Tag Archive | Reunion68 Reunion 68 Reunion’68 Reunion-68

Historyk IPN manipuluje, aby zaatakować badaczy Zagłady

OKO PRESS

W sieci kłamstw. Historyk IPN manipuluje, aby zaatakować badaczy Zagłady

JAKUB SZYMCZAK


Piotr Gontarczyk

“Złapani na kłamstwie. Tak manipulują historią” – czytamy na okładce tygodnika “Sieci”. Historyk IPN Piotr Gontarczyk zarzuca kłamstwo autorom “Dalej jest noc” – głośnej książki o losach Żydów w trakcie okupacji. Za pomocą manipulacji chce unieważnić lata pracy naukowców z PAN. To część szerszej ofensywy IPN

W wydanej przez Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów książce „Dalej jest noc”, w rozdziale o losach Żydów w powiecie bocheńskim, autorka pisze o likwidacji getta w Bochni we wrześniu 1943 roku. Historyk IPN Piotr Gontarczyk twierdzi, że w jednym akapicie tego rozdziału przyłapał autorkę na fałszu.

Z jego niezbyt spójnego wywodu wynika, że uraziło go sformułowanie o udziale polskiej policji w wyszukiwaniu i likwidacji bunkrów, w których ukryli się Żydzi likwidowanego getta. Gontarczyk twierdzi, że polska tzw. granatowa policja nie wchodziła do gett i nie mordowała tam Żydów. Ale autorka rozdziału wcale nie napisała, że bunkry znajdowały sie na terenie getta, ani też nigdzie nie negowała udziału żydowskiej policji.

Swoje wywody Piotr Gontarczyk zamieścił w tygodniku „Sieci” braci Karnowskich w tekście „Naukowa mistyfikacja”. Tygodnik ogłosił ochoczo na pierwszej stronie, że przyłapał badaczy na kłamstwie. Pokażemy, że to nieprawda i manipulacja.

Przełomowa praca

Wydana w 2018 roku książka „Dalej jest noc” jest najobszerniejszą (ponad 1700 stron!) dotychczas próbą opisu losu ukrywających się podczas okupacji Żydów na wsiach i w małych miastach – ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem okresu po likwidacji gett w latach 1942-1943.

Pisaliśmy o niej dokładnie na naszych łamach. Warto podkreślić – nie jest to książka o tym, jak Niemcy zabijali Żydów, a Polacy w tym pomagali, ale o tym, jak Żydzi radzili sobie ukrywając się, jakie przyjmowali strategie. To, że Polacy często byli winni śmierci swoich żydowskich współobywateli, a często ich mordowali, nie jest głównym tematem publikacji.

Dwutomowe dzieło powstawało pod redakcją prof. Barbary Engelking i prof. Jana Grabowskiego. Naukowcy z Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów przebadali dziewięć powiatów: Bielsk Podlaski, Biłgoraj, Bochnia, Dębica, Łuków, Miechów, Nowy Targ, Węgrów i Złoczów. Każdy powiat był badany przez jednego naukowca.

„Dalej jest noc” nie przestaje prowokować poprawiaczy historii na prawicy.

„Sensacyjna” okładka

11 marca 2019 na okładce tygodnika „Sieci” umieszczono fotografie prof. Jana Grabowskiego i prof. Barbary Engelking obok tytułu „Złapani na kłamstwie”. Okładka reklamuje tekst  Gontarczyka, który rzekome kłamstwo opisał.

Już sama okładka jest manipulacją – w tekście Gontarczyka nie ma nic o „kłamstwach” Engelking czy Grabowskiego. Omówiony jest fragment z rozdziału o powiecie bocheńskim autorstwa Dagmary Swałtek-Niewińskiej. Ale zdecydowaną większość tekstu zajmuje co innego.

Na czterech z pięciu stron Gontarczyk opisuje historię Samuela Frischa – żydowskiego policjanta z getta w Bochni. Policja żydowska, czyli Żydowska Służba Porządkowa, działała w gettach i obozach, kolaborowała z Niemcami w urządzaniu łapanek, rekwizycji i akcji deportacyjnych, pomagała w likwidacji gett, a po likwidacji gett większość jej członków została przez Niemców zamordowana. Udział policji żydowskiej w likwidacji gett jest dobrze opisany i nie budzi żadnych kontrowersji badaczy.

Dopiero na ostatniej stronie Gontarczyk przytacza jeden akapit z pracy Swałtek-Niewińskiej i zarzuca jej podstawienie policji granatowej – polskiej, kolaborującej z Niemcami – w miejsce żydowskiej. Jest to oskarżenie, jak się za chwilę przekonamy, całkowicie bezpodstawne.

Oświadczenie PAN

Na tekst Gontarczyka odpowiedziała w oświadczeniu PAN Natalia Skipietrow, specjalista ds. public relations, Instytut Filozofii i Socjologii PAN.

„Od kilku dni mamy do czynienia z nową szkołą dyskusji naukowej, której wynalazcą jest dr Piotr Gontarczyk, a którą przeprowadza się za pośrednictwem wywiadów prasowych. Dr Gontarczyk poinformował, że jako historyk sprawdzał źródła wykorzystane w książce  „Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski”, która jest raportem z badania przeprowadzonego w latach 2012-2017 przez naukowców z Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów Instytutu Filozofii i Socjologii PAN.

Pan Gontarczyk o swoich wnioskach i swoich emocjach z nimi związanych poinformował obszernie, acz bez konkretów, udzielając wywiadów w mediach (PR24, PAP), a także pisząc artykuł do tygodnika „Sieci”.  Wypowiedzi te bezpodstawnie dyskredytują prace badawcze, których efektem była książka.

Dr Gontarczyk pomawia badaczy z Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów, autorów badania i publikacji „Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski” o nierzetelność badawczą, celowe zmienianie faktów, dopisywanie nieprawdziwych informacji do jednych źródeł, a pomijanie innych, celowe działania mające na celu pomówienie Polaków za śmierć Żydów w czasie Zagłady. Mamy nadzieję, że jest świadomy odpowiedzialności prawnej za swoje słowa.

Swój wywiad w Polskim Radiu dr Gontarczyk zakończył wezwaniem do badaczy Centrum: «Czekam na odpowiedź». Dr Gontarczyk odpowiedź dostanie, kiedy dostarczy recenzję naukową, w której znajdą się nie tyko pomówienia o nierzetelność naukową oraz opisy stanów emocjonalnych dr. Gontarczyka, ale fakty, do których można by się odnieść.

Na razie dr Gontarczyk wskazał tylko na jeden fakt. W książce nie ma szczegółowego opisu likwidacji bunkrów, w których ukrywali się Żydzi, a w których uczestniczyłby Samuel Frish. Są informacje o tym, że ludzie próbowali się w takich kryjówkach chować, ile ich prawdopodobnie było, a także opisy niektórych pomysłowych bunkrów i problemów np. z ukrywaniem w nich dzieci.

Jest też obszerny cytat z powojennych zeznań Menachema M. Selingera, w którym mowa jest o tym, że niektórzy członkowie policji żydowskiej spodlili się, wydobywali ludzi z bunkrów, obrabowywali, szantażowali.  Jest też informacja, że policja żydowska w getcie w Bochni była mniej brutalna niż policja żydowska w getcie krakowskim. Jednak opisu zachowania akurat Samuela Frisha nie ma. Skoro tego nie ma, to tym bardziej nie jest prawdą – wbrew temu, co twierdzi dr Gontarczyk –  że nastąpiła w tym opisie zmiana policji żydowskiej na policję granatową.

Dlatego wzywamy pana dr. Gontarczyka do zaprzestania medialnej kampanii oszczerstw wobec zespołu autorów publikacji „Dalej jest noc” i przedstawienia recenzji naukowej, zgodnie ze standardami obowiązującymi w świecie akademickim.”

Czytanie z cytatu

Gontarczyk stawia autorce zarzut kłamstwa i celowej manipulacji źródłami. Pisze:

„Mamy do czynienia z bezpodstawnym przyklejeniem opisanych w tym artykule działań żydowskich OD-mannów Polakom.”

OD-mann to członek policji żydowskiej – Judische Ordnungsdienst.

Tymczasem we fragmencie, który cytuje, nie ma słowa o ofiarach polskiej policji granatowej, jest tylko lakoniczna wzmianka o jej udziale w poszukiwaniu Żydów w Bochni – nie w gettcie.

Gontarczyk twierdzi, że w książce polska policja wchodzi do getta i tam wyszukuje Żydów. Problem w tym, że nawet w cytacie, na który się powołuje, nic takiego nie ma.

Fragment cytowany przez Gontarczyka brzmi (usunięte przez niego fragmenty są wytłuszczone):

Grupy poszukujące ukrytych Żydów [w Bochni] składały się z kilku osób, zwykle policjanta niemieckiego, kilku policjantów polskich oraz często osoby zatrudnionej do wyważania drzwi. Tę ostatnią funkcję pełnił pod przymusem m.in. rusznikarz Karol Gross w czasie trzeciej akcji likwidacyjnej we wrześniu 1943 r. Swoją najbliższą rodzinę stracił w pierwszej akcji. W trakcie ostatniej akcji otworzył na rozkaz Niemców 30–40 bunkrów”.

Autorka oświadczenia PAN ma rację, że w książce udział policjantów żydowskich w likwidacji getta w Bochni jest opisany. Oto przywołany przez nią cytat z Menachema Mendela Selingera, OD-mana, który po wojnie zeznawał tak:

„7 tygodni po mojej ucieczce z Bochni była likwidacja getta bocheńskiego. Uciekinierzy, którzy za mną na Węgry przyjechali, opowiadali mi o strasznych przeżyciach likwidacji i o tym, że niejeden OD-man bocheński, który przedtem zachowywał się przyzwoicie, spodlił się, wydobywał ludzi z bunkrów, szantażował, wyłudzał pieniądze itd.”

Selinger mówi tutaj o „trzeciej akcji”, czyli dokładnie tej, o którą chodzi Gontarczykowi.

Gdzie są dokumenty?

rekomendował: Leon Rozenbaum

Gontarczyk w swoim artykule pisze:
„Rada Naukowa IFS PAN wydała oświadczenie o »skandalicznych komentarzach przedstawicieli IPN«: »Nasze Centrum realizuje pionierskie badania i zawsze będziemy wspierać debatę na ten temat na podstawie kryteria naukowe, a nie inwektywy i insynuacje«. Dlatego napisałem ten artykuł, a redakcja tygodnika »Sieci« udostępnia w internecie akta sprawy Salomona Frisha. Niech każdy sam wyrobi sobie zdanie, z jaką »nauką« mamy tu do czynienia”.

Tymczasem na stronie tygodnika dokumentów nie ma.

Praktyka Gontarczyka – sugerowanie, że autorzy rzekomo ukrywają udział policjantów żydowskich w likwidacji gett, jest nie tylko „skandalicznym komentarzem przedstawiciela IPN”. To kłamstwo, za pomocą którego próbuje on zdyskredytować badaczy Centrum.

Prawicowe media i czytelnicy powielają tezy Gontarczyka bez ich weryfikacji. Na stronie TVP.Info znajdziemy artykuł „Gontarczyk zarzuca »naukową mistyfikację« publikacji na temat historii Żydów”, „Do Rzeczy” pisze: „Żydowskich policjantów z getta zamienili na polskich. Odkrycie historyka poraża”. Tekst udostępniają prawicowi użytkownicy Twittera:

„Odkrycie” Gontarczyka skomentował historyk i senator PiS, Jan Żaryn: „Jeżeli ktoś w formie naukowej lub publicystycznej wprowadza kłamstwo w przestrzeń publiczną, skazuje się na automatyczne wykluczenie”.

Czyżby miał na myśli samego Gontarczyka?

IPN na wojnie z Centrum

IPN, chociaż na co dzień nie zajmuje się Zagładą Żydów, przygotowuje serię recenzji „Dalej jest noc”. Ukazało się już kilka tekstów autorów Instytutu, w tym najbardziej obszerny, autorstwa dr. Tomasza Domańskiego.

Opublikowana 13 lutego 2019 praca liczy sobie aż 70 stron. Domański nie ma doświadczenia w badaniu Zagłady. Nie dyskwalifikuje go to z krytykowania prac na ten temat, ale stawia przed nim bardzo trudne zadanie – polemikę ze specjalistami.

Do krytyki ze strony IPN, a w szczególności Domańskiego, odniosła się już piątka z dziewięciu autorów: Jan GrabowskiAnna ZapalecAlina SkibińskaDagmara Swałtek-Niewińska i Dariusz Libionka.

Prof. Grabowski napisał: „Mamy do czynienia nie tyle z recenzją badacza, ile ze zbiorowym wysiłkiem urzędników oddelegowanych przez przełożonych do zadania specjalnego, polegającego – co mam zamiar wykazać – na próbie podważenia reputacji niezależnych badaczy, a nie na intelektualnej polemice”.

12 marca pracownicy Centrum wydali oświadczenie zatytułowane: „Wobec ataków na »Dalej jest noc« i wiarygodność naukową Centrum”. Piszą w nim:

„W ostatnich dniach Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów rozpoczęło na swojej stronie internetowej sukcesywne publikowanie odpowiedzi autorów tomów »Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski« na zastrzeżenia i zarzuty podniesione w publikacjach pracowników Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej. Odpowiadamy rzeczowo, mimo że obserwujemy próby zdyskredytowania naszych badań oraz opartej na nich książki za pomocą sensacyjnych materiałów w mediach, zawierających – obok wątków merytorycznych – niedopuszczalne generalizacje, manipulacje i pomówienia. Wyrażamy zdecydowany sprzeciw wobec takich metod”.

Odpowiedzi autorów pracy „Dalej jest noc” można przeczytać na stronie Centrum.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Churchill: There was a huge Muslim immigration into Palestine in the early 1900s

Churchill: There was a huge Muslim immigration into Palestine in the early 1900s

Ezequiel Doiny


“In 1939 Churchill challenged the common notion that Jewish immigration into Palestine had uprooted its Arab residents. To the contrary, according to him, “So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population…Arabs crowded into Palestine? As Miss Peters pursued this angle she found a fund of obscure information that confirmed Churchill’s observation…”

“…There were about five million Muslims displaced due to the Austro-Hungarian occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Crimean War, Balkan wars, the Turkish war of independence and World War I, many settled in the Jewish Homeland…”

Churchill: There was a huge Muslim immigration into Palestine in the early 1900s

Part 1 – The first wave: The end of the Ottoman Empire

The Muslim Colonists (First published by Ezequiel Doiny in Gatestone Institute)

The current Palestinian narrative is that all Muslims in Palestine are natives and all Jews are settlers. This narrative is false. There has been a small but almost continuous Jewish presence in Palestine since the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome two thousand years ago, and, as we will see, most of the Muslims living in Palestine when the state of Israel was declared in 1948 were Muslim colonists from other parts of the Ottoman Empire who had been resettled and living in Palestine for fewer than 60 years.

There are two important historical events usually overlooked in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

One is the use that Muslim rulers made of the jizya (a discriminatory tax imposed only on non-Muslims, to “protect” them from being killed or having their property destroyed) to reduce the quantity of Jews living in Palestine before the British Mandate was instituted in 1922. The second were the incentives by the Ottoman government to relocate displaced Muslim populations from other parts of the Ottoman Empire in Palestine.

Until the late 1800s entire ancient Jewish communities had to flee Palestine to escape the brutality of Muslim authorities. As Egyptian historian Bat Ye’or writes in her book, The Dhimmi:

“The Jizya was paid in a humiliating public ceremony in which the non-Muslim while paying was struck in the head. If these taxes were not paid women and children were reduced to slavery, men were imprisoned and tortured until a ransom was paid for them. The Jewish communities in many cities under Muslim Rule was ruined for such demands. This custom of legalized financial abuses and extortion shattered the indigenous pre-Arab populations almost totally eliminating what remained of its peasantry… In 1849 the Jews of Tiberias envisaged exile because of the brutality, exactions, and injustice of the Muslim authorities. In addition to ordinary taxes, an Arab Sheik that ruled Hebron demanded that Jews pay an extra five thousand piastres annually for the protections of their lives and property. The Sheik threatened to attack and expel them from Hebron if it was not paid.”

The Muslim rulers not only kept the number of Jews low through discriminatory taxes, they also increased the Muslim population by providing incentives for Muslim colonists to settle in the area. Incentives included free land, 12 years exemption from taxes and exemption from military service.

Bat Ye’or continues:

“By the early 1800s the Arab population in Palestine was very little (just 246,000) it was in the late 1800s and early 1900s that most Muslim Colonists settled in Palestine because of incentives by the Ottoman Government to resettle displaced Muslim populations because of events such as the Austro-Hungarian Occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Crimean War and World War 1. Those events created a great quantity of Muslim Refugees that were resettled somewhere else in the Ottoman Empire… In 1878 an Ottoman law granted lands in Palestine to Muslim colonists. Muslim colonists from Crimea and the Balkans settled in Anatolia, Armenia, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine.”

Justin McCarthy, a professor of history at the University of Louisville, writing in his Annotated Map, “Forced Migration and Mortality in the Ottoman Empire,” also notes that there were about five million Muslims displaced due to the Austro-Hungarian occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Crimean War, Balkan wars, the Turkish war of independence and World War I.

Sergio DellaPergola, from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in his paper “Demography in Israel/Palestine: Trends, Prospects and Policy Implications,” provides estimates of the population of Palestine in different periods. As the demographic data below shows, most Muslims living in Palestine in 1948 when the State of Israel was created had been living there for fewer than 60 years:

  • 1890: Arab Population 432,000
  • 1947: Arab Population 1,181,000
  • Growth in Arab population from 1890 to 1947: 800,000

The Yazidi in Iraq and the Christian Copts in Egypt are not “settlers” and “occupiers;” neither are the Jews in Israel. They are victims of a common enemy that seems to want a Middle East free of non-Muslims.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.or…

[embeddoc url=”http://conservativepapers.com/wp…“]

[embeddoc url=”http://conservativepapers.com/wp…“]

Part 2 – The second Wave: During British Mandate Palestine

Daniel Pipes in his book review for Joan Peter’s “From Time Immemorial”:

“Joan Peters came across a “seemingly casual” discrepancy between the standard definition of a refugee and the definition used for the Palestinian Arabs. In other cases, a refugee is someone forced to leave a permanent or habitual home. In this case, however, it is someone who had lived in Palestine for just two years before the flight that began in 1948…

…Miss Peters came across a statement by Winston Churchill that she says opened her eyes to the situation in Palestine. In 1939 Churchill challenged the common notion that Jewish immigration into Palestine had uprooted its Arab residents. To the contrary, according to him, “So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population…Arabs crowded into Palestine? As Miss Peters pursued this angle she found a fund of obscure information that confirmed Churchill’s observation. Drawing on census statistics and a great number of contemporary accounts, she pieced together the dimensions of Arab immigration into Palestine before 1948…Miss Peters concludes that “the Arab population appears to have increased in direct proportion to the Jewish presence…Although the Jews alone moved to Palestine for ideological reasons, they were not alone in emigrating there. Arabs joined them in large numbers…

…Non-Jewish immigrants came from all parts of the Middle East, including Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Transjordan (as Jordan was once known), Saudi Arabia, the Yemens, Egypt, Sudan, and Libya. Thanks to British unconcern, Arab immigrants were generally left alone and allowed to settle in Mandatory Palestine. So many Arabs came, Miss Peters estimates, that “if all those Jews and all those Arabs who arrived in … Palestine between 1893 and 1948 had remained, and if they were forced to leave now, a dual exodus of at least equal proportion would in all probability take place. Palestine would be depopulated once again.”

…What took hundreds of thousands of Arabs to Palestine? Economic opportunity. The Zionists brought the skills and resources of Europe. Like other Europeans settling scarcely populated areas in recent times—in Australia, Southern Africa, or the American West—the Jews in Palestine initiated economic activities that created jobs and wealth on a level far beyond that of the indigenous peoples. In response, large numbers of Arabs moved toward the settlers to find employment.

The conventional picture has it that Jewish immigrants bought up Arab properties, forcing the former owners into unemployment. Miss Peters argues exactly the contrary, that the Jews created new opportunities, which attracted emigrants from distant places. To the extent that there was unemployment among the Arabs, it was mostly among the recent arrivals.

This reversal of the usual interpretation implies a wholly different way of seeing the Arab position in Mandatory Palestine. As C. S.Jarvis, governor of the Sinai in 1923-36, [DP: this corrects the 1984 text, which wrongly ascribed the following quote to Winston Churchill] observed, “It is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.” The data unearthed by Joan Peters indicate that Arabs benefited economically so much by the presence of Jewish settlers from Europe that they traveled hundreds of miles to get closer to them.

In turn, this explains why the definition of a refugee from Palestine in 1948 is a person who lived there for just two years: because many Arab residents in 1948 had immigrated so recently. The usual definition would have cut out a substantial portion of the persons who later claimed to be refugees from Palestine.

Thus, the “Palestinian problem” lacks firm grounding. Many of those who now consider themselves Palestinian refugees were either immigrants themselves before 1948 or the children of immigrants. This historical fact reduces their claim to the land of Israel; it also reinforces the point that the real problem in the Middle East has little to do with Palestinian-Arab rights.”

http://www.danielpipes.org/1110/…

Part 3

America has existed for 240 years. The Ottoman Empire Occupied the Jewish Homeland for more than 320 years, from the early 1500s until 1922, a period longer than America has existed.

The settlements are not Illegal: Israel has as much claim to Ottoman Land as Jordan. Israel and Jordan were both created from Ottoman Land, if there is no UNSC resolution demanding Jordan to return Ottoman land, there cannot be a UNSC resolution demanding Israel to return Ottoman Land.

The land was part of the Ottoman Empire before WW1. Why would there be a UNSC resolution against Israel but not one demanding Jordan to return occupied Ottoman land?

If there is a UNSC resolution against Israel, there must also be one against Jordan. “Why exclude Jordan? Jordan was created in British Mandate Palestine, must be part of the solution. Jordan’s Queen is Palestinian, the next King will the son of a Palestinian, most of the population is Palestinian, …”

(Article first published by Ezequiel Doiny in Join United with Israel! in November 2015)

“Before World War I Palestine was a part of the province of Southern Syria in the Ottoman Empire. In 1916, before WWI ended, the British and the French signed the secret Sikes-Pikot agreement defining their proposed spheres of influence in the Middle East if they won the war. According to the agreement, France was allocated to Northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, while the British would rule over Palestine and southern Iraq.

In 1920, following the provision of the Mandate to France and Britain at San Remo, the UK took control of British Mandate Palestine (Mandatory Palestine) in what is today Israel and Jordan, land captured from the Ottoman Empire.

The McMahon-Hussein correspondence (1915) reveals details of a secret deal between Sir Henry McMahon, High Commissioner of the UK in Egypt, and the Sharif of Mecca, Hussain Bin Ali, by which the British would give control of lands captured from the Ottoman Empire to the Arabs (Palestine was included within the boundaries that were proposed by Hussein) if the Arabs assisted the British in fighting the Turks during WWI.

In 1921 the UK created the Emirate of Transjordan (Jordan) in the land of Mandatory Palestine East from the Jordan river and appointed Abdullah, son of the Shariff of Mecca, as King of Jordan. (Brittain also appointed Abdullah’s brother Faisal as King of Iraq). Jordan was officially under British Mandate Palestine and obtained independence in 1946.

In 1948 when the British Mandate of Palestine ended and the Jewish State of Israel was created, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt (all puppet Kingdoms from the UK) attacked the newborn Jewish State. Most of the officers of the Jordanian Arab Legion were British:

Command (under British General John Bagot Glubb),

Divisional Headquarters (under Brigadier Lash), Artillery Batteries/troops (under Lt-Col Hearst),

  • 1st Brigade (under Col. Goldie),
  • 1st Regiment (under Lt-Col. Blackden),
  • 3rd Regiment (under Lt-Col Newman),
  • 3rd Brigade (under Col. Ashton),
  • 2nd Regiment (under Maj. Slade)

(Source: Laffin (1982a), Lunt (1999), Collins & Lapierre (1972).

http://balagan.info/arab-order-o…

In 1948 General Glubb lead the Jordanian Arab Legion commanded mostly by British Officers to expel all the Jews from Hebron, East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Not only they did ethnic cleansing but they destroyed dozens of ancient synagogues and 60,000 Ancient Jewish Tombstones in the Sacred Ancient Jewish Cemetery of Mount of Olives to try to erase all evidence of Jewish History in the West Bank. In 1956, after his service in Jordan, the criminal General Glubb, responsible for ethnic cleansing of Jews, was knighted by the Queen. General Glubb was appointed Knight Commander of The Order of Bath by Queen Elizabeth.

Jews returned to east Jerusalem in 1967 after Israel won a defensive war against Egypt, Syria and Jordan. The 1967 war ended almost 20 years of illegal Jordanian occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank and allowed Jews to return home. (Jewish cities in Judea and Samaria should be called Liberated Jewish Cities instead of “Settlements” since they are communities liberated by the Jewish people from Arab invaders not colonial outposts taken from native residents.)

The Palestinians did not demand to create a State in the West Bank (judea and Samaria) while it was controlled by Jordan from 1948 till 1967. They only started demanding a Palestinian State there after Jordan lost it to Israel. The same way, if all of Israel was currently being controlled by Jordan the Palestinians would not care to create a State of Palestine. The Palestinians’ main goal is not to create a Palestinian State, it is to destroy Israel, it bothers them that it is under Jewish and not under Arab rule, their goal is not to create a Palestinian State but to re-establish Muslim rule.

During the Arab-Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967, Islamic Armies tried to destroy Israel but failed. Because they lost in the battle field they changed their strategy of direct military confrontation and started falsely posing as the under dog, victims of Jewish aggression to gain the sympathy of the World Powers. In reality the Palestinian are not weak, they are strong because they are part of something much bigger, the Palestinians are an integral part of the Arab Nations, a spear-head inside Israel of the dozens Islamic States that surround Israel and want its destruction.

If a Palestinian State is created in the West Bank, Hamas will take over and attack Israel from the West Bank as it does from Gaza.

The Palestinian Media Watch translated an interview by one of Hamas founders Mahmoud al-Zahar to the Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam in which he said “transfer what it has [in Gaza] or just a small part of it to the West Bank, we would be able to settle the battle of the final promise [to destroy Israel] with a speed that no one can imagine…[Some] have said Hamas wants to create an Islamic emirate in Gaza. We won’t do that, but we will build an Islamic state in Palestine, all of Palestine…”

After what happened in Gaza, the two-state solution is no longer feasible. The two state solution is actually a one state solution because it will enable Hamas to attack Israel from the West Bank making normal life in Israel impossible.

The Palestinians already have a State in Jordan. Since the US/EU claim the Arab-Israeli conflict can be solved though a UNSC resolution why not submit one declaring that Jordan is Palestine?

Most of the Jordanian population is Palestinian, the previous King said “Jordan is Palestine, Palestine is Jordan”. The Queen of Jordan Rania Al-Yassin was born in Kuwait to Palestinian parents Faisal Sedki Al Yassin and Ilham Yassin from Tulkarm, Jordan has a Palestinian Queen, the next King of Jordan will be the son of a Palestinian. If Jordan is recognized as the Palestinian State the Arabs currently living in Israel can continue but they will be Jordanian Citizens. Jordan was also part of British Mandate Palestine, it must also be part of the solution.

Jews have been persecuted and expelled from most Middle East Countries and they managed to find refuge in Israel, a country smaller than New Jersey. Jewish refugees from Arab Countries reported that since 1948, 850,000 Jews have been expelled from Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lybia, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia,Yemen and other Middle East Countries.

The same way that in Iraq the Yazidi deserve a small area as a safe heaven where they can live in security, the same way that in Egypt the Copts deserve a small area where they can live in security, Jews deserve a safe heaven where they can live safely from Islamic aggression. After what happened in Gaza the creation of a Palestinian State in the West Bank became unfeasible because it will endanger Israel. The only place a Palestinian State can be created is in Jordan where the Palestinians already are the majority of the population.”

http://unitedwithisrael.org/the-…

Part 3

The “Two State Solution” is not as Kerry claims the only option. There is a much better and honest option which is to recognize that the Palestinians already have a State in Jordan. Since the US/EU claim the Arab-Israeli conflict can be solved though a UNSC resolution why not submit one declaring that Jordan is Palestine?

Most of the Jordanian population is Palestinian, the previous King said “Jordan is Palestine, Palestine is Jordan”. The Queen of Jordan Rania Al-Yassin was born in Kuwait to Palestinian parents Faisal Sedki Al Yassin and Ilham Yassin from Tulkarm, Jordan has a Palestinian Queen, the next King of Jordan will be the son of a Palestinian. If Jordan is recognized as the Palestinian State the Arabs currently living in Israel can continue but they will be Jordanian Citizens.

It is not honest for those who seek a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict to ignore that Jordan was also part of British Mandate Palestine. Jordan must also be part of the solution.

A UNSC declaration of “Palestine” must also include Jordanian land. Jordan was created in British Mandate Palestine. Jordan must be part of the solution. Jordan must also contribute some land.

On November 22, the Tower Magazine reported that “Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has publicly confirmed for the first time that he turned down a peace offer in 2008 that would have provided for an independent Palestinian state containing all of the Gaza Strip, much of the West Bank (with land swaps), and a tunnel connecting the two areas.

Abbas made his comments in an interview on Israel’s Channel 10, which has been broadcasting a three-part series on the peace talks of 2000 and 2008. According to both Abbas and Ehud Olmert, Israel’s Prime Minister in 2008, Olmert presented Abbas in September of that year with a map that delineated the borders of the future State of Palestine. Abbas said that he “rejected it out of hand” because he claimed not to be an expert on maps, and because Olmert’s domestic scandals meant that he would shortly leave office (Olmert was later convicted of corruption). While both Olmert and other Palestinian leaders have previously said that Abbas turned down a peace proposal, this is the first time that the Palestinian Authority president has admitted as such.

At 24:05 of the video, Channel 10 reporter Raviv Drucker asked Abbas:

“In the map that Olmert presented you, Israel would annex 6.3 percent [of the West Bank] and compensate the Palestinians with 5.8 percent [taken from pre-1967 Israel]. What did you propose in return?”

“I did not agree,” Abbas replied. “I rejected it out of hand.”

At 26:53 of the video, Drucker pressed again:

Drucker: Why, really, did you not accept Olmert’s offer?

Abbas: He [Olmert] said to me, “Here’s a map. See it? That’s all.” I respected his decision not to give me the map. But how can we sign something that hasn’t been given us, that hasn’t been discussed?

The existence of the peace offer was first reported by The Tower’s Avi Issacharoff in 2013, when Olmert told him that he presented Abbas with a map proposal during talks at the Prime Minister’s Residence. Shortly after Olmert’s presentation, Abbas redrew that version of the map from memory, in order to make sure that he and Olmert were on the same page. Issacharoff acquired a photograph of that map…

As Issacharoff wrote:

Abbas silenced those present so that he could concentrate. He wanted to sketch out Olmert’s map from memory. The Israeli Prime Minister had told him that as long as Abu Mazen did not sign his initials to the map and endorse it, Olmert would not hand over a copy. Abu Mazen took a piece of letterhead of the Presidential Office and drew on it the borders of the Palestinian state as he remembered them.

Abbas marked the settlement blocks that Israel would retain: The Ariel bloc, the Jerusalem-Maaleh Adumim bloc (including E1), and Gush Etzion. A total of 6.3% of the West Bank. Then Abbas also drew the territories that Israel proposed to offer in their place: In the area of Afula-Tirat Zvi, in the Lachish area, the area close to Har Adar, and in the Judean desert and the Gaza envelope. A total of 5.8% of the West Bank. Abu Mazen wrote on the left side of the letterhead the numbers as he incorrectly remembered them (6.8% and 5.5%), and on the back he wrote the rest of the details of the proposal: Safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank via a tunnel, the pentilateral committee to administer the Holy Basin, the removal of the Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley and the absorption of 5,000 Palestinian refugees, 1,000 each year over five years, inside the Green Line.

Abbas’ hand-drawn map, sketched on the stationery of the Palestinian Office of the President and obtained by You can see the whole Middle East from here. in the course of this investigative report about the clandestine negotiation between Olmert and Abbas, was published here yesterday exclusively. The two men met 36 times, mostly in Jerusalem and once in Jericho, and arrived at a formula that was to be the basis for a lasting agreement between the two parties. But in the end, peace accords between Israel and the Palestinians were not signed, despite the far-reaching proposal made by Olmert. As an official matter, the Palestinian Authority has not responded.

The next day, Abbas called off talks, saying that he had to attend a meeting in Jordan.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat had a similar recollection when interviewed by Al Jazeera in 2009:

Olmert, who talked today about his proposal to Abu Mazen, offered the 1967 borders, but said: “We will take 6.5% of the West Bank, and give in return 5.8% from the 1948 lands, and the 0.7% will constitute the safe passage, and East Jerusalem will be the capital, but there is a problem with the Haram and with what they called the Holy Basin.” Abu Mazen too answered with defiance, saying: “I am not in a marketplace or a bazaar. I came to demarcate the borders of Palestine – the June 4, 1967 borders – without detracting a single inch, and without detracting a single stone from Jerusalem, or from the holy Christian and Muslim places. This is why the Palestinian negotiators did not sign.

Abbas’ comments on Channel 10 were first picked up in English by veteran reporter Mark Lavie.

http://www.thetower.org/2580-bre…

On November 2011 the The Investigative Project on Terrorism reported that “In her new memoir, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confirms that Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas rejected generous territorial concessions offered by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008.

When she traveled to Jerusalem in May 2008, Olmert invited Rice to dinner to outline his plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Rice recounts that she was shocked by how far the Israeli leader was willing to go. Olmert was prepared to give up nearly the entire West Bank and to divide Jerusalem with the Arab world.

Olmert offered to make Jerusalem the capital of two states – Israel in the western part and a Palestinian capital in the east. The Old City of Jerusalem would be administered by a committee made up of so-called wise people including Palestinians, Jordanians, Saudis, Americans and Israelis.

“They will oversee the city, but not in a political role,” Olmert told Rice. And he offered another concession – offering to allow 5,000 Palestinian refugees to settle in Israel.

Rice was incredulous. “Am I really hearing this? I wondered. Is the Israeli prime minister saying that he’ll divide Jerusalem and put an international body in charge of the Holy sites?”

The following day, Rice brought Olmert’s proposal to Abbas in Ramallah. He rejected it, telling Rice the PA could not agree to a deal that prevented nearly 4 million Palestinians from being able to “go home” (i.e., to return to their ancestors’ former homes in pre-Six Day War Israel).

On Sep. 16, 2008, Olmert presented Abbas with a similar plan for a two-state solution. The Palestinians said no, effectively killing the Olmert plan.

More detail on the breakdown of the talks comes from the Palestine Papers – documents about a decade of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations that were stolen from PA negotiator Saeb Erakat’s office, leaked to al-Jazeerah and posted on the media outlet’s website in January.

As the Jerusalem Post noted on Tuesday, these documents show that PA negotiators talked out of both sides of their mouths – speaking publicly about compromise with Israel on Palestinian refugees while privately describing the “right of return” as an individual right that must be extended to 7 million Palestinians – a formula most Israelis regard as a demographic blueprint for the destruction of their country.

The documents also show that Washington was apparently unaware that, in preparation for the September 16 meeting, the PA was trying to come up with plans to avoid reaching a binding agreement with Israel and to avoid blame for failing reach a final-status agreement with the Jewish state.”

http://www.investigativeproject….

Abbas rejected Olmert’s offer because it would have required him to give up on the “right of return” for most Palestinians. Lt. Col. (ret) Jonathan Halevi explained in the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs that Abbas supports a phased plan for Israel’s destruction “…Beneath the moderate guise that Abbas tries to project is a Palestinian leader who unreservedly supports terror and demands to implement what the Palestinians call the “right of return.”

…What the Palestinians mean by “right of return” according to Resolution 194 and the Arab Peace Initiative is simple enough and was ratified as an official law by the Palestinian parliament with Abbas’s approval.

According to the 2008 Law of the Right of Return of the Palestinian Refugees:

“The right of return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes and property, while receiving compensation for their suffering, is an inalienable and enshrined right that cannot be compromised, replaced, reconsidered, interpreted otherwise, or subjected to a referendum.

The right of return is natural, personal, collective, civil, political, passed on from father to son; it is not nullified by the passage of time or by the signing of any agreement and it cannot be abolished or waived in any way.

The Palestinian refugees shall not be resettled or displaced as an alternative to the right of return.

Anyone who violates the provisions of this Act shall be guilty of the crime of treason and will be subject to all criminal and civil penalties prescribed for this crime.

Anything that contradicts this law is considered null and void, and any legislation or agreement that will derogate from the right of return or contradict the provisions of this Act shall be deemed null and void.”

In other words, even after an Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders and the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state, the conflict will remain unchanged and Palestine will demand the “return” to Israel of the millions of refugees and their descendants. The Palestinian demand for “return” entails the transfer of millions of Jews from their homes and the end of the state of Israel…”

Even though it was Abbas who rejects the two state solution and rejected Olmert’s peace-offer in 2008, Obama and Kerry blame Israeli settlement construction for the collapse of talks and increase of Palestinian terror.

On October 16 Elliot Abrams wrote in Mosaic Magazine that “Secretary of State Kerry made an unhelpful, mistaken, ill-informed comment about the current wave of Palestinian violence yesterday when speaking at Harvard.

Here is the comment Kerry made:

“So here’s the deal. What’s happening is that unless we get going, a two-state solution could conceivably be stolen from everybody. And there’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years. Now you have this violence because there’s a frustration that is growing, and a frustration among Israelis who don’t see any movement.”

Kerry does not know what he is talking about. There has simply not been “a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years.” There has been a steady growth in settlement population, though the bulk of that growth is in the major blocs–such as Ma’ale Adumim–that Israel will clearly retain in any final agreement. Kerry’s imprecision is another problem. Does he mean there has been a massive increase in the number of settlements? That’s flatly false. Does he mean a massive increase in settlement size, as existing settlements expand physically? That’s also flatly false. The so-called “peace map” or “Google Earth map” of the West Bank has changed very little.

The frequent Palestinian claim that Israel is “gobbling up” the West Bank so that “peace will be impossible” is what Kerry is here repeating when he says “a two-state solution could conceivably be stolen from everybody.” It’s a false claim and he should know it. If that is not what Kerry meant, he should be far more careful when he speaks about such an explosive topic–and at such an explosive moment.

Moreover, his claim is plain silly. The slow but steady growth in population in settlements is a completely unpersuasive explanation for the sudden outbreak of violence. That outburst of violence and terror appears linked to lies about Israel changing the status quo at the Temple Mount or Haram al-Sharif. But whatever its explanation, the false linkage to settlements is of a piece with the Obama administration’s continuing obsession with that subject–despite all the evidence. It’s remarkable that the Secretary of State, who has spent so much time with Israelis and Palestinians and has visited Jerusalem repeatedly, has not bothered to learn the basic facts. He is instead parroting Palestinian propaganda. In fact, Prime Minister Netanyahu has been under pressure and criticism from settler groups because he has restrained settlement population growth beyond the security barrier. To suffer those political attacks and then hear criticism from the secretary of state about a “massive increase in settlements” helps explain the lack of confidence Israeli officials feel in the Obama administration.

Mr. Kerry is doing something else here that is even worse: blaming the victims. The State Department has of course condemned acts of terror, but here in a question and answer period we get beyond official statements and see what Kerry really appears to think. He seems to believe that the real culprits, when Palestinians stab Israelis to death, are people who build a new housing unit in a settlement.

The Kerry remarks at Harvard were morally obtuse and factually wrong.”

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/20…

Kerry lies when he says that settlement construction is an obstacle to peace. Settlements occupy now about 1.7% of the West Bank and during Olmert’s term they occupied about 1.6%, new homes were built inside existing settlement land, no new land was taken, there was virtually no expansion outside previous areas. As blogger Elder of Zion wrote “ …how the ~1.7% of settlement land today makes peace so much harder than ~1.6% 20 years ago?”

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com…

On November 10 blogger Elder of Zion wrote “At Binyamin Netanyahu’s appearance at the Center for American Progress, he said that the settlements were not an obstacle to peace.

He answered that “There have been no new settlements built in the past 20 years.The additions have been in existing communities. The map has not materially changed.”

I’m not sure if that is 100% true; I know of three formerly illegal outposts that became legal, and I cannot imagine that there haven’t been more illegal outposts in 20 years that have escaped being demolished. But the larger point is true – there has been essentially no new settlements, as opposed to how they are characterized. and Netanyahu said this:

“By the way, Google this. Because this is just repeated, ad nauseum, so it assumes the cachet of self-evident truth, that we’re ‘gobbling up land’ and so on. We’re not gobbling up land….I mean the total amount of built up land is just a few percent. And the addition, if you look at it over time, it’s got to be a fraction – maybe one tenth of one percent? Maybe I’m off, maybe it’s 3/10ths of one percent. That’s the land that’s being “gobbled up.” That’s a factual question. That is not something that should be debated. And yet it’s become an axiom, that we are gobbling up land. We’re not.”

…(In response to Netanyahu’s statement, Peace Now wrote) “The “one percent argument” is a classic example of how supporters of the status-quo use a fraction of the truth to misrepresent the truth on the ground in the West Bank. Yes, the actual built-up area of West Bank settlements takes up only a little more than 1% of the West Bank. But the settlements’ built-up area is just the tip of the settlements iceberg. The impact of the settlements goes far beyond this 1%.

Almost 10% of the West Bank is included in the “municipal area,” or the jurisdictional borders of the settlements. These borders are so large that they allow settlements to expand many times over onto land that is completely off-limits to Palestinians.

In addition, almost 34% of the West Bank has been placed under the jurisdiction of the settlements’ “Regional Councils.” That is, more than an additional 1/3 of the West Bank has been placed under the control of the settlers, off-limits to Palestinians.

In total, more than 40% of the West Bank is under the direct control of settlers or settlements and off-limits to Palestinians, regardless of the fact that only a small portion of this land has been built on by settlers.”

Elder of Zion responded “Let’s say that this is 100% true. Then this means that Peace Now agrees that there has been no fundamental change in the West Bank map since the PLO rejected Israeli peace offers of 93%-95% of the land in 2001 and 2008!

Somehow, the 40% Israel controls didn’t stop Barak and Olmert from offering nearly the entire West Bank for a Palestinian state. If they could offer it, so could the current Israeli government. So the 40% figure is a red herring, meant to obscure the fact that the intransigent party is the Palestinian side.

…Peace Now and J-Street know this. If you read their literature you can see that they try very hard to distract their readers from these facts by mentioning things that aren’t relevant. Their central claim to raise cash, that Israel – and especially the reviled Likud government of Netanyahu – is gobbling up land is shown to be a lie.

Yet this Peace Now and J-Street lie of Israel “gobbling up land” is repeated without any shame by the White House, by the New York Times, and by many other sources who don’t even bother to read Peace Now reports with a critical eye. Because their own documentation proves their public lies!”

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com…

Arutz 7 reported that “US Secretary of State John Kerry asserted Wednesday that the escalating wave of Arab terror in Israel showcases what would be in store if the Palestinian Arabs were not to achieve statehood.

During a speech in Washington, Kerry emphasized the United States’ commitment to advancing the two-state solution, which he called “the only viable alternative.”

…Stressing that unrest and violence have hurt both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs, Kerry contended “the current situation is simply not sustainable.”…

http://www.israelnationalnews.co…

Kerry calls the situation “not sustainable” yet Abbas said that “…the Palestinians can wait without making concessions in part because “the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.”

On May 29, 2009 CAMERA reported that “Washington Post Deputy Editorial Editor Jackson Diehl recounts his recent conversation with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in today’s issue of the newspaper.

It seems that yet again Israel offered Palestinians a state on virtually the entire West Bank, and yet again a Palestinian leader — this time the one widely described as moderate — rejected the offer.

Diehl writes:

In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank — though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert “accepted the principle” of the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees — something no previous Israeli prime minister had done — and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert’s peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it’s almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.

Abbas turned it down. “The gaps were wide,” he said.

Diehl also quotes Abbas as rejecting, again, the notion that he should recognize Israel as the Jewish state, and as saying that the Palestinians can wait without making concessions in part because “the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.”

http://blog.camera.org/archives/…

In 2013 Kerry told the Foreign Affairs Committee “I believe the window for a two-state solution is shutting,” the secretary of state said. “I think we have some period of time – a year to year-and-a-half to two years, or it’s over.”

He added: “Everybody I talk to in the region and all of the supporters globally who care … want us to move forward on a peace effort. They’re all worried about the timing here. So there’s an urgency to this, in my mind, and I intend, on behalf of the president’s instructions, to honour that urgency and see what we can do to move forward.”

Although the conflict exists since 1948, Kerry claims there is an “urgency” to solve it in a short two year window because Obama’s term in office is coming to an end. On March 2015 Newsmax reported that “The White House on Wednesday suggested it could reverse its decades-old policy of using its veto in the United Nations Security Council to protect Israel. It could refuse to veto resolutions related to the Palestinians or introduce a measure of its own, The Wall Street Journal reported. The U.S. could also lend its support to a two-state solution based on Israel’s 1967 borders, a senior White House official told The New York Times.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront…

Obama is in a rush to pass a UNSC resolution imposing a timetable for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank before his time in office ends. He knows that the next administration will not be willing to concede this to the Palestinians without taking into consideration Israel’s security needs.

Obama has to pass this UNSC urgently before his term comes to an end to tie the future US President’s hands. Future administrations will have no choice but to obey to Obama’s UNSC resolution.

To justify the UNSC resolution, Obama needs to create a sense of urgency. Abbas is escalating the violence through stabbing attacks to create the sense of urgency that Obama needs. Abbas wants to provoke an Israeli reaction which Obama can use as an excuse to justify the anti-Israel UNSC resolution.

The Palestinian Media Watch translated an interview by one of Hamas founders Mahmoud al-Zahar to the Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam in which he said “transfer what it has [in Gaza] or just a small part of it to the West Bank, we would be able to settle the battle of the final promise [to destroy Israel] with a speed that no one can imagine…[Some] have said Hamas wants to create an Islamic emirate in Gaza. We won’t do that, but we will build an Islamic state in Palestine, all of Palestine…”

Those who advocate for a solution in the UNSC cannot ignore that what happened in Gaza can also happen in the West Bank. After Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas took power and started missile attack against Israel. If a Palestinian State is created in the West Bank Hamas will attack Israel with missiles from the West Bank as it does from Gaza.

John Kerry is dishonest in not acknowledging that after Gaza the situation has changed and imposing a solution in the UNSC will make the situation much worse, it will make life in Israel impossible and lead to war. Only a person that does not care for the safety of Israel’s citizens would advocate for this. For Kerry it doesn’t matter this UNSC resolution will make the conflict worse and lead to war, he wants to impose it at all costs.

Demanding an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank will make the situation far worse not better. The “Two State Solution” is not as Kerry claims the only option. There is a much better and honest option which is to recognize that the Palestinians already have a State in Jordan. Since the US/EU claim the Arab-Israeli conflict can be solved though a UNSC resolution why not submit one declaring that Jordan is Palestine?

Most of the Jordanian population is Palestinian, the previous King said “Jordan is Palestine, Palestine is Jordan”. The Queen of Jordan Rania Al-Yassin was born in Kuwait to Palestinian parents Faisal Sedki Al Yassin and Ilham Yassin from Tulkarm, Jordan has a Palestinian Queen, the next King of Jordan will be the son of a Palestinian. If Jordan is recognized as the Palestinian State the Arabs currently living in Israel can continue but they will be Jordanian Citizens.

It is not honest for those who seek a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict to ignore that Jordan was also part of British Mandate Palestine. Jordan must also be part of the solution.


Ezequiel Doiny is a author of “Obama’s assault on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount”


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


CALIF. JEWISH STUDENTS VICTORIOUS IN BATTLE AGAINST CAMPUS DISCRIMINATION

CALIF. JEWISH STUDENTS VICTORIOUS IN BATTLE AGAINST CAMPUS DISCRIMINATION

JERUSALEM POST STAFF


As part of the settlement, San Francisco State University agreed to issue a statement affirming that it understands that, for many Jews, Zionism is an important part of their identity.

Students demonstrate at San Francisco State University in San Francisco. (photo credit: STEPHEN LAM / REUTERS)

Jewish students will feel a little safer at California State University. On Wednesday, CSU agreed to a landmark settlement to safeguard Jewish students’ rights on campus. 

The settlement comes just before the scheduled trial for a civil rights lawsuit filed by two Jewish students, Charles Volk and Liam Kern, against CSU and San Francisco State University in particular for alleged discrimination. The students were represented by The Lawfare Project and Winston & Strawn LLP.

As part of the settlement, SFSU agreed to issue a statement affirming that it understands that, for many Jews, Zionism is an important part of their identity. 

Further, the school will hire a coordinator for Jewish student life, allocate $200,000 to support educational outreach efforts to promote diversity and inclusion based on religious identity, and sponsor a campus mural that will be designed by student groups of differing viewpoints.

The school also agreed to retain an independent, external consultant to assess SFSU procedures for enforcement of applicable CSU system-wide anti-dissemination policies and student code of conduct, and to assign all complaints of religious discrimination under executive order (E.O.) 1096 or executive order 1097 to an independent, outside investigator for investigation.

The order is a CSU system-wide policy prohibiting discrimination, harassment, retaliation, sexual misconduct, dating and domestic violence and stalking against employees and third parties. E.O. 1097 also deals with the procedure for addressing such complaints. 

“Today, we have ensured that SFSU will put in place important protections for Jewish and Zionist students to prevent continued discrimination,” said Brooke Goldstein, executive director of the Lawfare Project. “We are confident that this will change the campus climate for the better.”

In the complaints filed against the school and the Board of Trustees of CSU, the plaintiffs asserted that “Jews on campus face racist slurs and epithets” and that they are “often afraid to wear Stars of David or yarmulkes. “

Further, the plaintiffs charged that San Francisco Hillel was blocked from participating in a particular event after initially being invited to participate. The lawsuit claimed this was an act of discrimination, and that the “decision to exclude Hillel from the event was made and then sanctioned by high-ranking university officials.

A university investigation later concurred that Hillel had been discriminated against.

The university also issued a statement on Wednesday, saying that, “The settlement emphasizes the importance of improving student experiences and student lives. It allows SF State to reiterate its commitment to equity and inclusion for all – including those who are Jewish – and reaffirms the values of free expression and diversity of viewpoints that are so critical on a university campus.”


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Zbrodnie wojenne Hamasu przeciwko Izraelowi i Palestyńczykom

Zbrodnie wojenne Hamasu przeciwko Izraelowi i Palestyńczykom

Bassam Tawil
Tłumaczenie: Małgorzata Koraszewska


W ostatnich dniach członkowie Hamasu w Gazie bili, strzelali i aresztowali setki pokojowych palestyńskich protestujących, których jedynym ”przestępstwem” było żądanie godnego życia, pracy i lepszej przyszłości. Wśród pobitych Palestyńczyków było wiele dzieci. Na zdjęciu: Zbrojni członkowie Hamasu w Gazie. (Zdjęcie: Chris McGrath/Getty Images)

Hamas raz jeszcze dowiódł, że istotnie jest grupą terrorystyczną, która uciska własną ludność i nie dopuszcza jej do wyrażania swojej opinii. Pokazał także, że kiedy jest w kłopotach, zrobi wszystko, by odwrócić uwagę od problemów u siebie.

Dla Hamasu najlepszym sposobem odwrócenia uwagi od narastającej frustracji wobec jego rządów jest atakowanie Izraela i Żydów. Wtedy Izrael musi odpowiedzieć, by się bronić. To pozwala Hamasowi na powiedzenie swojej ludności, że nie ma miejsca na wewnętrzne walki i spory, „ponieważ atakują nas Żydzi”. Żaden Palestyńczyk nie odważy się krytykować Hamasu, podczas gdy Izrael rzekomo „atakuje” Hamas”. Każdy, kto by to zrobił, byłby oskarżony o „zdradę” i „kolaborację z syjonistycznym wrogiem”.

To właśnie zdarzyło się w tym tygodniu, kiedy wystrzelono dwie rakiety na Tel Awiw. Atak rakietowy przyszedł wkrótce po tym, jak tysiące Palestyńczyków wyszło na ulice Gazy, żeby protestować przeciwko okropnej sytuacji gospodarczej – przeciw temu, że fundusze przeznaczone dla nich są zabierane na finansowanie terroryzmu – i żądając zakończenia represji Hamasu wobec własnej ludności.

Przywódców Hamasu wyraźnie zaniepokoiły wielkie protesty, jakie odbywały się w Strefie Gazy. Wydawali się również zaniepokojeni zdjęciami i filmami wideo, które pokazywały członków Hamasu, jak biją, strzelają i aresztują setki pokojowych palestyńskich protestujących, których jedynym „przestępstwem” było żądanie godnego życia, pracy i lepszej przyszłości dla ich dzieci.

Przywódcy Hamas prawdopodobnie byliby szczęśliwi widząc izraelski odwet na Gazę za rakiety wystrzelone na Tel Awiw: takie działanie ze strony Izraela uciszyłoby narastający wśród Palestyńczyków gniew na terrorystyczną organizację Hamas, która rządzi nimi od lata 2007 roku.

Rakiety wystrzelone na Tel Awiw i następujące po nich naloty izraelskiej armii, która uderzyła w cele Hamasu i Islamskiego Dżihadu w Strefie Gazy, istotnie przyćmiły wiadomości o starciach między Hamasem a palestyńskimi protestującymi. Nagle wszyscy mówili tylko o rakietowym ataku na Tel Awiw i wydaje się, że Hamasowi uszło na sucho bicie i strzelanie do pokojowo protestujących.

W ostatnich dniach tysiące Palestyńczyków wyszło na ulice w rządzonej przez Hamas Strefie Gazy, by zaprotestować przeciwko koszmarnej sytuacji gospodarczej, pogorszonej przez decyzję Hamasu o nałożeniu nowych podatków. Bezprecedensowe protesty, prowadzone pod hasłem “My chcemy żyć!”, wyraźnie zaskoczyły władców z Hamasu.

Przywódcy Hamasu nie przewidzieli masowych protestów. Przywódcy Hamasu widocznie liczyli, że ich represyjne działania przeciwko Palestyńczykom w Strefie Gazy są tak ostre, że nikt nie ośmieli się publicznie protestować przeciwko coraz gorszej ekonomicznej i humanitarnej sytuacji.

To może wyjaśnić reakcję Hamasu na masowe protesty, która według wszystkich doniesień była histeryczna i z użyciem skrajnej przemocy. W ciągu 24 godzin bojówkarze Hamasu i agenci sił bezpieczeństwa otworzyli ogień do setek protestujących Palestyńczyków, którzy skandowali: „Jesteśmy głodni!” i „Ratujcie Gazę przed zagłodzeniem!”

Palestyńscy świadkowie naoczni powiedzieli, że Hamas używał setek bojówkarzy ze swojego militarnego skrzydła Ezaddin Al-Kassam, jak również agentów bezpieczeństwa, by zmiażdżyć demonstracje. „Wojownicy Al-Kassam napadają, aresztują, grożą, dławią, oblegają i narzucają ograniczenia wolności” – donosił Mohammed Bassouni, mieszkaniec Strefy Gazy.

Zdjęcia rannych Palestyńczyków (złamane ręce, sińce na całym ciele) pojawiły się w mediach społecznościowych, pokazując brutalność przemocy, jakiej Hamas użył do rozpędzenia protestów. Warto też zanotować, że wśród brutalnie pobitych przez Hamas Palestyńczyków było wiele dzieci.

Przemoc na ulicach Strefy Gazy jest prawdopodobnie największa, od kiedy Hamas przechwycił władzę nad Strefą Gazy 12 lat temu. Od tego czasu Hamas trzyma niemal dwa miliony Palestyńczyków jako zakładników swojego ciemiężącego reżimu. Hamas zamienił Strefę Gazy w dyktaturę, gdzie wolność jest atakowana codziennie. Hamas wciągnął Palestyńczyków w szereg wojen z Izraelem, które zniszczyły życie niezliczonym mieszkańcom Gazy.

Zdaniem wielu Palestyńczyków to, co Hamas robi w Strefie Gazy, jest równoznaczne ze zbrodniami wojennymi i zbrodniami wobec ludzkości.

Tymczasem społeczność międzynarodowa, a szczególnie Narody Zjednoczone, nadal dają się oszukiwać. Zamiast wywołać i zażądać odpowiedzialności od Hamasu za jego zbrodnie przeciwko własnej ludności, hipokryci w ONZ, międzynarodowe media i inne międzynarodowe fora nieustannie wskazują oskarżycielskim palcem na Izrael za obronę własnej ludności przeciwko rakietom i pociskom, niemal codziennie wystrzeliwanym na cywilne ośrodki w Izraelu.

Ostatnio w groteskowym oskarżeniu „eksperci” praw człowieka ONZ twierdzili, że Izrael mógł popełnić zbrodnie wojenne przez strzelanie do palestyńskich demonstrantów, którzy próbowali wyłamać płot graniczny między Gazą a Izraelem i wedrzeć się do Izraela. Zastrzeleni demonstranci byli głównie członkami Hamasu i Islamskiego Dżihadu, co obie te organizacje otwarcie przyznały. Innymi słowy, Izrael jest oskarżony o zbrodnie wojenne za obronę swojej granicy przeciwko terrorystom, próbującym wedrzeć się do kraju, by mordować lub porywać Izraelczyków.

Być może mały krok, taki jak obejrzenie łatwo dostępnego materiału, wyjaśniłoby sprawę. Ci „eksperci” praw człowieka ONZ mogliby, dla odmiany, rzucić okiem na wideo i zdjęcia przychodzące ze Strefy Gazy, żeby zobaczyć, kto jest naprawdę odpowiedzialny za zbrodnie wojenne i zbrodnie przeciwko ludzkości: Hamas. Jego członkowie otwierają ogień do pokojowych protestujących, którzy ryzykują własne życie, by zakończyć straszne warunki ekonomiczne, jakie ich władcy stworzyli przez swoją katastrofalną politykę w Strefie Gazy.

Przywódcy Hamasu – i tylko Hamasu – popełniają zbrodnie wojenne w Gazie i wokół niej. Popełniają zbrodnie wojenne przeciwko Żydom i popełniają zbrodnie wojenne przeciwko własnej ludności. Pora, by „eksperci” praw człowieka i zachodnie media obudziły się i zobaczyły fakty.

Hamas próbuje teraz ukryć swoje zbrodnie przeciwko swojej ludności przez wystrzelenie rakiet na Izrael. Zamiast potępiać Izrael za to, że się broni, ONZ powinna natychmiast wysłać komisję dochodzeniową do zbadania zbrodni wojennych Hamasu. Jeśli ONZ decyduje się tego nie robić, mogła by skorzystać z małego kroku i obejrzeć łatwo dostępny materiał, taki jak definicja “udzielania pomocy w dokonaniu przestępstwa”.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Holocaust Denier David Irving Promoting Guided of Nazi Death Camp Sites, in Poland

Holocaust Denier David Irving Promoting New Guided Tour of Nazi Death Camp Sites, Hitler’s HQ in Poland

Ben Cohen


Holocaust denier David Irving speaks to journalists in Warsaw during a 2010 visit to death camps and other World War II sites in Poland. Photo: Reuters / Kacper Pempel.

The notorious British Holocaust denier David Irving has announced that he will lead a tour of Nazi death and concentration camp sites in Poland later this year.

The 81-year-old Irving advertised the tour on his personal website over the weekend. “The 2019 tour starts on September 1 from Warsaw, Poland, and ends back there on September 9,” Irving wrote. “It includes the bunker headquarters of Adolf Hitler (‘The Wolf’s Lair’), SS chief Heinrich Himmler (‘Hochwald’), and the German Army high command, and the sinister Operation Reinhardt sites (Treblinka, Sobibór, Belzec, Majdanek).”

Since his reputation as a historian was destroyed by his failed libel action in the British High Court against the American scholar Deborah Lipstadt in 2000, Irving has supplemented his income with World War II-related historical tours in Europe, as well as sales of his reissued books and occasional speaking tours of the US. According to his website, Irving’s next American tour is scheduled for the spring.

Denial of the Nazi Holocaust of six million Jews is illegal in Poland — where the September tour takes place — under legislation dating back to 1998. Treblinka, Sobibór, Belzec and Majdanek were Nazi death camps that became operational from the middle of 1942, as the German regime stepped up the extermination of the Jews through its “Operation Reinhardt.” About 1.7 million Jews perished in the Operation Reinhardt camps, the majority in purpose-built gas chambers, along with an unknown number of Poles, Roma and Soviet prisoners of war.

By his own admission, Irving and his groups have behaved disruptively and provocatively on previous similar tours. A journal kept by Irving on his 2011 tour contained repeated references to the antics of Hugo Haig-Thomas, his personal assistant. Standing outside a gas chamber at the Majdanek camp, Irving related that “Hugo H-T says rather blasphemously, ‘If I were a prisoner, I think I’d ask for the window seat.’” Another entry recounted Haig-Thomas playing the “Horst Wessel Lied,” the Nazi party’s anthem, on the piano in the bar of the hotel where the group was staying.

Irving himself proudly confessed to having disrupted a school student’s tour of Majdanek while on the same visit. “The guide delivers a brief and impassionate (sic) account of the horrors which occurred in this ‘gas chamber,’” Irving wrote. “I suggest loudly that ‘skepticism’ is called for, and she is stunned.”

Irving went on to say that teacher had made “some retort” to his uncalled-for intervention. However, “unable to speak Polish,” he continued, “I reply in Russian, which is much the same: Not possible. She gathers up her flock and sweeps out clucking indignantly.”

Anti-Fascism & Far Right@FFRAFAction
Nazi Holocaust Denier David Irving is planning to act as a tour guide taking visitors to sites of extermination camps at Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor & Majdanek.
This grotesque insult to the dead has to be stopped.
297 people are talking about this

Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com