Palestine Mandate Legally Triumphs Over Discredited PLO Charter

[Published 2 May 2014]


The 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine - and international law - have finally emerged as triumphant victors over the 1964 PLO Charter following the collapse of 50 years of failed attempts by the PLO to arbitrarily void the vote of the 51 members of the League of Nations unanimously endorsing the legal right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in 23% of former Palestine.

This significant PLO defeat and loss of face follows the ignominious end - on 29 April 2014 - of the nine months negotiating deadline period imposed on Israel and the PLO by US Secretary of State - John Kerry - designed to achieve the “two- state solution” - the creation of a second Jew-free Arab State - in addition to Jordan - in former Palestine for the first time ever in recorded history.

The American and PLO failure to achieve the “two-state solution” after 20 years of fruitless negotiations represents a lost opportunity not likely to return for a long time - leaving the political prestige influence and credibility of those much vaunted negotiators in total disarray in the rapidly growing silent and abandoned diplomatic graveyard.

The PLO - since its formation in 1964 - had arrogantly strode the world stage claiming Palestine as the sole property of the Arab nation whilst simultaneously denying the Jewish people any right to live in their 3000 years old Jewish ancient, legally sanctioned and biblical homeland.

Article 18 of the 1964 PLO Charter had brazenly declared:

” The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate System, and all that has been based on them are considered null and void. The claims of historic and spiritual ties between Jews and Palestine are not in agreement with the facts of history or with the true basis of sound statehood. Judaism, because it is a divine religion, is not a nationality with independent existence. Furthermore, the Jews are not one people with an independent personality because they are citizens to their states.”

Four years later article 18 had been replaced with a more strident, equally dismissive article 20:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.”

This outright rejection of international law by the PLO has never been questioned by the League of Nations compliant successor - the United Nations - which - acting in clear breach of Article 80 of the UN Charter knowingly collaborated to prolong the Arab-Jewish conflict in violation of international law when welcoming the PLO purveyor of Jew-hatred -Yasser Arafat - into its midst with adulation and enthusiastic applause on 13 November 1974.

The acceptance of this terrorist organisation into the realm of civilised political discourse by the United Nations whilst the PLO simultaneously continued to assert that the League of Nations had no power to make any legally binding decisions - must surely rank among the most shameful episodes and low points in United Nations history.

Lecturing to Israel on international law whilst allowing the PLO to reject international law was breathtaking hypocrisy on the United Nations part.

The principle of respect for the law was cast aside by United Nations members as they trashed the original and noble principles enunciated in the Mandate on the altar of expediency and national self- interest

Adopting countless condemnatory General Assembly resolutions of non - binding validity - those spineless members lined up with the the automatic majority represented by Arab Islamic and third world member States to sell out their souls to appease an organisation of terrorists, law-deniers and Jew-haters.

Former UN Secretaries General stood by in silence as anti-Israel resolutions denigrating and delegitimising Israel were ramped up with ever increasing hatred.

The legal commitments enshrined in the Mandate had previously stood resolutely firm against this Arab assault on the Jewish National Home since 1922 - as partition proposals by the Peel Commission in 1937 and a newly created United Nations in 1947 were contemptuously shredded into the garbage bin of history by an Arab leadership that would not brook any compromise or reconciliation with the Jewish people.

The advent of major wars including the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War brought staggering losses and suffering for both Arabs and Jews as the Arab League armies still vainly attempted to eliminate the Jewish State and the consequences of the Mandate.

Whilst the PLO fails to recognise Israel as the Jewish State - no peace between Jews and Arabs is realistically likely to occur.

The Arab League and Kerry have the power to create a breakthrough - pressuring Jordan and Israel to redraw the internationally recognised boundary between their respective countries as successor States to the Mandate for Palestine

In view of their loss of political clout do these neutered politicians and the United Nations really possess the diplomatic ability to make peace finally happen?

Using the wisdom and political sagacity of their League of Nations ancestors - the miracle created by the Mandate for Palestine 92 years ago is hopefully set to resurface as attempts to rescue the peace process are started once again,

Palestine - UN Special Rapporteur Bans Free Speech

[Published 31 March 2013]


United Nations Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967” - Professor Richard Falk - has taken the extraordinary action to ban posts on his blog page “Citizen Pilgrimage”.

This has happened to myself and at least one other person when we attempted to post comments in response to an article written by Professor Falk titled ” What was wrong with Obama’s speech in Jerusalem”

My detailed comment sought to point out what was right with President Obama’s speech in Jerusalem. It had been published as an article on many Internet pages around the world and reproduced on the web sites of scores of others without editorial amendment.

I presented a considered and reasoned analysis of what President Obama had said. It was not couched in inflammatory or defamatory terms. It considered aspects of President Obama’s speech not referred to in Professor Falk’s article and came to an entirely different conclusion to the views expressed by Professor Falk.

To my amazement Professor Falk’s response to my post was:

“My blog is no longer open for this sort of polemics on the Israel/Palestine conflict. There are many other more important venues to carry on these discussions.”

My reply to Professor Falk - pointing out his decision amounted to the banning of free speech and requesting he reconsider his decision - went unanswered.

I subsequently sought to post an entirely different response to another contributor’s comment - but it was also not published.

One person who sought to post a comment to Professor Falk’s article received the following response:

“Mr. Skolnik: My blog is no longer open for this sort of polemical responses that insult either me or others who submit comments. There are many other venues for this sort of debate.”

Stangely Professor Falk had no similar qualms in publishing the following comment from one of his readers:

“I have been following events in Israel and Cyprus closely, and stand by my assertions. I find it both fascinating and terrifying that Germany is the force behind the Cypriot haircut, in which unscrupulous jewish industrialists, all of whom hold Israeli passports, are having their bank accounts seized and money transferred to Germany. Who would have predicted this turn of events, but really, once you spot the pattern, it becomes impossible to deny this jaw-dropping turn of events, and its ominous implications.”

It is clear that there are many readers of Professor Falk’s blog who would be grossly offended by this Jew-hating language - yet it was published.

I do not seek to silence these Jew-haters airing their views on Professor Falk’s blog. Better the world should be aware such views exist and are exposed to critical comment.

My articles sometimes attract such vile and repulsive comments. Never would I seek to have them expunged. I prefer to respond to such comments or let my readers do so.

But why should a UN Rapporteur concerned with human rights seek to ban the views of others like myself and Mr Skolnik - if he allows such a vile post as this to appear as a comment on the same blog page?

Intrigued by the Professor’s totally unexpected and unexplained reaction to my post - I contacted other sites where his article had been published.

One was a virulently Jew-hating web site called “Shoah - The Palestinian Holocaust” It had no problem posting the identical response that I attempted to post on Professor Falk’s web page

Another was “Ramy Abdeljabbar’s Palestine and World News” - not what one would call a pro-Israel site. It published my response to Professor Falk’s article without indulging in the histrionics and petulance displayed by Professor Falk.

A third site was “Transcend Media Service” - which describes itself in the following terms:

“TRANSCEND International is an experiment in promoting peace by peaceful means throughout the world. Traditionally, institutes have been centered around a building where the people who work together meet on a regular basis. Since many people who share common interests in helping transform conflicts nonviolently and creatively are geographically scattered and cannot usually be physically together, our solution is to create an electronic network of members. This, in addition, diminishes our carbon footprints and contributes to attenuate the global warming crisis.”

Professor Falk is a member of the Transcend Network.

Transcend saw nothing objectionable in posting my response to Professor Falk’s article

Professor Falk needs to understand that attempts by him to ban freedom of expression and free speech on his web site demean himself and his position as a UN Special Rapporteur.

Those in authority at the UN who repeatedly express their support for the protection of human rights must be prepared to act against one of their own by denouncing Professor Falk’s actions in the strongest terms with a view to ending his crass attempt to deny the inalienable right of every human being to speak out and be heard.

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and members of the UN Human Rights Council - are you listening or do you endorse Professor Falk’s outrageous conduct?

Palestine, Brazil And Argentina - Outing The Jew Haters

[Published 13 December 2010]


Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas openly espouses Jew-hating qualities under the three hats he currently wears.

1. As President of the Palestinian Authority (PA) - Abbas refuses to recognize Israel as the Jewish National Home.

2. As Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) - Abbas is sworn to enforce the provisions of its Charter which prescribes:

“Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."

3. As Chairman of Fatah - the largest faction in the PLO - Abbas presided over a meeting of its Revolutionary Council on 27 November which resolved:

“The Council stresses the revolutionary rejection of the so-called ‘Jewish state’ and any formula [that] can be considered in future contribution to achieving this end, and renew this rejection of any attempt by a racist state based on religion, in accordance with international law and human rights charters…”

Abbas has gone even further and persuaded Brazil to out itself as a Jew-hating State by calling for the recognition of a Palestinian Arab State between Jordan, Egypt and Israel “on 1967 borders”.

There were no “1967 borders“ - as Brazil must surely know - only 1949 demarcation lines that had been established between

1. Israel and Egypt on 24 January 1949 and

2. Israel and Transjordan (now called Jordan) on 3 April 1949

- to designate the armistice lines where hostilities had ceased between the nascent State of Israel and the six Arab armies that had invaded it in May 1948.

Brazil’s recognition signifies that 500000 Jews presently living on the Arab side of those demarcation lines in the areas called the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and East Jerusalem - will either have to voluntarily leave or be forcibly removed from their homes and businesses.

Brazil’s decision - which smacks of the infamous Nazi “Judenrein” policy that called for the mass deportation of Jews from their homes and businesses before and during World War 11 - is in breach of existing international law specifically:

1. Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine - which recognized the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in precisely the area that Brazil now wants to see cleared of Jews - which Brazil itself agreed to when the Mandate was unanimously approved by the League of Nations in 1922

2. Article 80 of the United Nations Charter - which reserved the rights of Jewish settlement granted by the Mandate - which had also been endorsed by Brazil when the UN Charter came into being.

Argentina has been quick to follow Brazil’s headlong rush into identifying itself as a fellow Jew-hating state. Expectations are that they will be soon joined by Uruguay and some other South American countries.

Both Argentina and Uruguay were also - like Brazil - consenting signatories to the Mandate and Article 80.

One cannot stop people or States being Jew-haters but on the other hand they need to be identified and exposed.

Racism and vilification of this kind have no place in humankind.

In the case of those States which choose to follow Brazil and Argentina - one would hope to see their citizens protesting loudly at such a decision. Standing by and doing nothing will only stigmatize the citizens of those States as Jew-haters.

Neither Brazil nor Argentina have made any call on the PA to recognize Israel as the Jewish National Home in return for the recognition they have now extended to the PA.

Brazil and Uruguay supported the creation of a Jewish State proposed by the UN in 1947. Argentina abstained.

All three countries became places of refuge for fleeing Nazis at the conclusion of World War 11. Their shadowy past seems to be coming back to haunt them.

Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay never recognized the attempted annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Transjordan in 1950.

Israel’s position on the status of these areas was explained by Israel’s then Foreign Affairs Minister - Moshe Sharett - in Israel‘s Parliament on 3 May 1950 as follows:

“The Government Spokesman issued the following statement, in the Government’s name: “The decision to annex the Arab areas west of the River Jordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is a unilateral step to which Israel is not a party in any way. We are connected with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan through the Armistice Agreement, which we will uphold rigorously. This agreement does not include any final political settlement, however, and no such settlement is possible without negotiations and a peace treaty between the sides. It must be evident, therefore, that the question of the status of the Arab areas west of the River Jordan remains open as far as we are concerned.”

This position holds true today - with the exception that the areas cannot be described as “Arab areas” since they are now inhabited by 500000 Jews as well. Many of the Jews returning to live there after 1967 had been forced to leave their homes and businesses following Jordan’s conquest of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1948.

Announcements by countries such as Brazil and Argentina signifying their assent to the wholesale deportation of this Jewish population once again sends a dangerous message of support to the 21 Jew-hating States comprised in the Arab League - which have unanimously endorsed the Saudi Peace Plan in 2002 calling for precisely such an outcome.

This call should be contrasted with the view expressed by President Bush to Israel’s then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004:

“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

Brazil and Argentina - and any other States that are attracted to follow them - have some serious explaining to do to justify their decision in endorsing an outcome in the West Bank and East Jerusalem that requires both areas to be completely cleared of Jews.