For some time now there has been an increased use of specific terminology by the Falestinian propagandists, and their trolls residing in foreign countries, accusing Israel of “Genocide” and equating Israel to the atrocities of Nazi Germany?” What ever could be their purpose for using these words over and over again in their propaganda. Why the determination to instill this equalisation by these specific terms into the minds of the western media audience?

Well we have just experienced the truth behind their plan with the recent vote in the European Union and in several European countries to recognize an entity that they themselves refused to establish after the 1947 Partition vote. Realizing their error the Falestinians have embarked on a plan to not only de-legitimize the State of Israel but hey have set in motion a diabolical plan to negate Israel entirely. The proof of this can be seen in a paper written by  Jeremy R. Hammond “The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel” where he outlines the Arab viewpoint (excuse) as to why they refused to accept the UN Partition vote.

As I had mentioned in my previous Blog entries, this is not “Just” an occurrence. I believe it to be a calculated scheme of demonization of Israel that derives from the lesson Yasser Arafat and his adjutant, Khalil Ibrahim al-Wazir – Abu Jihad learned while visiting North Viet Nam at the height of the US military’s involvement in 1970.

During their visit to Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh and his chief strategist, Võ Nguyên Giáp taught Arafat how to manipulate the sympathy of the Liberals in the West, just as they had in the USA. The North Vietnamese together with their KGB affiliates, instructed Arafat to use the hundreds of  Falestinian emigres and students living in Europe and the United States to  mobilize left-wing sympathizers and activists on campuses. These “Bamboozled” left-wing sympathizers and activists have overwhelmingly succeeded in changing the once perceived pro-Israel image of David versus Goliath of college students to that of Israel as an Imperialistic Colonizing power that “Occupies” and mistreats innocent Arabs” as outlined in Yasser Arafat’s 1974 UN Speech.

As Khaled Abu Toameh said in his 2009 article; On Campus: The Pro-Palestinians’ Real Agenda.  “We have seen in many videos that there is more sympathy for Hamas on many US campuses than there is in Ramallah.”  “What is happening on the U.S. campuses is not really about supporting the Falestinians as much as it is about promoting hatred for the Jewish state. It is not really about ending the “occupation” as much as it is about ending the existence of Israel.” “The so-called pro-Palestinian “junta” on the campuses has nothing to offer other than hatred and de-legitimization of Israel.”

Throughout the world we have seen the videos posted on the social media of anti Israel demonstrations and marches as they gather chanting that Israel is committing “Genocide”. Meanwhile they march and chant that Falestinian standard sentence-“From the River to the Sea Falestinia will be free.” The hypocrisy behind the meaning of the chant lost on these naive and self duped fools.This statement is a Falestinian call for the ethnic cleansing or “Genocide” -of Israel. As Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar sees it, “Palestine is Islamic, and not an Islamic emirate, from the river to the sea, that unites the Palestinians. Jews have no right in it.”

Use-of-Nazi-ImageryWe have seen more and more use of  Nazi imagery on the social media -in Facebook comments, YouTube videos and Tweeter. In demonstrations throughout the world wherever the pro-Falestinian HOIZ (Haters Of Israel and Zionism) and their anarchist trolls gather they hysterically scream out in rage Israeli’s “ZioNazis”. We can see and hear them chanting together as they strut down the streets of major cities in Europe and the USA. Few know that our “Peace Partner” Abbas graduated from that ostentatious institute of KGB terrorist indoctrination and training the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow. Abbas earned the Soviet equivalent of a PhD with a doctoral dissertation entitled;”The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism“.

Through the use of “Falestinian” photojournalist, manipulation of foreign new journalists and the flagrant lies and distortions of truth in the antics termed as “Pallywood“. The “Falestinian” propagandists have masterminded gruesome scenes and images of dead children many times to equate Israelis to bestial “Nazi” murderers. “Falestinian propagandists” have sought through the use of fictional Pallywood provocations and incidents, widely covered by their own photojournalists; who work with large media companies to create sensational stories to influence the Western media audience. The media, wanting advertisement revenues, readily believe the “incidents” filmed by their “Falesinian” photojournalists. I highly recommend that you read more about this media manipulation in an essay Matti Friedman wrote for the Jewish online magazine Tablet: “An Insider’s Guide to the Most Important Story on Earth” 

“Falestinian” photojournalists, that worked with Hamas cynically used the images of the local residents as “Human Shields” during the latest Israeli Operation “Protective Shield”to achieve their desired effect to equate the IDF and the Jews of Israel in the eyes of the naive and  uneducated world as cold blooded “genocidal” murderers and as usurpers of the “native” Arab population.

Canadian columnist Paul Schneidereit once wrote,

“[…] we’ve seen cases where the bodies of Palestinian martyrs carried on stretchers are inadvertently dropped, then, of their own volition, climb back on again. We’ve seen reports of massacres, as in Jenin in 2002, that turned out, after independent investigation, to have been greatly exaggerated. Needless to say, such episodes don’t instill an abiding trust in subsequent Palestinian claims, at least until they’re verified.”

Pro-Falestinian propagandists  have consistently manipulated scenes to make the naive audiences of the Western press believe that Israel has imposed a draconian “Blockade” on the “innocent” civilians of the “Gaza Strip”. The “Falestinian” photojournalists and their foreign press counterparts cynically use the view of the border crossings necessitated by the terrorist actions together with the border fence to give the appearance of a “Blockade.”

The footage of tons of materials flowing daily into Gaza and the pictures of marketplaces full of food and new malls are blithely ignored. Nary a word is mentioned to remind the younger members of the world audience about the forced removal of Israeli citizens who had settled the land and farmed it peacefully until 2005.

Any story regarding the truth for the Israeli limitations on imports, and the Israeli Naval presence is to prevent the full scale arming of the Hamas, is ignored or brushed aside as lies. Even with the photographic proof and documentation from several ships bound to Gaza with deadly loads of weaponry hidden in supposedly innocent cargoes mean for one purpose to kill and maim Israeli civilians. Here are three prime examples of why Israel has imposed a strict blockade on Gaza:weapons-shipments

In 2003, Israeli commandos in Operation “Noah’s Ark”  intercepted the Karine A in the Red Sea, and seized 50 tons of missiles, mortars, rifles and ammunition which it said were destined for Gaza.

In 2009, the Israeli navy intercepted the Iranian vessel MV Francop off the coast of Cyprus, carrying hundreds of tons of weapons.

In March 2011  a military operation conducted by the Israeli Navy code name Operation Iron Law intercepted the German-owned, Liberian-flagged vessel Victoria on the high seas. On board were concealed approximately 50 tons of weapons, including C-704 anti-ship missiles, rocket launchers, radar systems, mortar shells and rifle ammunition.

What has been forgotten by the world media is that in 2006 when Israel arrested  Fuad Shubaki, an Arafat aide who was in charge of finances in the PA and, as such the mastermind behind the smuggling attempts. He told the Israelis that the “Falestinian Authority” usually spent between $7 and $10 million was every two years to purchase arms for the Gaza Strip. Additionally another $2 million was spent on weapons for the West Bank. According to Shubaki the money came mainly from EU and USA international aid to the PA. Just like in the recent misappropriations of millions in EU and US funds and supplies of building materials sent over the past years to Gaza to “rebuild” the sanitary facilities and infrastructure by Hamas used in the construction of tunnels to attack Israel by.

The story behind of the lost the election by the Fatah movement of the “Falestinian Authority” to the Hamas terrorist group in 2007 who took over in a ruthless and deadly fratricidal act has been all but forgotten in the obsession to de-legitimize Israel. Instead of attempting to live in peace as hoped. Hamas turned the Gaza Strip into a base for countless terrorist attacks against he Israeli civilian population mainly in the form of deadly rocket attacks.

We have also been exposed to countless libelous news reports where these propagandists have created a fable that Gaza or the areas of the “West Bank” are open air ‘concentration camps” further strengthening this view of equating Israel to Nazi Germany. I believe that the reason for this labeling of Israel as a country committing “Genocide”, together with the sick massive pro-Falestinian and their lackeys attempt to associate Israel with the Nazi regime in Germany committing a “Holocaust”, resides in the wording of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Pro-Falestinian propagandists and their lobby of bamboozled Western Libertards have labored to link Israel with  the language of “occupation” because it appears, in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Through the use of the term “occupied territory,”it has allowed the Pro-Falestinian propagandists to obfuscate historical facts and truth  as they have tried for years to negate Israel’s very existence in the world. They found that the Fourth Geneva Convention can only be used against Israel’s right to exist if they can equate Israel with the Nazi occupation of Europe.

So in order to create a connection to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and to form a legal basis for implementing the Fourth Geneva Convention. The pro-Falestinian propagandists and their trolls have brainwashed the world with the terms: Occupation, ZioNazis and Genocide. This brainwashing or if you prefer Dr Carl Sagan’s term “Bamboozled” has allowed for the reversal of the image of the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences from that of the pre-1967 image of Israel to that of the poor deprived “Falestinians” of Pallywood fame.

A leading authority on the Law of Nations, Professor Julius Stone, once had categorically rejected the use of the term “occupied territory” to describe the territories controlled by Israel on the following counts:

(1) Article 49 relates to the invasion of sovereign states and is inapplicable because the West Bank did not and does not belong to any other state.

(2) The drafting history of Article 49 [Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War] – that is, preventing “genocidal objectives” must be taken into account. And according to Professor Julius Stone those conditions do not exist in Israel’s case.

(3) The settlement of Jews in the West Bank is voluntary and does not displace local inhabitants.(In actuality most of the “settlement” of the Jews in Judea and Shomron- aka the “West Bank” has been to those areas that were once inhabited by Jews prior to the “Partion” in 1948 that were ethnically cleansed of Jews residents.)

These three points have been a sore that has festered in the Falestinian camp and has galvanized them and their trolls into action in their, as I call it “Negation of Israel Plan”.

Ethnic-Cleansing-of-Old-Qua

Through their manipulation of the world press the pro-Falestinian propagandists have succeeded to label the ethnically cleansed Israeli residents of the re-established pre-1948 Jewish communities in Gush Etzion of which the four main villages were: Kfar Etzion, Massu’ot Yitzhak,Ein Tzurim and Revadim of Judea and the Old Quarter in Jerusalem as “occupiers” and as “settlers”. The “Falestinians” have even gone so far as to brand  ALL Jewish residents of Israel, on both sides of the 1949 Rhodes Armistice “Green Line” not only as “occupiers” and as “settlers” but as “usurpers”.

Few are aware of the actual historical fact that the Jewish communities that existed in the “West Bank” and Gaza Strip prior to 1919 and were recognized as legitimate by the Mandate for Palestine, which was adopted by the League of Nations. Even fewer are aware to the fact that the only administration that completely prohibited Jewish communities from existing in the territories, situated between the 1949 “Green Line”or  “Armistice Line” and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate, was Trans-Jordan (Jordan). Who conquered and “Occupied” the area from 1948 -1967.  No mention is ever given by the pro-Falestinians to the fact that King Abdullah of Jordan did not offer to allow the “Arabs of the Mandated Area” to establishment an independent “Falestinian” entity as they were entitled to do so under the “Partition” vote of UNR181. Instead King Abdullah of Jordan attempted to annex the area but his attempts to do so were never recognized by any country. In relation to the Jordanian 19 year occupation the International Court of Justice noted:

“…under customary international law as reflected (…) in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter “the Hague Regulations of 1907”), territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

The Fourth Geneva Convention was found to be not applicable to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, since, under its Article 2, it pertains only to “cases of…occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party” by another High Contracting party. (The representatives of states who have signed or ratified a treaty… the signatories). Territories are only “occupied” if they are captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign, but no state had a legitimate or recognized sovereignty over the West Bank, Gaza Strip or East Jerusalem prior to the Six-Day War. 

Therefore in all intents and purposes under International Law the area became terra nullius or “land belonging to no one”. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Israeli government websites support the view that the territories are not occupied.  Since they argue that use of the term “occupied” in relation to Israel’s control of the areas has no basis in nternational law or history, and that it prejudges the outcome of neegotiations.  So Israel in reality “liberated” this area in a defensive war in 1967.

It is worthy to note here that United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 calls for “secure and recognized boundaries”, yet no borders have been established or recognized by the parties. Armistice lines do not establish borders, and the 1949 Armistice Agreements in particular specifically stated (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent or de jure borders.

Furthermore in respect to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention the Israeli government has not  forcibly transferred its population into the territories. The land that was being resettled and reclaimed never had been under the legitimate sovereignty of any state beforehand. What everyone is ignoring in relation to Article 49 is the fact that according to the League of Nations resolution for the establishment of the Mandate for Palestine, the area of Judea and Shomron had been recognized as a cestui sue trust  for the Jewish Homeland in April, 1922 in the Treaty of Sèvres (Section VII, Art 94-97) by 52 countries at the San Remo Conference which granted the Palestine Mandate to Britain. The League of Nations officially granted Britain the Palestine Mandate on July 24, 1922.

There are no clauses in the Fourth Geneva Convention that can be used to prohibit the voluntary return of individuals to towns and villages from which they or their ancestors had been previously ejected by forcible means.

ARTICLE 49 The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the International Criminal Court Rome Statute defines “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” as a war crime. (*) This should be read only in the context of the World War II forcible migrations. It is only intended to cover forcible transfers and to protect the local population from displacement and not voluntary movement.

According to the argument, the “last legal sovereignty over the territories was that of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, which stipulated the right of the Jewish people to settle in the whole of the Mandated territory. According to Article 6 of the Mandate, “close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use” was to be encouraged.”

However under Article 25 it allowed the League Council to temporarily postpone the Jewish right to settle (only) in what is now Jordan, if conditions were not amenable.

“Article 80 of the U.N. Charter preserved this Jewish right to settlement by specifying, “nothing in the [United Nations] Charter shall be construed … to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing international instruments.

Shamgar further stated:

“There is no rule of international law according to which the Fourth Convention applies in each and every armed conflict whatever the status of the parties…. The whole idea of the restriction of military government powers is based on the assumption that there has been a sovereign who was ousted and that he was a legitimate sovereign.”

The Israeli legal argument was dismissed by the International Court of Justice. The Court cited the Geneva Convention’s travaux préparatoires, which recommended that the conventions be applicable to any armed conflict “whether [it] is or is not recognized as a state of war by the parties” and “in cases of occupation of territories in the absence of any state of war” as confirmation that the drafters of the article had no intention of restricting the scope of its application”

“High Contracting Parties”

Historically the area in question was called the “West Bank”  by members of the British Foreign Office to avoid the use of the name Judea and Shomron so as to negate Jewish rights to the area.
The area of Judea and Shomron was part of the Ottoman Empire known as the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem or as the Sanjak of Jerusalem from 1299 until 1918. Later the area was under the British as part of  the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA South) established between 1918 to 1920 and after that with the Treaty of Sèvres (Section VII, Art 94-97) it became the Mandate for Palestine.

This part of the Mandate for Palestine designated as part of the future Arab State in the November 29th, 1947 Partition vote (UNR181) was conquered and held by the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan from 1948 until 1967, who attempted to annex the area. Due to inter-sectarian violence and rivalries it was never controlled by an Independent Arab entity ruled by and for the Arabs of the Mandated areas.

Therefore by legal definition the “West Bank” and Gaza Strip have never been the legal territories of any High Contracting Party.

Thus, the current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision “to resettle” -to allow Israeli citizens the right to reside, in land that was once part of the Mandate for Palestine area rather than a result of a war imposed on Israel by a coalition of Arab states in 1967.

Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel’s case:

 “Where the prior holder of territory ( Jordan) had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.”

On the application of the fourth Geneva Convention, the Court noted:

“…for the purpose of determining the scope of application of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it should be recalled that under common Article 2 of the four Conventions of 12 August 1949”

“In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.”

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.”

(…) the Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that Convention is applicable when two conditions are fulfilled:

  • that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized);
  • and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties. (…)

The object of the second paragraph of Article 2 is not to restrict the scope of application of the Convention, as defined by the first paragraph, by excluding there from territories not falling under the sovereignty of one of the contracting parties. It is directed simply to making it clear that, even if occupation effected during the conflict met no armed resistance, the Convention is still applicable.

In 1971 Israeli Attorney-General, Meir Shamgar stated in his interpretation that:  “The Convention did not pertain to the territories captured by Israel since they had not previously been recognized as part of a sovereign state and could not be considered “the territory of a High Contracting Party”.

Therefore even if the Fourth Geneva Convention had applied at one point, they certainly did not apply once Israel transferred governmental powers to the Palestinian Authority in accordance with the 1993 Oslo Accords, since Article 6 of the convention states that the Occupying Power would only be bound to its terms “to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory….”.

In 2005 Israel decided to dismantle all Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern West Bank. historian and journalist, Gershom Gorenberg noted that the government’s decision was challenged in the Supreme Court by “settlers”, and the government won the case by noting the “settlements” were in territory whose legal status was that of ‘belligerent territory’. The government argued that the settlers should have known the settlements were only temporary.