US Changes Policies Concerning Israeli Settlements
The US no longer will call the Settlements in Judea and Samaria or the West Bank as illegal, nor will they refer to the land as occupied. Rather will deal with more the reality of the ground that it is disputed, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced Monday.
While this may put America at odds with the majority of nations, as well as the UN Security Council, and the many resolutions issued by it concerning the settlements. It was still hailed by Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a close ally of President Trump, who is days away from seeing his fate as prime minister go one way or the other.
“After carefully studying all sides of the legal debate,” Pompeo told reporters, the United States has concluded that “the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not, per se, inconsistent with international law.”
“Calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law hasn’t worked. It hasn’t advanced the cause of peace,” Pompeo said.
He went on to say that the US was not considering or ruling the settlements were legal or illegal. Instead, it would defer to the judgment of the Israeli courts, which found them not unlawful.
The Palestinian Authority- which has refused to negotiate through the Trump administration said the decision was biased, it went on to denounce the latest ruling.
Washington is “not qualified or authorized to cancel the resolutions of international law, and has no right to grant legality to any Israeli settlement,” Palestinian presidential spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeinah said in a statement.
The Israeli’s replied that this shifted from a historical wrong to the right stance for the 600,000 Israeli’s that live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
“This policy reflects a historical truth — that the Jewish people are not foreign colonialists in Judea and Samaria. In fact, we are called Jews because we are the people of Judea,” he said in a statement, using the biblical term for the West Bank.
The whole problem with the world stance is they refuse to acknowledge the past, refuse to question the “Palestinian” narrative.
In 1918 the Mandate of Palestine was created, although the official hand over to the British to oversee the Mandate did not happen until April 25, 1920. To understand the purpose of the Mandate, one has to look at what it states its intent is.
Rather than explain this, how about we let the Mandate itself explain it to us:
The Palestine Mandate
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…
The Mandate goes on to state that the civil and religious protection of the non-Jewish minority should be protected. Still, the land was only given to one people, the Jews.
With this, the question arises, how exactly does the world come to the conclusion that the land given to the Jews is occupied by them?
The British in March 1921, the British decided to add Transjordan to their Mandate for Palestine, this basically stripped close to 80% of the Mandate and set up an Arab nation. Transjordan at the time, to give the Arabs, who they knew had higher numbers, their own majority of the Mandate.
This did not appease the Arab population. Instead, it encouraged them to demand more. The Jews protested this move, it was in direct violation of article 5 of the Mandate:
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
This was not surprising, the British, and French in that same period had taken the Golan Heights in the Franco-British Boundary Agreement,(again in violation of Article 5 stripped away the Golan Heights) the part that Israel now controls, and gave it to the Syrian Mandate.
So once more, how did the claim that Israel occupied the West Bank?
In 1948 when the UN was trying to settle the impasse with the Arabs offered UN Res. #181 (which by the way was in direct violation of their founding Charter, which stated the UN would honor the Mandates, not violate them).
The division of what was left of the Mandate of Palestine, the Jews were willing to accept this to have peace, the Arabs overwhelmingly rejected the resolution, then warned the Jews, if you declare nationhood, we will declare war.
Israel, on May 14, 1948, seeing the Arabs would not accept a resolution for the division of what was left of the Mandate declared nationhood based on the promise that land which was left was theirs under the Mandate. The Arabs true to their word attacked in mass the next day.
The Claim of Occupation
This is where the myth of occupied land comes from:
Jordan, upon invading Judea and Samaria, went about and expelled all the Jewish women and children, held the men in prison camps until the war was finished, then moved in hundreds of thousands of Arabs. That is why if you look at the British exit census, then at the census conducted on the area after the war, you see 700,000 displaced Arabs, but the population stayed the same.
The reason is simple, the Arabs, under Jordan, transferred their people to the land, then renamed it the West Bank to erase Jewish identification to the area and annexed the territory.
Where it gets interesting is the fact that the Jordanians never once offered sovereignty to the Arab population, in fact, the Arab population in the first Charter for the PLO or the Palestinian Authority in their 1964 charter said this about their claim to the land:
Article 24. 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. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.
What is of more interest, what happened to the 1964 Palestinian charter? One used to be able to go to the UN, look it up in their archives, but over the last 10 years there has been a move to wipe all references to this charter from all UN and European sources, one has to wonder why.
So one has to ask, if they made no claim to the land, what changed then between 1964 and 1968 when they changed their Charter and said they claimed this land? Was there a significant archaeological find? Nope, in fact, to date, there has never been one archaeological find that supports the Palestinian narrative. What then was the catalyst? That would have been that Israel kicked the Jordanians out of land promised to them in the Mandate.
We have seen this map, the Arabs claim this is what Israel took from them:
But this is a carefully orchestrated lie, there was never a sovereign nation called Palestine, there was the Mandate, but we already established who that land was for, so how did the Palestinians control this land and the Jews steal it from them? They didn’t.
Yet, sadly, this is the lie that is told to the world. Further, could someone please show me where it states in international law when an invading power invades your land, which the mandate was to the Jews, brings in their own population, annexes the land, in spite of rejection by the world, with the exception of Britain, that when you lose the land you have a legal right to pass your claim to someone else?
If you steal a car, it is recovered, can you will it to your nearest relative? We all know the answer to this, yet this is what the UN wants us to accept the Settlements are built on occupied land.
It is time we start to expose the lies that have been propagated over the years, to see why this administration had a change of policy concerning the Settlements in Israel.