The “Deal of the Century” & “Close Jewish Settlement”

The right to “Close Jewish Settlement” is perfectly legal under Article 6 of the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924. This is the Supreme Law of the USA and is American Public Policy since the right is an Acquired Legal Right under Treaty Law (e.g. the San Remo Resolution and the Treaty of Versailles).

Lest the American (Trump) Administration forget, political rights for Arabs were granted through the Mandates for Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria and Lebanon via the Treaty of Versailles; while political rights within “Palestine” (Eretz Yisrael) were granted exclusively to the Jewish People!

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution labels treaties as the “Supreme Law of the Land” and instructs judges to enforce the performance of the specific obligations of the Nation’s treaties:”…all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”Though the 1924 Anglo-American Convention expired when the Mandate for Palestine was terminated midnight May 14/15, 1948, the principle of “Acquired Legal Rights,” as defined in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 70(1)(b), dictates that rights recognized and protected under a treaty do not expire or terminate when the legal instrument recognizing the rights is terminated. In other words, rights continue without end.

Moreover, Article 80 of the UN Charter provides:

Article 80

  1. Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
  2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.

Article 80 has been defined as the “Jewish People’s Clause”

After World War II, Benzion Netanyahu, along with Irgun activist Peter Bergson, nephew of Mandatory Palestine Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, and liberal American Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, drafted an article for inclusion in the United Nations Charter that could yet save the Jewish state.
The article became known as the “Palestine clause” for the protection it afforded to the right of Jewish settlement throughout the Land of Israel west of the Jordan River. Article 80 extended the guarantees to Jews afforded by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine following World War I. The Mandate had recognized “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and “the legitimacy of grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” Jews were guaranteed “the right of close settlement” throughout Palestine.
But where was “Palestine”? According to the Mandate, it comprised the land east and west of the Jordan River, stretching from Iraq to the Mediterranean. Jewish settlement rights in Palestine were limited only in one respect: Great Britain, the Mandatory Trustee, was empowered to “postpone” or “withhold” the right of Jews to settle east — but not west — of the Jordan River.

An Open Letter: MK Smotrich

MK Smotrich:

Shalom.
You should present a Bill before the Knesset to amend the Law of Return to
“Collectively Naturalize” all Jews of the Diaspora. Please see my case for doing so in my below forwarded email to Rav Netanyahu.
Also, as to why I oppose a Palestinian state and the return of the Arabs of Palestinian extraction to Eretz Yisrael, see below wherein I posit that they were collectively naturalized and acquired national autonomy in December 1948-49!
The so called Palestinians cannot acquire “national autonomy” in Judea and Samaria because within the meaning of International Law they all-ready have Jordanian citizenship; they are classified as belligerent nationals of Jordan due to their POLITICAL STATUS vis-a-vis the Hashemites, (“Black September” and their militant opposition to Zionism and M’dinat Yisrael). See: Bishop, International Law, Cases and Materials, Second Edition, Little, Brown & Co. 1962 @pp. 338-39.
Unlawful enemy combatant, or Mercenaries status might apply to some of their populous, but whatever the case, they acquired “NATIONAL AUTONOMY” at the Jericho Conference December 1948 within the meaning of international law!
It can be easily argued that the Kingdom of Jordan was established in violation of Treaty Law ( See: <https://johnmhummasti333455225.com/2018/09/05/the-hashemite-kingdom-of-jordan/> and that Treaty Law requires the Hashemites to cede to M’dinat Yisrael the Eastern Territories of Gad, Reuven and Manasseh as per the Faisal-Weissman Agreement/Map!

In closing, When the time comes for a Plenum Vote on Palestinian Statehood in the Knesset, Vote No for Palestinian Statehood and declare Oslo null and void or dead!!! Additionally, See Article 20 Charter, Tzionist Liberation Organization.
Kol tov,
Yochanan Ezra ben Avraham
(John Mauritz Hummasti)

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

Bennett’s platform revealed

Arutz Sheva Staff, 28/02/19 08:39

New Right party platform opposes giving away land, supports increased construction in Judea, Samaria, J-lem, applying sovereignty in Area C.

 

 

Bennett

Bennett

Hadas Parush 90

The New Right party is committed to applying Israeli sovereignty in Area C and opposing the release of terrorists. In the political part of its platform, which was obtained by Israel Hayom, it is written, “As long as we are in the government, we will not allow a return to this pattern of returning terrorists, which is morally flawed and destructive.”

In the document, drafted by ministers Ayelet Shaked and Naftali Bennett, the party commits to refraining from handing over territories, and instead to significantly expand construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

“We oppose the handing over of our land and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of the Land of Israel. We stand by the value settlement in all parts of Israel, including Judea and Samaria. Jerusalem, the united, is the capital of Israel – we will work to renew the building within united Jerusalem and to realize the potential of Givat Hamatos, Har Homa, Pisgat Ze’ev, the City of David and other neighborhoods … In Samaria and Judea there is enormous potential for building, and we will work for free construction, which will enable the doubling of the Jewish population in the area. ”

The New Right intends to apply Israeli sovereignty in Area C and grant Israeli citizenship to tens of thousands of Arab residents in the area. “The residents of Judea and Samaria are not treated equally in terms of construction and property rights … We support the application of Israeli law to the territories under Israeli control.”

German Ambassador to rabbis: ‘World should know your position’

Arutz Sheva – Israel National News
Mordechai Sones, 18/02/19 21:54

Rabbinical Congress for Peace: ‘Past experience has proven without shadow of doubt any withdrawals only embolden terrorists.’

 

Rabbi's emergency conference for Land of Israel

Rabbi’s emergency conference for Land of Israel

Rabbinical Congress for Peace

A delegation of the Rabbinical Congress for Peace, led by central Tel Aviv Rabbi Joseph Gerlitzky, Shavei Shomron Rabbi Avraham Schreiber, and Chief Rabbinical Justice in Europe and Jerusalem Rabbi Yirmiya Cohen met yesterday with Germany’s ambassador to Israel, Susanne Vassum-Rainer.

The rabbis presented the Ambassador with the halachic ruling based on the universal value of the sanctity of life that it is absolutely forbidden to enter negotiations on an Israeli withdrawal from territories presently under its control. “Past experience has proven without a shadow of a doubt that any withdrawals only embolden the terrorists to increase terrorism and instability in the region,” the rabbis said. The rabbis requested that the Ambassador convey their message to the German government.

Ambassador Wasum-Rainer admitted that this was the first time that the Torah view had been called to her attention and recommended that it be brought to the attention of world public opinion too, however, she said, that her government does not take sides in the conflict. She said that she feels that the Palestinians are entitled to their own independent state as well. Rabbi Gerlitzky responded, “there are millions of Muslims in Germany, and no one thinks of granting them autonomy there.”

Rabbi Yirmiyahu HaCohen showed the ambassador original archaeological findings that prove beyond any doubt that the Jewish people have been in Israel from time immemorial and there is no room for debate on the subject.

Rabbi Schreiber talked about his close rapport that he had with Arabs of Gaza when he served as a rabbi in Gush Katif before the disengagement. “It is clear,” he said, “most of the Arab residents in Gaza were against the disengagement because they do not want to live under Palestinian rule. They enjoyed more freedom and prosperity under Israeli rule.”

The ambassador expressed great interest in what the rabbis had to say and promised to convey their message to senior officials in the German government.

Ambassador Wasum-Rainer and her staff were impressed that the rabbis are not affiliated with any party or any political body, but solely articulated the Torah view on the matter out of genuine concern for the peace and safety of the people in Israel.

Rabbi Joseph Gerlitzky

‘The people demand it, the leadership committed: Sovereignty!’

Sovereignty Movement publishes another call to Likud members to back candidates supporting Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

 

Arutz Sheva Staff, 05/02/19 17:00

 

"Time for Sovereignty!"

“Time for Sovereignty!”

Flash 90

On this day of the Likud primaries, the Sovereignty Movement published another call to voters to elect candidates who have declared their commitment to promote implementation of the vision of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria during the coming term of Knesset.

The Movement also published a short film in which senior Likud members and candidates in the primaries express their resolute position regarding the vision of sovereignty. This film clip is similar to others the movement has circulated widely among Likud voters and supporters of Judea and Samaria.

The Movement notes with satisfaction the key place that the vision of sovereignty occupies in a great number of campaigns in the candidates for primaries among the ruling party, the Likud. “The entire leadership of the national camp and the leadership of the Likud in particular, understand its role in leading to the historic, Zionist vision, and aren’t satisfied with just rejecting the dangerous ideas that the Left promotes. The fact that leaders of the Likud have chosen to place the vision of sovereignty at the center of their personal campaigns shows how important this vision is in the political-diplomatic discourse in Israel.”

The co-Chairwomen of the movement, Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar, add: “The Likud movement and the national camp have been in a leadership position for a long time and now must prove it has the power to rule and formulate a historic political plan that not only stops the Left’s ideas but also brings the national concept to fruition. The political winds in the White House and the international preoccupation with other urgent matters enable a swift transition from theory to practice. The next term of Knesset is the true test for the leadership of the national camp.”

Members of the movement mention some of the quotes used in the Likud internal election campaign dealing with the vision of sovereignty and the commitment to promote it in the coming term:

Speaker of the Knesset, MK Yuli Edelstein, in an interview with Udi Segal in “Before the News” (Channel 13): The next term will be characterized by advancing the vision of Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. Until a few years ago the vision seemed cut off from reality and today it is the consensus in the national camp. In an interview for Israel Hayom, Edelstein said:

“The 21st Knesset will be the one that begins the application of Israeli sovereignty in the areas of Judea and Samaria. I, at least, will do everything in my power so that it will happen”.

Minister Gila Gamliel adorned her campaign advertisements with reports on the unrest that her statements aroused in an interview with the Sovereignty Journal, in which she said that a Palestinian state may, at the most, arise in northern Sinai. In an interview with Arutz 7 she said: “We must strive for the application of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. There is no room for another dictatorial state in the Middle East”.

Minister Akunis said in connection with the election period: “My goal is to settle Judea and Samaria, to deepen our hold on the Land and prevent the establishment of a terror state in Judea and Samaria. I do not believe in any scheme such as a ‘state minus’ or ‘state plus’. Surrendering parts of our homeland is not in my lexicon” (Arutz 7).

Minister Yoav Galant expressed himself this way during a visit in Samaria, and made this commitment: “I will act to implement sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. The settlement enterprise is the key to holding onto sovereignty and Zionism”.

Minister Miri Regev said this in an interview: “The Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria want us to apply sovereignty in Judea and Samaria and they are right. They want us to give them the rights that they deserve” (Besheva).

Senior Likud member and former minister Gideon Sa’ar also made a point of expressing his opposition to an Arab state in the heart of the Land as well as the definition of a ‘state minus’. In his opinion, we must present to the Americans the alternative of an autonomy with an affiliation to Jordan. “I oppose the establishment of an Arab state in the heart of the Land of Israel. I believe that this would be dangerous and would not bring about peace or security, but rather the opposite; it would degrade the security and stability of the area” (Arutz Sheva).

Former mayor of Jerusalem Nir Barkat and a candidate for a place on the Likud list for Knesset, said: “I make this commitment: I will fight with all of my power for the application of sovereignty in the areas of Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria in the coming session of Knesset”.

The Sovereignty Movement expresses satisfaction with the statements of the leadership’s deep internalization of public opinion within Israeli society, which calls for an end to Oslo ideas and to put in their place the political, Zionist, appropriate, ethical and just vision, the vision to apply Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. However, the movement emphasizes that statements and declarations are not enough and the burden of proof lies with the leadership.

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

Barkat: No room for Palestinian state

Former Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat pledges to block establishment of Palestinian state, will push for sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

 

Arutz Sheva Staff, 17/01/19 22:04

 

Nir Barkat

Nir Barkat

Hillel Meir/TPS

Former Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat (Likud) responded Thursday to reports that the Middle East peace plan being drawn up by the Trump administration will included the establishment of a Palestinian state spanning most of Judea and Samaria, with its capital in part of eastern Jerusalem.

During a tour of the Samaria Regional Council on Thursday, Barkat said he was opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the area.

“There is no room for another state besides the State of Israel between the Jordan and the sea. The idea of a two-state solution has totally collapsed.”

Barkat also pledged to push for the application of Israeli sovereignty over Israeli towns in Judea and Samaria.

“With a deep sense of the justice of our path, and our rights to this land, now that I am taking on a national leadership role, I promise to fight with all my strength for the extension of Israeli sovereignty over the settlements in Judea and Samaria already in the next [Knesset] term. And I will work to strengthen the wave of construction and economic development [in Judea and Samaria], because this is our country.”

While Channel 13 reported that the Trump administration’s peace plan included the establishment of a Palestinian state over some 90% of Judea and Samaria, with parts of east Jerusalem as its capital, the US has denied the claims.

“While I respect Barak Ravid, his report on Israel’s Channel 13 is not accurate. Speculation about the content of the plan is not helpful. Very few people on the planet know what is in it… for now…,” tweeted special White House envoy Jason Greenblatt.

PA arrests 44 Palestinians for selling properties to Jews

Jpost

The security force urged Palestinians to display caution with regards to real estate transactions and to inform about any suspicious deal of “transferring ownership over land to the occupation.”

By Khaled Abu Toameh
December 23, 2018 21:45
2 minute read.
A general view shows the Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba in Hebron, in the occupied West Bank Septe

A general view shows the Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba in Hebron, in the West Bank September 11, 2018. Picture taken September 11, 2018. (photo credit: MUSSA QAWASMA / REUTERS)

 

The Palestinian Authority announced on Sunday that its security forces have thwarted attempts by Palestinians to sell lands and houses in the West Bank and east Jerusalem to Jewish buyers, and the PA’s Preventive Security Service said in a rare statement that it has arrested 44 Palestinians suspected of involvement in the alleged real estate transactions.

The statement is in the context of a stepped-up PA campaign to deter Palestinians from selling properties to Jews. PA law bars selling land to a “hostile state or any of its citizens.”

In recent weeks, Palestinian religious authorities have repeatedly warned Palestinians against engaging in such deals and said that anyone who violates the law would be accused of “high treason.” The warning came in the aftermath of a number of cases in which east Jerusalem residents either sold their houses to Jewish organizations or were suspected of acting as middlemen in the real estate transactions.

According to the statement, the alleged real estate transactions included 300 hectares of land and three houses in six West Bank districts, including Jerusalem. The transactions were foiled on the basis of “accurate intelligence and field work,” it added.

The purported transactions were supposed to take place in the areas of Ramallah, el-Bireh, Hebron, Salfit, Nablus and Kalkilya, the statement said, adding that 44 Palestinian suspects have been arrested.

The suspects have been referred to the PA prosecutor-general so they could face legal measures, the statement said. Three of the suspects, who were not identified, have been sentenced to 15 years in prison with hard labor, it added, while the remaining suspects are currently standing trial.

The Preventive Security Service said that in accordance with instructions from the Palestinian political echelon Palestinians involved in the sale of properties to Jews will be dealt with firmly and in accordance with the law. “The sale of properties [to Jews] poses a dangerous threat to [Palestinian] national security,” it cautioned.

Osama Qawassmeh, a Fatah spokesman in the West Bank, said last month that PA President Mahmoud Abbas has issued “direct orders” to the Palestinian security forces to crack down on Palestinians suspected of involvement is selling properties to Jews.

The security force urged Palestinians to display caution with regards to real estate transactions and to inform about any suspicious deal of “transferring ownership over land to the occupation.”

One of the Palestinians who are being held on suspicion of involvement in the sale of a house in the Old City of Jerusalem to a Jewish organization is Issam Akel, a Palestinian-American from east Jerusalem. Akel’s family has notified the US State Department of his arrest. The PA, however, has thus far refused to release him.

Akel, 53, holds an Israeli ID card leading to the Israel Police to also launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding his arrest. As part of the investigation, the Israel Police briefly arrested the PA’s “governor” of Jerusalem, Adnan Gheith, on suspicion of involvement in the case.

Last month, US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman called for the release of Akel. “The Palestinian Authority has been holding US citizen Issam Akel for two months,” Friedman pointed out on Twitter. “His suspected ‘crime?’ Selling land to a Jew. Akel’s incarceration is antithetical to the values of the US and to all who advocate the cause of peaceful coexistence. We demand his immediate release.”

“Uti possidetis juris” & Eretz Yisrael

 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.
Since the Hashemite Kingdom of [trans-]Jordan was established as “a [temporary] administrative power” under Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine and trans-Jordan illegally annexed and ethnically cleansed Judea and Samaria; at the end of hostilities (in this case at the conclusion of a treaty of peace in 1984) territorial sovereignty reverts back to the beneficiary of the “sacred trust” under which it was held (per Article 80 of the UN Charter and Article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine) – the Jewish People – terra nullius does not apply as these [“disputed”] Lands are “Liberated Lands” under the principal of Uti possidetis; now that Israel possesses peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan these Liberated Lands are “Treaty Lands” (It might be argued that since Israel is still in a state of war with Lebanon, Syria and Iraq in a defensive posture, terra nullius could never apply due to the Treaties of Sevres and the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924).
One might invoke the principal of Uti possidetis per the 1969 Convention on the Laws of Treaties, as relevant to the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, the Franco-British Boundary Convention and the rights acquired under the Mandate, now reserved in Article 80 of the UN Charter and as acquired under the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 (e.g. Jewish territorial integrity, self-determinism) and demand recognition of past acts of Arab (“Palestinian”) self-determinism (the December 1948 Jericho Conference) (estoppel and laches) as no Trusteeship Agreement has been made under emerging or developing international law with respect to these Treaty Lands.
More recently, the principle has been used in the modified form “Uti possidetis juris” to establish the frontiers of newly independent states by ensuring that the frontiers followed the original boundaries of the old territorial entities from which they emerged.