

Boundaries of Tzion

Under David’s Leadership

Under King David’s leadership Israel grew from Kingdom to Empire, and its sphere of influence – militarily and politically – in the Middle East expanded greatly, controlling a number of weaker client states like Philistia, Moab, Edom and Ammon, with a number of Aramaean city-states (Aram-Zobah and Aram-Damascus) becoming vassal states; the imperial border stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to the Arabian Desert, from the Red Sea to the Euphrates River.

Annex C

Limited Monarchy

Hilchos Melachim uMilchamot The obligation to appoint a king in Israel

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 17.14 “When thou art come unto the land which the L-RD thy G-D giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein; and shalt say: ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me’;”

Deuteronomy 17.15 “thou shalt in any wise set him king [David and Shlomo, the Davidic Dynasty] over thee, whom the L-RD thy G-D shall choose; one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother.”

Deuteronomy 17.20 “so that his heart will not be haughty over his brothers, and so that he will not turn away from the commandment, either to the right or to the left, in order that he may prolong [his] days in his kingdom, he and his sons, among Israel.”

1 Samuel 8.11

And he said, “This will be the manner of the king who will reign over you; he will take your sons, and appoint them to him for his chariots and for his horsemen, and they will run before his chariots.”  

1 Samuel 8.18 “And you will cry out on that day because of your king [Shaul], whom you will have chosen for yourselves, and the L-RD will not answer you on that day.”

Hoshea 3.5 “afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the L-RD their G-D, and David their king; and shall come trembling unto the L-RD and to His goodness in the end of days.”

Jeremiah 30.9 “But they shall serve the L-RD their G-D, And David their king, Whom I will raise up unto them.”

Theocracy Restored

Ezekiel 37.24 “And My servant David shall be king over them, and they all shall have one shepherd; they shall also walk in Mine ordinances, and observe My statutes, and do them. 25″They will live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers lived; and they will live on it, they, and their sons and their sons’ sons, forever; and David My servant will be their prince forever.”

the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan


Why the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is an illegal administrative arm of the UK and the UN!

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was established in violation of Articles 5, 15, and 25 of the Mandate for Palestine. Those Articles provide:

ART. 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.

ART. 15.

The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.

The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.

ART. 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.

POINT IN FACT – The Hashemites are a foreign Power having their origins in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

Thus, the establishment of the Hashemite Emirate, the trans-Jordanian Administration and of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan violates Article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine!

POINT IN FACT – The Hashemite Constitution was established by King Talal who was forced to abdicate the throne due to schizophrenia. That Constitution prohibits Jews from acquisition of Jordanian citizenship in violation of Articles 15 and 25 which stipulates that

      1. Article 15 “No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.”
        1. “[…] postponement or withholding of application […] of this mandate […], provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.”
        2. “[…] postponement or withholding of application […] of this mandate […]” can only be construed as a temporary provisio of the Mandate.

That it is apparent – the exclusion of Jews from acquisition of Jordanian Citizenship and their having been ethnically cleansed (judenrein) from Eastern Palestine on account of their being JEWISH is APARTHEID and violates the provision of Articles 15 and 25 of the Mandate for Palestine and thus the provisions of international treaty law!

POINT IN FACT – The Hashemite Kingdom was not recognized as an “Independent” Kingdom [of trans-Jordan] by the League of Nations until 18 April 1946 through the “Treaty of London”, which came into force on 17 June 1946.

POINT IN FACT – The clause “such provision for the administration of” can only be construed as “Administrative” and not a grant of Sovereignty!

POINT IN FACT — The clause “the territories” can only mean Palestine and trans-Jordan, which includes the Faisal-Weissman Agreement map, to wit, Gad, Reuven and Menasheh as the territorial boundaries of Eastern Palestine, to the exclusion of trans-Jordan!

Following the completion of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelite tribes after about 1200 BCE,[1] Joshua allocated the land among the twelve tribes. However, in the case of the Tribes of Gad, Reuben and Menasheh, Moses allocated land to them on the eastern side of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea. (Joshua 13:24-28) The Tribe of Gad was allocated a region to the east of the River Jordan, though the exact location is ambiguous.

These [Eastern Palestinian] territories [of Eretz Yisrael] (the Tribes of Gad, Reuben and Menasheh)  were recognized by Emir Faisal as integral territories of the Kingdom of David in the Faisal-Weissman Agreement of 3 January 1919.

Thus, by Treaty Law (e.g. the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924), force majure and consent of the parties the State of Israel is entitled to territorial integrity as an emerging State ab initio by virtue of Article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine.

postponement or withholding of application […] of this mandate […]” can only be construed as a temporary provisio of the Mandate and expressio unis est exclusio Alterius is Latin: the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other.

That the rights that the Jewish Community acquired under the Mandate for Palestine did not terminate upon expiration of the Mandate as per Article 80 of the UN Charter. There is a principal in international law that “emerging states acquire the territory of their former administrative district(s)” – As well, Uti possidetis (lit. “as you possess”) is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict.

POINT IN FACT — In 1988 the Hashemite Kingdom renounced  claims to and relinquished sovereignty and control over Judea and Samaria (the West Bank [of the Jordan]), the aforesaid having ended the hostilities or conflict between the HaShemites and the Judeans!

Thus, from a Jewish perspective there is no longer a conflict between “Dar al Harb and Dar al Islam.”

As well, since the principal of Uti possidetis applies to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank of the Jordan River, as well as to the East Bank Territories of Gad, Reuven and Menasheh) those inhabitants thereof who are hosti humani generis must be removed under the principal of pikuach hanefesh (preserving a life)!

The continued military presence of Hashemite troops within “Eastern Palestine” ( the East Bank Territories of Gad, Reuven and Menasheh) without the consent of the body politic of the Jewish People constitutes an “Illegal and Unlawful Islamic Military Occupation of Tzion,” an integral part of the ancesteral homeland of the Jewish People, in violation of Articles 5, 15 and 25 of the Mandate of Palestine and the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924.