Mandate for Palestine - July 24, 1922

Mandate for Palestine - July 24, 1922
Jordan is 77% of former Palestine - Israel, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza comprise 23%.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Olmert's Unilateralism Undermines Unity

[Published April 2006]

"Convergence" is the buzzword used by Ehud Olmert and his slick Public Relations team to gift-wrap his policy on Israel's intended unilateral withdrawal from large areas of the West Bank to a defensive line behind the security barrier being presently constructed by Israel.

365,000 Jews today live in the West Bank -- roughly the size of Delaware -- among 2.3 million Arabs.

"Convergence" has already become entrenched in the international lexicon of the Middle East and in the media although no one had heard of the word just two months ago.

Yet the use of this word masks a multi faceted approach to singling out and victimising Jews on a scale not seen since the 1930's and 1940's.

"Convergence" is defined in the Chambers 20th century dictionary to mean, "coming nearer together, tending towards or meeting in one point or value"

"Convergence" as espoused by Mr Olmert will actually result in Jews being alienated from each other -- precisely the opposite of what he is suggesting -- since his policy will have the following consequences:

1. The forced removal of up to 70,000 Jews from their homes and businesses in the West Bank in breach of international humanitarian law embodied in the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to both of which treaties Israel is a signatory.

2. The abrogation of the right of present and future generations of Jews anywhere in the world to return and settle in the West Bank for the purpose of reconstituting the Jewish National Home in that area as was specifically conferred on them by the San Remo Conference and the Treaty of Sevres 1920, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine 1922 and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

How such outcomes can possibly be described as bringing people nearer together remains unexplained by Mr Olmert.

"Convergence" is in fact a repackaged version of Ariel Sharon's policy of "Disengagement" or "Evacuation" carried out last year in the Gaza Strip where 8000 Jews and the international Jewish community saw their legal and humanitarian rights trampled on in exactly the same manner.

Far from bringing Jews nearer together such "Disengagement" has created areas of resentment and frustration as well as breakdowns in family and societal relationships that are ongoing and serious.

The failure of the Israeli Government to meet its obligations to those it forcibly removed and whose livelihoods it destroyed could well lead to continuing tragedies on an unprecedented scale.

Ariel Sharon promised the Israeli public and the international Jewish community that no further "painful concessions" of this kind would be undertaken at least until a peace agreement was reached with Israel's neighbours in accordance with the Road Map compiled by the Quartet -- the US, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.

His Deputy Ehud Olmert has repudiated this assurance and now claims to have received a mandate to introduce more of the same medicine under the supposed guise of bringing Jews closer together within more defensible lines.

In fact, such policy will serve to further exacerbate the frictions and divisions in Israeli society caused by the Gaza withdrawal at a time when unity is needed more than ever to face the enemies that surround Israel.

Mr. Olmert's "Convergence" policy will have a harder time getting off the ground in the West Bank than Mr.Sharon 's "Disengagement" policy from Gaza for the following reasons:

1. 70,000 people will be affected this time, not 8000, and they will be fully aware of the manner in which those 8000 people in Gaza were left to fend for themselves.

2. Another 295,000 people living within a 30 minutes drive of those being tossed out of their homes and businesses will see this as the thin edge of the wedge. Failure by them to protest and prevent such "convergence" could well see them next in the firing line to be removed. Gaza was not in their backyard, but the areas to be vacated in the West Bank certainly are. They should not rely on their living inside the security barrier to guarantee they will not also be forcibly removed at some later date.

3. Those Jews allowed to remain in the West Bank will be subjected to ever increasing terror attacks as the recently elected Hamas Government and other Arab terrorist militias quickly move in to take control of and operate from the areas vacated by Jews.

4. Any Government promises of no such further unilateral withdrawals being undertaken will not be believed and with good reason.

Mr Olmert needs to stop and think long and hard before embarking on an expedition that threatens to destroy what little unity still exists in Israel.

He needs to ponder on the effect his policy will have on the strong and supportive relationship Israel enjoys with Jewish communities throughout the world who will have no say in his unilateral abandonment of their rights and those of future generations to live in the vacated areas of the West Bank -- the biblical heartland of the Jewish people

Mr Olmert can still unilaterally separate from the Arab residents living in the West Bank by withdrawing to defensible lines that will incorporate the overwhelming majority of those 70000 Jews without the necessity of moving them. This will allow Israel to retain those areas until a final peace treaty is achieved.

Sugarcoating a policy that can have catastrophic effects for the Jewish people with the imprimatur of "convergence" is doublespeak of the worst possible kind.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

What Sharon Should Have Told The United Nations

[Published September 2005]

Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon missed a golden opportunity to address the future of the West Bank before the 170 world leaders who had gathered at the United Nations last week to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the founding of that organization.

Instead the words he uttered were sweet music to the ears of most of those leaders justifying the vitriolic War of Words waged by their countries against the Jewish State in complete betrayal of the promises given to the Jewish people by the United Nations and its predecessor the League of Nations.

Standing at the podium, Mr. Sharon meekly repeated the mantra continually preached by these countries:

"The Palestinians are also entitled to freedom, and to a national, sovereign existence in a state of their own."

This was a far cry from the defiant words uttered by Mr Sharon in Time on 17 April 1989:

"Jordan is Palestine! The capital of Palestine is Amman. If Palestinian Arabs want to find their political expression, they will have to do it in Amman."

No attempt was made in Mr Sharon's speech to retrace the history of Palestine, a territory created with defined boundaries for the first time ever by the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 and the League of Nations in 1922 after the defeat of Turkey and Germany in World War I.

He could well have quoted Israel's former ambassador to the United Nations, the late Abba Eban, who had eloquently summarised that history when he said in Newsweek on 2 December 1974:

"Palestine comes into modern history as a region extending on both sides of the Jordan, comprising the present sovereign territories of Israel and Jordan and the administered areas of the West Bank and Gaza. Of this original Palestine, 80 per cent became an exclusively Arab domain through the separation of Trans-Jordan from Palestine."

A modicum of research could have enabled Mr Sharon to also remind the gathered world leaders, particularly King Abdullah of Jordan, of the statement made to the United Nations by Israeli Ambassador Yehuda Blum on 3 December, 1979:

"Let me remind the Jordanian representatives of the record. Between 1922 and 1946, Trans-Jordan remained an integral part of Mandated Palestine. In 1946 it became the independent Palestinian Arab State in that area. When King Abdullah came to the Jericho Conference in December 1948, which was attended by Palestinian Arabs west of the Jordan River, he was crowned "King of Palestine". Abdullah, in fact, wanted to rename his country "The Kingdom of Palestine". King Hussein, in his memoirs, indicates clearly that Trans-Jordan was arbitrarily siphoned off from the rest of Mandated Palestine. Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan, in the Jordanian National Assembly on 2 February 1970, stated unambiguously:
'Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine. The nation is one and the land is one'"

Given the current leadership tensions between Mr. Sharon and Mr. Netanyahu, Mr Sharon would probably have found it difficult to quote what Mr. Netanyahu told the United Nations on 11 December 1984, although the national interest certainly dictated that Mr. Sharon should do so:

"Clearly, in Eastern and Western Palestine, there are only two peoples, the Arabs and the Jews. Just as clearly, there are only two States in that area, Jordan and Israel. The Arab State of Jordan, containing some 3 million Arabs, does not allow a single Jew to live there. It also contains 4/5th of the territory originally allocated by this body's predecessor, the League of Nations, for the Jewish National Home. The other State, Israel, has a population of over 4 million of which one sixth is Arab. It contains less than 1/5th of the territory originally allocated to the Jews under the Mandate?. It cannot be said, therefore, that the Arabs of Palestine are lacking a state of their own. The demand for a second Palestinian Arab State in Western Palestine, and a 22nd Arab State in the world, is merely the latest attempt to push Israel back into the hopelessly vulnerable armistice lines of 1949 "

Having reminded the world leaders present of these past statements, Mr Sharon should then have told them:

"The League of Nations and the United Nations promised the Jews that they would be entitled to resettle and reconstitute the Jewish National Home on land from which they had been dispossessed 2000 years earlier by Roman invaders, provided nothing was done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of the "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". No political rights were conferred or intended to be conferred on those communities then or in the future.

This promise to the Jews extended to the West Bank, which you now obscenely call "occupied Palestinian territory" and from where you wish to see all Jews removed to create a State solely for the Arab residents contrary to the terms of the Mandate and article 80 of the United Nations Charter, which the United Nations has consistently ignored but which it must now confront and acknowledge.

The Road Map calling for the creation of a sovereign Arab State between Jordan and Israel in the whole of the West Bank and Gaza, now supported by the United Nations, the United States, Russia and the European Union, is the very opposite of what the United Nations has pledged to fulfill in accordance with its own Charter.

Israel now enjoys peace treaties with its neighbors Jordan and Egypt.

The path to peace in the West Bank and Gaza must involve the division of sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza between these three nations in trilateral negotiations chaired by the Secretary General of the United Nations.

Israel stands ready to enter into such negotiations to cede sovereignty of the heavily populated Arab areas of the West Bank to Jordan. Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza indicates its willingness to cede sovereignty in Gaza to Egypt or Jordan and not rule over its neighbors.

I urge you all to abandon the idea that Jews have no legal right to settle in the West Bank and reconstitute their national home in that area. If international law is to have any meaning in regulating the conduct of the international community, then you must give legal effect to the Mandate and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Seize the day, because the time is short."

If the 170 dignitaries present were not prepared to listen, at least the 15 million Jews all over the World would be applauding Israel's Prime Minister for his principled stand instead of recoiling at his abject acceptance of Jewish rights being trampled on in their own homeland by a United Nations acting in breach of its own Charter.

Friday, July 13, 2007

Evacuation or Expulsion?

[Published August 2005]

Amidst the turmoil enveloping Israel as the proposed disengagement date approaches, one question remains unanswered: are the Jewish communities living in Gaza and Northern Samaria being expelled or evacuated?

This is not a semantic question only, but has a vital bearing on the future of the sovereignty of those areas from which Israel proposes to disengage.

"Evacuation" indicates a temporary uprooting with the intention of returning when the emergency giving rise to the evacuation has subsided.

Thus large population centres were evacuated during the terrible tsunami earlier this year or Londoners were evacuated during the wartime blitz by the Germans in World War 2.

No one ever suggested they would not be allowed to return to their homes after the crisis had ended.

"Expulsion" on the other hand indicates something far more permanent. A child expelled from a school has no chance of returning to that school. A diplomat expelled from a country will never be accepted back in that country.

Strangely, the language used by Israel's Government speaks of "evacuation", while the language used by the Opposition to disengagement speaks of "expulsion".

Ariel Sharon needs to urgently explain whether Israel still maintains its claim to sovereignty in those areas from which it is currently removing Jewish communities or whether its disengagement amounts to a ceding of all claims of sovereignty to those areas which it is leaving.

Based on the use of the word "evacuation", it would appear that Israel is not ceding its claims, which are well grounded in international law arising from the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Israel can certainly cede those claims, but to my knowledge Ariel Sharon has not mentioned this "c" word.

One can envisage an Israeli return to Gaza and Northern Samaria, should the Palestinians carry out their threats to continue the armed struggle all the way to Jerusalem. Israel's response could be disastrous for the Palestinians and wipe out whatever political or territorial gains they may make as a result of Israel's initial withdrawal.

If these circumstances arose would Sharon then be able to claim sovereignty or was the initial disengagement a ceding of all claims to any parts of the areas from which withdrawal took place?

Sharon could do well to clarify what this forthcoming disengagement means, because it could have an important bearing on the Road Map so earnestly espoused by the USA, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.

By continuing to use the word "evacuation" to describe its actions, Israel seems to be making it very clear that if the Palestinians don't embark on the Road Map and instead continue to use violence and incitement to achieve their goal of an independent State, the removal of the Jewish communities will be only temporary, Israel will return in force and claim sovereignty of such parts of the areas vacated as it deems in its national interest.

Sharon continues to play his cards close to the chest.

Israelis, and indeed the whole world, should be taken into Sharon's confidence on this very vital issue.

Friday, July 6, 2007

Uprooting Jews Violates International Treaties

[Published June 2005]

Plans by the Israeli Government to forcibly remove Jews from their homes in the West Bank and Gaza breach the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 [Covenant] as well as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 [Convention], to both of which Israel is a signatory.

Article 17 of the Covenant provides that:

1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 16 of the Convention expressly protects children and is a mirror image of Article 17.

The International Court of Justice determined last year that both the Covenant and the Convention are applicable in the West Bank and Gaza, which Israel had disputed.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan however also advised the International Court that Israel recognises that the Convention is intended to protect its citizens from their own Government in times of peace.

Israel's High Court of Justice acknowledged in its recent judgement on the disengagement law, that the forced evacuation of Israelis would undermine their human dignity.

The High Court nevertheless asserted that the disengagement law passed all constitutional tests because it "corresponds with the Zionist values of the State and is intended for a worthy purpose -- the political, national and security purposes on which the disengagement is based are designed to realize a vital and substantial need."

This viewpoint could not be successfully raised to negate article 17 since Article 4.1 of the Covenant states:

"In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin."

Israel's forced removal of Jewish residents of Gaza and the West Bank obviously involves discrimination solely on the ground of race and/or religion and so could not be relied on by Israel to escape its international obligations under the Covenant or the Convention.

Jews living in the West Bank and Gaza are legally entitled to reside there pursuant to the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter in order to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in those areas as specifically stated in the Mandate document.

Many returned there after 1967 to reclaim land from which other Jews had been driven out in 1948 by six invading Arab armies.

Any attempt now to forcibly uproot Jews from their homes against their expressed will is therefore in breach of the inalienable rights conferred on them by the Covenant, the Convention, the Mandate and the United Nations Charter.

Choosing to stay will not be palatable to all 8000 Jews affected by the withdrawal of Israel's army and they will have the option of accepting the compensation packages that are being offered by the Israeli Government to those who voluntarily leave.

But one thing is certain -- the forced removal of Jews from the West Bank and Gaza is not permitted or authorised under international law and is in breach of international agreements in force since 1920 authorising Jews to live in those areas.

President Bush, President Putin, the European Union and the United Nations have publicly welcomed the forced uprooting, whilst Human Rights organisations are deafening in their silence toward such expulsions.

Would they all act differently if the Arabs residing in the West Bank and Gaza were subjected to such proposed action against their will?

Ariel Sharon needs to revise his thinking on this aspect of his proposed disengagement.

He should urgently seek the opinion of the High Court of Justice on this issue before embarking on a course of action that has the capacity to lead to the outbreak of civil insubordination and threatens to seriously undermine the ability of Israel to resist those who seek its' total annihilation.

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

City of Maaleh Adumim blurs Bush's blueprint

[Published April 2005]

Israel is indeed unique.

It is constantly singled out for special treatment that no other country would accept or tolerate.

Take the case of Maaleh Adumim, which is situated in the West Bank (called Judea until 1950, as those who followed Pope John's funeral service were reminded).

The West Bank is an area of land just 5,860 square kilometres in size -- about the size of Delaware.

President Bush calls Maaleh Adumim a "settlement", a code word indicating that Jews are not welcome residents in any part of this territory where neither Jews nor Arabs have yet established the internationally recognised right to be its sovereign ruler.

In fact Maaleh Adumim is a thriving metropolis of 32,000 people, containing 9 schools , 39 kindergartens, 7 medical centres and two family centres.

There is no hospital, but 5 major hospitals are located just 7 kilometres up the road in Jerusalem.

President Bush reminded Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon during their recent meeting at the President's Crawford Ranch that under the Road Map Israel had to refrain from any new settlement activity.

The President was particularly concerned that Israel was planning to build another 3500 housing units in the Maale Adumim "settlement".

Has a city of 32,000 people ever been told they must refrain from having children, getting married or enjoying family reunification?

President Bush is worried that the fundamental basic human rights of 32,000 Jews to copulate and populate might cut off Palestinian access to East Jerusalem frustrating his two State vision of Israel and a Palestinian democratic State living side by side.

The President really needs to exercise tunnel vision to overcome this basic moral flaw in his plan to succeed where others have so dismally failed.

The Palestinians have proved themselves very adept at building tunnels through which they have smuggled all kinds of weapons and explosives in their unremitting terrorist campaign against their Jewish neighbours.

No doubt a system of tunnels could be constructed and used for peaceful purposes to allow any such access under or around Maaleh Adumim.

The President is supposedly said to have given Mr. Sharon a commitment that Israel would be able to hold on to "major population centres" such as Maaleh Adumim.

Why doesn't he have the guts to come out and publicly say so right now rather than try to put a hold on the lives and hopes of 32,000 people and create false expectations for the Palestinians whose cause he apparently is championing?

Maaleh Adumim just happens to be located in an area slated for the reconstitution and establishment of the Jewish National Home by "close settlement on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes" as was proclaimed by the League of Nations Mandate, which still is alive and operative today by virtue of Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

President Bush's moral and legal blindness also extends to his three partners in the Road Map -- the European Union, Russia and the United Nations -- none of which cares a hoot what history, the United Nations Charter or international law says or prescribes.

We see how absurd this Road Map really has become when the President of the world's only superpower backed up by his three powerful enforcers has to tell 32,000 people that they have to live and behave in ways that would not be acceptable in any other part of the World.

Intent on creating a second Arab State in Palestine in addition to Jordan, which already occupies almost 80% of the former Mandated Territory, the President seems to have lost the plot and appears to be totally lacking in conceiving any sort of creative resolution to what could be easily overcome with a little imagination.

Underground railways and road tunnels are a part of every modern society.

What is the problem doing the same thing in the West Bank and Gaza?

Neither Jews nor Arabs need become the scapegoats for each other's continued residence in the areas claimed by them. Contiguity can be achieved just as easily underground as at ground level.

Whilst the idea is promulgated that Jews will not be allowed to live where they currently do in accordance with international law, the failure of the Road Map will be assured.

One President's vision is surely 32,000 other people's nightmare.

If the President doesn't wake up soon and review this irrational racist and discriminatory policy, it will also turn out to be the worst nightmare for millions of other Jews and Arabs in the region as well.

Monday, July 2, 2007

United Nations Vote Presages State Sponsored Global Anti-Semitism

[Published September 2004]

The United Nations has embarked on a dangerous path that could unleash an unprecedented campaign of state-sponsored global antisemitism which needs to be swiftly denounced and halted in its tracks.

This threatening prospect follows member States voting by 150-6 to endorse the opinion of the International Court of Justice [ICJ] requiring the immediate demolition of Israel’s Security Fence in Judea and Samaria and declaring Israeli settlements there (including East Jerusalem) to be in breach of international law.

The ICJ has effectively branded 300,000 Jews living in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem as land robbers illegally occupying someone else’s land.

150 out of the 191 member States of the U.N. have unquestioningly accepted that opinion in the knowledge that it was given by 15 Judges drawn from 15 countries, all supposedly appointed for their outstanding legal qualifications as pre-eminent jurists and experts in international law.

U.N. Resolutions based on this ICJ opinion will now come thick and fast calling for the demolition of the Security Fence, the forced removal of all Jews from Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem and reparations followed by sanctions on Israel if these demands are not carried out.

The Observer for Palestine at the U.N. has already stated it was time now for implementation, compliance and, at a later stage, additional measures, which ominously he failed to specify.

Not only Israel will suffer the fall-out from this barrage of righteous condemnation at future meetings of the U.N.

Jews living in many of those 150 member States endorsing the ICJ opinion such as France, United Kingdom, Argentina, Italy, Russia, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Holland will be exposed to far greater dangers to their personal safety and their institutions than they experienced prior to the ICJ opinion.

Even the large Jewish populations of the United States and Australia, whose countries both courageously voted to reject the ICJ opinion, or Canada who abstained, will not be immune from the forthcoming campaign of vilification of Jews designed to capitalize on this ICJ opinion.

The groundwork for this heinous campaign has been carefully planned over a number of years. Countless resolutions declaring Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem to be “Occupied Palestinian Territory” and Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem to be “illegal in international law” have been passed by automatic majorities of Arab and Third World countries in the General Assembly and various Committees of the United Nations.

Now these Arab and Third World countries have had their resolutions anointed with judicial respectability.

But that ICJ opinion is fundamentally flawed and no reliance can be placed on it.

The ICJ incredibly failed to consider a comprehensive body of international law that specifically establishes that Jews have every right to live in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem and to protect themselves from the murderous attacks of their Arab neighbors.

The only obstacle now standing between the anticipated diplomatic onslaught at the U.N. based on this flawed opinion and the projected threat to Jews worldwide is Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, which binds all member States.

Article 80 was completely ignored by the United Nations in all resolutions passed on Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem in the build-up to the ICJ case. It was not mentioned by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in the voluminous dossier of documents furnished by him to the ICJ. It was never discussed or considered in the 64-page judgment of the ICJ or the separate decisions issued by the judges.

Article 80 preserves the right of the Jewish people to live in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem pursuant to rights first vested in them in international law in 1920 and codified in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1922.

Jews indeed had lived in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem until 1948 when they were driven out by invading Arab armies. Jews returned to live there again after those same Arab armies were defeated in the Six-Day War in 1967.

United Nations records attest to the critical importance of Article 80.

On 8 May 1947, Rabbi Abba Silver representing the Jewish Agency addressed the First (Political) Committee of the United Nations and he had this to say about Article 80:

“The Balfour Declaration, which was issued by His Majesty’s Government as a ‘declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations’, declares: ‘His Majesty’s Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.’ The mandate, in its preamble, recognizes ‘the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine’ and ‘the grounds for reconstituting’ - I call your attention to the word ‘reconstituting’ –‘their national home in that country’.”

“These international commitments of a quarter of a century ago, which flowed from the recognition of historic rights and present needs, and upon which so much has already been built in Palestine by the Jewish people, cannot now be erased. You cannot turn back the hands of the clock of history.”

“Certainly, the United Nations, guided by the great principle proclaimed in its Charter, ‘to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained’, can never sanction the violation of treaties and of international law.”

“With this situation and similar situations in mind, a specific provision, you will recall, was written into the chapter of the Charter of the United Nations which deals with territories which might become trusteeship territories, and which is therefore especially applicable to territories now under mandate. This is Article 80 of the Charter …”

In evidence given to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine on 7 July 1947, David Ben-Gurion as a representative of the Jewish Agency said of Article 80:

“This is the special Article of the Charter which applies to Palestine. It was introduced only because of Palestine.”

There you have it in black and white - a specific article dealing with Palestine inserted in the United Nations Charter having a crucial bearing on the Court’s opinion is not given the light of day by the U.N. or the ICJ. This could not possibly be due to ignorance or oversight. Answers need to be given to explain this scandalous behavior.

For this reason the ICJ opinion should not be granted any further recognition or credibility and should be condemned for what it really is – a decision of a biased and politicized court that deliberately failed to look at a critical area of law legitimizing Jewish rights to settle in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem.

The failure of the ICJ to consider Article 80 has now set the stage for a possible outburst of antisemitism worldwide.

Jews were denied their right to live in 77% of Palestine in 1923. This area is today called Jordan and not one Jew lives there.

Jews also offered to surrender their right to live in the whole or parts of Judea and Samaria [5% of Palestine] in return for peace and an end to violence in 1937, 1948, 1967, 1979, 1993 and 2000 and still hold out hope that this might be possible. Until now there has been outright Arab rejection of any proposal. This Arab mindset will only harden in the light of the ICJ decision and the votes of those 150 member States.

Some soul searching is urgently required by the large number of those 150 States who believe justice must be dispensed in a fair and impartial manner and without fear or favor. They need to urgently review their initial endorsement of the ICJ opinion and repudiate it rather than give it any further credence.

They cannot possibly continue to endorse the ICJ opinion in future votes at the U.N. knowing it is so fatally flawed and then claim to have been unaware of what they were unleashing in their own countries and worldwide by adopting such a voting pattern.

Let them evaluate Article 80 and the words of David Ben-Gurion and Rabbi Silver and then make up their minds on their future voting intentions. Let their representatives demand that the ICJ and Mr. Annan explain why they ignored the ramifications of Article 80. Let those nations whose agenda is demonizing Jews stand alone in further support of the ICJ decision and be exposed for what they truly represent.

Those 150 countries must have the decency and humanity to have a second think about their earlier decision and not continue to be a partner in the ongoing attempt to use the discredited ICJ opinion as a battering ram against Jewish people wherever they happen to live.