Presidential meeting: Biden made clear that Israel has the right to decide how to proceed with Iran

Political official present at Biden-Rivlin meeting: The American representatives were very interested in the Israeli information on Iran.

Tags: Reuven Rivlin Israel-US Joe Biden Yoni Kempinski, Washington , Jun 29 , 2021 6:00 AM Share
Biden and Rivlin

Biden and Rivlin Haim Zach/GPO

Monday’s meeting between US President Joe Biden and President Reuven Rivlin lasted beyond the time that was allotted to it, and according to a political source who was present at the meeting, the issues that were raised touched on the significant challenges facing Israel in the various arenas.

Rivlin spoke at length with Biden about Iran and even conveyed messages from Jerusalem on the subject. The American representatives were very interested in the Israeli information and listened with great attention.

The political source was under the impression that the Americans were open to hearing alternatives to resolving the Iranian issue.

Biden himself made clear during the meeting that Israel has the right to do what it sees fit regarding Iran. As far as the Iranian issue is concerned, the impression was given that the United States is very concerned about President-elect Ebrahim Raisi.

The second issue brought up during the meeting was Israel’s need to deal with threats from within civilian populations. Israel’s need for precision weapons to address these challenges was brought up in the conversation.

The third issue was the Palestinian Arab issue. In the conversation, President Rivlin said that a two-state solution is an irrelevant proposal today. In terms of the need to maintain security, he made clear that in his view there is no room for another sovereign on the ground but stressed that he is not an authority on the issue in his status as President.

During the meeting, the issue of the support Hamas receives among the Palestinian Arab public, which further clarifies that the two-state solution is currently irrelevant, was brought up.

Regarding the new government in Israel, political sources were under the impression that the new administration in Washington is aware of the uniqueness of the current government in light of the entry of an Arab party into the coalition.

The meeting gave the impression that Prime Minister Bennett would be invited to a meeting at the White House very soon.

The source said that the Americans were very impressed by IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi’s recent visit to Washington.

He further noted that President Rivlin came with a fear that he would see in Washington the influence of the anti-Israel Democrats and was happy to see that Biden had not changed his pro-Israel views.

Sources close to Rivlin hope and believe that Biden still feels toward Israel as he did when he said of himself to Rivlin many years ago: “You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.”

Indictment hearing for terrorist who murdered Yehuda Guetta to open

This morning, an indictment hearing will be held against Mantatzar Shalbi, the terrorist who murdered Yehuda Guetta in a terrorist attack at the Tapuach junction about two months ago.

Shalbi was charged with intentionally causing Guetta’s death, and attempted intentional causing of death of the victims of the attack and other civilians who were at the junction. Atty. Haim Bleicher of the Honenu organization said “it is time to deter terrorism – death penalty for terrorists.”

The UN should start focusing on the Jordan-Israel two-state solution

Instead of trying to resurrect the dead two-state solution, the UN should focus on and implement the Jordanian Option.

Tags:Two-state SolutionJordan Is PalestineDavid Singer David Singer , Jun 28 , 2021 9:39 PM Share
Dry Bones 3 state solutionDry Bones 3 state solutionY. Kirschen

United Nations Secretary General – Antonio Guterres – was at it again this week repeating the failed decades-old UN mantra supposed to end the 100 years old Jewish-Arab conflict:

“I remain committed to supporting Palestinians and Israelis to resolve the conflict and end the occupation in line with relevant United Nations resolutions, international law and bilateral agreements in pursuit of achieving the vision of two States – Israel and an independent, democratic, contiguous, viable and sovereign Palestinian State – living side by side in peace and security within secure and recognized borders, on the basis of the pre-1967 lines, with Jerusalem as the capital of both States.”

The Secretary-General’s “vision of two States” – the creation of a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan for the first time in recorded history – is nothing but a mirage.

This UN backed solution is not based on historic, geographic or demographic foundations – but on a fiction invented in 1964 with the creation of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

Article 24 of the PLO’s founding Charter expressly denied any claims to such an independent state:

“This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area”

The PLO clearly had no interest in establishing an independent state in any area that had been occupied by another Arab state since 1948 which then included east Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

It was only after the 1967 Six Day War that the concept of an additional Arab State – with Jerusalem as its capital – was dreamt up by the PLO – and promoted at the UN with the formation in 1975 of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People – spewing out a fictitious narrative on the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Even worse – the United Nations seeks to deny the Jewish People’s right to reconstitute their National Home in Judea and Samaria (‘West Bank’) – legally granted to them by article 6 and article 25 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine – and preserved by article 80 of the United Nations Charter until today.

The Secretary-General looks on without uttering one word in protest at this continuing flagrant breach by the United Nations of its own Charter and international law.

In referring to the “pre-existing 1967 lines” – the Secretary-General glosses over the fact that they are in fact the “the 1949 Armistice Demarcation Lines” – designated in agreements between:

  • The Government of Egypt and the Government of Israel dated February 24, 1949
  • The Government of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and the Government of Israel dated April 3, 1949

Those lines were not set in concrete but were agreed on without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines.

Secretary-General Guterres would do well to start focusing on the realistically-attainable Jordan-Israel two-state solution – so eloquently expressed by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir in the New York Times on 27 August 1972:

The Secretary-General should digest what former Israeli Ambassador to the UN Chaim Herzog wrote in the Wall Street Journal on 26 November 1980 :

D:\Dropbox\Herzog 26 November 1980.jpg

The Jordan-Israel two-state solution requires two sets of negotiators – armed only with pencils and rubbers – to redraw the existing internationally-recognised boundary between Israel and Jordan to enable the allocation of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria (‘West Bank’) and Gaza between those two States.

Not one Jew or Arab would need to move from his present home. Jordanian citizenship would be restored to ‘West Bank’ Arab residents – as existed between 1950 and 1988.

The UN’s continuing pursuit of a third-state solution has reached a dead end and should be consigned to the diplomatic graveyard.

Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades.

Ayn Od Milvado

HaGaon Rav Chayim Volozhin (Nefesh HaChayim III:12-13) cites the Gemara in Chullin Daf 7b which teaches that if a person internalizes the passuk: אין עוד מלבדו -Ein Od Milvado “Hashem, He is G-d, there is nothing else beside Him (Devarim 4:35) he will be protected from harmful forces. When one accepts Hashem’s absolute sovereignty he places himself fully under His protective wing (as the passuk [Tehillim 91.1] says, “Whoever sits in the refuge of the Most High, he shall dwell in the shadow of the Almighty”). Although nature contains many destructive elements, the man of faith understands that they are but marionettes in the hands of the Creator. “Hashem, He is G-d, there is nothing else beside Him” (Devarim 4:35); that is, there is no other reality except His Love which permeates the Universe. This is the ratzon (will) of HaShem in the World Above and the will of HaShem in the World Below. This will (Ahavah) governs the Universe. It is the ChaShaq (binding) of the world above with the world below: Tehillim 91.14 “Because he hath set his love upon Me, therefore will I deliver him; I will set him on high, because he hath known My name.”

It is not sufficient to mouth the words “ayn od milvado” but we must actually feel it. All the forces in the world only exist because we deem them significant, when we feel in our heart that there is no power save that of Hashem then nothing in the world has the inherent ability to inflict any harm upon us. The Torah relates “Now Rachel had taken the teraphim, put them into the camel’s pack-saddle and sat on them” (Bereishit 31:34). Why did she place them specifically in the packsaddle? Perhaps it was the ideal hiding place? Chazal offer an additional reason. These idols had a certain ability to reveal their precise location to Lavan. When did they possess such power? Only when they were treated with honor! If, on the other hand, they were degraded and treated as if they are worthless, their power would cease to function. By sitting on them, Rachel was not only hiding them but also degrading them in an effort to dispossess them of their powers. They would now be unable to inform Lavan of their whereabouts. This is how Avoda Zara operates, its power (assuming it has any) stems only from people attaching importance to it. When, however, no significance whatsoever is accorded it, when it is treated as being worthless, then it can exert no control (see Zohar volume I 164:2). It is not only Avoda Zara, but any force in the world only exists because we endow it with significance. When we truly realize and understand that Hashem is the only force in the world then the other forces will lose their significance and we will realize that nothing in the world can have any effect on us.

This is the meaning of the passuk (Shmoth – Exodus 23.13) “And in all things that I have said unto you take ye heed; and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.” The literal meaning is not to remember the false deities לֹא תַזְכִּירוּ for the Torah (Shmoth 3.15) commands, “15 And G-D said moreover unto Moses: ‘Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: The L-RD, the G-D of your fathers, the G-D of Abraham, the G-D of Isaac, and the G-D of Jacob, hath sent me unto you; this is My name for ever, and this is My memorial unto all generations.” (זֶה-שְּׁמִי לְעֹלָם, וְזֶה זִכְרִי לְדֹר דֹּר.) (Rashi: This is how I am to be mentioned.) As long as we recognize that the false deities are no gods, that is, they are false deities, meaning, that they are worthless; of no significance in comparison to HaShem, the G-D of Avraham, Yitzchaq and Ya’acov we will internalize the saying Ayn od milvado.

(A side note: Although Rashi also says the word le’olam means to conceal the meaning of The Name – [Eternal Kindness is His Name]; it is interesting that the word le’olam is spelled “defective” missing the vav and the very next word is ve’zeh takes a vav, while it’s trope or cantillation mark gives an emphasis on the latter half of the word le’olam and ve’zeh takes the cantillation mark which serves to connect the two words together. Thus, the cantillation marks transpose the vav from Le’Olam with it’s implied plene or full spelling to veZeh, where the vav is superfluous since the cantillation marks emphasize [ve’]zeh זִכְרִי My Remembrance or Memorial.)

What this boils down to is: There is no other reality (Ayn Od Milvado) except His Love which permeates and governs the Universe. This is the meaning of Ahavah which begins with an Aleph. The Aleph is composed of two Yuds and a Nun Sofit – this means the will of HaShem (which is Yichud) is “As Above – So Below” the uniting of HaShem’s Name as the passuk says “And the L-RD shall be King over all the earth; In that day shall the L-RD be One, and His name one.” Zechariah 14.9 The Nun Sofit implies Netzach (Eternity) wherein the Universe was created with Loving Kindness (Chessed) (Tehillim 89.3).

א = Aleph

Aleph is the subject of a midrash that praises its humility in not demanding to start the Bible. (In Hebrew, the Bible begins with the second letter of the alphabet, bet.) In the story, aleph is rewarded by being allowed to start the Ten Commandments. (In Hebrew, the first word is אָנֹכִי‎, which starts with an aleph.)

In the Sefer Yetzirah, the letter aleph is king over breath, formed air in the universe, temperate in the year, and the chest in the soul.

Aleph is also the first letter of the Hebrew word emet (אֶמֶת‎), which means truth. In Jewish mythology, it was the letter aleph that was carved into the head of the golem that ultimately gave it life.

Aleph also begins the three words that make up God’s mystical name in Exodus, I Am who I Am (in Hebrew, Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh אהיה אשר אהיה), and aleph is an important part of mystical amulets and formulas.

Aleph, in Jewish mysticism, represents the oneness of God. The letter can be seen as being composed of an upper yud, a lower yud, and a vav leaning on a diagonal. The upper yud represents the hidden and ineffable aspects of God while the lower yud represents God’s revelation and presence in the world. The vav (“hook”) connects the two realms.

Alternatively, the letter Aleph can be seen as composed of an upper yud, a lower yud and a nun sofit (a Straight – Final Nun found at the end of a word) which implies that the Sefirah Netzach נצח governs the Universe through Loving-Kindness, in Hebrew Chesed. “The world is built with chesed.” (Psalms 89:3)

JUSTICE Shall You Pursue


Jerusalem Material Claims Conference Against the Arab League

Justice, Justice shall you pursue….” Deut. 16:18-20

Zion shall be redeemed with justice, And they that return of her with righteousness.” Isaiah 1.27

“And Judah also shall fight for Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the nations round about shall be gathered together, gold, and silver, and apparel, in great abundance.” Zechariah 14.14

“The children of thy bereavement [Yom HaShoah] shall yet say in thine ears: ‘The place is too strait for me; Give place to me that I may dwell.’ ” Y’shiyahu (Isaiah) 49.20

It is advised by Yochanan Ezra ben Avraham that on or about 13 October 2021 through 19 October 2021, Jews, Christians and Muslims hold  a “material claims conference” in Jerusalem patterned after the 1952 Luxembourg Reparations Agreement, the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine and Reintegration Fund, the UN Compensation Commission and Fund, together with the Canadian Treaty Land Entitlement Agreements to effect a just and lasting peace for the Indigenous Peoples of the Middle East that land reserves for “close Jewish and Arab settlement” in historical “Eretz Yisrael” (Palestine – “East & West” of the Jordan River) be “set aside” under a Trusteeship Agreement to secure reparations and restitution against the Arab League for the 1947 Draft Law of the Political Committee of the Arab League and expulsion of the Jews from Arab Countries, North Africa and the Persian Gulf as documented by Justice for Jews from Arab Countries; and for the refusal of the Arab League states to patriate by collective naturalization “Arabs of Palestinian extraction” and the recent denaturalization of Arabs of Jordanian Nationality who were collectively naturalized by King Abdullah on December 13, 1949.


Israel Set to Seek $250,000,000,000.00 In Compensation:

Israel is expected to demand compensation for Jewish property left in Arab and Muslim countries as a condition to a regional peace deal, based on 2010 Israeli law, which states that any peace deal with Arab countries or Iran is contingent on individual Jews and/or Jewish communities receiving compensation for what they lost in 1948.

The Times of Israel reports (5 January 2019) that “Israel said set to seek $250b compensation for Jews forced out of Arab countries

“Israel is preparing to demand compensation totaling a reported $250 billion from seven Arab countries and Iran for property and assets left behind by Jews who were forced to flee those countries following the establishment of the State of Israel.

“The time has come to correct the historic injustice of the pogroms (against Jews) in seven Arab countries and Iran, and to restore, to hundreds of thousands of Jews who lost their property, what is rightfully theirs,” Israel’s Minister for Social Equality, Gila Gamliel, who is coordinating the Israeli government’s handling of the issue, said Saturday.”


Collective Naturalization

It is further advised by Yochanan Ezra ben Avraham that, because of the rise in anti-Semitism, the State of Israel amend the Law of Return and “Collectively Naturalize” all Jews of the Diaspora, and symbolically re-patriate (viz, naturalize) the Arabs of Palestinian Extraction from the 1948 Israeli War of Independence (as contemplated by (1) UNGA Resolution 194 (11) and as purview-ed by (2) the historical attempts via the UN CONCILIATION COMMISSION for PALESTINE [UNCCP] Reintegration Fund to reintegrate the Arabs of Palestinian extraction into the body polity of Eretz Yisrael; and as contemplated by (3) Camp David II) for “close settlement” in historical Eretz Yisrael, East and West of the Jordan River.

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 of cession or through acquiescence, concession or assent (failure to remove, relocate or traverse international boundaries).

Citizenship by Conquest or Treaty of Cession & Election of Citizenship:

“Manifestly the nationality of the inhabitants of territory acquired by conquest or cession becomes that of the government under whose dominion they pass, subject to the right of election on their part to retain their former nationality by removal, or otherwise, as may be provided.” Boyd v. Thayer.

Although “self-determinism” was exercised by Arabs of Palestinian extraction who voted by delegates as a “free expression of the will of the people” for King Abdullah I as their sovereign at the December 1948 Jericho Conference and were “collectively naturalized” by King Abdullah, (I); all Arabs of Palestinian extraction retain an inalienable and unalienable right of suffrage in the Jordanian Parliament, and possess Jordanian Citizenship by virtue of force majeure, acquiescence, concession or assent.

See: Bishop, International Law, Cases and Materials, Second Edition, 1962 (Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Toronto); Chapter 5, Nationality: (pp. 394, – 409, – 438)

“These commentators maintain that when territory is transferred to a new

sovereign by conquest or cession the inhabitants of the territory

become nationals of the new government only by their own consent,

express or implicit. [….] If the inhabitants remain within the territory

their allegiance is transferred to the new sovereign. [….] American Insurance Company v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Peter 511, 542, 7 L. Ed. 242


In this case, the New Sovereign is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to which the Arabs of Palestinian extraction affirmed their allegiance to the Hashemite Crown at the December 1948 Jericho Conference!


Jerusalem Declaration 10 Sep 2012 :

“We, the participants of the conference “Justice for Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries”, hereby declare that we fully support the rights of Jews displaced, expelled or who fled Arab countries, to justice, rights and redress. [….] As the organizing body in the Arab world and the organization which drafted legislation against the Jewish communities in 1947, we hold the Arab League responsible for the exodus of Jews from Arab countries.”

Read the full Jerusalem Declaration on Justice for Jews from Arab Countries


Watch The Forgotten Refugees

Register Your JIMENA Refugee Claim


Read the Fact Sheet Jewish Refugees From Arab Lands

1952 Luxembourg Reparations Agreement:

The Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany –

According to wikipedia,

“The Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany was signed on September 10, 1952, and entered in force on March 27, 1953.

According to the Agreement, West Germany was to pay Israel for the costs of

“resettling so great a number of uprooted and destitute Jewish refugees” after the war, and to compensate individual Jews, via the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, for losses in Jewish livelihood and property resulting from Nazi persecution and genocide.”

More information on The Reparations Agreement of 1952 can be read here National Library of Israel

Canadian Treaty Lands Entitlement Agreements –

Treaty Land Entitlement process

First Nations who did not receive all the land they were entitled to under treaties signed by the Crown and First Nations, can file a Treaty Land Entitlement (TLE) claim with the Government of Canada. TLE settlement agreements are negotiated between First Nations and the Government of Canada, typically with the participation of provincial/territorial governments. The federal government must adhere to treaty obligations to provide the promised amount of reserve land to treaty First Nations.

Generally, a TLE settlement agreement specifies an amount of land that a First Nation may either purchase on a willing buyer-willing seller basis, or select from unoccupied Crown land, or both in some cases, within an agreed to acquisition or selection area.

Once purchased or selected, the First Nation may submit a proposal to the Government of Canada for the land to be added to the First Nation’s reserve under the Additions to Reserve process.

As of August 2016, some 90 percent of TLE transactions take place in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The fulfillment of TLE agreements assists in building partnerships and encourages economic development on reserves and in surrounding communities.

More information can be read here Canadian Treaty Land Entitlement Agreements

And here Crown Indigenous Relations Northern Affairs


The Supreme Court of Canada has decided that, where a First Nation maintains demographic and cultural connections with the land, aboriginal title (including self-government rights) can survive both sovereignty changes and the influx of a new majority population, resulting from foreign conquest.Delgamuukw v. British Columbia

[1997] 3 SCR 1010 (Case Number 23799)

This jurisprudence is an important decision because only Jews indigenous to Palestine have maintained an “indigenous demographic and cultural connection” to the Land of Eretz Yisrael, have survived foreign (Roman, Arab and Crusader) conquests and were guaranteed POLITICAL rights to self-government within Mandate for Palestine “Treaty Territories” pursuant to the San Remo Resolution!

The Canadian Treaty Land Entitlements Agreements, and the Jurisprudence decided in behalf of Indigenous First Peoples provides a useful model that could be negotiated as part of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement under a trusteeship agreement as contemplated by Chapter XII (Articles 75 through 85) of the UN Charter, to “set aside” Land Reserves for “close Jewish and Arab settlement” in historical “Eretz Yisrael” (Palestine) both East and West of the Jordan River.


Reparations Against the Arab League

As for reparations against the Arab League, in 2013 Israeli MK Shimon Ohayon Called on the Arab League to Accept Responsibility for the Jewish Refugees from Arab Lands:

“It is time for the Arab League, not just to make diktats for a resolution to the conflict, but also accept their great responsibility for driving out almost a million Jews from lands which they had lived in for millennia,” MK Ohayon continued. “I call on the Arab League not just to take responsibility but also to provide redress to the Jewish refugees.

“This is a matter of justice and rights and has been ignored by the Arab League and the international community for too long. It is time to place the rights of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands at the forefront of the push for peace and reconciliation in our region.”


The Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran is a Memorial Day that is marked in Israel every year (starting in 2014,) on November 30 with the purpose of marking the departure and expulsion of Jews from Arab countries and Iran. It is based on a law sponsored by MK Shimon Ohayon (Yisrael Beiteinu) and passed in the summer of 2014 by the Knesset.


The 1947 Draft Law and more information about the expulsions, pogroms and internment of Jews in Arab Lands, North Africa and the Persian Gulf can be read here 1947 Arab League Draft Law – Jewish Refugees

Conference on Material Claims Against the Arab League States –

Claims Commission and Fund

As part of any future Middle Eastern “regional” peace agreement, there needs to be a claims commission set up and a claims fund established following the establishment of a (Jerusalem/Al Quds) Reparations Agreement for distribution to those populations affected, as contemplated by UNSC Resolution 242 and US House Resolution 185 (1 April 2008); said Claims Commission which was supposed to have been part of the Camp David Peace Accords with Egypt (Article 8) and was supposed to have been part of the Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty (Article 24).

Camp David Peace Accords – Article VIII The Parties agree to establish a claims commission for the mutual settlement of all financial claims.

Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty – ARTICLE XXIV CLAIMS

The Parties agree to establish a claims commission for the mutual settlement of all financial claims.

— Justice Requires a Conference on Material Claims Against the Arab League States –

“In the aftermath of World War II and the establishment of the State of Israel, the World Jewish Congress was actively involved in assisting Jews in Arab and other Muslim countries, who had come under increasing pressure. In January 1948, WJC President Stephen Wise, appealed to US Secretary of State George Marshall: “Between 800,000 and a million Jews in the Middle East and North Africa, exclusive of Palestine, are in ‘the greatest danger of destruction’ at the hands of Muslims being incited to holy war over the Partition of Palestine … Acts of violence already perpetrated, together with those contemplated, being clearly aimed at the total destruction of the Jews, constitute genocide, which under the resolutions of the General Assembly is a crime against humanity.” The United States, however, did not take any follow-up action to investigate these pleadings.” (Source: Wikipedia World Jewish Congress)

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton made the following assertion after the rights of Jews displaced from Arab countries were discussed at “Camp David II” in July 28, 2000 (from White House Transcript of Israeli television interview): “There will have to be some sort of international fund set up for the refugees. There is, I think, some interest, interestingly enough, on both sides, in also having a fund which compensates the Israelis who were made refugees by the war, which occurred after the birth of the State of Israel. Israel is full of people, Jewish people, who lived in predominantly Arab countries who came to Israel because they were made refugees in their own land.”

Sign the Petition Jerusalem Material Claims Conference to the World Jewish Congress: “For any peace process to be credible and enduring, it must address the rights of all Middle East refugees, including Jewish and other minority populations that were displaced from Arab countries.”



As the [UNCCP] Commission was aware, it [the State of Israel] had already “declared its willingness to support the Reintegration Fund to be established by the United Nations by paying into it funds accruing from compensation for abandoned Arab lands”.

On December 2, 1950, the United Nations General Assembly passed resolution 393 by a vote of 46 in favor, 0 against, 6 abstaining. This resolution allocated, for the period 1 July 1951 to 30 June 1952, “not less than the equivalent of $30,000,000” for the economic reintegration of Palestinian refugees in the Near East “either by repatriation or resettlement”, their permanent re-establishment and removal from relief, “without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 11 of General Assembly Resolution 194”.

Toward this goal, Israel donated the equivalent of $2.8 million, and Arab states pledged almost $600,000. The United States accounted for the greatest pledge with $25 million.


UNGA Resolution 194 (11) and the “Right of Return” –

Although UNGA Resolution 194 (11) is a non-binding resolution and is premised upon a return “at the earliest convenience” of those “willing to live at peace with their neighbor(s);” the right of return to Eretz Yisrael treaty territories must now be construed and exercised on an individual basis with a qualified offer of collective rehabilitation (repatriation to Jordan) in light of the December 1948 Jericho Conference wherein the 1,000 Arab delegates led by Sheik Muhammad Ali Ja’abari elected Abdullah I as their sovereign within the meaning of UNGA Resolution 181 (III Election of an Independent Sovereign).

As such, a “limited right of return” is still offered to the 1948 Arab (“Palestinian”) refugees, conditioned on a REGIONAL peace treaty with the Arab League States that will allow Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to retain a TRUST, (as contemplated by Chapter XII (Articles 75 through 85) of the UN Charter) over the Jewish Treaty Territories East and West of the Jordan River (e.g. Judea, Shomron, Gad, Reuven, and Manasseh) for “close Jewish and Arab refugee resettlement” within the spirit of US Congress’ House Resolution 185, 1 April 2008 as these [trust] treaty territories were ceded to the Jewish Community via the Mandate for Palestine (Treaty of Sevres, Article 95) as contemplated by the 1919 Faisal-Weizmann Agreement.


Israel’s first offer of any limited right of return came at the 1949 Lausanne Conference, when it offered to allow 100,000 refugees to return, though not necessarily to their homes, including 25,000 who had returned surreptitiously and 10,000 family-reunion cases. The proposal was conditioned on a peace treaty that would allow Israel to retain territory it had captured which had been allocated to a proposed Palestinian state, and the Arab states absorbing the remaining 550,000–650,000 refugees. The Arabs rejected the proposal on both moral and political grounds, and Israel quickly withdrew its limited offer. At the 2000 Camp David summit 52 years following Israeli independence, Israel offered to set up an international fund for the compensation for the property which had been lost by 1948 Palestinian refugees, to which Israel would contribute. Israel offered to allow 100,000 refugees to return on the basis of humanitarian considerations or family reunification. All other refugees would be resettled in their present places of residents, the Palestinian state, or in third-party countries, with Israel contributing $30 billion to fund their resettlement. During this time, most of the original refugees had already died without any compensation. Israel demanded that in exchange, Arafat forever abandon the right of return, and Arafat’s refusal has been cited as one of the leading causes of the summit’s failure.


Megillat HaNechoshet (the Copper Scroll) – A proposed peace and reconciliation conference

This material claims conference would lead to compensation for all populations affected, Jewish, Christian and Arab/Muslim (within the spirit of US House Resolution 185) and I suggest a peace and reconciliation conference for the populations effected by the Arab Israeli Conflict “with a gesture of peace for reconciliation by the Hashemite Kingdom” of  a return of the Copper Scroll to the Jewish People from the Jordan Museum Amman!

UN Compensation Commission and Fund

The UN Compensation Commission and Fund provides a useful model that could be negotiated as part of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement. In the aftermath of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the UNCC adopted a policy of paying individuals first, with the remaining sums owed entirely to government entities. The UNCC also created six categories for resolving claims from the Iraq-Kuwait war. These categories include claims for families killed or injured during the war, business losses, individual anguish, cost of resettling citizens, and damage to the environment. These categories could be adapted to fit the needs of an international peace fund for the Middle East.


Truth and Reconciliation Commission –

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was a court-like restorative justice[1] body assembled in South Africa after the end of apartheid.

Witnesses who were identified as victims of gross human rights violations were invited to give statements about their experiences, and some were selected for public hearings. Perpetrators of violence could also give testimony and request amnesty from both civil and criminal prosecution.

The TRC, the first of the 1003 held internationally to stage public hearings, was seen by many as a crucial component of the transition to full and free democracy in South Africa. Despite some flaws, it is generally (although not universally) thought to have been successful.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) provides a useful model for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement.


1970–Thames Television–Golda Meir discusses the Palestinian identity, and asks why the Arabs in the West Bank became more Palestinian than the Arabs in the East Bank, after June 5 1967.

Golda Meir – “I’m a Palestinian! From 1921 to 1948 I carried a Palestinian Passport.”

1970–Thames Television–Golda Meir discusses the Palestinian identity


Stateless Again

Palestinian-Origin Jordanians Deprived of their Nationality(* See Disclaimer Below) –

Summary: More than half of the 6.3 million population of Jordan is of Palestinian origin-that is, from areas west of the River Jordan, including the West Bank, today’s Israel, and Gaza. With the exception of persons from Gaza, the vast majority of those persons of Palestinian origin have Jordanian citizenship. However, since 1988, and especially over the past few years, the Jordanian government has been arbitrarily and without notice withdrawing Jordanian nationality from its citizens of Palestinian [Israeli] origin, making them stateless. For many of them this means they are again stateless Palestinians as they were before 1950.

So far, Jordan has withdrawn its nationality from thousands of its citizens of Palestinian origin-over 2,700 between 2004 and 2008 alone. It has done so, in the individual cases Human Rights Watch identified, in an arbitrary manner and in violation of Jordan’s nationality law of 1954. Under that law Palestinian residents of the West Bank in 1949 or thereafter received full Jordanian nationality following Jordan’s incorporation of the West Bank in April 1950.


*Disclaimer: In order for there to be TRUTH and RECONCILIATION between Arabs and Jews, one must admit that the Arabs of Palestinian Extraction are simply Arabs who have migrated to Eretz Yisrael. That is, the author of this proposal does not espouse a distinct Palestinian Identity for Arabs of “Palestinian Extraction” as there is no difference between an Arab from Arabia and an Arab from Judea and Samaria (the West Bank of the Jordan River) or from the territories allocated (by Moses and Joshua) to Gad, Reuven and Menasheh (the East Bank of the Jordan River) as agreed to by the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement.

In their own words: In 1977, Zuheir Mohsen, PLO Executive Council member, articulated the goals of the new “peoplehood” strategy saying, “The Palestinian people does not exist…. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel…. It is only for political and tactical reasons that we speak today about…the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.”

While Jews are Indigenous to Eretz Yisrael (Palestine); Arabs are Indigenous to [Saudi] Arabia, not Eretz Yisrael and many only recently settled within Mandate for Palestine [TREATY] territories! The Hashemites should be held to and bound by the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement as the Arabs have been given “independence” through the Mandates for Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria and Lebanon and by and through the Kingdom of the Hejaz exercised, by their free will, “national self-determinism” at the December 1948 Jericho Conference wherein they elected King Abdullah I as their sovereign (within the meaning of Chapter III [Election of Sovereignty] of UNGA Resolution 181).

The 1950 State Department Country Report on Jordan said that King Abdullah had taken successive steps [to wit: Annexation and Occupation] to incorporate the area of Central Palestine into Jordan and described the Jordanian Parliament resolution concerning the union of Central Palestine with Jordan. The report said the US had privately advised the British and French Foreign Ministers that it had approved the action, and that “it represented a logical development of the situation which took place as a result of a free expression of the will of the people.”[7] The major problems of concern to the United States were the establishment of peaceful and friendly relations between Israel and Jordan and the successful absorption into the polity and economy of Jordan of Arab Palestine, its inhabitants, and the bulk of the refugees now located there.[8]


Since the Arabs were collectively naturalized by Abdullah I of trans-Jordan April 1950, effectively nullifying and voiding UNGA Resolution 194(11); any Reparations Agreement must include a provision that those hostile belligerent nationals of Jordan (viz: unprivileged/unlawful enemy combatants) who were collectively naturalized by the Hashemite Regime unwilling to “live at peace with their neighbor” be classified as hosti humani generis and the parties to such Reparations Agreement should pursue the establishment of a Regional UN Human Rights / Terrorism Court in East Jerusalem for the prosecution of any terrorist or act of terrorism.

Palestinians clash with PA forces, protesting anti-Abbas activist’s death

The PA said it formed a high-level committee to investigate Banat’s death. His family said he was beaten in custody.

June 26, 2021 Palestinians clash with PA forces, protesting anti-Abbas activist’s deathPalestinian riot police block demonstrators on June 24, 2021. (AP Photo/Nasser Nasser)

By Associated Press

Angry demonstrators clashed with Palestinian security forces for a third day Saturday during a protest in Samaria over the death of an outspoken critic of the Palestinian Authority (PA) who died while in custody.

Hundreds gathered in the city of Ramallah — the headquarters of the PA — to chant slogans against President Mahmoud Abbas, two days after Abbas’ forces beat activist Nizar Banat shortly after his arrest.

The protesters held Palestinian flags and posters of Banat, and called on Abbas to quit. “The people want to overthrow the regime,” they chanted along with, “step down, Abbas!”

As the protesters began to march to Abbas’ office compound, a group of the president’s supporters blocked the rally, prompting an exchange of stone-throwing between the two sides. Palestinian security forces in riot gear fired tear gas and stun grenades at the protesters, sending many running away for cover.

Later, Abbas’ supporters gathered in a counter rally, with many chanting: “People want Abbas as president.”

On Thursday, demonstrators had set fires, blocked the streets of the city center and clashed with riot police in Ramallah. Palestinians also chanted against the PA at Banat’s funeral in Hebron and masked gunmen fired shots into the air. Hundreds also rallied against Abbas after Friday prayers at the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

The crackdown comes as the PA faces a growing backlash from Palestinians who view it as corrupt and increasingly autocratic, a manifestation of a three-decade peace process that is nowhere close to delivering Palestinian independence.

The PA controls parts of Judea and Samaria, while its rival, the Hamas terror group, has controlled the Gaza Strip since 2007. Abbas, who was elected to a four-year term in 2005, has little to show after a decade and a half in power.

The EU has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian Authority over the years, and the U.S. and other nations have trained and equipped its security forces. The PA is seen internationally as a key partner in efforts to revive the Middle East peace process, which ground to a halt more than a decade ago under the weight of Palestinian rejectionism.

In a series of posts and live videos on his Facebook, Banat slammed Abbas in April for calling off what would have been the first Palestinian elections in 15 years. Banat was a candidate on a slate formed of academics and PA opponents.

The PA said it formed a high-level committee to investigate Banat’s death. His family said he was beaten in custody. An initial forensic examination concluded the cause of the death was “unnatural.”

The re-settlement by the indigenous Jews of Israel

Archaeology and recorded history, including the Torah, evidence Jewish indigenous status. You cannot settle your own land or occupy your own land, and those who use those words do so to deny all history and law in the service of antisemitism. Op-ed.

Tags:San Remo ConferenceHoward RotbergIndigenous Rights Howard Rotberg , Jun 26 , 2021 10:06 PM Share
San Remo Conference DelegatesSan Remo Conference DelegatesINN: HIstorical

Islamists and their Leftist allies in the West, have a hard time understanding and accepting that Jews are the indigenous people of Israel. They cannot understand or they do not want to, that, according to international law, the Jews have full rights to all of the land of Israel. They cannot deny that the modern misleading notion of the “Palestinian people” was born after 1967 in reaction to the Jews getting back all of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria (aka ‘West Bank’). When Jordan occupied that territory there was no talk of Palestine.

In 1922, the League of Nations recognized the historical connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel. The Romans re-named it Palestine in the year 136 C.E. and the name was changed to Israel upon independence from British control in 1948. The League enacted the ‘Mandate for Palestine’, which designated all of Palestine, (including that part of historical Judea and Samaria, known to some as the ‘West Bank’), to be reconstituted as the Jewish Homeland.

This fact has never changed and is established in international law. Even though Israel has many times tried to divide part of this historical Jewish land to give a portion to the Arabs, the Arabs never accepted any offer because they are unwilling to recognize any portion as a Jewish homeland.

Despite the West’s naive wish for there to be a “two-state” solution, there has never been any indication from the Arabs that they have departed from their position that they want a Palestinian Arab state in place of Israel not alongside of Israel. The Jews are neither occupiers nor colonialists, but owners, historically and legally to the land of Israel

The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj al-Amin al-Husseini, appointed by Britain in 1921, will never be accused of loving Jews. In fact, during the Second World War, over 70 years ago the Mufti, who was Yasser Arafat’s uncle, met with Adolph Hitler in Berlin to discuss the ‘final solution’ to the ‘Jewish problem’.

According to , in 1937, the Mufti testified before the Peel Commission, which was looking into the causes of unrest between Jews and Arabs in what was then known as ‘Palestine.’ The Mufti made a stunning admission: Most of the land that belonged to the Jews, which we are constantly accused of ‘stealing,’ had actually been purchased by the Jews from the Arabs. And the Arabs were what we lawyers call willing sellers.

The said website shows that the Peel Commission report had some very salutary things to say about the Zionists and their impact on the land and on Arab society and economy. One of the most important for debunking Arab anti-Israel accusations is:

The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen (Arab peasants) are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the (Jewish) National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews…Much of the land (being farmed by the Jews) now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased…There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.” The land shortage decried by the Arabs “…was due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” (Chapter V in the report).

Accordingly the Hajj Amin el-Husseini, the intractable opponent of Zionism, a Jew-hater and friend of Hitler, admitted under questioning that no Arab land was stolen; no Arabs were wiped out, no villages destroyed. Rather, the Jews bought hundreds of thousands of dunam (about ¼ of an acre) of land from willing sellers, often from absentee Arab landowners. Moreover, thanks in part to the Zionists and the British, the quality of life for Palestine’s Arab peasantry was vastly improved, with less taxation, more schools, and an increase in Arab population.

That website also notes: “The Mufti also testified that the land was not bought by ‘forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition of land’”. That kind of ruling behavior was the action of the Ottoman rulers and not the Jews. Also the Mufti admitted that any evictions done were by absentee landlords who chose to sell ‘land over the heads of their tenants, who then were forcibly evicted’, and that the majority of these tenants were not Palestinians but Lebanese.”

As the spokesman for Palestinian Arabs, Haj Amin did not ask that Britain grant them independence. On the contrary, in a letter to Churchill in 1921, he demanded that Palestine be reunited with Syria and Transjordan.”
“The Mufti’ is said to have ensured he would have no opposition by systematically having killed Palestinians from rival clans who were discussing cooperation with the Jews.

As the spokesman for Palestinian Arabs, Haj Amin al-Husseini did not ask that Britain grant them independence. On the contrary, in a letter to Churchill in 1921, he demanded that Palestine be reunited with Syria and Transjordan.”

In 1948, after Jordan occupied Jerusalem, King Abdullah I of Jordan officially removed al-Husseini from the post, banning him from entering Jerusalem

It is a fact that Jordan occupied the ‘West Bank’ (Judea and Samaria) and east Jerusalem after the Arab attempt in 1948 to crush the nascent Jewish state of Israel. Nothing much was done with it and then in 1967 the Arabs attacked Israel with the idea of “driving the Jews into the sea” – but in fact, the Jews successfully drove the Arabs back and ended up with the land that Jordan had been occupying since 1948.

Upon its capture by the Arab Legion, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City was destroyed and its residents expelled. Fifty-eight synagogues–some hundreds of years old–were destroyed, their contents looted and desecrated. The Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, where Jews had been burying their dead for over 2500 years, was ransacked; graves were desecrated; thousands of tombstones were smashed and used as building material, paving stones or for latrines in Arab Legion army camps. The Intercontinental Hotel was built on top of the cemetery and graves were demolished to make way for a highway to the hotel. The Western Wall became a slum area.

In 1950, Jordan illegally annexed the territories it had captured in the 1948 war–-eastern Jerusalem and the ‘West Bank’. Jordan declared “its support for complete unity between the two sides of the Jordan and their union into one State, which is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, at whose head reigns King Abdullah Ibn al Husain…”

Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it. Great Britain recognized only the annexation of the ‘West Bank’, not Jerusalem.

In direct contravention of the 1949 armistice agreements, Jordan did not permit Jews access to their holy sites or to the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

The Jews who moved to Judea and Samaria after the return of that area to Israeli sovereignty after the 1967 War, are often called “settlers” but how can you “settle” an area that was historically yours already? They were not “settling” so much as “re-settling” but the latter term would be too truthful for the enemies of Israel.

We cannot too often state the obvious: Jews are the indigenous people of the land the Romans called Palestine.

The term “occupier” seems to me to be a term for those who have no legal rights of ownership. It seems that people seek by force (or terrorism) to get something politically that they cannot get by law. The Arabs have tried, in several wars, to eject the Jews from their land; they now try by terrorism and alliances with leftists to get what they could not get by war. The most important legal point is this: The San Remo declaration is the legal foundation that negates the idea that the Jews were illegal occupiers or settlers.

The Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917 and the U.N. vote on the Partition Plan on November 29, 1947 are the two main international political events that led to Israel’s Declaration of Independence on May 14, 1948.

Dan Adler points out that there is:

“a misconception that the Balfour Declaration was just a letter of intent, and not a binding legal document. The reason for this misconception … is that most people are not aware of the San Remo Conference which took place on April 19, 1920, lasted for seven days and published its resolutions on April 25, 1920. These seven days laid the political foundation for the creation of the 22 Arab League States and the one and only Jewish State of Israel.

The full text of the Balfour Declaration became an integral part of the San Remo resolution and the British Mandate for Palestine, thereby transforming it from a letter of intent into a legally-binding foundational document under international law.

Did the Arabs oppose the creation of a Jewish State at San Remo? The answer is a resounding NO!”

“Why You Should Know San Remo”

Adler states that the Arabs at that time were focused on the creation of independent Arab states and had no objection to the establishment of a tiny Jewish state in Palestine. This was formalized in the Weizmann-Feisal agreement which led to the League of Nations recognizing the Land of Israel (then Palestine) as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Before the San Remo conference there did not exist a single Arab independent nation state. Almost all of the 22 Arab states that exist today became nation states either as a direct result of the San Remo conference, or much later. Therefore, the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state is exactly equal or greater to the legitimacy of any of such Arab nation states as Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon..

Indeed, World-War I is considered the dawn of most modern nation-states.

After the war, parts of the German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires were divided up into nation-states at the same time as both the Jews and the Arabs sought the legitimacy of self-determination and independence to the League of Nations. stepped forward and presented their claims for independence to the League of Nations.

In those days of the decline of the empires mentioned above, the Jewish Legion fought alongside the Arabs and British to capture the east bank of the Jordan river from the Ottomans in 1918.

The Arabs in Palestine at the time saw themselves as pan-Arabists who were part of Syria. There was no notion of an independent “Palestinian people” and no separate identity beyond pan-Arabism.

Emir Faisal, who was seen as the representative of the entire Arab people in 1918, fully supported the claim of the Jewish people to their historic homeland, while he had his eyes on something bigger: Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, and Egypt (none of which were independent before WW I). In fact, very few of today’s Arab nation-states existed before World-War I.

The Arabs of Palestine in the post World War 1 period, viewed themselves as Syrian and as pan-Arabs. They had no interest in independence. They were not focused on a conflict of Jews against Palestinian Arabs within that small territory, but rather what it originally was: returning a small patch of Ottoman empire land to its rightful owners, the Jewish people, while dividing 99% of the land among the Arabs.

The results of the Paris(1918) and San Remo (1920) conferences of the League of Nations was the Mandate for Palestine, granted to the British government for the sole purpose of establishing a Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel:

Fifty-one member countries – the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922: “Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

Dore Gold has noted that there are two key legal points in the above statement which establish the Jewish people as the indigenous people of Palestine, and shatter the “Zionists are Colonialists” fallacy.
1. It recognizes that the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” is a pre-existing right (“grounds for“), not a newly-granted right.
2. It calls for “reconstituting” their national home, not building a new national home from scratch.

It is essential that we protect the truth that formal recognition of Israel as the Jewish national home became binding international law not in 1947 or 1948, but in 1920, when the resolutions of the San Remo conference were included as part of the Treaty of Sèvres(August 1920), and were adopted and signed unanimously by all 51 countries of the League Of Nations.

It is also essential to note that the Jewish people were given what was then known as Palestine to “reconstitute” their national home in that country. Palestine is not the national home of any other people. The Jews have throughout history offered to share that national home with Arabs, but the Arabs, supported by antisemites have always declined to share, as offered to them by Barak and Olmert and others – and seek only the destruction of Israel to make it free of all Jews. In this respect Islamist hatred of Jews has won out over the more secular Pan-Arabist approach of a hundred years ago accepting the one Jewish state in the Middle East.

Salomon Benzimra, P.Eng., Founder of Canadians for Israel’s Legal Rights, states In “SAN REMO: THE FORGOTTEN MILESTONE TO THE LIBERATION AND CREATION OF ISRAEL” (my emphasis):

“When the notion of ‘occupation’ took root, it soon turned into ‘illegal occupation’, then ‘brutal oppression’ and, finally, ‘apartheid’ which is a crime against humanity in international law. Once corrupted language describes a distorted reality and the distortion spreads, thought becomes corrupt and any resulting action is bound to fail.”

“Since international law more than a hundred years ago gave recognition to ‘the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine’ and to ‘the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country’, the continued use of the words, ‘settlers’ and ‘occupiers’ are contrary to law.”

The mischief of the oxymoron words used to criticize Israel can be seen in American media, the majority of which tilts leftist and is tolerant of Islamists. CNN and CNBC and other television networks are mostly anti-Israel.

The New York Times is an example of this. Recently New York Times reporter Patrick Kingsley wrote an article with the headline, “A House Divided in East Jerusalem”. In this article about disputed ownership of a house illegally built by Arabs in East Jerusalem on the site of a house recognized by the Israeli Courts to have belonged to a Jewish Land Trust, negating the ownership of Arabs who did not comply with the legal requirement to get a building permit in accordance with the usual planning laws. The reporter frames his narrative thus: “The case is part of an effort by Jewish settlers to cement Jewish control of East Jerusalem, a process many Palestinians see as ethnic cleansing.” He doesn’t report on how the Jews see it.

The article acknowledges that “a court said a Jewish trust “has the right to the entire building because the land belonged to it before the foundation of the Israeli state in 1948, To my mind, to term as “settlers” Israelis who have legal ownership that was only discontinued by the Jordanian occupation between 1948 and 1967 is misleading and tries, by the use of one improper word, to hide who exactly is the settler in an “occupation”

In order to cast doubt on the Jewish family’s right to receive back what was stolen after 1948, the reporter says that Israel captured the ‘West Bank’ from Jordan in 1967 but does not mention that Israel fought a defensive war as it was attacked by the Arab countries. There is no mention of the lynching of Jewish residents of mixed towns by their Arab neighbors or that Hamas, now more popular in the ‘West Bank’ than Abbas; Palestinian Authority has stuck to its constitutional aims to kill the Jews and take back the whole land, usually phrased as “from the River to the Sea”.

Fortunately the article does quote a Deputy Mayor of East Jerusalem who acknowledges that the land reclamation laws do favor the Jews in order to protect Israel’s character and the Mayor gets to the point: “This is a Jewish state.” And that bothers many people more than anything.

And so, all references to East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria at public gatherings should have an acknowledgement similar to the one given at public events in Western Canada, where an acknowledgment that the event is taking place at unceded native territory (where no treaty has been yet signed). It should say that “This land is acknowledged as the historical connection of the Jewish people with historical Palestine which is ancient Israel, now reconstituted as the national home of the Jews in our country as recognized by the San Remo Conference of 1920.”

Perhaps there should also be added the following: “The continued use of the words describing Jews as ‘settlers’ or ‘occupiers’ is contrary to law. We acknowledge that the proper word is “one who returns” or in Hebrewאחד שחוזר

Recall that a native can be defined as a person associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not. All Jews are native to Israel, whether or not we ourselves have been resident there.

We hope that the Abrahamic Accords will once again have Arabs (for now in Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan and Morocco) accepting, for the mutual benefit of all their people, one small Jewish state among a vast sea of Muslims. We hope that the Europeans who killed so many of us will agree to stop using ‘settler” and “occupier” and learn the history of the Jews to know that we are those who have returned to our indigenous Homeland.

Howard Rotberg is the author of four books, including The Second Catastrophe: A Novel About a Book and its Author, Tolerism: The ideology Revealed, and most recently The Ideological Path to Submission… and what we can do about it. He writes for Israel National News, Frontpage Magazine and New English Review, among others. He is president of Mantua Books.

Watch: Hidalgo

Watch: Hidalgo.

The excitement begins when famed horseman Frank T. Hopkins, (played by Viggo Mortensen), a half-breed courier who is guilt stricken over his role in the Wounded Knee Massacre enters a grueling competition – “The Ocean Of Fire” – with his mustang Hidalgo. Together, they must not only survive a 3,000-mile race across blistering Arabian desert terrain; they must also thwart evil competitors who vow victory at any cost. Witness a sandstorm of epic proportions; a swarm of locusts so massive it obliterates the relentless sun, deadly traps that defy imagination. Based on a true story, this astounding tale of personal triumph will take your breath away.

Watch: Grey Owl

Watch the inspiring story of: Grey Owl, with Pierce Brosnan.

Archibald Stansfeld Belaney (September 18, 1888 – April 13, 1938), commonly known as Grey Owl, was a British-born conservationist, fur trapper, and writer who disguised himself as a Native American man. While he achieved fame as a conservationist during his life, after his death the revelation that he was not Indigenous, along with other autobiographical fabrications, negatively affected his reputation.

Belaney rose to prominence as a notable author and lecturer, primarily on environmental issues. In working with the National Parks Branch, Grey Owl became the subject of many films, and was established as the “‘caretaker of park animals’ at Riding Mountain National Park in Manitoba” in 1931. Together with his numerous articles, books, films and lectures, his views on conservation reached audiences beyond the borders of Canada. His conservation views largely focused on humans’ negative impact on nature through their commodification of nature’s resources for profits, and a need for humans to develop a respect for the natural world.[3]

Recognition of Belaney has included biographies, a historic plaque at his birthplace, and a 1999 biopic about his life by the director Richard Attenborough.