Motzei Shabbat (after Shabbat)
“Kaf Tet B’November” is precisely this: the 29th of November.
Sixty seven years ago today, the United Nations General Assembly voted to recommend the division of Palestine west of the Jordan River into a Jewish state and an Arab state.
There are so many lessons to be derived from this historical date that I could not let it pass without mention:
All of the land that the General Assembly recommended be divided was British Mandate land. In 1922, the League of Nations – in accordance with the San Remo Resolution of 1920 – conferred upon Britain the mandatory responsibility for securing the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine.
Actually, the original Mandate for Palestine included all of what is today Jordan, as well. But the British very quickly lopped off all of the land east of the Jordan (77% of Palestine) and, in a bit of political maneuvering, turned it over to Abdullah ibn Hussein of Arabia.
The Mandate for Palestine was binding in international law from the time of its establishment at the San Remo Conference.
As Winston Churchill, who was British Secretary of the State for the Colonies, said in 1922:
“When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance.”
The Mandate accorded Jews, and only Jews, political right to self-determination on this land; non-Jews were accorded only individual civil rights. “Close settlement” of the Jews was to be encouraged everywhere in the land except areas required for public use.
A host of legal documents over the years has testified to the continuing validity of the Mandate. I will note here that Article 80 of the UN Charter verified that the Mandate survived the demise of the League of Nations and persisted as a legal commitment to the Jews.
For more information about the Mandate for Palestine, see:
All of the above said, the years from 1922 until 1947 did not proceed according to the vision of the Mandate. This was in good measure because the British – who as it turned out were considerably less than eager to honor their mandatory responsibility in any event – found themselves contending with a restive and sometimes violent Arab population within Mandatory Palestine.
Ultimately, the British threw up their hands and informed the UN (the successor to the League of Nations) that it would be turning back the Mandate. At this point the UN General Assembly recommended that Mandatory Palestine be divided. This was Resolution 181. The vote was 33 to 12 with 10 abstentions:
In spite of the fact that what was recommended was considerably less than what was to be have been accorded to the Jews under the Mandate – less than the Jews had a legal right to according to the international accord of the Mandate – there was enormous rejoicing among the Jews of Palestine when the vote was announced.
Why this rejoicing? Because after the interminable grief of Arab hostilities, the international community was setting the stage for Jewish self-determination.
The Jewish community – represented by the Jewish Agency – accepted the recommendation; the Arabs states, acting as a bloc, unanimously rejected it.
This is of enormous importance in several regards.
The Resolution required the agreement of both parties in order for there to be a change in the legal status quo. The Mandate land had been accorded to the Jews. Had the Arabs agreed, and concluded a legal accord with the Jews that established a border between the two states, the legal situation would have changed. But this never happened, my friends
Resolution 181, coming as it did from the General Assembly, was ONLY a recommendation and not binding in international law. Legally, the partition did not exist: the land that was in the part of Palestine that had been recommended for an Arab state was still Mandate land.
Why did the Arabs refuse? Same story as today. They wanted all of the land, and were not content to officially endorse any Jewish state on any part of the land.
The Arabs sometimes claim today that they have a right to the land that Resolution 181 recommended become an Arab state. This is unmitigated nonsense. They refused it. They could have had it and chose not to take it. There has NEVER been a sovereign Arab state (never mind a “Palestinian Arab” state) in Palestine. They have convinced the world otherwise, but they have no claim.
It must be made clear that this recommendation did not “establish” the state of Israel. It paved the way, and then the Jewish Agency declared the State of Israel on May 14, 1948. The state was declared on the portion of Palestine that Resolution 181 recommended be allocated for a Jewish state. But this does not mean that the Jews had legally relinquished rights to the rest of Palestine.
Within hours of declaring the state, the people of Israel were fighting the War of Independence – the Arab states vowed to annihilate the new Jewish state. And in point of fact, the Arab attacks had begun with the passage of Resolution 181. The Jews of Palestine were already thorough immersed in protecting their lives and the portion of the land upon which their community lived and which would be established as their state. That they had not the resources at that point to physically claim all of Palestinian as theirs does not negate their right to claim that land now.
The implications for what is going on today are obvious, and I will pick up on this in my next posting.
“I am waging a Bloodless Revolution in America’s Public Schools…” – Shabbir Mansuri (Founder and Director of the Council on Islamic Education)
Please tune in: Global Freedom Radio TODAY, Saturday, 11/29 at 4 PM PST.
Acces the DIRECT LINK, HERE
Magnified View Radio will interview CP-USA Chairman, H.M. Hervey on Saturday, 11/29/14 at 4 PM PST. This exclusive interview will explore how the Conservative Party was founded, why it’s needed to rectify the failures of the major two parties and its’ plans for 2015
The Magnified View and sister radio program Voices of Global Freedom are proud and privileged to join forces with the Conservative Party USA.
“The Conservative Party USA’s principles, standards and values to stop America’s graveyard spiral, precisely parallels our mission,” Janorama, Editor-In Chief of the Magnified View, told Fox News’ Susan Wilson, yesterday. “Our partnership will exceed the sum of our separate efforts to inform our citizens of what they can do to protect their freedoms.”
“We have interrupted our scheduled VIP guest lineup to bring you this important information in a timely fashion,” said Roy (“Backpack”) Baron, Founding host of this popular patriotic program. “This intelligence will not be found anywhere on the lame stream media.”
Please tune in: Global Freedom Radio on Saturday, 11/29 at 4 PM PST.
P.S. President William Palumbo of coalition of American patriots will update his weekly news bulletin segment
By: Arlen Williams
It was almost December, and Jonas was beginning
to be frightened.
And so the story beings. Written two decades ago, it has been called the first dystopian novel for youths, something notable to Gulag Bound. While it was still fresh on the scene, Jeff Bridges began seeking to make a movie of it, at first hoping his father Lloyd could play its elder lead. Sixteen years later he received that role, himself.
It is almost December and now the film may be seen in the solitude of home; and as it happens, the story has something of a Christmas theme. Call it Christmastide in one dream of a post-Agenda 21 world. Is such a thing “sustainable?”
In this instance, the author of the book, Lois Lowry, recommends the movie. I confess seeing more movies end-to-end than reading books that way, especially since the alarms of our very dystopically prone 2008. Books are great for taking in nearly the full set of meanings and contexts intended by an author full of thoughts. Movies take less time to tell the story, while resting the intention-juggling concentrator of one’s mind.
A well made film may focus on the main things and despite its relatively fast pace, furnish space for the viewer’s filling-in of his own first and second impressions.
Main things I was very pleased to find this movie zeroing-in upon are four observations I’ve been grateful to gain over the years, about collectivist, statist, elitist engineered, and perversely labeled “progressive” societies:
- they lie, even against nature itself, especially human nature
- they steal, possessions and freedom, and where they may…
- they coerce, even to extort one’s due role of who He is under God
- inevitably, in one way or various others, they murder.
And here we are, almost December of 2014 and how many are coming to understand?
To understand adequately we must receive what is given from the greatest, outside of us, outside what many would allow.
By: Doug Ross
Doug Ross @ Journal
For those who are wondering how Barack Obama — a man seemingly engaged in full-time campaigning, fundraising and rabble-rousing — could also have the bandwidth to weaken America both at home and abroad, the answer is really quite simple.
In the White House, Jarrett has been linked to a wide variety of scandals and other policy debacles.
There are credible reports that Jarrett blocked the attack on Osama Bin Laden’s compound on three separate occasions.
Similar reports indicate that she gave the “stand down” order to would-be rescuers in Benghazi on 9/11/2012.
In 2012, she was reported to have led Obama’s “secret negotiations” with Iran’s Mullahs. Subsequent accounts depicted Jarrett as working with Iran’s nuclear experts to ensure the Islamic Republic could continue on its march to build nuclear weapons.
On Thursday, the Wall Street Journal‘s Kim Strassel summarized the ramifications of Jarrett’s litany of policy failures in stark terms: everyone but her is expendable.
Among those thrown under Jarrett’s bus: Christina Romer, Jim Jones, Bill Daley, Leon Panetta, Kathleen Sebelius, Rahm Emanuel, Austan Goolsbee, Larry Summers, Peter Orszag, Vivek Kundra, Eric Shinseki, Keith Alexander, James Clapper and, most recently, Chuck Hagel. Hagel’s ostensible replacement, Michèle Flournoy, turned down the opportunity because she didn’t “want to be a doormat.”
As Strassel asks:
Who would want to work for a boss whose experiments in big government all but guarantee their reputation will be ruined in the aftermath of a bureaucratic collapse? … And who wants to work for a boss who doesn’t have your back? … Is it possible to have any other experience working for Mr. Obama—a boss who doesn’t listen, views everything politically, always thinks he’s right, and whose policies are a recipe for a lost reputation?
Which brings us at last to the Democrats’ latest haven for race-baiting, Ferguson.
Jarrett was in contact with Missouri’s Governor Nixon in the run-up to the announcement of the Grand Jury’s decision.
While Nixon denied the administration pressured him to resist activating the National Guard to put down the violent protests, the White House has admitted that Jarrett was in close contact with the governor during the first 24 hours of violent protests.
Nixon came under heavy criticism for failing to deploy the National Guard to quash the protests, which resulted in massive property damage. It now would seem that Jarrett had a hand in that decision as well.
And who is our crypto-president?
In 2008, The Boston Globe exposed Jarrett’s background as the failed chief executive of The Habitat Company, which managed government-subsidized housing complexes in Chicago from 2001 until 2006. Her leadership, if you can call it that, resulted in violations so egregious that many units were deemed “uninhabitable” and eventually the federal government was forced to seize the properties.
That year, Judicial Watch named Jarrett to its “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” list for her ties to the failed housing complexes and “other shady real estate scandals.”
Jarrett’s grandfather Robert Taylor is reported to have served in a leadership role for the Soviet Union’s American front group during World War II, when Stalin was still allied with the Third Reich. Taylor’s “American Peace Mobilization” was a Soviet initiative designed to keep America out of the war so that Hitler and Stalin could divvy up Europe and Asia virtually unopposed.
So, in short, the first female President is a hard-core Leftist with an abysmal track record for decision-making, a horrifically failed tenure as a chief executive, a stunning inability to learn and a steely refusal to take responsibilities for her many failures.
But she’s the president and you’re not.
Which explains why Jarrett — against all historic precedent — was given a Secret Service detail for protection.
Hat Tip: BB
Hat Tip: BB