Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Proof of the Legal and Moral Right of Israel to Exist as a Sovereign State


by Jeremy James

This paper demonstrates that the modern state of Israel was constituted on valid legal and moral grounds and that the
Palestinian problem has been deliberately engineered
       by radical Islam in order to destroy it.

1. The Plight of the Arab-Palestinians
Hardly any fair-minded person would deny that the treatment of the Arab-Palestinians has been deplorable. There are some 2,345,000 living in the West Bank and 1,416,000 in the Gaza Strip, all in circumstances inimical to their economic viability, their security and their dignity. Many live in conditions of abject poverty, while unemployment is extremely high - around 40% in Gaza. How could such a situation have arisen?
Most westerners are bombarded with information about the plight of the Arab-Palestinians, but have little knowledge of their history. Worldwide about 12 million people describe themselves as Arab-Palestinian. Most are Muslim, but a small proportion, about 6%, are Christian.
In addition to the Arab-Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, there are about 1.3 million living in ‘green line’ Israel where they comprise 17.5% of the total population.
Other geographical regions in the Middle East with a significant Arab-Palestinian population include Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia:

Jordan                     2,700,000
Syria                           435,000
Lebanon                     405,000
Saudi Arabia               327,000

National           Percentage
Population          Arab-Palestinian
6,316,000           42.7%
21,900,000             2.0%
4,224,000             9.6%
25,700,000             1.3%


These figures immediately prompt three important questions:
-  Why are so many Arab-Palestinians living peacefully in Israel if they are
supposed to be enemies?
-  Why don’t neighboring Arab countries absorb a larger proportion
    of the Arab-Palestinians currently confined to
Gaza and the West Bank?
-  Why is the Arab-Palestinian population of Jordan so high (42%)?
Please keep these three questions in mind as we proceed since the answers shed remarkable light on the entire Middle-Eastern situation.
2. The History of Palestine
The Jews entered the land of Canaan, today’s Israel, and established a home there around 1500 BC. In the thousand year period after Solomon, a number of different empires - Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman - conquered or claimed sovereignty over all or part of this territory.
The Diaspora
After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD a large proportion of the Jewish population was evicted en masse from their homeland by the Romans. This policy was pursued with equal vigor after the Bar Kokhba Revolt in 132-135 AD. Only a small number of Jews, mostly the poorest of the poor, were allowed to remain. This massive dispersion, known as the Diaspora, was not reversed to any significant extent until the Jews began to return to their homeland in the mid 19th century when the territory, then known as Palestine, was under Ottoman rule. The literature and culture of the Jews during the entire period of the Diaspora reflected a desire to return to their homeland,
but social, economic and military impediments prevented them from doing so.
Successive Empires
With the slow disintegration of the western half of the Roman Empire, Palestine came under the administration of Byzantium, the largely autonomous eastern half, in 324 AD. The invading Muslims took it over in 638 AD and the locus of administration switched from Byzantium (today’s Istanbul) to Damascus (under the Umayyad’s) and then to Baghdad (under the Abbasids). In 1096 AD, during the First Crusade, Jerusalem fell to the Christians. The Crusaders were finally driven from Palestine by the Mamelukes - a powerful Islamic dynasty based in Egypt - in 1291 AD. When the Mamelukes were defeated in turn by the Ottomans in 1517 AD, the administration of Palestine was directed thereafter from Constantinople (yet again) and remained under Ottoman rule until their empire collapsed after the First World War.
Two important points should be noted in this historical review. Firstly, while the land of Canaan had, for over 1,500 years, been identified exclusively with the indigenous Jewish population until the first century AD, with its capital in Jerusalem, it had ceased to have a distinct political identity thereafter. Instead it became a small province within a series of extensive empires. Furthermore, with the expulsion of most of its Jewish population in the Diaspora, the land was neither irrigated nor cultivated in a systematic manner thereafter and eventually deteriorated to the point where it was of little agrarian value. It was used mainly by wandering Bedouin, a very small population of urban dwellers, and as a trading route between Africa and Asia.


Secondly, for the duration of the Ottoman Empire, and long before, geographical areas were distinguished mainly by reference to tribal boundaries, proximity to large towns, or by inclusion in an administrative district for taxation purposes. The empire itself was the only sovereign entity in the Middle East and nation states as such did not exist.
The Post-War Carve-Up
This system was completely obliterated with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. For the first time in 1,800 years these vast tracts of land were without an internationally recognized political identity. This is why the western powers acted quickly to reconfigure the Empire, either as a number of sovereign states or as a group of autonomous regions overseen by Britain and France.
The British had already envisaged this outcome when, in 1916, they made a secret draft agreement with France - known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement - which specified how the Ottoman Empire would be carved up between them when the war was over.
There had long been sympathy among a segment of the British aristocracy for the establishment of a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. This segment happened to have sufficient political influence around this time to extract a commitment from the British government to create such a homeland. This was given effect through the famous  Balfour  Declaration  when,  with  Cabinet  approval,  the British  Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, sent a letter of intent to one of the most powerful men in the world at that time, Baron Lionel Walter Rothschild. Dated 2 November 1917, it
read as follows:


Never has a single sentence been more controversial.

The British government was almost certainly influenced in its decision by a desire to retain favor, under wartime conditions, with the Jewish element of the international banking system. It is likely that, at a critical juncture in its conflict with Germany, the British offered Palestine to the Zionists in return for a Jewish commitment to bring America into the War. Their attitude was to change, however, when it became increasingly apparent that, in pursuing this policy, the British were alienating the Arab world.
The role of a ruthless, dynastic institution like the Rothschilds in the creation of the state of Israel, and their involvement thereafter in aspects of its development, would suggest that they had long-term plans, within the Illuminati framework, for this new nation state which had nothing whatever to do with the welfare of the Jewish people. While this is undoubtedly an important theme, it goes beyond the remit of this paper and will not be examined further.


The Arab Reaction
The Arabs had put considerable pressure on the British to secure control over as much Arab-populated territory in the former Ottoman Empire as they possibly could. In doing so they were prepared to make concessions regarding a Jewish homeland in Palestine if it would guarantee the transfer of the vast majority of the remaining territory into their hands. They had been subject to Turkish control for more than four centuries and were extremely anxious to take maximum advantage of the changes that were now taking place.
The Arabs based their claims on their contribution to the British war effort in the so-called Arab Revolt against the Turks. This contribution involved occasional disruptions to traffic along the Hedjaz railway by a rag-tag Bedouin force of only 600 men. While probably not big enough to be called a sideshow, it was exaggerated shamelessly by
T.E.Lawrence in his self-promotional work, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom.
Paris Peace Conference 1919
At the hastily convened Paris Peace Conference in 1919, the international community hammered out a detailed agreement regarding the disposal of the vast territory of the former Ottoman Empire. A further meeting of the Allied Supreme Council was held in San Remo in 1920 to resolve residual matters, including the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Then, in June 1922, the League of Nations formally assigned Britain the Mandate for Palestine.
It is important to note that Emir Feisal, the principal Arab representative at the Paris Peace Conference, had earlier signed a formal agreement with the principal Jewish representative, Chaim Weizmann, which confirmed that the Arab people welcomed the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. It opened as follows:
The various Articles which followed addressed such matters as the rights of Arabs living in the Jewish state of Palestine, the creation of a commission to define the boundaries of such a state, and the implementation of such measures as may be necessary for the effective implementation of the Balfour Declaration.
Arab Acceptance in Principle
It is clear from the Feisal-Weizmann Agreement that the Arabs had no problem in principle with the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine and that they did they not see any difficulty with Arabs living in such a state.


The San Remo Resolution of April 1920, which was confirmed by the League of Nations, incorporated the Balfour Declaration. However the precise boundaries of the            territories to be allocated to the Jewish state were still not determined.
Interestingly, the Jewish proposal at the Paris conference was based, not on a claim to the entire Mandate of Palestine, which comprised territory corresponding to both Israel and Jordan today, but only to the land west of the Hedjaz railway - see map on next page. This left plenty of territory for the Mandate’s small Arab population. The first British census of Palestine in 1922 revealed a total population of 757,000 across the entire territory of the Mandate (which comprised some 35,000 square miles). Of these, 78% were Muslim, 11% Jewish and 10% Christian. Arabs were to be allowed to live in the proposed (but as yet undefined) Jewish homeland, though seemingly not in such numbers as to constitute a significant minority.

Arab and British Abrogation of Agreements
However, once the Arabs got what they wanted in the Ottoman carve-up, they reneged on their commitment to recognize and live peacefully with the proposed Jewish state in Palestine. Instead they worked closely with the British, who bowed to Arab pressure, to frustrate Jewish immigration into their proposed new homeland and to greatly increase the number of ‘indigenous’ Arabs living in western Palestine.
What is more the British reneged, at least in part, on their Balfour / San Remo commitment and unilaterally divided Palestine in two? The region west of the Jordan River would henceforth constitute the territory from which the proposed Jewish homeland would be formed, while the region east of the Jordan River (the country known today as Jordan), which comprised no less than 73% of the Mandate, would be surrendered exclusively to the Arabs and no Jews would be allowed to settle there.
By any reckoning, this was a remarkable triumph for the Arabs. Not only had they succeeded in acquiring control over the vast majority of the Ottoman territory, but they had left the Jews with significantly less than they had been guaranteed by the British and her allies. Furthermore, the question of how much of the remaining Mandate territory would fall to the Jews was still far from settled. The Arabs reckoned that, if they put even more pressure on the British, the proposed Jewish homeland could be whittled down even further, even to the point where it would be strategically indefensible.
Their intransigence worked and the Foreign Office in London began to obstruct Jewish immigration into the only part of Palestine that the Jews were still allowed to enter, namely the portion west of the Jordan River. This, too, was in contravention of the Mandate conditions approved by the League of Nations.


Map showing the boundaries of the
proposed Jewish state, as outlined by the  Zionist  representatives  at  the
1919 Paris Peace Conference, super-imposed on modern boundaries.

Thus, from a situation where they could reasonably expect a sizeable slice of the original Mandate territory (which was 35,126 square miles in extent), the Jews were being confined to an area of only 10,429 square miles, with the real prospect that this could be reduced even further. As World War Two approached and tensions grew between Britain and Germany, the Foreign Office was increasingly guided by the need to retain favour with the Arabs. Despite the appalling persecution of Jews in Europe during the 1930s, the British continued to make it as difficult as possible for any more Jews to enter West Palestine (They were already banned from entering East Palestine). The British supplemented this strategy by violating the legal terms of the Mandate and allowing virtually unlimited Arab immigration into West Palestine -
which was supposed to become the 
Jewish homeland..


British Duplicity and Arab Terrorism
In addition to this, the Arabs were engaging in an ongoing programme of harassment against the Jews in West Palestine, committing a long series of terrorist atrocities
during the 1920s. These culminated in the murder of 67 Jews living in
Hebron on 23-24 August 1929 (To their credit, nineteen local Arab families hid some 435 Jews, at
risk to their own lives). The British army did nothing to prevent this massacre, even
though it could easily have intervened. Any remaining Jews had to be evacuated for
their own safety.
This atrocity made it abundantly clear to the Jews that the British were prepared to let the Arabs wipe them out, so they substantially enhanced their own paramilitary defense organization, the Haganah.
The Arab terrorist attacks continued all through the 1930s and reached their zenith in what history describes as another ‘Arab Revolt’ (1936-1939). This was an organised
campaign of violence directed by senior figures in the Arab community, purportedly
in protest at the continued immigration of Jews into
West Palestine. The irony is that
the actual number of Jewish immigrants, whose influx was very tightly controlled by 
the British, was only a fraction of what it should have been under the League of
Nations Mandate. On the other hand, Arabs continued to migrate in large numbers
West Palestine. In order to disguise this influx, the British recorded Jewish
immigrants only, not Arab. They also put pressure on other European countries not to allow their Jews to emigrate to
Palestine. It is reckoned that more than a million
additional Jews would have emigrated to
Palestine from Europe during the 1930s had
they been allowed (Most of these were subsequently murdered by the Nazis).
Not only did the British make every effort to restrict Jewish immigration, but they
confined those who were admitted to designated areas. This meant that, if and when a Jewish homeland was ultimately established, the Jewish claim, which would relate
largely to areas settled by Jews, would be further constrained. And this is exactly
what happened.
In order to break the spirit of Zionism and to win favour with the Arabs, the British Government published a White Paper in 1939 which completely overturned the Balfour Declaration and promised to create an Arab state in West Palestine within a short time. The fact that this was in complete violation of international law did not seem to matter to the British.
UN Resolution, 1947
After World War Two, when news of the Holocaust became widely known, there was a renewed international impetus to resolve the plight of the Jews and create a
homeland for them in
West Palestine - the only part of Palestine that was still
available. Weakened by the war and losing confidence in their ability to deal with the 
Palestine question, the British passed the entire matter to the United Nations for
decision. When the Jews were finally offered nationhood by the UN (Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947), the frontiers of their new state were determined mainly on the
basis of the land they already inhabited - just as the British had intended.


As we have already noted, the original Palestine Mandate was 35,126 square miles in extent, but after East Palestine had been handed unilaterally to the Arabs (known today as Jordan), the western portion comprised just 10,429 square miles. The UN decreed that 57% of this would be given to the Jews for their proposed homeland - an area of 6,177 square miles which included the semi-arid and inhospitable Negev Desert (which covered 4,700 square miles!)

United Nations Resolution on West Palestine, 1947
Arab population                  Jewish population
Jerusalem                                  105,000                               100,000
Jewish State                              325,000                               498,000
Arab State                                807,000                                10,000
Despite the miniscule size of their proposed homeland, three quarters of which was desert, the half million or so Jews who lived there were required by the UN to share it with 325,000 settled Arabs, plus a further 90,000 or so Bedouin who wandered the Negev. In contrast, the portion of West Palestine that the UN offered the Arabs was inhabited by just 10,000 or so Jews. (Under the UN decision, Jerusalem, which had an equal mixture of Arabs and Jews, was to be designated an international zone.)
Thus, in the redistribution of the vast territory of the Ottoman Empire, an area of around 1.1 million square miles, the Jews got less than 1 per cent.
The total number of Jews in the Empire at the start of the 20th century has been estimated at 500,000, while that of the Empire as a whole was 20 million or thereabouts. Had the Empire been redistributed on a pro rata basis to the various ethnic groups living within its borders in 1917, the Jews would have received a much larger slice of Ottoman territory than they were ultimately awarded through the UN. (By the same token, the Kurds, another significant ethnic group, should have been given a homeland of their own, but their needs were shamefully ignored.)
Even if the Zionist movement had never pressed Britain, the US and the League of Nations for a Jewish homeland in the late 19th and early 20th century, there would still have been a need to set aside a contiguous parcel of land somewhere within the former Empire to enable this scattered and oppressed ethnic group to relocate for their own protection. Indeed, the Balfour Declaration was an implied recognition of this fact.
Two Remarkable Surprises
There seemed to be no basis on which the Jews could accept the UN offer. The amount of land they were being given was ridiculously small. In addition, they were expected to share it with an almost equally large Arab population which, under wartime conditions, might act as a fifth column. To make matters worse, the proposed territory was divided into three indefensible segments. For example, the tract of land along the Mediterranean was a narrow corridor less than ten miles across (See map on next page).


Map showing the three small parcels of land approved by the UN in
1947 to form the state of 
Israel (in light blue) and those offered to the
Arabs (in orange).
Jerusalem was defined as an ‘international zone’.
The blue coastal segment is no more than 10 miles across.
Note that the Negev Desert comprises most of the blue segment below Beersheba .

One historian noted the contradictions in this ‘solution’ as follows:
The borders between the Arab and the Jewish states [under the UN Resolution] were a nightmare of points and lines of friction, of isolated areas lacking in viable contiguity; and, last but not least, a demographic  absurdity  characterized  the  proposed  Jewish  state where 500,000  Jews  were  supposed  to  coexist  with  an  Arab ‘minority’ of close to the same size. - Ben-Ami, p.34


The Arabs, on the other hand, were being made an incredibly generous offer. They already had East Palestine (Jordan) - which was free of Jews - and were now being given a second autonomous state - which happened to have only a small number of settled Jews. Not only would they end up with 82 per cent of the Palestine Mandate, but they could also be confident that, from a strategic standpoint, the three meager parcels of land which comprised the Jewish homeland could never pose a meaningful threat to their Arab neighbors.
Against all expectations, the Jews accepted the UN declaration, but the Arabs rejected it. The perversity of the Arab attitude, which has asserted itself many times since, was summed up by Ben-Ami as follows:
The Palestinians themselves, in what became a sad and self-defeating pattern of political behavior, acted as the worst enemies of their own cause and did their utmost to prevent the creation of their state.  (p.60)
It was clear to all concerned that the Arab rejection was based on their belief that the fledgling Jewish state was too small to defend itself against a coordinated military invasion. The British had reinforced the perception that Israel could be strangled at birth by providing the Arabs with ample weaponry and experienced military personnel. At the same time, they blocked all attempts by the Jews to import arms for defensive purposes.
The Arabs also expected to weaken Israel in the months leading up to independence by conducting a vicious terror campaign against Jewish civilian targets. Many Jews, including women and children, were murdered in a frenzied attempt to undermine Israeli morale and to incite the local Arab population in the Jewish-settled areas to rise against Zionism. (As it happened, only 4000 Arabs inside Israel gave support to the invading armies.)

The Foundation of Israel
Despite the Arab rejection, the UN stood over its decision and the Jews declared the independent state of Israel on 14 May, 1948. This was the first time since Sargon II conquered the Northern Kingdom of Israel in 722 BC that a united, self-governing Jewish homeland had existed.
The very next day, 15 May, combined Arab armies attacked Israel on three fronts.
Their stated aim was the total annihilation of
Israel which, presumably, would have entailed the slaughter of all Jews who resisted and the eviction (or worse) of those who were left. Bear in mind, when considering this scenario that these Arab armies -from Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia - were converging on a tiny strip of land which was bound on one side by the sea. What is more, the invaders already had possession of three significant strategic assets - the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza.


It is notable that the Jordanian army included 48 experienced British officers, led by Major General John Glubb (‘Glubb Pasha’). It would seem the British determination to prevent the creation of a Jewish state had not abated after World War II, despite the slaughter of the Holocaust.
The War of 1948
Even though it was at an enormous strategic disadvantage, Israel survived the invasion and even secured additional territory, growing from 6,177 to 7,820 square miles - an increase of almost 27 per cent. Though still a tiny, vulnerable state surrounded by formidable enemies, it would now be in a better position to defend itself against a similar attack in the future. But success came at a price. In the course of the war it lost 1 per cent of its Jewish population - a very high rate of attrition by international standards.
Most observers expected the invaders to destroy Israel. The Arabs, who enjoyed a number of significant - and normally decisive - military advantages, were supremely confident of victory.   As Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab Leagues, said just prior to the invasion: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” .
The shock of defeat, the sheer humiliation, had a devastating effect on the Islamic psyche. To this day it is referred to among Arabs as “the Catastrophe” (al-Nakba).
Their defeat reflected, not just on their military prowess and their deep sense of racial superiority, but on their religion and the supposed omnipotence of their god, Allah. To lose in such a manner to a tiny Dhimmi state that was only a day old, having possessed almost overwhelming strategic advantages from the outset, was truly a catastrophe.
It is impossible to understand the obstinacy, intransigence and arrogance of the Arab attitude toward Israel over the past 60 years without recognizing the dreadful loss of face and the astonishing blow to their pride which came with their defeat in 1948.
Despite two subsequent wars in 1967 and 1973, in which massed Arab armies again tried to exterminate the tiny Jewish state, the Israelis prevailed and even strengthened their position. The war of 1967 gave them Sinai (including Gaza), east Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Golan Heights, all of which, as victors in a defensive war against a genocidal invader, they were entitled to retain in perpetuity.
Questions and Answers
Additional historical analysis of the Arab-Israeli conflict will be presented where appropriate in the remainder of this paper.
Having set the scene as it were, we will now focus on the principal questions that most westerners appear to have regarding the legitimacy of the state of Israel and its treatment of the Arab-Palestinians, both before its foundation in 1948 and thereafter.


1. Surely the Arabs who had already settled in West Palestine, and who had been there for generations (“time immemorial”), were equally entitled to the land and should have been given a state of their own?
There are four major assumptions embedded in this question.
Firstly, the question assumes that West Palestine was continuously settled for centuries by a substantial population of Arabs, just like the surrounding regions (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan). However this is not the case. The land was significantly under-populated during the Ottoman period. Having been neglected for so long, the soil had deteriorated to the point where it was of little agrarian value. Visitors to the Holy Land in the 19th century, such as Mark Twain and Karl Marx, were greatly surprised by the emptiness of the terrain, the barrenness of the soil and the tiny size of the population. The indigenous people, mostly Arabs, Jews and Christians, were confined in the main to a few towns, where living conditions were primitive. The Ottomans had not invested in the country and there was no infrastructure to speak of.
Secondly, the Jews had continuously maintained an unbroken presence in Palestine since the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The numbers were not large, but a remnant always remained. Whether the land was controlled by the eastern Roman empire, the Ummayad, Abbasid or Fatimid empires, the Christian Crusaders (who butchered many Jews), or the Ottoman Turks, the Jews continued to maintain a sufficient presence in the land to be recognized by these conquerors as an indigenous people.
They also continued to migrate into West Palestine, albeit in small numbers, during the entire period of the Diaspora. As Katz noted:
In spite of bans and prohibitions, in spite of the most improbable and unpromising circumstances, there was never a period throughout the centuries of exile without Jewish immigration to Palestine. (p.95)
Thirdly, the question assumes that the Arab-Palestinians were never given a state of their own. As we have already seen, this assumption is completely false. The British gave the Arabs the entire Mandate region east of the Jordan River (77% of Palestinein 1922 and called it Trans-Jordan - presumably to disguise the fact that it was actually Palestine. They did this unilaterally, in violation of the April 1920 San Remo agreement and international law. Furthermore, Jews were forbidden to settle in this new Arab-Palestinian state.
Finally, the question assumes that the Arabs in West Palestine - who could have relocated to the new Arab-Palestinian state of Trans-Jordan - were denied sovereign entitlement to part of West Palestine. As we have seen the UN offered the Arabs a state of their own in West Palestine in 1947 (in addition to the one they had already been given in East Palestine) but they refused it, almost certainly on the basis that they expected to overrun and destroy the fledgling state of Israel the following year, murder or evict the entire Jewish population, and claim the whole of Palestine, East and West, as their own.

Much misunderstanding has arisen, even among those who ought to know better, from a failure to recognize these unfounded assumptions.

2. But many Arab families lost their homes in West Palestine after the Jews forced them out. How could this be fair?
When the Jews first began to return to Palestine in large numbers in the mid-19th century, they were obliged to pay exorbitant prices for the land sold to them by the effendis, the absentee Arab landlords living in Aleppo, Damascus, Amman and elsewhere. These prices were often 4-5 times the fair value of the property.
Many of these Jews were driven from their homes in other Arab countries, for which they received no compensation. (In 1945 there were about 990,000 Jewish families living in Arab countries. Today that figure is a mere 8,000.) It has been estimated that the number of Jews who lost property in this way was at least double the number of Arabs who left West Palestine 'temporarily' in 1947-1948 and lost property as a result.
It is also assumed that the Arabs had been settled in West Palestine for generations, but this is not the case. A significant number, at least 300,000, arrived in the 20th century, attracted by the prospect of employment by Jewish immigrants who were redeveloping the land and producing crops where none had grown for generations. It was worth their while to relocate since the Jewish farmers were offering better pay and conditions of employment than the same Arab workers would have enjoyed in their own countries. And this is why Arab-Palestinians continue to live in Israel today - their overall living conditions and their general treatment is better than they could expect to enjoy in any neighboring Muslim state.
3.   That may be so but it does not excuse the fact that many Arabs left West Palestine because they were effectively driven out by Jewish threats. Surely this cannot be justified?
One must consider the magnitude of the threats to which the Jews in West Palestine were themselves subject. As Ben-Ami noted:
It was then [just prior to the Arab invasion] that the Jews really felt they faced slaughter should they be defeated and that the survival of the incipient Jewish state hung by a mere thread. (p.56)
Despite having initially facilitated the creation of a Jewish homeland, the British thereafter had consistently obstructed all attempts to create a Jewish state, while the Arabs had been committing atrocities against Jewish settlers on a fairly regular basis from the start of the 20th century. These attacks had increased in frequency and intensity after the Hebron massacre of 1929 and numerous Arabs leaders, including the Grand Mufti in Jerusalem, had called for the total annihilation of the Jews in West Palestine. This was not empty rhetoric. The Grand Mufti had advised Hitler on the mass slaughter of Jews in Europe and had even requested that large numbers of European Jews be forcibly transferred to Poland lest any migrate to West PalestineHe knew well the fate that awaited them in Poland, where millions died at the hands of the Nazis:


"The Mufti of Jerusalem was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan...He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures." - Dieter Wisliceny (Eichmann’s deputy) giving evidence at the Nuremburg Trials [Wisliceny was hanged as a war criminal in 1948]
After the Holocaust, the Jews of West Palestine knew only too well that the Arab threat of genocide was very real. As a result their fears translated in some instances into actions which cannot be justified. However, the popular claim that the Arabs were driven from West Palestine by Jewish threats and aggression do not stand up to scrutiny.  Here is how Samuel Katz described it in his tightly argued book, Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine (1973):
The fabrication can most easily be detected by the simple circumstance that at the time the alleged expulsion of the Arabs by Zionists was in progress, nobody noticed it. Foreign newspapermen abounded in the country...even those most hostile to the Jews saw
nothing to suggest that the flight [of the Arabs] was not voluntary. In the three months that the major part of the flight took place, the London Times, a newspaper most notably hostile to Zionism, published 11 leading articles on the situation in
Palestine, in addition to extensive news reports. In none was there even a remote hint that the Zionists were driving Arabs from their homes...Even more pertinent: No Arab spokesman made such a charge. At the height of the flight, the Arab-Palestinians' chief U.N. representative, Jamal Husseini, made a long political statement (on April 27, 1948) that was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; [but] he did not mention refugees...The secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees...When, four months after the [war began], the prospect of the flight lings' returning "in a few weeks" had faded, there were some recriminations. Emil Ghoury, a member of the Arab-Palestinians' national leadership, said in an interview with the Beirut Daily Telegraph: "The fact that there are these [Arab] refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously, and they must share in the solution of the problem."
The author was a member of Irgun and served for a time as advisor to Prime Minister Begin.  No  doubt  his  enemies  would  have  taken  considerable  satisfaction  in disproving his sources and refuting his analysis had they been able to do so.


Ben-Ami, who gives a very uncompromising analysis of the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1948, stated that
[T]he mass exodus was, however, inadvertently encouraged by the leaders of the Arab-Palestinian community when, in their eagerness to trigger the invasion of Palestine by the Arab armies, they blew up out of all proportion the atrocities committed against Arab civilians. The Arab armies came in eventually, but by puffing up the atrocities, local leaders such as Dr Hussein Fakhri Al-Khalidi, the head of the Arab National Committee in Jerusalem who gave explicit instructions to the Arab-Palestinian media to inflate the reports, helped enhance the magnitude of an exodus driven by fear and hysteria. [p.44]
Bard commented as follows:
The Haganah did employ psychological warfare to encourage the Arabs to abandon some villages. For example, some were told that a large Jewish invasion force was coming to burn their villages and that they had better get out...Arab fears were exacerbated by fabricated stories of Jewish atrocities following the attack on Deir Yassin. In his memoirs,  King  Abdullah  of  Jordan  stated, “The  tragedy of  the Arab-Palestinians was that most of their leaders had paralyzed them with false and unsubstantiated promises that they were not alone; that 80 million Arabs and 400  million  Muslims  would  instantly  and miraculously come to their rescue.” [pps.128 and 132]
It is also significant that The Economist reported as follows on 2 October, 1948:
A few years later, the New York Lebanese daily newspaper, Al Hoda, reported:


Israel is actually a very small state

Katz, who made extensive use of published Arab sources, as well as reports and dispatches by British reporters and public servants who were patently hostile to the Jewish cause, drew attention to the fact that the British government ordered the destruction of a significant number of official files in order to cover up their complicity in the Arab campaign against the Jews. In addition to the file series relating to the Haganah and another entitled ‘Propaganda Among the Arabs,’ which dealt with the British policy of inciting Arabs against Jews, Katz noted that


[t]he entire correspondence between the Palestine administration and its chiefs at the Colonial Office in London relating to the records of the meetings of the Executive Council (in effect the Cabinet) of the Palestine government had been “destroyed under statute.”
These files, had they been available, would have shed copious light on the extent to which the British had, for almost the entire duration of the Mandate, incited the Arabs to revolt against the Jews and had trained and financed Arab terrorists. They even created the Arab League (in 1945) to stiffen Arab resistance to the creation of the Jewish state. These deceitful tactics were similar to those adopted by Britain in Kenya, Aden and elsewhere during its imperial decline. Finally, as we have already noted, the British published a White Paper in 1939 which completely overturned the
Balfour Declaration and announced that
West Palestine would in due course become an Arab state.

4. If the Arabs countries have made, and continue to make, every effort to resolve the Arab-Palestinian refugee problem, then why should Israel default on its obligations in this regard?
This is a common myth. The truth of the matter is that the nations of Islam have continually done everything in their power to retain the Arab-Palestinian refugee problem and to use it as a rod to beat Israel. The United Nations offered them their own state (in addition to Jordan) in West Palestine in 1947, but they refused the offer. Then Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950 (which it had already occupied for two years) and was in a position to declare a new Arab-Palestinian state in that territory during the following 17 years, before it lost the West Bank to Israel in 1967. However, it made
no attempt to do so. Here is how Kumaraswamy (2006) put it (Introduction, p.59):
Even though Israel is normally blamed for the absence of Arab-Palestinian statehood, at least until 1967 the Arab states were equally responsible for that failure. Until then, they occupied most of the territory that was given to Palestine under the UN partition, and their failure to create a state in
these territories not only weakened the Arab-Palestinian cause but, more importantly, created doubts about their commitment to Arab unity.
Karsh, among others, has also drawn attention to the glaring cynicism of the Arab position:
Perhaps the best proof of British prescience regarding this matter was that neither Egypt nor Jordan ever allowed Arab-Palestinian self-determination in the parts of Palestine they conquered during the 1948 War: respectively, Gaza and the West Bank. As the Egyptian representative to the armistice talks told a British journalist: 'We don't care if all the refugees will die.
There are enough Arabs around.' More than half a century later, many of these refugees still languish in squalid camps waiting for their problem to be solved. (p.92)


Furthermore, the low population density of the former Ottoman Empire meant that there was never any shortage of land to allocate to the refugees, even if the West Bank had not been available. Nor was there ever a shortage of finances, either from oil-rich Arab states or from international organizations and sympathetic western sources, to facilitate their relocation. The reality is that some of the Arab-Palestinians were evicted from Jordan in 1970 and from Lebanon in the 1980’s because of the escalating terrorist activities of the PLO. This ongoing aggression, orchestrated by radical elements within Islam, made sure that the unfortunate Arab-Palestinian people were deliberately abandoned by the nations of Islam and exploited in the most cynical fashion imaginable. They were never more than pawns in the genocidal plan to destroy Israel.
It should be noted also that the alleged cultural affinity of the Arab-Palestinian refugees with the land of West Palestine has little or no foundation since a large proportion are descendants of Arabs who had been resident in West Palestine for no more than a few decades.
Besides being an open sore for propaganda purposes, the Arab-Palestinian refugees have long provided convenient cover for Islamic terrorist groups such as the PLO, Fattah, Hamas and Hezbollah. That their operations must inevitably result in causalities among Arab-Palestinian civilians is of no consequence in a society where martyrdom and death in the cause of Islam are esteemed as the highest good. In such a twisted philosophy, women and children may be used as human shields, with or without their consent. (For a disturbing insight into the methods used by Hamas to control its members and sacrifice Arab civilians, read Son of Hamas by Mosab Hassan Yousef.)
In light of these well-established facts, it is impossible to see how Israel is under any obligation to solve a problem which extremist, Jew-hating elements within Islam have deliberately engendered and aggravated over a period of sixty years.

5. Given that Arabs and Jews lived peacefully together for centuries under Ottoman rule, why can’t they jointly occupy and administer a unified Arab-Israeli state in Palestine?
This ‘solution’ is part of the misleading propaganda spread by radical Islamists and their sympathizers. It tries to disguise the fact that the Jews were always an oppressed minority under Islam, subject to extraordinary mistreatment and abuse.
As unbelievers, Jews were known as dhimmis, a sub-class with significantly fewer social and political rights than Muslims, very little security, subject to the prospect of arbitrary assault by any Muslim (against which they had little or no legal recourse), and made to pay an exorbitant tax called Jizyah.  This tax, which was levied normally on all able-bodied male infidels, was unusually onerous and could consume up to half of one’s annual income. In short, dhimmis were down-trodden serfs whose continued existence was tolerated mainly on economic grounds. The dhimmi system also had a major social advantage in that it placed a layer of indigent people below the Muslim community. So, no matter how badly the Muslims themselves were treated by an oppressive ruling regime, there was always a layer beneath them that was even more exploited and oppressed.


Both the Koran and the Hadith (the sayings of Muhammad) contain numerous verses which call for the exploitation, and even the elimination, of Jews. They are described several times as a curse upon the earth and a subhuman class - “pigs” and “apes” (Many websites list these verses).
Today it is virtually impossible for anybody other than a Muslim to live safely in some Muslim countries. While immigrant workers are tolerated, they have no status and may be expelled at any time. The Christian Copts of Egypt are subject to dreadful persecution and appear to be a target for annihilation by extremist groups.
The Muslim belief in the inferiority of non-believers is demonstrated in many ways, but perhaps the best known is their insistence on the use of Sharia law in any country where they possess sufficient political influence to compel its introduction. Sharia is simply the codification of Islamic doctrine in all matters pertaining to human behavior. Applying as it does to just about every aspect of a person’s life; it is far more sweeping and inclusive than any western idea of jurisprudence. Sharia law is “above the law,” that is it supersedes the statutes of all western nations and any law constituted outside the parameters of Islam.
Arabs resident in Israel (excluding the West Bank and Gaza) number around 1.2
million, 8 times the number in 1948. They are eligible for full Israeli citizenship and enjoy the same rights as Jews (except they cannot join the armed forces). They live peacefully with the Jews, elect representatives to the Knesset, and worship in their mosques. As yet they have not been radicalized by Islamic extremist philosophy and seem to be satisfied to remain in
Israel (They could sell up and leave without penalty if they so wished). The prospect of living under a despotic regime, with a lower standard of living and fewer civil rights, has not attracted them to countries like Syria or Egypt. In short, peaceful co-existence between Jews and Muslims is only possible when Sharia law has no political force whatever - a condition that could never be satisfied in an Arab-Israeli state.

6. Even allowing for these considerations, surely there is still a case for allowing the Arab-Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank to establish their own state? Would that not bring peace?
Many westerners incline toward this view. There are even many Israelis who think it may be the best solution. But it is founded on a lie.
Most Westerners do not understand Islam. They fail to see that it is not just a religion in the accepted sense but an autocratic political system, where all aspects of the individual’s life are regulated by the state. It is lawful under Islam to kill a Muslim who converts to another religion. No religion other than Islam may be preached openly in an Islamic country. Their holy book espouses violence against Jews and Christians, as well as other non-believers (infidel) and the concept of jihad - the
aggressive expansion of Islam - is enshrined in its theology. It is even lawful for Muslims to deliberately deceive their enemies in defense of their religion and to sign a ‘peace’ treaty which they have no intention of honoring. (Muhammad himself set this precedent when, having made a 10-year treaty with the Jews of Mecca, he returned two years later and wiped them all out. In effect their code says “Make peace with your enemy until you are strong enough to destroy him.”)


It is difficult to get an objective account of any controversial incident in which Muslims were involved since their religion allows them to indulge in fabrication if it will help the cause of Islam. Such lies are neither immoral nor displeasing to Allah since the overall aim, the protection of Islam, is what ultimately counts. This principle is similar to the Jesuit belief that the end justifies the means, or the supposedly ethical device, known as mental reservation, which Catholic bishops use to justify their lies.
Furthermore few Westerners realize that the Koran is not the only scripture in Islam. The Hadith or sayings of Muhammad, which are even more intolerant, sectarian and aggressively  anti-Jewish  and  anti-Christian  than  the  Koran,  also  carry  divine authority. There is no shortage of verses in either branch of Islamic scripture to convince radical Muslims that their campaign of hatred and violence is morally justified. (While it might be true to say that the majority of Muslims give little weight to these verses, it is equally true that the views of moderate, peace-loving Moslems have no effect whatever in a religion dominated by extremists.)
The nations of Islam will never be satisfied until every trace of the Israeli state has been erased from the earth. Never. Even if it was reduced to the size of a postage stamp they would still continue to rage until that final insult to Allah was obliterated.
Israeli leaders made some serious strategic errors in the past when they failed to grasp this fact. For example, having secured a vital buffer zone to the west with the annexation of Sinai, they gave it back to Egypt for a piece of paper. It would be a serious mistake for Israel to surrender any of the territory that it currently possesses or controls. It holds all such territory by right, as land acquired in a defensive war against a genocidal invader.
During negotiations brokered by the US at Camp David in July 2000, the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, offered the Arab-Palestinians most of the West Bank, all of the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem as the capital of a new Arab-Palestinian state; in addition, all Arab-Palestinian refugees could apply for compensation for loss of property from an international fund to which Israel would contribute along with other countries. And, incredibly, the Arab-Palestinian leadership rejected this astonishing offer!
As Abba Eban famously observed after the Geneva peace talks in 1973: “The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”
The Arab-Palestinian attitude at Camp David shows, if further proof were needed, that the rulers of Islam have no intention of resolving the plight of the Arab-Palestinian refugees and no interest whatever in a negotiated settlement - their only goal is the complete annihilation of Israel.


The Arab-Palestinian people have been used by the leaders of Islam in a most despicable way, as pawns in a vicious game which they intend to continue playing until Israel is destroyed. These cynical leaders know the power of international opinion and the sympathy that can be gained for their cause by the ongoing televised plight of these unfortunate people. They know that most westerners fall for this type of propaganda, the endless repetition of heart-rending images. They know that the west will continue to perceive the Arab-Palestinians as victims - which they are - without seeing that the true architects of their oppression are the Islamic nations which surround them.
Katz noted (p.163) an article in the Egyptian journal El Muswar of December 1968 which frankly admitted that “[t]he expulsion of our brothers from their homes should not cause us any anxiety, especially as they were driven into Arab countries...The masses of the Arab-Palestinian people are only the advance-guard of the Arab nation...a plan for rousing world opinion in stages, as it would not be able to understand or accept a war by a hundred million Arabs against a small state.”
In his discussion of the same theme, Karsh stated:
Indeed, had the Jewish State lost the war, its territory would not have been handed over to the Arab-Palestinians but rather divided among the invading forces, for the simple reason that none of the Arab regimes viewed the Arab-Palestinians as a distinct nation. As the American academic Philip Hitti put the Arab view to a joint Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1946:  'There is no such thing as Arab Palestine in history, absolutely not.' - p.91
Bard is just as blunt:
The Arab League created the Arab Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Cairo in 1964 as a weapon against Israel. Neither the PLO nor any Arab-Palestinian groups campaigned for Jordan or Egypt to create an independent Arab-Palestinian state in the West Bank or Gaza. The focus of Arab-Palestinian activism has always been on the destruction of Israel. After the PLO was expelled from Jordan by King Hussein in 1970, many of  its active units went to Lebanon. The PLO seized whole areas of the country, where it brutalized the population and usurped Lebanese government authority. - p.69
The Arab-Palestinians already have their own state - East Palestine (Jordan) - but the refugees are kept out by the Islamic leadership. Through their choice of flag, the Arab-Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza virtually admit that Jordan is their homeland - note the remarkable similarities between it and the Jordanian flag:


National flag of Jordan                                  Arab-Palestinian flag

The Arab-Palestinian refugees could also be accommodated quite easily in another neighboring Arab state, such as Lebanon and Syria, which already have a significant Arab-Palestinian presence, but they are not allowed enter these countries. Or they could be given a slice of the vast Sinai peninsula by Egypt or the sprawling sovereign state of Saudi Arabia, which is one of the most under-populated countries in the world. In short, the plight of the West Arab-Palestinians could be resolved in a week by the global Islamic community if they really wanted to do so.
But this will never happen because the leaders of the Islamic world hate Israel and are fully prepared to bully, oppress, starve and, if necessary, sacrifice millions of their own people - the Arab-Palestinians - in order to destroy it.
As Jamal al-Husseini, Vice-President of the Arab Higher Committee, the effective government of the Arab-Palestinians, told the UN General Assembly in 1947 as it was about to cast its vote: 'We are solidly and permanently determined to fight to the last man against the existence in our country of any Jewish state, no matter how small it is.'
Former director of the UNWRA, Ralph Garroway, didn’t mince his words when he stated in August, 1958 that “The Arab States do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.” These three simple sentences by Mr Garroway sum up the Arab attitude to the Arab-Palestinian refugees.
The essence of the wider problem, the survival of Israel itself, is well captured by Ben-Ami:
The battleground as such was never the only problem for Israel; it was the wider strategic context of a nation surrounded by an immense Arab hinterland that could afford, as indeed it did, one defeat after another, yet always recover and be ready for the next round. This was a luxury - losing a war - the Israelis were always genuinely, and one should also say rightly, convinced that they could never afford.
The Islamic monolith only needs to win once, while Israel needs to win every time.


In the end only one Viewpoint matters
For all our opinions and convictions, and the huge diversity of views that obtain in this matter, at the end of the day only one viewpoint counts, and that is God’s. And he has expressed it with remarkable clarity for all to see.
Firstly, he established a binding agreement with Abraham and all of his descendants around 2000 BC:
Lest anyone think for a moment that God might not honor his word, he said (around 1500 BC):
Then, around 1000 BC he again reminded his people that he had every intention of honoring his covenant with them:
What is more, he said he would honor this “everlasting covenant” even if his people strayed from the precepts that he had laid down for them:
About 400 years before Christ, he again reminded his people that he does not change, that his covenant will stand, and that those who turn to him in the End Time (“in that day”) will be spared, as though each man was His own son:


Jesus confirmed this promise when he said:
Jerusalem fell to the Gentiles in 70 AD and only returned fully into Jewish hands in 1967. This is a clear sign that the End Time clock is ticking.
Finally, in the Book of Revelation (around 96 BC), the LORD stated in stunning detail exactly how he intends to deal with Satan, the enemies of Israel, and the gross apostasy of mankind in the End Time. If you think for a moment that he did not mean what he said, think again:

Concluding Comments
When I set out to research this topic I didn’t expect to end up here. Somehow I imagined that the Arab cause would have some justification, however tenuous. After all, there are two sides to every story. So it came as a real surprise to see just how well defined the main issues really are. On the one hand we have a small nation under siege, and on the other a sprawling despotic empire which is determined at all costs to destroy it.
I have based this analysis on facts which are fairly easy to establish. If you have difficulty with my conclusions, then I would suggest you research the facts which, in your opinion, have the greatest bearing on my analysis. I believe it is important that people establish the actual historical position for themselves and not rely solely on secondhand sources.
This paper does not address the conduct of the Israeli Defense Force in recent decades, the activities of Mossad or Shin Bet, the Zionist influence on American politics or the global financial system, the use of Israel as a flashpoint for World War Three, its role in the Illuminati plan to create a New World Order, or any similar factor. It simply sought to establish (a) whether or not the state of Israel (including the land it currently controls) is constituted on sound legal and moral grounds – the answer is Yes - and (b) whether or not the state of Israel is responsible for the current plight of the Arab-Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza - and the answer is No.
A summary of the subject as a whole is set out in Appendix A.


Note on the author
Jeremy James is a graduate in philosophy and logic from University College Dublin. He has spent over 30 years in public administration, dealing mainly with computerization policy, fiscal management and strategic planning. He became a born-again Christian in 2008 and has no affiliation with Judaism or any Zionist organization. This paper was
written primarily in response to the announcement in early 2010 by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) that it objected to the Israeli treatment of the Arab-Palestinians and supported the boycott of Israeli goods by Irish consumers. Such a policy, in his opinion, is based on a serious
misapprehension of the actual historical position and is harmful to the legitimate interests of
For information about the New World Order, the coming global financial collapse, and the Illuminati plan to foment World War Three as a vehicle for radical change, visit
Published on the Internet, 9 June 2010
Jeremy James 2010



Bard, Mitchell

Ben-Ami, Schlomo

Burke, Jason
Fisk, Robert
Gottheil, Fred

Hammond, Peter

Huntington, Samuel

Karsh, Efraim
Katz, Samuel
Kayyali, A W S
Kumaraswamy, P R Lewis, Bernard

Lindsey, Hal
MacMillan, Margaret Maybury, Richard
Morris, Benny
Peters, Joan

Yousef, Mosab Hassan

Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli
Conflict, 2001
Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam, 2003 Pity the Nation, 1990
The Smoking Gun: Arab Immigration into Palestine,
, The Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2003
Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, 2008
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, 1996
The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948, 2002 Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine, 1973 Palestine: A Modern History, 1978
Historical Dictionary of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 2006 The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror, 2003 The Multiple Identities of the Middle East, 1998
The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad, 2002 Peacemakers: Six Months that Changed the World, 2001 The Thousand Year War in the Mid-east, 1999 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War, 2008
Son of Hamas, 2010


The main proof of Israel’s right to exist and to retain possession of all land currently in her possession (the Golan, Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank), along with proof that it is not in any manner responsible for the plight of the Arab-Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, is as follows:
1.    The territory covered by the Arab-Palestinian Mandate (today’s Jordan and Israel) was significantly under-populated in 1900. Despite its vast size, the total population of the entire Ottoman Empire was only 20 million or so in 1917. The same area today has a population of about 220 million
       whole under-populated, but
Palestine was even more so. Thus the notion
that there was no room for a Jewish homeland in Palestine without
       displacing the indigenous Arab population, such as it was is untenable.
As it happens a large proportion of the Arabs in
West Palestine up to
       1947 had arrived after the first 
Aliyah (wave of immigration) by the
       Jews in 1880.
(which existed for about 400 years) and thus no national identity, whether among the Arabs of West Palestine or anywhere else. All identity was a tribal and religious. A state in Palestine, ruled by the Arabs, had never existed. West Palestine (Israel) was never more than a province in the vast territory of Islam and was traditionally regarded by the Arabs as part of Syria and Jordan. The Arabs never recognized the Arab ‘Palestinians’ as a separate people or ethnic group.
3.    The sovereign control which the Turks exercised over the Ottoman
had full legal discretion under international law to decide how the
       Empire should be divided among competing interests.
time to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine (the Mandate territory
       known today as
Jordan and Israel).
       homeland in
Palestine on the understanding that the Arabs would be
       given control over the remaining Ottoman territory, namely
Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Territorial boundaries had not yet been
6.    The leading Arab representatives stated in writing that they welcomed
the creation of a Jewish homeland.
Nations) ratified the understanding at            5 above and noted the Arab
agreement at 6 above.

8.    In 1922, in contravention of international law, Britain divided Palestine
in two, giving the area east of the Jordan River to the Arabs (known later as Trans-Jordan, then the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and finally
Jordan). Jews were completely excluded from this territory. In doing so
Britain summarily reduced the potential area of the prospective Jewish
homeland by 75%. The rest of
Palestine remained under British control.
       restrictions on the immigration of Jews into
West Palestine (the proposed
Jewish homeland), contrary to international law. These restrictions grew
steadily more oppressive in the 1930’s.
10.    Britain continued to facilitate the unrestricted migration of Arabs into
West Palestine, which again was contrary to the terms of the Mandate approved by the League of Nations.
with a view to further reducing the territory which the Jews could
1920s, 1930s and 1940s to carry out terrorist attacks on Jewish civilian
time the Jewish state was declared. They were advised to leave
temporarily so as not to constrain the invading Arab armies.
numbers within the Ottoman Empire as a whole, they would have
received a far larger piece of territory. (The Kurds should have been


17.    The Arabs of West Palestine were offered their own state by the UN in 1947, but they rejected it.
18.    The Jews in the newly founded state of Israel refused to allow the Arabs who had fled in 1947-1948 to return. As a result the refugees lost a considerable amount of property. However, total Arab forfeiture in this manner was half that lost by Jews who were forced to flee from various Islamic states for their own safety.
19.    The massive invasion of Israel on 15 May 1948 by the armies of six Arab countries were unsuccessful.  This invasion was illegal under international law and genocidal in purpose. Even though the invaders were attacking on three fronts and had significant strategic advantages, they were unable to overcome Jewish resistance.
21.    With British approval, Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950 and held it until 1967 when it was taken by Israel in the Six-Day War. During this entire period - about 17 years - the Arabs were in a position to declare an independent state for Arab-Palestinians in the West Bank but made no
attempt to do so. Similarly,
Egypt could have donated Gaza when it was under Egyptian control. Perhaps these facts, more than any other, demonstrate that the Arabs have deliberately nurtured the Arab-Palestinian refugee problem for the express purpose of destroying Israel.
22.    The Arab-Palestinian leadership has consistently rejected all reasonable offers of a solution. As recently as 2000, they were offered Gaza, most of the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as the capital of a new Arab-Palestinian state, but they rejected it.