(Part 2 of 2)
ZIONIST TERRORISM AGAINST AMERICANS IN THE UNITED STATES
In 1985 the United States Justice Department issued a Report dealing with Jewish terrorist groups in the United States. In 1986 the United States Department of Energy published a Report about terrorism and potential threats to nuclear facilities in the United States. It dedicated a full section to Jewish terrorism, mainly about the JewishDefence League, the United Jewish Underground and the Jewish Direct Action.
These Jewish terrorist organizations are not acting on their own. They are acting in coordination with the Anti-Defamation League of Bnai B'rith (ADL), the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Presidents' Conference (composed of Presidents of 48 Jewish national organizations). These Jewish terrorist organizations act under the direction of the Mossad, the Israeli Intelligence Service, which has many agents in the United States.
These Zionist terrorist organizations
Americans and Americans of other ethnic origin, and committed
acts of murder, arson, intimidation, harassment,
assault and other felonies. The reports of the Department of
Justice and the Department of Energy and the Hearings before
the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the Committee of
the Juciciary of the U.S. House of Representatives, contain
the proof of the crimes of the Zionist terrorist organizations
in the United States. We documented the evidence and sworn
testimony on these crimes in Chapter 34, "Zionist Terrorism
Against Americans in the United States."
ZIONIST CRIMES AGAINST JEWS
Before World War II, the majority of the world's Jews were against Zionism. They were opposed to the establishment of a Jewish State and wanted to live as loyal citizens in their respective countries where they enjoyed or aspired to complete equality and freedom. The overwhelming majority of the Jews in the United States were opposed to Zionism. In 19 19 prominent American Jews submitted a Memorandum to President Wilson to convey to the Paris Peace Conference, expressing their opposition to the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of a Jewish State. These prominent Jewish Americans considered that Zionism was predominantly an idea held by Russian Jews. In 1919, Dr. Morris Jastrow, a Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, revealed the Russian origin of political Zionism:
The movement thus retains most decidedly its character as Russian in origin ... It is only necessary to scan the list of delegates to the so-called American Jewish Congress, which was held in Philadelphia in December 1918, and the Intemational Zionist Conference held in February 1919, in London, to recognize the justification for this statement.(47)
In the 1920s the Zionists became increasingly aggressive and intolerant of any opposition to Zionism. In 1924, the first anti-Zionist Jewish victim of the Zionists. Professor de Haan, was murdered in Palestine. The Hagana later confessed to the murder. In the 1920s and 1930s the Zionists attacked Jews who did not agree with them. They organized campaigns of defamation, slander and harassment against distinguished Americans like Ambassador Henry Morgenthau (who had stated that "America is our Zion"), Congressman Julius Kahn, Rabbi Isaac Landman, Adolph Ochs, and many others.
On May 28, 1922, the New York Times had published an editorial calling Zionism "a dangerous movement." The publisher, Adolph Ochs, wrote an article under the title, "The Truth About Palestine," in which he attacked the Zionist movement. Arthur Hays Sulzberger, who succeeded Ochs, his father-in-law, as publisher of theNewYork Times, in 1946 publicly declared:
I dislike the coercive methods of the Zionists who, in this country, have not hesitated to use economic means to silence persons who have different views. I object to the attempts at character assassination of those who do not agree with them.
The persecution of the Jews of the Neturei Karta sect in Jerusalem by the Jewish Agency before 1948 and by the so-called Government of Israel after 1948, is an example of the barbaric treatment of Jews by Zionists. The Neturei Karta published an advertisement in the New York Times of November 11, 1975 in which they stated, inter alia, the following:
1. We cry out against the sadism of the Zionists (State of Israel). 2. The true authentic Jewish people and the State of Israel are not identical but are extreme opposites. 3. The Zionists are the greatest enemies of the Jewish people. 4. The Zionists torture the living and are digging up our beloved deceased sages, a flagrant violation of Jewish law and tradition. 5. We cry out against the sadistic acts that the Zionists have committed and are committing against other nations ...
35, "Zionist Crimes Against Jews," we document
the statements of Jews who testify to these crimes.
PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
This Encyclopedia contains four chapters dealing with the principles of international law relating to the problems discussed and the facts presented in all the Chapters. Chapter 8, "International Criminal Law," deals with sources of international criminal law," namely the different international conventions from 1856 to 1907, containing the principles adopted by civilized nations regarding the law of belligerent occupation. We also dealt with the customs and practices accepted by civilized nations generally. It is important to note that the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg upheld the validity of the 1907 Hague Convention. The most important modem sections of international criminal law were established by the London Agreement of August 8, 1945, when the major Allied Powers adopted the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of War Criminals. The said Charter defined crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity as follows:
(a) Crimes against peace: namely, planning,
initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in
violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances,
or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the
accomplishment of any of the foregoing.
(b) War crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of a civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public property, wanton destruction of cities, town or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination. enslavement, deportation, and other inhuman acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecution on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crimes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
(d) Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.
The Allied Powers tried about 30,000 war criminals in the United States Zone, the French Zone, the British Zone and the Russian Zone of occupied Germany, and in Tokyo and other cities in the Far East and in many European capitals.
We have also dealt with the crime of genocide. Although the crime of genocide was not thoroughly discussed in the judgments of the International Military Tribunals, it received a detailed treatment in the notes to the Greifelt Trial, held before a U.S. Military Tribunal, and in the notes to the Goeth and Hoess Trials held before the Polish Supreme National Tribunal. The judgment of these tribunals referred to the crimes which they considered to be genocidal, such as the denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, creation of legal status for the Poles in respect of their rights of property, employment, education, use of their national language, and in respect of the special penal code enforced against them. They also considered repression of the religion of the local population by mass murder, the incarceration in concentration camps of Polish priests and bishops, the restriction of religious practices and the destruction of churches, church property and cemeteries as genocide. They also considered as genocide the debasement of the dignity of the nation<degradation of the Poles to citizens of a lower class).
On the 11th day of December 1946 the United Nations General Assembly in its first session adopted resolution 96(1), in which it declared that genocide is a crime under international law. It defined genocide as follows:
Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups as homicide is the denial of the right of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, results in great losses to humanity in the form of cultural and other contributions represented by these human groups, and is contrary to moral law and to the spirit and aims of the United Nations. Many instances of such crimes of genocide have occurred when racial, religious, political and other groups have been destroyed, entirely or in part. The punishment of the crime of genocide is a matter of international concern. The General Assembly, therefore, Affirms that genocide is a crime under international law which the civilized world condemns, and for the commission of which principals and accomplices - whether private individuals, publicofficials or statesmen, and whether thecrime is committed on religious, racial, political or any other grounds -are punishable.
In 1948 the United Nations General Assembly unanimously approved the text of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. It define genocide by Article 11, as follows:
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent todestroy. in wholeor in part, anational,ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.
Chapter 8 deals also with the International Bill of Human Rights and confirms that the violation of Human Rights is a crime against humanity. It deals with the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the principles of the law of belligerent occupation. All violations of the said convention constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity. The dicta of the International Military Tribunal summarized the categories of war crimes and crimes against humanity as follows:
Murder and massacres: Systematic terrorism; Putting hostages to death: Torture of civilians; Deliberate starvation of civilians; Rape; Abduction of girls and women for the purpose of enforced prostitution; Deportation of civilians; Internment of civilians under inhuman conditions; Forced labor of civilians in connection with the military operations of the enemy; Usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation; Compulsory enlistment of soldiers among the inhabitants of occupied territory; Pillage; Confiscation of property; Exaction of illegitimate or of exorbitant contributions and requisitions; Debasement of the currency and issue of spuriouscurrency; Imposition ofcollective penalties; Wanton devastation and destruction of property; Deliberate bombardment of undefended places; Wanton destruction of religious, charitable, educational and historic buildings and monuments; Destruction of merchant ships and passenger vessels without warning and without provision for the safety of the passengers and crew; Destruction of fishing boats and of relief ships; Deliberate bombardment of hospitals; Attack and destruction of hospital ships; Breach of other rules relating to the Red Cross; Use of deleterious and asphyxiating gases; Use of explosive or expanding bullets and other inhuman appliances; Direction to give no quarter; 111 treatment of wounded and prisoners of war; Employment of prisoners of war on unauthorized works; Misuse of flags of truce; Poisoning of wells; Indiscriminate mass arrests for the purposeof terrorizing the population whether described as taking of hostages or not; 111 treatment of interned civilians or prisoners; Carrying out of or causing execution to be carried out in an inhuman way; Refusal of aid or prevention of aid being given to shipwrecked persons; Intentional withholding of medical supplies from civilians; andCommission, contrary to the conditions of a truce, of hostile acts or the incitement thereto, and the furnishing of others with information, the opportunity or the means for that purpose.(48)
The United Nations General
Assembly adopted a Resolution
on the 26th of November, 1968 in which it stated:
Recognizing that it is necessary and timely to affirm in
international law, through this Convention, the principle that
there is no period of limitation for war crimes and crimes
against humanity, and to secure its universal application.
ZIONIST CRIMES AGAINST PEACE
In Chapter 36 we discussed the crime against peace, and accused the political and military leaders of Israel from 1948 to 1988 of the crimes against peace, namely conspiracy, planning, preparing, initiating and waging wars of aggression against Palestinians and the Arab States of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. We relied to a great extent on the diaries of Moshe Sharett as studied and translated by Livia Rokach, an Italian writer and journalist of Palestinian origin and the author of many books. Before her death in 1984 Ms. Rokach was a fellow of the Amsterdam based Transnational Institute and an affiliate of the Institute of Policy Studies in Washington, D.C.
Sharett recorded in his diaries how the Zionist leaders were always conspiring to wage wars of aggression. Livia Rokach in her book quoted in this chapter summarizes the strategy of Israeli leaders as follows:
1. The Israeli political/military establishment
pushing the Arab states intomilitary confrontations which the
Israeli leaders were invariably certain of winning. The goal
of these confrontations was to modify the balance of power
in the region radically, transforming the Zionist State into the
major power in the Middle East.
2. In order to achieve this strategic purpose, Israeli leaders carried out large and small-scale military operations aimed at civilian populations across the armistice lines, especially in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza, then under the control of Jordan and Egypt respectively. These operations had a double purpose: to terrorize the populations, and to create a permanent destabilization stemming from tensions between the Arab governments and the populations who felt they were not adequately protected against Israeli aggression.
3. The objectives of the Israeli leaders were to achieve a new territorial conquest through war. They were not satisfied with the size of the state, and sought to occupy at least the borders of Palestine under the mandate.
4. They made political and military plans to disperse the Palestine refugees in order to liquidate the claim of these refugees to be allowed to go back to their homeland.
5. They planned and carried out subversive operations designed to dismember the Arab world, defeat the Arab National Movement, and create puppet regimes which would gravitate to the regional Israeli power.(49)
The first objective was to start a war with Egypt in order to occupy the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. They had begun to plan the 1956 invasion of Egypt in 1953 and carried out several raids against Egypt. The Mossad blew up the United States Information Office in Cairo in order to spoil Egyptian-U.S. relations and Israeli commandos and paratroopers, led by Ariel Sharon and other war criminals, carried out raids against the Gaza Strip, slaughtering many Palestinian men, women and children.
The Israelis also planned a war against Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Between 1953 and 1956 they carried out hundreds of raids in all three countries and committed massacres, as in the notorious case of Kibya. They destroyed Arab homes and inflicted heavy damage on Lebanese, Syrian and Jordanian villages.
In 1956 David Ben-Gurion entered into a secret pact with France and Great Britain to wage war against Egypt. Shimon Peres, as Director General of the Ministry of Defense of Israel, and one Ben-Gurion's closest cohorts, was instrumental in negotiating the conspiracy. On October 29, 1956, Israel launched its invasion and rapidly advanced towards the Suez Canal. On the following day Great Britain and France issued their ultimatum that both sides withdraw to 20 miles from the Suez Canal. As Egypt protested the Israeli invasion and requested the United Nations to order Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Sinai, the Anglo-French invasion force landed at Port Said and advanced some miles along the Suez Canal.
The United Nations condemned the Israeli-British-French invasion of Egypt and President Eisenhower threatened economic sanctions by the United States against the aggres- SOTS. As a result, Britain and France withdrew their forces from Egypt, but Israel remained in occupation of the Gaza Strip and part of the Sinai until 1957, President Eisenhower pressured Israel to withdraw its forces. He delivered a profound policy statement on television and stated inter alia the following:
The use of military force to solve international disputes could not be reconciled with the principles and purposes of the United Nations ...
President Eisenhower commented on the immorality of Israel's demands for conditions for withdrawal of its armed forces. He stated:
Israel seeks something more. It insists on firm guarantees as a condition to withdrawing its forces of invasion. This raises a basic question of principle. Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its own withdrawal? If we agree that armed attack can properly achieve the purposes of the assailant, then I fear we will have turned back the clock of international order. We will, in effect, have countenanced the use of force as a means of settling international differences and through this gaining national advantages. I do not, myself, see how this could be reconciled with the Charter of the United Nations. The basic pledge of all the members of the United Nations is that they will settle their international disputes by peaceful means and will not use force against the territorial integrity of another state. If the United Nations once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the very foundation of the organization and our best hope of establishing a world order. That would be a disaster for us all. I would, I feel, be untrue to the standards of the high office to which you have chosen me If I were to lend the influence of the United States to the proposition that a nation which invades another should be permitted to exact conditions for withdrawal .... We cannot consider that the armed invasion and occupation of another country are "peaceful means" or proper means to achieve justice and conformity with international law ....(50)
In spite of their withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Sinai in 1957, Israeli leaders constantly sent Israeli forces on military raids against villages in Syria, Lebanon, and the West Bank, which was under Jordanian rule, and the Gaza Strip, which was under Egyptian rule.
These raids were made with the object of maintaining tension within the Arab world as a prelude to launching the war they had long planned and prepared against Egypt, Jordan and Syria, which they initiated in 1967. General Mordechai Hod, Commanding General of the Israeli Air Force stated:
Sixteen years' planning had gone into those initial eighty minutes. We lived with the plan, we slept on the plan, we ate the plan. Constantly we perfected it.
From 1967 until today the Arab world is suffering as a result of this 1967 war. Although the Israelis withdrew from Egyptian territory as a result of the Camp David Agreements, they are still in occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights and the West Bank and Gaza. They have annexed both the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem in violation of international law and in defiance of the United Nations Resolutions. The war crimes and crimes against humanity which Israeli forces have committed against the Palestinians from 1967 until today are a result of this premeditated 1967 war of aggression.
Further crimes against peace committed by Israel were the invasions of Lebanon in 1978 and 1982. These were planned wars of aggression intended to destroy Lebanon's territorial integrity and bring about theexpulsionof Palestinian refugees from Lebanon. In spite of United Nations Resolutions, Israeli forces are still occupying part of southern Lebanon today, using surrogate Lebanese mercenary forces as well as Israeli troops, who constantly enter Lebanon and commit war crimes against the Lebanese people.
One of their plans which constitutes a crime against peace and a war crime is the conspiracy to expel the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, which they refer to as the "Transfer Plan," which is still being discussed, planned and prepared in 1989 by updating the original plan developed shortly after the 1967 war.
At the beginning of March, 1988 Zionist leaders held a symposium at the Zionist Organization of America House in Jerusalem on the possibility of transferring the Palestinian Arabs. General Rehav'am Zeevi, who had been Chief of Operations of the Israeli General Staff and Special Adviser on Intelligence to Prime Minister Yitshak Rabin, was a principal participant at the symposium. According to the Jerusalem Post International Edition,
Zeevi argued that "transfer" would
be humane because the
Palestinians would no longer be in the battle Zone between
the IDF and the Arab armies. Seeking legitimation for his
views in Israeli history, he said that more than 400 Arab
localities which werestill inexistence in the late '40s had been
replaced by Jewish settlements, including some affiliated with
Mapam's Hashomer Hatzair. Moreover, Levi Eshkol, the
Prime Minister during the Six Day War, had set up an intelligence
unit to deal with the question of expulsion.(51)
SO-CALLED ISRAEL IS NOT A STATE IN FACT OR LAW
In Chapter 37 entitled "So-called Israel is not a State in Fact or Law" we prove that the people of Palestine were recognized in 1919 by Article XXII of the Covenant of the League of Nations as a "provisionally independent nation subject to rendering to them administrative assistance and advice by a Mandatory until they are able to stand alone." The League of Nations developed the idea of the Mandate during many meetings and decided that the Mandate system should consider the interests of the indigenous population to be paramount. It classified the Mandates as Class A, B and C. Palestine was placed under a Class A Mandate and Great Britain was appointed as the Mandatory. When the League of Nations drafted the Palestine Mandate, Great Britain and the Zionists injected the Balfour Declaration in the Palestine Mandate. The Balfour Declaration had been made in 19 17 as a result of a secret agreement between the British War Cabinet and Zionist leaders in Great Britain and the United States. It was a letter by the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, A. J. Balfour, to Lord Rothschild which stated:
His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
When the Palestine Mandate was being discussed in 1919- 1920, the population of Palestine was composed of 568,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs, who were the indigenous population of Palestine, and 58,000 Jews who were immigrants from Europe. When the news of the Balfour Declaration was published, disturbances took place in Palestine. The Palestinian Arabs protested to the League of Nations and to the British Government which already had a military administration in Palestine.
Winston Churchill, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, issued a White Paper on June 20, 1922, in which, inter alia, he stated:
Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewishas England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectations as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arabdelegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine. ... When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community. . This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.(52)
From 1922 until 1939 Great Britain did not fulfill its obligations under the Mandate to grant Palestinians their self-determination and independence. As a result, several disturbances took place between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. Great Britain sent several commissions to investigate the causes of the disturbances. One of the commissions suggested the partition of Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State. However, the British Government did not accept this recommendation and called for a conference which was held in London in 1939 between the British Government and representatives of the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab States and between the British Government and representatives of the Jewish Agency. At the termination of that conference, the British Government issued the White Paper of May 17, 1939, which stated, inter alia, the following:
1. The proposal of partition recommended by the Royal Commission, namely the establishment of self-supporting independent Araband Jewish states within Palestine, has been found to be impracticable. 2. His Majesty's Government now declares unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arabpopulation of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will. 3. The object of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within ten years of an independent Palestine State. The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share in government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded. The establishment of the independent State will be preceded by a transitional period throughout which His Majesty's Government will retain responsibility for the government of the country.(53)
The Zionists rejected the White Paper of 1939, TheZionist terrorist organizations, the Hagana, the Irgun Z'vai Leumi and the Stern Gang carried out a campaign of terrorism against the Government of Palestine and against Palestinians from 1939 to 1948. These terrorist acts are documented in Chapters 4 to 7 of this Encyclopedia.
In 1947 the British Government submitted the problem of Palestine to the United Nations. The United Nations appointed a Special Committee to study the situation and make recommendations. The committee submitted two reports: a majority report recommending the partition of Palestine into an Arab State, a Jewish State and an International Enclave of Jerusalem and its suburbs, and a minority report recommending the establishment of a Federation between Jewish and Arab cantons. Due to the pressure of the Soviet Union and its satellite States, and the United States of America, on November 29, 1947 the United Nations General Assembly decided to recommend the partition of Palestine, by 33 votes for partition, 13 against, 10 abstaining, and 1 absent.
In view of the fact that the partition recommendation could not be implemented peacefully, in April 1948 the United Nations Security Council called upon the United Nations Secretary General to convene a Special Session to reconsider further the future government of Palestine. The United Nations General Assembly met in May 1948 in a Special Session, and the United States Delegation submitted a Resolution to place Palestine under International Trusteeship until a peaceful solution was found for the problem. While the Genera1 Assembly was discussing the Trusteeship Resolution, the Zionist minority in Palestine, which constituted 26% of the citizens of Palestine, declared so-called Israel as a Jewish State in 80% of Palestine which they occupied by force and massacres, and expelled 800,000 Palestinian Christian and Muslim citizens of Palestine. The so-called Declaration of Independence was made by 37 Jewish leaders, of whom one was born in Palestine, one was born in Yemen, and 35 were born in Russia, Poland, Germany and other European countries.
The Zionist terrorist organizations, the Hagana, the Irgun Z'vai Leumi and the Stern Gang committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the indigenous population of Palestine. After expelling the majority of Palestinians from 80% of Palestine they prevented many of them from going back home. They committed massacres against the Palestinians, looted, pillaged and plundered all their furniture, movable property and possessions, destroyed 492 small towns and villages and usurped all houses, apartments and commercial buildings in 12 large towns and cities in Palestine. We have documented all these crimes in Chapters 9 through 12 of this Encyclopedia.
We dealt with the principles of international law regarding the requisites of a State, and we have proved that the minority of Palestine citizens of the Jewish faith, aided and abetted by alien Jews, have no right to expel the majority of the indigenous citizens of Palestine and declare a State. We have established that the possession of 80% of the territory of Palestine by the use of force and conquest by the minority of Jews violates the principles of international law regarding . belligerent occupation.
We discussed the principles of international law regarding the Mandate system and that two principles were considered of paramount importance:
1. The principle of non-annexation, and 2. The principle that the well-being and development of the peoples of the Mandated territories form a sacred trust of civilization.
If the Mandatory power was not entitled to annex the
territory of Palestine, a minority of citizens and aliens was not
permitted to do so either, because this was against the wishes
of the vast majority of the people of Palestine, whose wellbeing
and development the Mandatory power was bound to
ensure. The objective of the Mandate could not permit the
violation of the territorial integrity of Palestine, the dispossession
of the Palestine Arab majority of their national, political
and proprietary rights together with the transference of
80% of Palestine to the exclusive use of the Jewish minority.
Therefore, the declaration of independence by the minority
of Palestinian citizens of the Jewish faith and alien Jews in
80% of Palestine was invalid. Moreover, the acts committed
by the Jewish minority against the Palestinians constitute war
crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide and cannot
establish for them any legitimate existence because the acquisitionof
the territory of Palestine was obtained by conquest
and war crimes.We have proved that in accordance with
the doctrine of non-recognition no recognition can be granted
to territorial acquisitions which were obtained through conquest
by force of arms.
THE POSITION OF PALESTINE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
The legal position of Palestine under international law was that it was a provisionally independent State receiving administrative assistance and advice from the Mandatory. The sovereignty was vested in the people of Palestine but it was a dormant sovereignty exercised on behalf of the people of Palestine by the Mandatory power.
The British administration set up the Government of Palestine. Palestine had its own fixed boundaries, its own nationality and its own currency. The Government of Palestine entered into hundreds of agreements on behalf of the people of Palestine with various Mandated territories or sovereign governments.
Article 28 of the Mandate contemplated that at the termination of the Mandate, the territory of Palestine would pass to the control of "the Government of Palestine." The termination of the Mandate on the 15th day of May, 1948, fully vested sovereignty over Palestine in the inhabitants of the country. Palestine became a sovereign, independent nation in fulfillment of Paragraph 4 of Article XXII of the Covenant of the League of Nations, in accordance with the terms of the Mandate, the British White Paper of 1922, the British White Paper of 1939 and according to the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine to self-determination and independence. In 1948, the majority of people in Palestine were 1,440,000 Palestinian Arabs, Muslims and Christians. They were the indigenous inhabitants of the country whose existence as a provisionally independent nation had been recognized by Article XXII of the Covenant of the League of Nations. There was also in Palestine a Jewish minority of 71 8,000 of whom 253,700 were indigenous citizens of Palestine, 247,000 who were naturalized Palestinian citizens, and 216,000 who were aliens and illegal immigrants. The Palestinian Arab citizens were 74% of the population of Palestine and the Palestinian Jewish citizens were 26%.
The termination of the Mandate and withdrawal of the forces of the Mandatory from the country opened the way for the establishment of an independent sovereign government in Palestine by the people of the country without the intervention either of the United Nations or any other foreign power. If the United Nations had any role to play in order to preserve international peace and security, it should have intervened only to assist the majority of the people of Palestine against the Jewish minority whose leaders committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the indigenous population of Palestine.
According to the principles declared by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinions regarding Namibia and the aforementioned principles of international law regarding belligerent occupation or conquest, the Doctrine of Non-Recognition and the principles underlying the Mandate system, members of the United Nations are under the obligation to do each and all of the following:
1. To recognize the illegality and the invalidity of the continued presence of so-called Israel in 80% of the territory of Palestine occupied in 1948- 1949 and in the West Bank and Gaza occupied in 1967.
2. To declare that the admission of so-called Israel to membership in the United Nations was contrary to international law and to the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter. A so-called "State of Israel" never existed in fact or law. It was nothing but an illegal "proclamation" and illegal occupation by a minority of Zionist Jews. The admission of so-called Israel in the United Nations was made by undue pressure and deceit and, therefore, was void ab initio.
3. To expel so-called Israel from the United Nations.
4. In compliance with the duty of non-recognition to withdraw their de facto and de jure recognition of so-called Israel and sever all diplomatic and consular relations with this illegal regime.
5. To refrain from lending any support or any form of financial or military assistance to so-called Israel because such assistance to aggressors and war criminals is immoral and contrary to international law.
6. To bring the illegal situation in Palestine to an end. The International Court of Justice stated in its advisory opinion of 1971 on Namibia that "the Court would be failing in discharging of its judicial functions if it did not declare that there is an obligation, especially upon members of the United Nations, to bring that situation to an end. As this court has held, referring to one of its decisions declaring a situation contrary to a rule of international law, this decision entails a legal consequence, namely that of putting an end to an illegal situation (I.C.J. Reports, 195 1, p. 82).
7. To declare that sovereignty in Palestine still resides in the Palestinian indigenous population "whose well being and development form a sacred trust of civilization."
8. The United Nations Security Council should take measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter to terminate the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine and to send United Nations peace-keeping forces to keep peace and order in Palestine and protect both Jews and Arabs.
9. The United Nations
General Assembly should form a
United Nations Commission to administer, for a few months,
all the territory of Palestine which was placed under the
mandate, to enable Palestinian citizens of the Muslim, Christian
and Jewish faiths to reconstruct Palestine as an independent,
sovereign and secular democratic State without
discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of race,
religion or political belief.
THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF RESTITUTION
In Chapter 38 we deal with the International Law of Restitution. Wereviewed the sourcesof the law in accordance with the principles of the Law of Belligerent Occupation. The principle of restitution of any property usurped by an illegal act was upheld by the International Court of Justice in 1927. The Court stated that "the essential principle contained in the actual notion of an illegal act - a principle which seems to be established by international practice and in particular by the decisions of arbitral tribunals - is that reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed. Restitution in kind, or, if this is not possible, payment of a sum corresponding to the value which a restitution in kind would bear."
In the London Declaration of January 5, 1943 regarding forced transfers of property in enemy-controlled territory the Allied Powers "reserved their rights to declare invalid any transfers of, or dealings with, property, rights and interests of any description whatsoever which are, or have been, situated in the territories which have come under the occupation or control, direct or indirect, of the governments with which they are at war or which belong to, or have belonged to, persons, including juridical persons, resident in such territories. This warning applied whether such transfers or dealings have taken the form of open looting or plunder, or of transactions apparently legal in form, even when they purport to be voluntarily effected."
On July 19, 1943 an International Law Conference was held in London and adopted the most important principles of the Law of Restitution. It declared that the occupier of a country has no right to dispose with or expropriate any private property of the citizens of the occupied country, and that "rightful ownership remains in the person who has been dispossessed of anything by outright confiscation or by any device resulting from political pressure by the occupant; the title of a party in a third country derived from the occupant or from his associates or agents is invalid."
The United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union issued a declaration on February 22, 1944 stating that they did not and would not "recognize the transference of title to looted gold which the Axis at any time has held or disposed of in world markets."
The United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference held at Bretton Woods, N.H., in its final act of July 22, 1944 called upon the Governments of neutral countries to take immediate measures to prevent any disposition or transfer within their territories of property looted by the Axis powers. The resolution of Bretton Woods as well as the joint declaration of the Allied Nations of January 5, 1943 were later expressly approved by the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace held in Mexico City, March 1945. Resolution XIX recommended adequate measures for the "restitution of property unjustly taken from other peoples, namely property the control of which the enemy has obtained by dispossession, looting, violence, fraud, intimidation and other like acts."
Each of the eight Governments-in-Exile, namely, the Governments of Poland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Norway, France and Greece issued special laws, or proclamations designed to deal with the violations of property rights during the Axis occupation. These laws and decrees dealt with the effect of measures concerning the transfer, burdening and limitation of the rights of ownership of property held by the States and public and private persons in favor of foreign states and of public and private persons.
After the end of World War 11, the Allied Powers enacted laws for the restitution of all properties plundered, looted, seized, confiscated and expropriated by the Nazis in Europe. The Peace Treaties of February 10, 1947 with Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland contain detailed provisions with regard to restitution of property, rights and interests to their original owners.
Practically every country in Europe adopted legislation for the restitution of property usurped from their rightful owners during the war.
The principles of international law regarding permanent sovereignty of peoples and nations over their national wealth and resources were developed by the United Nations General Assembly and its various committees in the early 1950s. In its Sixth Special Session in May, 1974 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, in which it declared, inter alia,
the right of all States, territories and peoples under foreign occupation, alien and colonial domination or apartheid to restitution and full compensation for the exploitation and depletion of, and damages to, the natural resources and all other resources of those States, territories and peoples.
In its Resolutions of December 12, 1974 and September 16, 1975, the United Nations General Assembly reaffirmed the principle of permanent sovereignty of peoples and nations over their national wealth and resources.
In his report to the General Assembly in 1983, the United Nations Secretary General summarized the Resolutions dealing with permanent sovereignty of peoples and nations over their national wealth and resources. He stated that the right to permanent sovereignty includes, in case of violation, the right to restitution and full compensation.
From 1972 through 1983 the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolutions regarding permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories and reaffirmed
the right of Palestinians and other Arab peoples subjected to Israeli aggression and occupation to the restitution of, and full compensation for, the exploitation, depletion and loss of, and damage to, their natural, human and all other resources, wealth and economic activities and called upon Israel to meet their just claims.
We have dealt in Chapters 11 and 12 with the usurpation and spoliation of the national wealth and resources of the Palestinians in 80% of Palestine from 1948 to 1967. The Zionists destroyed and erased from the map of Palestine 492 small towns and villages and Bedouin localities and usurped the lands, houses, and commercial buildings, and established Jewish settlements on the sites of these small towns and villages and Bedouin localities. The Zionists also usurped 95% of Arab houses, apartments and commercial buildings in 12 large towns and cities, namely, Acre, Beisan, Safad, Tiberias, Haifa, Jaffa, Ramle, Lydda, Majdal, Beersheba, Ainkarem and the New City of Jerusalem.
The Zionists also looted, plundered
and pillaged all the
movable properties and possessions of the Palestinians in
cities, towns, villages and Bedouin localities they occupied.
They usurped for their own use all Palestinian business
properties, including factories, machinery, shops and their
inventory, orchards, citrus groves and farms together with
their total crops and livestock. In other words, the Zionists
usurped the national resources and wealth of Palestinians in
80% of Palestine.
THE USURPATION AND SPOLIATION OF THE NATIONAL WEALTH AND RESOURCES OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE FROM 1967 TO 1989
After they occupied the remaining 20% of Palestine, namely the West Bank and Gaza, in 1967, the Israeli authorities began their gradual usurpation of the wealth and natural resources of the Palestinians in these territories. They usurped 65% of the lands of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and 95% of their water resources. They established 165 Jewish settlements on these usurped Arab lands. We have dealt in Chapters 18 and 19 with details of this usurpation.
The International Law of Restitution invalidates all Zionist measures against the rights, properties and interests of the Palestinians, and therefore the Palestinians are entitled to the repossession of all their lands, homes, commercial properties, farms and plantations which were owned by, and were in the possession of, Palestinian Arabs on the 29th of November, 1947.
The Palestinians are also entitled to the repossession of all their movable property, such as jewelry, art objects, furniture, carpets, books and any other personal belongings which were owned by Palestinians on the 29th of November, 1947 and which were stolen from them by the Zionists.
The Palestinians are entitled to compensation for all movable properties which cannot be identified or found. They are also entitled to claim and receive compensation for the produce. rents and all income from their properties and businesses from the 1 st of January, 1948, until the date of recovery of their properties.
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SO-CALLED ISRAEL IN 1948 IS NOT THE FULFILLMENT OF BIBLICAL PROPHECY
The Zionists have used all kinds of false and deceitful arguments to justify the crime of genocide they committed against the indigenous Muslim and Christian population of Palestine. They have conducted a campaign in the United States through the "Christian Zionists" and the electronic evangelists. They have falsely claimed that Palestine is the "Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael)," that the Jews are the "chosen people" and that God is fulfilling his promises to the Jews by "returning His chosen people to their promised land." To support these claims, the Zionists rely on verses in the Old Testament from Genesis, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, among others.
The electronic evangelists have gone so far as to support the so-called State of Israel in such a way that they have been telling the American people "God will bless those who bless Israel, and God will curse those who curse Israel." Some of them have claimed that the return of the Jews to Palestine and the establishment of the State of Israel are fulfillment of prophecy in preparation for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
Any careful study of the OldTestament will show that after the Jews were exiled to Babylonia they were returned to the Land of Canaan in 521 B.C. They were led by Zerubbabel, a grandson of King Jehoiachin of the Royal House of David, as recorded in Ezra 3:2.
Ezra in 2: 1-70 lists all the families which returned in exile from Babylonia with Zerubbabel.
Sixty three years later in 485 B.C. the second return took place when Ezra returned to Jerusalem at the head of 1,800 exiles, with full powers from the Persian king Artaxerxes to impose the law of the Torah on the community there.
This proves that the prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the return of the Jews to the land of Canaan were already completely fulfilled in Old Testament times.
THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PROMISES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
The New Testament does not recognize that any new promises were made to Jews. St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians (Galatians 3:14-29) stated very clearly that the promises were made to Abraham and his seed and "not seeds, as of many, but as of one, and the seed is Jesus Christ." He stated:
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
St. Paul repeated the same idea in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (1213). Therefore the New Testament interpretation of the promise is that the fulfillment is the Spirit, the seed through faith. These promises were spiritual and should not be interpreted as an earthly kingdom or an earthly land and therefore the claim by the Zionists and the electronic evangelists that God is returning the so-called "chosen people" to the "promised land" contradicts the New Testament. The Jews are not the chosen people and are not returning to their promised land.
When Jesus was preaching in the temple he had a dialogue with the scribes and the Pharisees (See St. John 8:37-45) in which Jesus told them that they were not the sons of Abraham because of their evil deeds. Jesus even told them that their father is the devil. In another confrontation between Jesus Christ and the Pharisees he told them:
The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. (Matthew 21 :43)
All the promises in the Old Testament had conditions attached to them, for example that the Israelites would abide by the covenants and worship God according to the Commandments. But the Israelites turned back to the iniquities and many of them worshipped Canaanite gods. Even King Solomon built temples for the worship of Canaanite gods. Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the major prophets, stated that the Israelites broke the covenants and had become "a curse unto my chosen, and shall call my servant by another name."
Jesus Christ confirmed the words of the major prophets when he addressed the multitude, which included scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:23-39). calling them "a generation of vipers, and how can they escape the damnation of hell?"
We have documented the proofs of the falsity of these Zionist claims in Chapter 40, "Israel is not the Fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy."
The Zionists established so-called Israel in 1948 by committing massacres, war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide against the Palestinian Christian and Muslim indigenous population. From 1948 until today they have expelled more than 1, 100,000 Christian and Muslim Palestinians, usurping their villages, small towns and cities and settling in them European Jews of non-Semitic Khazar origin who have no relation whatsoever with Palestine.
The Zionists have defiled the Holy Land by making it an armed camp and by constantly committing barbaric and heinous crimes against the Palestinians. Most of the Jews who now live in so-called Israel are not religious at all, and many are atheists and communists. So-called Israel is the only country in the Middle East which has an official Communist Party.
How could the establishment of such an irreligious,
criminal Zionist regime created and perpetuated by deceit,
murder and many other crimes, in violation of the Ten Commandments,
in violation of all religious principles and in
violation of the principles of international law and justice, be
considered a fulfillment of biblical prophecy? On the contrary,
the establishment of such an illegitimate Zionist regime
has defiled the sanctity of the Holy Land.
THE SOLUTION OF THE PALESTINE PROBLEM
In Chapter 41, The Solution
of the Palestine Problem, we
reviewed all the solutions attempted by the British Government
and by the United Nations and we came to the conclusion
that there are three alternative solutions of the
Palestine Problem: 1) The Solution in Accordance with the
Principles of International Law and Justice; 2) The Compromise
Solution of Implementing All the Resolutions of the
United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council
on Palestine from 1947 until 1990; and 3) The Compromise,
Humanitarian and Religious Solution by Recognizing Palestine
as Holy Land State.
INDICTMENT OF THE ZIONIST POLITICAL AND MILITARY LEADERS
The people of Palestine are entitled to try 3,000 Zionist
leaders for the crimes they have committed against them. The
indictment should include counts of crimes of terrorism,
common plan or conspiracy, crimes against peace, war
crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The defendants
should be all political and military leaders who were
members of the criminal Zionist organizations who participated
as leaders, organizers, instigators or accomplices in
planning or committing these crimes.
International criminal law has clearly defined crimes
against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the
crime of genocide. The trials of war criminals of the European
Axis powers and Japan, and the dictaof the Military Tribunals
which tried these war criminals, and the judgment of the
Israeli Court which tried and convicted Adolph Eichmann are
precedents which should be followed in the trials of the
Zionist defendants charged with the above mentioned crimes.
NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION
1. Raphael Patai, ed., The Complete Diaries
of Theodore Herzl, trans. Harry Zohn (New York: Herzl Press and Thomas Yoseloff,
1960), volume I , p. 88.
2. Ibid., volume 2, p. 7 1 1.
3. Ibid., volume 5, p. 1673.
4. Samuel Landman, Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine (London: New Zionist Press, 1936). p. 4.
5. Ben Halpem, The Jewish State (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961). pp. 303-304.
6. Morris Jastrow, Zionism and the Future of Palestine: The Fallades and Dangers of Political Zionism (New York: Maemillan,
1919), pp. 151-152.
7. Encyclopaedia of Zionism and Israel (New York: The Herzl Press and McGraw Hill, 1971), volume 1, p. 534.
8. British Command Paper No. 1700. Source: A Survey of Palestine. Prepared in December 1945 and January I946 for the Information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (Jerusalem: Palestine Government Printer, 1946), volume I, pp. 87-90.
9. British Command Paper No. 5839. Source: Survey of Palestine, volume 1, pp. 87-90.
10. British Command Paper No. 6019, May 17, 1939.
11. Statistical Handbook of Jewish Palestine (Jerusalem: Department of Statistics of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, 1947), p.
55, and Statistical Abstract of Israel 1983 (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 1983), No. 34, p. 7 1.
12. Statistical Handbook of Jewish Palestine, pp. 36-40.
13. Survey of Palestine, volume 2, p. 566.
14. Palestinian Government Staff List as of April I , 1947, (Jerusalem: Palestine Government Printer, 1947), pp. 1-55.
15. Supplement to Survey of Palestine, Notes Cornpilaor the Information of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (Jerusalem: Palestine Government Printer, 1947), p. 89.
16. Survey of Palestine, volume 2, pp. 946-950.
17. Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 19871, pp. 222-223.
18. Ibid., p. 223.
19. Ha'aretz, April 4, 1969.
20. The Jerusalem Post International Edition, March 5, 1988, p, 7.
21. Jewish Villages in Israel (Jerusalem: The Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemeth Leisrael), Head Office, 1949), pp. xxixxii.
22. Ner, January-February , 196 1.
23. Tom Segev, 1949 The First Israelis (New York: The Free Press, 1986), p. 7 1.
24. Palestine (Western or Wailing Wall) Order in Council, 193 1, Schedule I, p. 39.
25. Quoted in A. Rubinstein, From Herzl to Gush Emunim and Back Again (in Hebrew) (Tel Aviv: 1980). p. 123, as cited by Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel's Fateful Decisions (London: 1. B. Tauris & Co., 19881, p. 152.
26. New York Times, August 21, 1982.
27. Le Monde, February 28, 1968.
28. Ibid., June 3, 1972.
29. Ha'aretz, March 29, 1972.
30. Alfred M. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1978). p. 558.
31. Ibid., pp. 558-559.
32. Ma'ariv, April 4, 1972.
33. Ibid., April 4, 1972.
34. Al-Hamishmar, April 14, 197 1.
35. Eitan Haber, Menahem Begin: The Legend and the Man (New York: Delacorte Press, 1978). p. 271.
36. Dennis Eisenberg, Uri Dan and Eli Landau, The Mossad: Israel's Secret Intelligence Service (New York: New American Library, 1978). pp. 160- 161.
37. Uri Dan, Blood Libel (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), p. 45.
38. Ze'ev Schiff and Ehud Ya'ari, Israel's Lebanon War (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), pp. 234-236.
39. Franklin P. Lamb, ed., Israel's War in Lebanon (Boston, Mass.: South End Press, 1984), p. 98.
40. Lebanese Ministry of Information, South Lebanon 1948-1986, Facts and Figures (Beirut: 1986), p. 26.
41. Ibid., p. 27.
42. Ibid., pp. 30-31.
43. Financial Times, August 2, 1982.
44. Christian Science Monitor, August 19, 1982.
45. Israel in Lebanon: Report of the International Commission to Enquire into Reported Violations of International Law by Israel
during its Invasion of the Lebanon (London: Ithaca Press, 19831, pp. 173-176.
46. Ibid., pp. 187- 192.
47. Jastrow, Zionism and the Future of Palestine, p. 56.
48. Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Selected and prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission (London: H. M. Stationery Office, 19491, volume 2, pp. 93-94.
49. Livia Rokach, Israel's Sacred Terrorism (Belmont, Mass.: Association of Arab American University Graduates, 1980), pp. 4-5.
50. President Eisenhower's television address to the American People on February 20, 1957, United States Department State Bulletin, volume 36, No. 915-939, January-June 1957, pp. 389-390.
51. Joshua Brilliant, "Call for Emigration of Arabs: Zeevi Encouraged by Response to 'Transfer,'" Jerusalem Post International Edition, March 5, 1988, p. 7.
52. British Command Paper No. 1700. Source: Survey of Palestine, volume 1, pp. 87-90).
53. British Command Paper No. 6019, May 17, 1939.