RUTHFULLY YOURS

One hundred years ago the British government published the Balfour Declaration which stipulated:

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

In 1920, the victorious allies of World War I met in San Remo for the purpose of drawing up boundaries for their captured territories. It was decided, among other things, to put Palestine under British Mandatory rule. Thus, the Allies confirmed the pledge contained in the Balfour Declaration concerning the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine and made it a legal obligation on Britain and a legal entitlement for the Jews.

When the Palestine Mandate was drafted by the League of Nations pursuant to the San Remo Resolution, it added this important recital:

“Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

This addition was of great importance as it affirmed the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, which, by the way, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the UN today are doing their best to deny. In addition, the Jewish right to “reconstitute” their national home was recognized. Thus the Jews were in Palestine as a matter of right and not sufferance.

The Mandate provided,

“The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co¬operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.“

The first betrayal of that promise and right came in 1921 before the Mandate was signed. The Arabs had rioted and Britain decided to reduce Jewish immigration to “absorptive capacity.” They told Chaim Weizmann that the mandate wouldn’t be signed if the Jews didn’t agree to delete, temporarily, the east bank of the Jordan. The Jews had no choice but to agree and the Palestine Mandate was signed in 1922. This territory amounted to 78% of what was promised to the Jews and it ultimately became Jordan. The deletion of the east bank became permanent, contrary to Article 5 which prohibited any removal of land from the Mandate.

The West has for decades displayed a diplomatic double standard when it comes to its consulates: refusing to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, but holding diplomatic missions to the Palestinian Authority in the very same city.
Much has been made in recent months of President Donald Trump’s pledge to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and its possible repercussions. The public conversation has generally concentrated on the potential diplomatic and political fallout, especially the possibility of a new outbreak of Palestinian violence. Lost in all the controversy, however, is the fact that the U.S. is one of nine countries that already has a de factoembassy in Jerusalem. But these are all embassies to the Palestinians, not Israel.

The U.S. embassy in Israel is located in Tel Aviv, but much less well known is that the U.S. consulate-general sits in Jerusalem, just around the corner from the Prime Minister’s residence—and it handles diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority. It is one of nine consulates-general in Jerusalem, all of which serve the same purpose. Five of them—the UK, Turkey, Belgium, Spain and Sweden—are in eastern Jerusalem. The consulates-general of the US, France, Italy, and Greece are in western Jerusalem. The European Union also has a representative office in eastern Jerusalem, and the Holy See has an Apostolic Nunciature there, alongside the Palestinian offices of several international agencies.

None of the countries that have consulates in Jerusalem recognize Israeli sovereignty over the city. Consequently, their official embassies remain in Tel Aviv. Their consulates in Jerusalem are, almost uniquely, accredited to no state. And none of the consuls seek an exequatur, the diplomatic authorization required by international law. Nevertheless, the Israeli Foreign Ministry treats them for all intents and purposes as if they were normal consulates accredited to the State of Israel. Their jurisdiction covers the whole of Jerusalem, as apart from Israel, as well as the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Why do nine countries refuse to operate embassies in Jerusalem on the grounds that they do not recognize Israeli sovereignty there, while maintaining diplomatic missions to the Palestinians in the very same city? None of the relevant foreign ministries was willing to publicly justify the situation. Indeed, the story of this diplomatic anomaly is one of a situation that no country designed or consciously desired, but that no one today has the will to change.
The consulates-general in Jerusalem predate the State of Israel itself: the U.S. Consulate-General has been on Agron Road since 1912 and the French Consulate-General nearby opened its doors in 1929. Many of these consulates trace their roots as far back as the Ottoman period, and under the British Mandate, Jerusalem hosted many other consulates that were subsequently abandoned.

When the UN General Assembly recommended the partition of Mandatory Palestine into two states in Resolution 181 in November 1947, it also recommended that Jerusalem become a corpus separatum: a territory administered by the UN’s Trusteeship Council itself, belonging to neither side. This resolution, of course, was never implemented: the Arab states waged war to defeat it, and consequently Jerusalem was divided between Israel in the west and Transjordan in the east.

The UN refused to let the idea of the corpus separatum die, despite accepting that its earlier border proposals were now defunct. In Resolution 194 of December 1948, the General Assembly resolved that Jerusalem “should be accorded special and separate treatment…and should be placed under effective United Nations control.” Consequently, foreign states began establishing their embassies to Israel in Tel Aviv.

The controversial – because so ardently pro-Israel – nominee to become the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Thursday morning.

The contentious hearing on Friedman’s nomination took place back in mid-February. Since then, Friedman and his supporters have been biting their nails, waiting for the committee to vote on the nomination.
In the month between the committee hearing and Thursday’s vote, many U.S. organizations which deal with Israel worked actively to encourage Senators to vote in accordance with those organization’s values.

J Street, the prog-elite organization highly critical of Israel and especially Israel’s security efforts, worked overtime in an effort to derail Friedman’s nomination.

Firmly pro-Israel organizations such as Americans for a Safe Israel, EMET, Iron Dome Alliance, Jews Choose Trump, ZOA, COPMA and JCC Watch hand-delivered a letter to all members of the SFRC urging them to vote in favor of the nomination.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) did not take a position on Friedman’s nomination.

The vote in favor of Friedman went almost strictly along party lines. Almost, because Democrat Sen. Bob Menendez (NJ) once again voted his conscience and refused to be intimidated by party leadership. Menendez voted “aye” when his name was announced during the roll call vote on Thursday morning. The New Jersey Senator had also voted against approving the Nuclear Iran Deal which had become a highly partisan issue.

Committee member chair Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) spoke briefly before the vote. His endorsement was read without emotion from a prepared statement. Next to speak was the ranking committee member Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), who had already announced that he was going to vote against the nomination.

Cardin said the words Friedman had used in various op-eds which were extremely negative suggested to him that Friedman would not prove to be the “unifying force” needed in the region. The Maryland Senator was also critical of Friedman’s statements in opposition to the “Two State Solution.”

Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and Tim Kaine (D-VA) also spoke against Friedman’s nomination. Both Senators took umbrage at Friedman’s past written criticisms of far left organizations and members of the U.S. government, including former President Barack Obama.

The four brief statements were then followed by a roll call which resulted in the voting out, with approval, of Friedman’s nomination.

The nomination now awaits a vote by the full Senate.

There is no shortage of Palestinian and Arab news websites that publish hoaxes, propaganda, lies and disinformation disguised as real news. This garbage is accepted as factual by many Palestinians and other Arabs.

This is a form of incitement to which the West is deaf, largely because journalists working for Western mainstream media do not wish to understand what is being reported in Arabic, or even in English.

Blood libels against Jews were once thought to be part of the dark past. They are not. What do such stories accomplish? Excuses for the murder of Jews.

Another “new” old blood libel that Palestinians have been spreading against Israel claims that Israelis are flooding Palestinian communities with narcotics in order to spread moral corruption and destroy the health of Palestinians. This lie helps Palestinians avoid responsibility for the smuggling of drugs (by Palestinians) into the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Jordan and Egypt.

That leaves us with some questions: Where is the international community’s exposure of the lies that fuel the Palestinian murder of Jews? And: Will the international community once again in history fail to speak the truth about the murder of Jews?

One after another, young Palestinians continue to carry out terrorist attacks against Jews. Why? We might start at the beginning: the campaign of incitement, indoctrination and lies that Palestinian media outlets wage against Israel. This campaign has poisoned the hearts and minds of millions of Arabs and Muslims. It ought to be no surprise, then, when the poisoned Palestinian youths grab a weapon and set out to do the death-work they are taught to cherish.

The anti-Israel incitement can even be quite subtle. Those injecting the venom do not always issue a direct call for Palestinians to go out and kill Jews. It is enough, for example, to tell Palestinians that Jews are “defiling with their filthy feet” Islamic holy sites, to drive a Palestinian to go out and stab a Jew.

http://www.jpost.com/Blogs/My-Nation-Lives/This-Week-in-Israeli-History-Joseph-Trumpeldor-and-the-Battle-of-Tel-Hai-446621

Joseph Trumpeldor was born in Russia in 1880. After hearing news of the First Zionist Congress in 1897, the teenage Trumpeldor became entranced with the Zionist idea and even opened up a local Zionist club. In 1902 he was drafted to the Russian Army upon the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War. During the fighting Trumpeldor lost his left hand to shrapnel, but still insisted on returning to the front lines, reasoning “but I still have my other arm…” He re-entered the war and fell into Japanese captivity after the Russian Army surrendered at Port Arthur. Upon his release, he received four decorations for bravery, making him the highest decorated Jewish soldier in Russia and the first Jew to receive an officer’s commission in the Russian Army.

After the war Trumepldor moved to the Holy Land and worked in agriculture. With the outbreak of World War I, he was expelled by the Ottoman authorities and sought refuge in Egypt where he met Ze’ev Jabotinsky. Together they advocated for the creation of a Jewish unit within the British Army that would assist in liberating the Land of Israel from Turkish rule.

The British were reluctant to accept their proposal and instead formed a transport unit called the Zion Mule Corps that consisted of 650 Jewish soldiers. With Trumpeldor as Deputy Commander, the Zion Mule Corps fought admirably in the Gallipoli Campaign. The Mule Corps’ Commanding Officer, John Henry Patterson, later said of Trumpeldor: “Many of the Zionists whom I thought somewhat lacking in courage showed themselves fearless to a degree when under heavy fire, while Captain Trumpeldor actually revelled in it, and the hotter it became the more he liked it …”

After the Mule Corps was disbanded, Trumpeldor and Jabotinsky travelled to London and successfully lobbied the British government to form the famed Jewish Legion.

At the conclusion of the war Trumepldor returned to British-ruled Mandatory Palestine and assisted in protecting Jewish settlements from marauding Arabs who would often attack and rob them of their day’s labor. One day Trumepldor received word from the village of Tel Hai requesting for backup due to the deteriorating security situation in the region. He immediately rushed to the village with a handful of others to help protect the villagers.

On March 1, 1920, several hundred Arabs arrived at Tel Hai, demanding to search the fort for fleeing French officers. A verbal dispute broke out and a battle ensued. Joseph Trumpledor was killed in the battle along with seven others. When the doctor arrived and asked Trumpeldor how he was feeling, he said his famous last words that were immortalized within the annals of Israeli history: “Never mind, it is good to die for our country.”

Kiryat Shmona (lit. Town of the Eight), one of the largest cities in northern Israel, is named after Joseph Trumpeldor and the seven mighty fighters that perished defending Tel Hai