Monthly Archives: April 2019

The United Nations Bias Between Jews and Palestinians Regarding Property Rights

Posted on by
5

On December 10, 1948, the United Nations passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In it, the global body sought to ensure that all people had basic human rights as laid out in the preamble:

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,”

Such rights afforded to all people included the right to own property as enumerated in Article 17:

“(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”

With such understanding, it is worth delving into the rights of Jews and Arabs to own property in the holy land.

Jews Owning Property in the Holy Land

Even before the UDHR was codified, international law encouraged Jews to live and settle throughout Palestine, which at the time included areas which today are commonly called, Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan. The Mandate of Palestine of 1922 stated clearly the mission to “secure the establishment of the Jewish national home,” and encourage “close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.” Further, the law laid out that “[n]o discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.”

International law stated that everyone – Jew, Arab and all others – could live throughout the land, but it was specifically Jews who were encouraged to settle the land and establish a national home throughout the entirety of the Palestine Mandate. Article 25 of the Mandate did allow the British to separate off the area east of the Jordan River (now known as Jordan), but it still forbade such entity from banning people from living and owning property because of their religion.

But that’s precisely what happened.

On September 23, 1922, the British separated that area into “Transjordan” and soon recognized a new government there. That government believed that Jews had no rights to own land. When Jordan invaded Israel in 1948 and took over the area now known as the “West Bank” and eastern Jerusalem, it evicted every Jew. When Jordan passed a nationality law in 1954, it specifically forbade the Jews from eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank from getting citizenship. The Jordanians also passed a law that made it a capital offense for any Arab to sell land to a Jew. The Palestinian Authority has proudly inherited and maintained that policy today.

And the world seemed to endorse this Jew-free formula.

Even beyond the dozens of Muslim states which refused to recognize the basic existence of Israel, in 2014, former US President Barack Obama chastised Jews for legally buying homes in the predominantly Arab section of eastern Jerusalem stating that the “US condemns the recent occupation of residential buildings in the neighborhood of Silwan by people whose agenda provokes tensions.” The inherent dignity of Jews to own property was viewed as secondary to the demands of the antisemitic Arab neighbors.

For Muslims nations, progressives and much of the world, the inalienable human right to own property did not cover Jews, and in their homeland, no less.

Arabs With Rights to Ancestors’ Homes

In stark contrast to Jews who uniquely have been determined as not worthy of basic human rights and dignity, the United Nations extended the property rights for Palestinian Arabs that do not exist for any other group of people.

On November 22, 1974 the UN General Assembly passed A/RES/3236 (XXIX) which granted Palestinian Arabs the rights to not just own property but the “inalienable right” to go actually “return” to homes and property where ancestors lived generations ago.

“2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;”

The concept was and remains without precedent. Do Americans have the right to return to homes in other continents where great grandparents lived 100 years ago? Even more outrageous, most of the local Arabs in Palestine did not own the house or land; it was mostly owned by wealthy people from other areas including Turkey and Syria. That is why the UNRWA definition of a “refugee” simply states that it is for “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine,” not that they OWNED any property. Even more, the Palestinian “refugees” which concern the UN simply lived in Palestine between 1946 and 1948, with most having moved to the area from neighboring Arab lands in the preceding years.

Not surprisingly, the UN branded “Zionism is a form of racism,” and “a threat to world peace” just a year later as it pushed resolutions to eliminate Jewish rights and dignity while advancing those of the Arabs in their midst.

Jews have been uniquely stripped of their “inalienable rights” to purchase and own homes in the Jewish homeland, while Palestinian Arabs have been uniquely granted “inalienable rights” to move to houses and villages which no longer exist in a foreign country because ancestors once lived and worked there, even if they were just renting for a couple of years.

With the absurdity of such biased declarations, why should Israel pay any heed to the rantings of the rabidly antisemitic and biased body?

Related First.One.Through articles:

The Original Nakba: The Division of “TransJordan”

The Long History of Dictating Where Jews Can Live Continues

Time to Dissolve Key Principles of the “Inalienable Rights of Palestinians”

No Jews Allowed in Palestine

The Parameters of Palestinian Dignity

Compensation Fund for Palestinian Arabs’ and MENA Jews’ Lost Property

The United Nations Oxymoronic Care for Israel

The United Nations’ Adoption of Palestinians, Enables It to Only Find Fault With Israel

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough


Homes in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem,
a city which has been majority Jewish since the 1860’s

 

The Jews of Jerusalem In Situ

Posted on by
16

The Cambridge Dictionary defines the term “in situ” as “in the original place, or the place where something should be,” or, alternatively, “in the original place instead of being moved to another place.” In the world of archaeology, there is nothing more valuable than finding an object “in situ” as it gives the ancient room, building and town where the object was found, important context in both time and purpose. Unfortunately, due to ancient sites being raided for centuries, most historical finds are traded in the black market, destroying the ability to accurately relay the provenance of the object and the story of the place from which it was taken.

However, last week the world was blessed by two remarkable discoveries in the City of David, just south of the Old City of Jerusalem’s external walls, of ancient Jewish objects found in situ.

In the ruins of what is currently thought to be a large municipal building dating back to the 6th or 7th century BCE, was a clay seal bearing the inscription “LeNathan-Melech Eved HaMelech – which translates to “[belonging] to Nathan-Melech, Servant of the King.” Such servant to the king is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible in 2 Kings 23:11.

The second item is a blue agate seal saying “LeIkar Ben Matanyahu” – “(belonging) to Ikar son of Matanyahu.”

Finding these two items in their original location is a blessing and curse for many. For those people who enjoy learning about history, these ancient Jewish finds in what is believed to be the original capital of the unified kingdom of Israel under King David is considered an important piece of the puzzle to understanding the location and way of life of the Jewish people in Jerusalem thousands of years ago. However, for those people who want to see modern Jews evicted from Jerusalem in favor of Arabs, the findings present an obstacle in convincing Jews that they should abandon their history and religion.

Like the finding of the seal of King Hezkiah in Jerusalem in December 2015, and the burnt remains of a Torah scroll found in a synagogue in Ein Gedi, these findings attest to the long history of Jews living throughout the area east of the Green Line. Arab news sites like Al Jazeera refuse to print any of these stories, in an effort to continue to lie to its readership about the history of the Jews in the holy land which predates Islam by thousands of years.

The incredible discoveries makes one consider the two alternative definitions for “in situ” described above: the ancient Jewish finds in Jerusalem were located “in the original place instead of being moved to another place,” while the modern Israeli Jews themselves and the capital of the Jewish State are “in the original place, or the place where something should be,” in Jerusalem.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Gimme that Old-Time Religion

Squeezing Zionism

The New York Times will Keep on Telling You: Jews are not Native to Israel

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

For The NY Times, Antisemitism Exists Because the Alt-Right is Racist and Israel is Racist

Posted on by
32

Pure hatred is ugly in any situation. Hatred begotten of a sick mindset that views certain people as deeply sinister and sub-human resides in the darker shade of the evil shadow of mankind. That’s what racism and antisemitism is and has always been, and it should be easy to denounce clearly and without condition.

But the increasingly far-left mainstream media like The New York Times cannot do so.

On April 5, 2019, the paper ran a cover story with no picture called “Extremes of Right and Left Share an Ancient Bias.” The title made this writer hopeful that the paper would finally acknowledge the mainstreaming of antisemitism that has infected the alt-left, just as it continues to address the antisemitism of the alt-right.

But the Times could not.

The paper relayed its perceptions as to the causes of the spike in antisemitism over the past five years. It described the hatred from the alt-right as coming from racists and neo-Nazis in Europe and America. The paper included three color photographs on page A8 highlighting some of those attacks.

The Times would also include one color photograph of an opposition march against the UK Labour Party which has been peddling anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda for several years. However, there was no picture of the Labour party head Jeremy Corbyn celebrating with Islamic terrorists and sporting the four finger Muslim Brotherhood “rabia” salute or dozens of other anti-Israel and antisemitic stories emanating from the UK’s left-wing party.

There were no pictures of Ilhan Omar, Louis Farrakhan or other Muslims and people of color who comprise the third ugly leg of the antisemitic trifecta. There were no pictures of the victims throughout Europe of Muslim antisemitism, or of the Chabad House in India where Muslim terrorists went out of their way to kill the handful of Jews in India, while engaged in a massive terrorist operation. Of course, there were no pictures of Muslims attacking Jews in Israel.

The Times has taken the position that the antisemitism from the alt-left and Muslims is because of Israel’s actions against Palestinian Arabs. The final 14 paragraphs of the article – meant to discuss antisemitism – described how Israel’s government is comprised of far right-wing racists who persecute Muslims. The implication is therefore that the leftists and Muslims were protesters against racism, rather than anti-Semites themselves.

Fourteen paragraphs about Israelis being racists. Not Muslims.

  • The Times decided to not print the ADL polls which show that Muslims are three to five times more antisemitic than Christians in Europe.
  • The Times decided to not point out how millions of dollars from the Arab world has poured into American universities to fund Arab Studies programs and anti-Israel activities.
  • The Times ignored the leaders of the “Women’s March” attacking Jews and Israel.
  • The Times would not print Louis Farrakhan’s vile comments or that his audience dwarfed the crowd of neo-Nazis in Charlottesville.
  • The Times ignored the long history of Muslims killing Jews around the world long before the 2014 War From Gaza, including the Iranians blowing up the Jewish Center in Argentina in 1994 or the mass shooting of a Turkish synagogue in 1986.

The Times refuses to portray fanatical Muslims as deeply anti-Semitic just as it refuses to acknowledge the evolving deep hatred from the alt-left (NY liberal politicians refused to allow Jewish schools to have police protection!) Every violent action Muslims and the alt-left take are protests, not antisemitism.

Further, the Times spins a narrative that the alt-left and radical Muslims are in the right to protest Israel, because Israel is supposedly a racist colonial oppressor of indigenous Arabs. The paper argues that it is the treatment of Palestinian Arabs which upsets the left-wing, as oppose to the very existence of Israel. The phrase “treatment of Palestinians” has become commonplace in the paper as the source of the protests. The paper will almost never mention the virulently antisemitic Hamas Charter which calls for the death of Jews, or note that Palestinians voted Hamas to 58% of parliament with such charter. It will not call Hamas a terrorist group even though it has been designated as such by the United States and many other countries.

For the Times, antisemitism is ancient but the the bias has different origins. The alt-right is evil, your father’s antisemitism, easy to recognize by the white nationalists which should be condemned. But the newer antisemitism isn’t really evil at all, as it’s a legitimate form of protest by Muslims and progressives against racist Zionists.

The fact that all three groups want Jews dead and the Jewish State destroyed is a coincidence of conclusion. Please don’t besmirch progressives and Muslims or we’ll have to label you as alt-right racists too.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Between Right-Wing and Left-Wing Antisemitism

Abbas’s Speech and the Window into Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism

A Review of the The New York Times Anti-Israel Bias

CNN Will Not Report Islamic Terrorism

The Many Lies of Jimmy Carter

Ramifications of Ignoring American Antisemitism

What do you Recognize in the Palestinians?

The Palestinians aren’t “Resorting to Violence”; They are Murdering and Waging War

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough