The Consequences of Appeasement and Concessions by YJ Draiman

The Consequences of Appeasement & Concessions

The decisions made by the government of Israel since The six day war of 1967 leading up to Gaza war with Hamas July 2014, as well as those of the first ten months or so after the turnover of Gaza in 2004 began, have dumbfounded historians ever since.

The PA leader makes a speech in front of the UN and announces that the Oslo Accord is no longer applicable and that he is not going to abide by its terms. Thereafter, Arab terror and violence, car ramming, knifing, stone throwing and every conceivable method of disturbance and destabilization is being applied.

The current Arab terror and violence facing the people of Israel, and the Arab claim to forbid Jews from Temple Mount, is a product of restraint to Arab violence and the concern what world reaction would be, while sacrificing Jewish lives, and diminishing the safety and security of Israel and its people.
The appeasement of Israel to the Arabs-Palestinians, in particular, has been so often held up as an example of how not to deal with a rising terrorism and violence that it has become a stereotype.
Had Israel stood its ground and responded to terrorism or any violence with utmost force. Israel would not be facing today’s crisis.
As many have said – appeasement, concessions and lack of proper response to terrorism is detrimental to Israel its people and the Jewish people worldwide.
Israel under International Law has the right to build and live in Judea and Samaria and any other territory formerly within the boundary of Palestine. As decried by the San Remo agreement, confirmed by the treaty of Sevres and Lausanne; of which terms are survived in perpetuity. Any deviation or prohibition is outright discrimination against Israel and the Jewish people. As past history has proven, concessions by Israel have only increased violence and terrorism.
Israel is an independent democratic sovereign country and it must operate and run the country without being dictated how to run the country and outside interference, just like the U.S. and other countries.
It is time for Israel to respond with extreme force to quell terrorism, violence and rioting – no holds barred, zero tolerance.
Israel should inform all Arab leaders in greater Israel that if terror and violence continues they will hold them responsible and they will bear the consequences.
What the Arabs could not win in loosing four major wars against Israel, they won in playing the peace game. The Arabs all the while are building up arsenals and educating their children to hate, commit terror and violence and to destroy Israel. While enriching; their own personal pockets with the billions contributed by the world to help the impoverished Arab-Palestinian. The G7 and other nations want Arab Oil and for that, they will do anything! The end result ignoring reality will destroy them also.
What a scheme – and the gullible delusional world is buying it hook line and sinker.
When will the World at large learn that the Arab-Muslims cannot be trusted; they consider all non-believers as their enemies. I hope the world takes of the blinders, before the Arab-Muslims take over Europe and than the United States and Canada, etc.
I wonder, how come the nations of the world; No one is questioning the 21 Arab States established after WWI with over 5 million square miles of territory, including Jordan's sovereignty, a country that never existed in history before WWI and which was established in violation of international law and treaties, on land originally allocated to the Jewish people in 1920, which included all of Palestine’s 75,000 square miles of which 80% was illegally reallocated to Arab Jordan. If you question Israel's rights and territory you might as well question the sovereignty and territory of the other 21 Arab States set up at the same time by the same Supreme Allied Powers that set up the Jewish State.
YJ Draiman

A leadership strategy without ethical clarity produces moral and economic bankruptcy - YJ Draiman

A leadership strategy without ethical clarity produces moral and economic bankruptcy - YJ Draiman 

The difference between moral and immoral leaders. Leaders can fail to meet ethical challenges by:
a. abusing power

b. hoarding privileges

c. mismanaging information

d. acting inconsistently

e. misplacing or betraying loyalties

f. failing to assume responsibilities

II. Seven types of bad leaders:

a. Incompetent – these leaders don’t have motivation or ability to sustain effective action

b. Rigid – may be competent, but they are unyielding, unable to accept new ideas or changing conditions

c. Intemperate – lack self control and are enabled by followers who don’t or can’t intervene.

d. Callous – uncaring, unkind, and ignores or downplays the needs/wants of followers.

e. Corrupt – leaders who lie, cheat and steal. Put self interest ahead of public interest.

f. Insular – draws a clear boundary between the welfare of his or her immediate group or organization and outsiders.

g. Evil – commit atrocities, using their power to inflict severe physical or psychological harm.

III. The Shadow of Power – Power is the foundation for influence; the more power we have the more likely people will comply with our wishes.

a. 5 Power Bases (leaders typically draw from more than one source):

i. Coercive Power – based on penalties or punishments

ii. Reward Power – depends on being able to deliver something of value to others, tangible or intangible.

iii. Legitimate Power – resides in position, not person

iv. Expert Power – based on characteristics regardless of position

v. Referent (role model) Power – rests on admiration one has for another

The Japanese have some questions for ‘Palestine Supporters’…AND OH ARE THEY AWESOME - An interesting questionnaire for Palestinian Advocates By Yashiko Sagamori

The Japanese have some questions for ‘Palestine Supporters’…AND OH ARE THEY AWESOME

AUG 05, 2014by ADMINin PRIME

An interesting questionnaire for Palestinian Advocates By Yashiko Sagamori

The Arabs are the occupiers of Jewish land in Israel aka Palestine

If you are so sure that ” Palestine , the country, goes back through most of recorded history,” I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine :

1. When was it founded and by whom?
2. What were its borders?
3. What was its capital?
4. What were its major cities?
5. What constituted the basis of its economy?
6. What was its form of government?
7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
8. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
9. What was the language of the country of Palestine ?
10. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine ?
11. What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.
12. And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?

You are lamenting the “low sinking” of a “once proud” nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that “nation” proud and what was it so proud of?

And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call “Palestinians” are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over — or thrown out of — the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?

I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day “Palestinians” to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history won’t work here.

The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel ; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it “the Palestinian people” and installed it in Gaza , Judea, and Samaria . How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the “West Bank” and Gaza , respectively?

The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so-called “Palestinians” have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel , and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a nation” — or anything else except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.

In fact, there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East . Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side should, pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel ‘s ancient sovereignty over Gaza , Judea, and Samaria.

That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again was its beginning?

Worldwide alert: the real Muslim mission by YJ Draiman

Worldwide alert: the real Muslim mission.

Israel has no choice but to continue to fight for its survival. Thus, it is time for a Clarion Call unifying all Israelis on a national scale, as well as all Jews worldwide.
I have long stated the real Arab Muslim mission in Israel is NOT about alleged “occupied” land. Rather, the real Arab Muslim mission is the extermination of Israel as a nation; the extermination of Judaism as a religion; and the genocide of Israelis and their culture. The reason for such an Arab Muslim mission has been repeatedly stated by their leaders: their belief they “have the right to kill all non believers”. 
Posit the following, what if there was no “Holy Land” as part of modern day Israel? Would the Arab Muslims still demand land which they have no legal right to claim? Would they still use terroristic tactics to kill innocent Israeli Jews wishing for a peaceful co-existence? The irrefutable answer, as proven by their unfounded rhetoric and actions is an emphatic YES. The reality is, the Arab Muslims use of “contested land rights” is a thinly disguised façade to hide their true mission: the genocide of Jews and extermination of Israel at any cost. 
History proves the Arab countries terrorized and expelled over a million Jewish families and their children. In so doing the Arab countries confiscated all Jewish assets, businesses, homes and real estate totaling over 120,000 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles, (which is 6 times the size of Israel), and valued in the trillions of dollars. The reason they were expelled, hatred and greed. Those expelled Jewish families were resettled in Israel and account for over half the population of Israel today. 
Those in power in the Arab-Palestinian leadership have rejected again and again any and all attempts to recognize Israel's right to exist. Although sometimes occupied, there has been a Jewish Nation in the land of Israel for the past 4000 years. In fact, the Jews are the ONLY surviving indigenous people to Israel. Yet, even though history proves there has never been an Arab-Palestinian Nation, the Arab Muslims falsely claim they have a right to Israel. Said false claim exposes the true mission of the Arab Muslims: extermination of Israel and the genocide of Jews. 
An examination of what Arab Muslims teach their children further exposes their true mission. They continue to teach their children to hate, enslave, terrorize and kill Jews, and all non-believers by any means possible. Ironically, the world idly sits by allowing such hatred and violence to exist and expand thinking it is only an Israeli problem (Déjà vu Hitler and Nazism). 
The Muslim mission in the world is not only Israel but the rest of the world, and all “infidel non-believers”. Though there are constant instances of terroristic acts throughout the world which support the above statement, we need not consider any other than September 11, 2001. On 9/11 Arab Muslim terrorists killed close to 3,000 innocent people, including children in America. It is time for the world to accept the fact the Arab Muslim mission of worldwide genocide of ALL non-Muslims, and even some Muslims, will continue until education and humanity replaces such hatred, or eliminates it altogether.
History proves Arab Muslims have killed over 500 million people since its inception 1500 years ago. Moreover, the number of deaths by Arab Muslims continues to grow every day. They have colonized the Middle East over the years. Now they are slowly but surely taking over Europe. Rest assured if we are not careful to protect ourselves, they will attempt to take over the United States and all other countries. Then we the non-believers and our children will be forced to kneel before a sword wielding Arab Muslim, having committed no other crime than having a different religious belief.
It is time for the world to wake up and face stark reality: wherever there are Arab Muslims there is hatred fueled conflict and terrorism in an ongoing mission of genocide.
I hope Israel understands it cannot concede to any of the Arab Muslim demands, or give up any more land. To do so will only weaken Israel, making it more vulnerable and endangering the safety and security of its citizens. Israel must retract all previous concessions since the Arab Muslims have not abided by any of the agreements. It is time to expose the real mission of the Arab Muslims: worldwide genocide.
YJ Draiman

Israel should send troops to arrest Abbas for inciting violence. He is not above the law.

Any person or group who incites violence against the Jewish people must be declared an enemy of Israel and treated as such.

If the Arabs cannot live in peace with the Jews in Greater Israel, the only solution is to evict them to Jordan or Gaza. Enough is enough. It's time for Israel to take off the gloves and take the necessary steps to protect the Jewish people in Israel. One of the fundamental obligation of the government is to protect its citizens at all costs.

Israel must adopt a policy of zero tolerance. By pacifying the Arabs and the world nations, Israel's government is failing to take care of the Jewish people. It should not be necessary to remind the government that the Jewish people have suffered for over 2000 years at the hands of other people or nations who  terrorized the Jewish people in Diaspora.

Now the Jews in their own country must be protected at all costs. Israel has the power, means and resources to stop the ghetto mentality. Israel's government must overcome the leftist attitude and their delusional mentality, Israel must hit hard all terrorists and perpetrators of violence with a no reprieve, "damn the torpedoes" policy.

If the current government cannot protect its people, its time to change the government. Less talk and more action and results.

"In Israel; We have to undue and reverse the decades of nonsense that the peace industry has fermented, which led us to the position where the world thinks we the Jews are occupiers in our own ancestral land.
If something is false and it is repeated enough times it becomes sort of common wisdom.
We have to undo that."

Arab-Palestinians; you have to be a country first, which you are not, before you can be a country under occupation. Furthermore, the Arab-Palestinians have a State it is called Jordan which was created illegally from Jewish territory.

The UN cannot make a country for the Arab-Palestinians. They have no such authority under the UN Charter, Moreover, The UN cannot abrogate International law and treaties. The UN is only an advisory capacity and all UN resolutions must be accepted by all the parties in writing to be valid, The Arabs did not agree, therefore the resolutions have no meaning whatsoever.

SOVIET RUSSIA, THE CREATORS OF THE PLO AND THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE by Wallace Edward Brand

SOVIET RUSSIA, THE CREATORS OF THE PLO AND THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE

by Wallace Edward Brand

 

How Soviet Russia created the "peace process" and incited the Muslim world against the US.

The "peace process" is a charade. The revelations of the highest ranking Soviet bloc defector, Major General Ion Mihai Pacepa, show that the peace process is, and has from the outset, been nothing but a charade.

It all started with the creation of a fictitious "Palestinian People" who allegedly demand political self determination. This collective noun was created by the Soviet disinformation masters in 1964 when they created the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the "PLO". The term "Palestinian People" as a descriptive of Arabs in Palestine appeared for the first time in the preamble of the 1964 PLO Charter, drafted in Moscow. The Charter was affirmed by the first 422 members of the Palestinian National Council, handpicked by the KGB.

Why in Moscow? The 1960s and 1970s were the years the Soviets were in the business of creating "liberation organizations": for Palestine and Bolivia in 1964, Columbia 1965, in the 70s "The Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia" that bombed US airline offices in Europe, and "The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine that bombed Israelis." But the PLO, was by far its most enduring success.

Pacepa has written[1]

For nearly four decades, the PLO has been the largest, wealthiest, and most politically connected terrorist organization in the world. For most of that time, it was held in the firm grip of Yasser Arafat's iron fist. But Arafat was not the fierce, independent actor he posed as; he was completely dependent on the Soviet KGB and its surrogate Warsaw Pact intelligence services for arms, training, logistical support, funds, and direction.

According to Pacepa his KGB handlers included Vasali Samoylenko, Vladimir Buljakov, and Soviet "Ambassador" Alexander Soldatov. Arafat's closest friend and head of PLO intelligence, Hani Hassan, was actually an agent of the DIE, the Romanian subsidiary of the KGB.

In the PLO Charter preamble they actually had to use the phrase "Palestinian Arab People" to exclude those Jews who had retained a presence in Palestine since Biblical times and had been a majority population in Jerusalem as early as 1845. Romanian Communist dictator Ceausescu, at Soviet urging, persuaded Arafat to abandon his claim of wanting to annihilate the Jews in Israel in favor of "liberating the Palestinian People" in Israel.

Why? A brilliant strategy. That was the first step in reframing the conflict between the Arabs and the Jews from religious jihad to secular nationalism in a quest for political self determination, a posture far less offensive to the West. By focusing on political liberation for a small group of Arabs, it ignored the fact that Israel is a small state whose existence is threatened by the surrounding Arab states. These are states that outnumber its population many fold with Muslims who are commanded by an extreme form of their religion to kill infidels to take back land formerly controlled by Muslims. It creates Jews, ignoring they are a small group, as oppressors of an even smaller discrete group of Arabs, described in the Charter as Palestinian Arabs excluding those in Jordan, Judea, Samaria and Gaza. (After the 1967 war, and the Isreali conquest of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the exclusions for Arabs in those areas were removed the Charter). It transforms the Jews from victims to oppressors.

The Arabs in Palestine had been engaged in religious jihad at least since 1929 when they massacred 69 Jews in Hebron, egged on by Haj Amin al Husseini, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. He had imported the Brotherhood's vicious jihadist doctrines into Palestine from Egypt. Now, mirabile dictu, jihad became "liberation". The religiously motivated attacks on Jews were turned into "resistance" from oppression motivated by secular nationalism. This will explain to you why, whenever the Arabs attacked the Jews thereafter, they said they were "resisting".

In his book, History Upside Down,[2] David Meir Levi puts it this way:

"Arafat was particularly struck by Ho Chi Minh's success in mobilizing left-wing sympathizers in Europe and the United States, where activists on American campuses, enthusiastically following the [propaganda] line of North Vietnamese operatives, had succeeded in reframing the Vietnam war from a Communist assault on the south to a struggle for national liberation. Ho's chief strategist, General Giap, made it clear to Arafat and his lieutenants that in order to succeed, they too needed to redefine the terms of their struggle. Giap's counsel was simple but profound: the PLO needed to work in a way that concealed its real goals, permitted strategic deception, and gave the appearance of moderation:

"Stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your terror war into a struggle for human rights. Then you will have the American people eating out of your hand."

At the same time that he was getting advice from General Giap, Arafat was also being tutored by Muhammad Yazid, who had been minister of information in two Algerian wartime governments (1958-1962): wipe out the argument that Israel is a small state whose existence is threatened by the Arab states, or the reduction of the Palestinian problem to a question of refugees; instead, present the Palestinian struggle as a struggle for liberation like the others. Wipe out the impression that in the struggle between the Palestinians and the Zionists, the Zionist is the underdog. Now it is the Arab who is oppressed and victimized in his existence because he is not only facing the Zionists but also world imperialism.

To make sure that they followed this advice, the KGB put Arafat and his adjutants into the hands of a master of propaganda: Nicolai Ceausescu, president-for-life of Romania.

For the next few years, Ceausescu hosted Arafat frequently and gave him lessons on how to apply the advice of Giap, Yazid, and others in the Soviet orbit. Arafat's personal "handler," Ion Mihai Pacepa, the head of the Romanian military intelligence, had to work hard on his sometimes unruly protege. Pacepa later recorded a number of sessions during which Arafat railed against Ceausescu's injunctions that the PLO should present itself as a people's revolutionary army striving to right wrongs and free the oppressed: he wanted only to obliterate Israel. Gradually, though, Ceausescu's lessons in Machiavellian statecraft sank in. During his early Lebanon years, Arafat developed propaganda tactics that would allow him to create the image of a homeless people oppressed by a colonial power. This makeover would serve him well in the west for decades to come."

Brezhnev, according to Pacepa, carried it one step farther when Carter came into office. He suggested to Pacepa that Carter might fall for Yassir Arafat PRETENDING to renounce violence and pretending to seek peace negotiations. He persuaded Arafat to do this by telling him that the West would shower him with gold and glory. It did. Billions of dollars and a Nobel prize. Ceausescu warned Arafat he would have to pretend over and over again. Abbas is still pretending.

James Woolsey, former CIA director has been reported as stating that Pacepa is credible. Pacepa's account is also corroborated by Zahir Muhsein, a member of the PLO executive board. In an interview by the Dutch newspaper Trouw in 1977, he stated that there is no such thing as the "Palestinian People", that the term's use is a political ploy, and there is no quest for political self-determination — that as soon as the Jews have been wiped out, sovereignty would be turned over to Jordan. Hafez Assad also has stated there was no "Palestinian People"; that prior to 1964 the Arabs in Palestine called themselves "citizens of Greater Syria".

During WWI the British offered the local Arabs self determination if they helped in the war against the Ottoman Empire but the local Arabs fought on the side of the Ottomans to the eternal gratitude of the Turks.

This is from Pacepa's article in National Review Online[3].

"In 1972, the Kremlin decided to turn the whole Islamic world against Israel and the U.S. As KGB chairman Yury Andropov told me [Pacepa], a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America than could a few millions. We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter, the United States. No one within the American/Zionist sphere of influence should any longer feel safe.

"According to Andropov, the Islamic world was a waiting petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep. The Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch."

Again from the National Review Online article, Pacepa writes:[3]

"In the mid 1970s, the KGB ordered my [Rumanian intelligence] service, the DIE — along with other East European sister services — to scour the country for trusted party activists belonging to various Islamic ethnic groups, train them in disinformation and terrorist operations, and infiltrate them into the countries of our "sphere of influence." Their task was to export a rabid, demented hatred for American Zionism by manipulating the ancestral abhorrence for Jews felt by the people in that part of the world. Before I left Romania for good, in 1978, my DIE had dispatched around 500 such undercover agents to Islamic countries. According to a rough estimate received from Moscow, by 1978 the whole Soviet-bloc intelligence community had sent some 4,000 such agents of influence into the Islamic world.

In the mid-1970s we also started showering the Islamic world with an Arabic translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a tsarist Russian forgery that had been used by Hitler as the foundation for his anti-Semitic philosophy. We also disseminated a KGB-fabricated "documentary" paper in Arabic alleging that Israel and its main supporter, the United States, were Zionist countries dedicated to converting the Islamic world into a Jewish colony.

We in the Soviet bloc tried to conquer minds, because we knew we could not win any military battles. It is hard to say what exactly are the lasting effects of operation SIG. But the cumulative effect of disseminating hundreds of thousands of Protocols in the Islamic world and portraying Israel and the United States as Islam's deadly enemies was surely not constructive."

You can find additional revelations in Pacepa's biography, Red Horizons and in a Front Page magazine interview with him:[4].

Conclusion

The current violence both in Israel and around the rest of the world is a third wave of Islamic Jihad or Holy War, with the violence in Israel disguised by the Soviets as secular nationalism in a quest for political self determination. As a consequence, Israel is the West's first line of defense. Russia is still the enemy of Israel and the United States.

End Notes

[1]  William F. Jasper, "The Real Terror Paymasters," The New American, September 3, 2007,
http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/1914334/posts.

[2]  David Meir-Levi, History Upside Down (Encounter Books, 20Dec07, ISBN-10: 1594031924).

[3] T Pacepa, "Russian Footprints" National Review Online, August 24, 2006
http://article.nationalreview.com/289014/russian-footprints/ion-mihai-pacepa.

[4]  The Front Page Magazine interview conducted by Jamie Glazov is archived at http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=13975
See also:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/08/how-the-kgb-cre.html Pacepa's book "Red Horizons" was published here and abroad with varying subtitles. In the United States, "Red Horizons" was subtitled: "The True Story of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu's Crimes, Lifestyle, and Corruption." In foreign editions, the subtitles selected were "Chronicles of a Communist Spy Chief" and "Extraordinary Memoirs of a Communist Spy Chief."

Wallace Edward Brand is a retired lawyer living in Virginia.

APPENDIX VIII WINSTON CHURCHILL'S VIEWS The Former British Colonial Secretary's Answer to Pass field - Draiman

APPENDIX VIII WINSTON CHURCHILL'S VIEWS The Former British Colonial Secretary's Answer to Pass field.

APPENDIX VIII

WINSTON CHURCHILL'S VIEWS

The Former British Colonial Secretary's Answer

to Pass field.

THERE are four milestones or signposts in

British policy towards Zionism and Palestine,

and the question which has now arisen is whether

they all point the same way . The first of these

signposts was erected when on the second of

November, 1917, the late Lord Balfour addressed

to Lord Rothschild the letter known as "The Balfour

Declaration." "His Majesty's Government,"

wrote the British Foreign Secretary, "views with

favor the establishment in Palestine of a National

Home for Jewish people and will use their best

endeavors to facilitate achievement of this

object."

The year 1917 marked perhaps the most drear

and sombre period of war . It was the time when

many hitherto unswerving, despaired of victory

of the allies . It was the moment when most resolute

elements of the British Government sought

to enlist every influence that could hold allied

286

APPENDIX VIII

287

the associated nations to the task . The Zionist

movement throughout the world was actively

pro-Ally, and in a special sense pro-British . Nowhere

was this movement more noticeable than

in the United States and upon the active share of

the United States in the bloody struggle which

was impending rested a large proportion of our

hopes. The able leaders of the Zionist movement

and their wide-spread branches exercised an appreciable

influence upon American opinion and

that influence-like the Jewish influence generally

-was steadily cast in our favor . Throughout the

world of allied nations, Jews (Zionist and non-

Zionist alike) sympathized with the Allies and

worked for the success of Great Britain and the

close co-operation with Great Britain of the

United States.

The Balfour Declaration must, therefore, not

be regarded as a promise given from sentimental

motives ; it was a practical measure taken in the

interests of a common cause at a moment when

that cause could afford to neglect no factor of

material or moral assistance .

The second milestone was the acceptance in

1919 of the Palestinian Mandate by Great Britain

upon certain express terms . ;Article two, the

prime and fundamental article, states "the Mandatory

shall be responsible for placing the coun288

THE GREAT BETRAYAL

try under such political administrative and economic

conditions as will secure the establishment

of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the

preamble, and the development of self-governing

institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil

and religious rights of all inhabitants in Palestine,

irrespective of race or religion ." The dual obligation,

no doubt replete with difficulties, was deliberately

accepted by Great Britain . Upon this

obligation the Permanent Mandates Commission

of the League of Nations, surveying the problem

ten years later, made in 1929 the following pronouncement

: Firstly, "that obligations laid down

in the Mandate in regard to the two sections of

population are of equal weight ." Secondly, "that

the two obligations imposed on the Mandatory

Power are in no sense irreconcilable ." The two

obligations are indeed of equal weight but they

are different in character. The first obligation is

positive and creative, the second obligation is safeguarding

and conciliatory .

Our Mandatory obligation towards the Jews

throughout the world who helped us, and towards

Palestinian Arabs who were the conscript soldiers

of our Turkish enemy are both binding and we are

bound both to persevere in establishment of the

Jewish National Home and in safeguarding the

civil and religious rights of Arabs . Merely to sit

APPENDIX VIII

289

still and avoid friction with Arabs and safeguard

their civil and religious rights and to abandon the

positive exertion for the establishment of the

Jewish National Home would not be a faithful

interpretation of the Mandate .

Lord Passfield is not stating the case truly when

he writes in the new White Paper, "It is clear

from the wording of this article that the population

of Palestine, and not any sectional interest,

is to be the object of the Government's care."

The essence of the Balfour Declaration in 1917,

and the intention of the Mandate in 1919 was

that "the sectional interest" of the Jews in the

establishment of their National Home was to be

the object of the Government's care and in the

words of the article, the Mandatory Power

assumed responsibility for bringing about the

political, administrative, and economic conditions

which would secure the establishment of

the Jewish National Home.

The third milestone is found in the Colonial

Office dispatches and correspondence published

in June, 1922 . Here we have quitted the region

of mandates and declarations, and the British

Government is face to face with the inherent,

though not inseparable difficulties of the problem .

They have to set limits both of speed and method

to practical year-to-year progress of the Zionist

290 THE GREAT BETRAYAL

scheme. They have to offer to the Arab population

definite and concrete assurances as to the

sphere within which their civil, religious rights

will be safeguarded . Instructions telegraphed on

June 29th, from the Colonial Office to the officer

administrating the Government of Palestine set

this out in a simple summary, "Firstly, the Majesty's

Government reaffirm the Declaration of

November, 1917, which is not susceptible to

change. Secondly, a Jewish National Home will

be founded in Palestine . The Jewish people will

be in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance .

But the Majesty's Government have no such aim

in view as that Palestine should become as Jewish

as England is English . Thirdly, nor do the

Majesty's Government contemplate the disappearance

or subordination of the Arab population,

language or culture. Fourthly, the status of

all citizens of Palestine will be Palestinian, no

section of the population will have any other

status in the eye of the law." (There are other

points in the telegram but they need not be cited

here.)

This statement of practical policy required to

fulfill the obligations of the Mandate and of the

Balfour Declaration was inconsistently rejected

by the Arabs and accepted only with extreme

disappointment by the Zionists . Nevertheless, the

APPENDIX VIII

291

Executive of the Zionist Organization passed a

resolution assuring His Majesty's Government

that the activity of the Organization would conform

to the policy therein set forth and in letter

conveying the text of this resolution . Dr. Chaim

Weizmann wrote, "The Zionist Organization has

at all times been sincerely desirous of proceeding

in harmonious co-operation with all sections of

the people of Palestine . It has repeatedly made it

clear both in word and deed that nothing is further

from its purpose than prejudice in the smallest

degree of civil or religious rights or material

interests of the non-Jewish population ."

On this basis, therefore, the Government of

Palestine has been conducted for the intervening

eight years.

We now come to the fourth milestone, namely

the White Paper issued from the Colonial Office

by Lord Passfield in the past month . The question

which has to be judged is whether the new

Declaration of the Socialist Government departs

from the position established in 1922, which

position was, however reluctantly, accepted by

Zionists as in interpretation of the Balfour letter

and of the Mandate. Here it should be said that

the difference is largely one of emphasis . Lord

Passfield is an aged minister worn with a lifetime

of literary and sociological labors who has, as is

292

292 THE GREAT BETRAYAL

well known, long been anxious to seek repose. It

may well be that he has not given that intense

personal attention and original effort to this

White Paper that controversial delicacy and importance

of subject required . No one, according

to the Premier, was more surprised than the Colonial

Office at the interpretation placed upon

their document . The alteration of the emphasis

of a few passages and phrases might easily have

brought the balance of the statement into harmony

with the balance achieved in 1922. This,

we hope, may yet be done .

There are, however, at least two deviations of

principle which must be remarked . The first has

already been mentioned. Lord Passfield in basing

himself upon the report of the Permanent Mandates

Commission of the League of Nations that

the obligations laid down by the Mandate in regard

to the two sections of population are of

equal weight, has overlooked or ignored the fact

that obligations are totally different in character .

Secondly, frequent use in Lord Passfield's paper

of Mandatory obligations "to inhabitants of

Palestine, both Arabs and Jews," diverges fundamentally

from the 1922 White Paper which, following

upon the Balfour Declaration and the

Mandate, recognized in obligation not only to

the inhabitants of Palestine-Arab or Jew-but

APPENDIX VIII

293

to the Zionist movement all over the world to

whom the original promise was made.

"When it is asked," says the White Paper of

11922, "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, with the assistance of

Jews in other parts of the world in order that it

may become a centre in which Jewish people as

a whole may take, on grounds of religion and

race, an interest and pride . But in order that this

community should have the best prospect of free

development and provide full opportunity for

the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is

essential that it should know that it is in Palestine

as of right and not on sufferance. That is the

reason why it is necessary that the existence of

the Jewish National Home in Palestine should be

internationally guaranteed and that it should be

formally recognized to rest upon the ancient historic

connection."

Discrepancy in fact and in spirit is obvious .

British obligation is not limited to the inhabitants

of Palestine . It must also comprise further external

obligation. The duty of the British Govern294

THE GREAT BETRAYAL

ment cannot be discharged merely by a convenient

administrative treatment of a local situation .

There is no use at this stage in examining

whether the obligations which Great Britain has

contracted by the Balfour letter and the Palestine

Mandate were wise or unwise . The sole

question is whether they are being fulfilled, or

that they are incapable of fulfilment, or that our

latest Government has neither the will nor the

means to persevere in their fulfilment, there is

one relief and one relief only which can be

sought. No one could claim that the British nation

is bound for all time, irrespective of events

or of their own physical and moral strength to

pursue the policy of establishment of the Jewish

National Home . But from the moment that we

recognize and proclaim that we have departed

from these undertakings and are regarding the

Zionist cause as a mere inconvenient incident in

the Colonial Office administration of Palestine,

we are bound to return our Mandate to the

League of Nations and forego the strategic moral

and material advantages arising from the British

control of, and association with the Holy Land .

THE GREAT BETRAYAL is much more than a protest against

the recently issued White Paper of Lord Passfield . It is a precise

and moderate statement of British-Zionist relations by two

men who were trusted collaborators of Herzl and Nordau and

who have been outstanding factors in the direction of the

Herzlian movement since its founding in 1897. Here they

answer the questions asked in and out of Jewry by those who

wish to know the truth as to the charges of betrayal hurled at

the British Labor Government by Jews in all lands and even by

some of England's leading statesmen . Their collaboration has

resulted in a trenchant revelatory book, another J'ACCUSE,

directed as was Zola's against a clique committed to the sacrifice

of obligations of honor toward the Jewish people.

The Mandate for Palestine aka Greater Israel as it Pertains to Jerusalem and the Old City - YJ Draiman

The Mandate for Palestine aka Greater Israel as it Pertains to Jerusalem and the Old City - YJ Draiman

The Mandate for Palestine aka Greater Israel as it Pertains to Jerusalem and the Old City:

The rights granted to the Jewish people in the 1920 San Remo Conference were confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne.  Furthermore, said rights were adopted and incorporated by the Mandate for Palestine relating to the establishment of the Jewish national home, and were to be given effect in all parts and regions of the Palestine territory. No exception was made for Jerusalem and its Old City; nor were they singled out for special reference in either the Balfour Declaration, the 1920 San Remo Treaty, or the Mandate for Palestine, other than to call for the preservation of existing rights in the Holy Places. As concerns the Holy Places, including those located in the Old City, specific obligations and responsibilities were imposed on the (Mandatory?) Mandatory.

It follows that the legal rights of the claimants to sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem similarly derive from the decisions of the Principal Allied Powers in the 1920 San Remo conference, and from the terms of the Mandate for Palestine adopted and approved by the Council of the League of Nations. In evaluating the validity of the claims of Israel relating to the Old City, the Council decision is of great significance from the perspective of the rights and obligations that it created under international law which the UN cannot supersede or modify without the consent of the parties.

The League of Nations and the UN can only recommend a resolution. In order for a resolution to be binding it must be agreed to and executed by the parties concerned. Since the Arabs rejected outright the partition and most other resolutions, all those resolutions are void and have no standing whatsoever.

In the view of Oxford international law professor Ian Brownlie, “in many instances the rights of parties to a dispute derive from legally significant acts, or a treaty concluded very long ago”.  As a result of these “legally significant acts”, there are legal as well as historical ties between the State of Israel and the Old City of Jerusalem.  The Faisal Weitzmann agreement of January 3, 1919 stated and agreed that the Jews would have Jerusalem and that the Muslim places of worship would be protected.

The intellectual ties were further solidified by the official opening of the Hebrew University on 1 April 1925 in Jerusalem. It must be noted said opening was attended by many dignitaries, including the University’s founding father, Dr. Chaim Weizmann, Field Marshall Allenby, Lord Balfour, Professor William Rappard and Sir Herbert Samuel, and many other distinguished guests. According to Dr. Weizmann, addressing the dignitaries and some twelve thousand other attendees at this memorable event, the opening of the University in Jerusalem was “the distinctive symbol, as it is destined to be the crowning glory, of the National Home of the Jewish people which we are seeking to rebuild”. 

In addition to the legal, historical and intellectual heritage, in the words of Canadian scholar Dr. Jacques Paul Gauthier: “To attempt to solve the Jerusalem / Old City problem without taking into consideration the historical and religious facts is like trying to put together a ten thousand piece puzzle without the most strategic pieces of that puzzle”.  In his monumental work entitled "Sovereignty Over the Old City of Jerusalem: A Study of the Historical, Religious, Political and Legal Aspects of the Question of the Old City", Dr. Gauthier offers an exhaustive review of these historical/spiritual/political/legal bonds, emphasizing the “extraordinary meaning” of the Old City of Jerusalem and the temple to the Jewish people.

Indeed, with respect to the question of the Old City, the historical facts and the res religiosae (or things involving religion) are rendered legally relevant by the decisions taken at the 1920 San Remo sessions of the Paris Peace Conference, together with the terms of the Mandate for Greater Israel aka Palestine. Notwithstanding the fact that historical, religious or other non-legal considerations may not be considered relevant or sufficient to support a legal claim normally in international law cases, these aspects of the issue of the city of Jerusalem are relevant in evaluating the claims of Israel and the Arab-Palestinians relating to sovereignty over the Old City, just as much or perhaps even more than over the entire State of Israel and the Holy Land, as noted.

YJ Draiman