Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

When You Understand Israel’s May 1948 Borders, You Understand There is No “Occupation”

When You Understand Israel’s May 1948 Borders, You Understand There is No “Occupation”

The 1967 War did not begin “occupation” of “Palestinian Land”; it brought Israeli territory back under Israeli control from the Egyptians and Jordanians who invaded Israel back in 1948.

http://www.thetower.org/article/the-mendacious-maps-of-palestinian-loss/

There are really only two ways to consider the borders of Israel when it declared independence in May 1948: the entirety of the Palestine Mandate OR the proposed border put forward by the United Nations General Assembly in 1947.

As discussed below, only one of these is legally valid, while both options demonstrate that Israel does not occupy any “Palestinian Land.”

May 1948 Borders: the Palestine Mandate

When the Ottoman Empire broke up, the French and British assumed control of various mandates until the local populations were able to establish their own functioning governments. The French took the Lebanon and Syrian mandates, and each of them became countries in 1943 and 1946, respectively, after the last of the French troops withdrew. The British took the Palestine and Iraq mandates. Iraq declared its independence in 1932. As for Palestine, the situation was more labored and complicated.

The 1922 international mandate made clear that the British were to help the Jews reestablish their homeland in the territory. However, the land east of the Jordan River was viewed as a land that the British could option to separate (Article 25), which they did. That land ultimately became the Kingdom of Jordan.

Regarding the rest of the Palestine Mandate, the British had a difficult time dealing with a local Arab population which did not want to see a flood of Jews enter the area. The multi-year Arab riots between 1936 and 1939 led the British to consider dividing the land between the Jews and Arabs (the 1937 Peel Commission which was not adopted) and placing a cap on the number of Jews allowed to enter the territory (the 1939 White Paper which was enacted).

By the end of the devastation of World War II, the British had enough rebuilding to do at home and the Jews clearly needed to have the cap on immigration terminated, so the Brits asked the United Nations to tackle the issue in 1946. The UN General Assembly voted to partition the land between the Jews and Arabs in a non-binding vote in November 1947. All of the Arab countries voted ‘no’ and the partition never took place.

When the British withdrew their last troops in May 1948, the Jews declared the new Jewish State of Israel. Like the Mandates of Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, the British troop withdrawal was accompanied by the declaration of a new state on the ENTIRETY OF THE MANDATE, including areas which have now become known as Gaza and the West Bank.

May 1948: the 1947 Partition Plan

When Israel declared its independence, the Arab community was still seeking to control the entirety of the Palestine Mandate itself. It rejected the State of Israel in 1948 the same way it rejected the 1947 proposed UN Partition Plan. It considered both illegal, null and void, invasions of their own Arab land.

When five Arab armies attacked Israel when it declared independence, the invasion did not start at Jerusalem. For the Arabs, all of the land was a single contiguous unit. The lines of the Partition Plan were as invisible and irrelevant as the proposed borders of the Peel Commission.

And so it was for the Jews.

The 1949 Armistice Lines / the Green Line

When the international community talks about “occupation” today of “Palestinian Land,” they are referring to the borders as they existed before the outbreak of the Six Day War in June 1967. These were the frontier areas that came into being at the end of the 1948-9 Israel War of Independence. These Armistice Lines established between Israel and a number of the invading countries were drawn in the maps in green, so also became known as the “Green Lines.”

The Egyptian army took over the Gaza Strip area. The Israeli-Egyptian truce specifically stated that those Armistice Lines were not to be construed as final borders. Similarly, the Jordanian army took over much of eastern Palestine, which over time became known as the “West Bank.” The Israeli-Jordanian agreement also stated that the lines were not meant as borders.

However, Jordan took a number of particularly hostile moves. Not only did it evict all Jews from the “West Bank,” it annexed the territory in 1950 in a move not recognized by almost the entire world. It took a further step of granting all of the Arabs who lived in the West Bank Jordanian citizenship in 1954 (Jews were specifically excluded from becoming Jordanians).

From 1949 until 1967, the land was divided between Israel, Egypt and Jordan. There was no Palestine.

It was in this window of time that many countries began to recognize the State of Israel. While the frontiers of the land were subject to possible modifications as outlined in the two armistice agreements, the countries recognized the Israeli sovereignty up to those lines. And so it is until this day.

The 1967 “Borders”

The fighting continued to rage between the Israelis and Egyptians and Jordanians between 1949 and 1967.

Arab fighters would cross the Green Line into Israel from Egypt and Jordan and kill Israelis in night raids and Israel would retaliate. The United Nations would debate the “Question on Palestine,” particularly as over 700,000 Arabs who fled the fighting zone were not allowed to return to towns in Israel. And the Palestinian independence movement would develop, with the establishment of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964, whose stated mission was to destroy Israel and reclaim the entirety of the Palestine Mandate for Arabs.

As fate would have it, the Jordanians attacked Israel in June 1967, after Israel launched a preemptive defensive war against Syria and Egypt which were about to attack. The Jordanians lost all of the West Bank which they had illegally annexed, the Egyptians lost Gaza and the Syrians lost the Golan Heights.

The 1949 Armistice Lines which were established and understood to be temporary, somehow morphed into the minds of many as the 1967 “borders,” implying a new sense of permanence, even though the war did the exact opposite – it reestablished Israeli control of the entire Palestine Mandate and reclaimed its boundaries of May 1948.

Israel did itself no favors. Rather than clearly state that its borders had been reestablished, it “annexed” the eastern portion of Jerusalem which had been under Jordanian control and only established military rule over the West Bank. It did this – much like it handed control of the Jewish Temple Mount to the Jordanian Waqf – in the hopes of winning over global support for peace. So much for that theory.

No Palestinian Land / No “Occupation”

As the history above details, the Palestinians quest for self-rule has been aspirational. The global community has attempted to create a new sovereign Arab Palestinian country, or to somehow give the Arabs who reside in Gaza and the West Bank self-determination. The Arabs in Gaza got self-determination in 2005 when the Israeli troops left the area, and the majority of Arabs in the West Bank also have some self-determination in “Area A” and to a lesser extent in “Area B” when Israel handed control of select lands to the Palestinian Authority (PA) as part of the Oslo II Accords of 1995.

But there is no “Palestinian Land” beyond these lands which the PA controls. [See Featured Image] The balance is Israeli territory as it was from the time Israel declared its independence. The 1967 War did not begin “occupation” of “Palestinian Land”; it brought Israeli territory back under Israeli control from the Egyptians and Jordanians who invaded Israel back in 1948.

As the only “Palestinian Land” that exists today are those which Israel handed to the Palestinian Authority, it is impossible for there to be any “occupation.”

————-

[Featured Image source: The Tower]

This post first appeared at Paul Gherkin’s blog, FirstOneThrough.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

CaliforniaJimbo | July 27, 2019 at 4:58 pm

I cannot see in my lifetime any settling of Jewish / Arab affairs. Arafat was given everything he asked for and still rejected it. These people have been fighting for over 2000 years and I do not see it ending anytime soon. I believe the only reason that Israel has survived is due to our support and the fact they have Nuclear weapons.
I fear the day any of the Islamic countries gain a nuclear weapon. Once Iran gets one, they WILL use it. The only people the Mullahs in Iran hate more than us are Israelis.

    HImmanuelson in reply to CaliforniaJimbo. | July 27, 2019 at 10:50 pm

    I don’t disagree with much of your post but this part is “conventional wisdom” that is incorrect, as almost all of the conventional wisdom on that dispute is incorrect.

    “These people have been fighting for over 2000 years and I do not see it ending anytime soon”. No, there was no such thing as a Muslim until 1300 years ago. Even then, Jews had over 2000 years of history on that land.

    Also, conventional wisdom says this is a land dispute and it most definitely is NOT. If it were a land dispute it would have been settled decades ago. This conflict is almost entire about the Muslim world refusing to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish country in their midst; THAT’S why Arafat turned down an offer that consisted of virtually everything he asked for.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to CaliforniaJimbo. | July 27, 2019 at 10:52 pm

    Which is why I believe in doing onto others as they would do unto you, FIRST.

bobinreverse | July 27, 2019 at 5:48 pm

And the funny thing is US Jews despise Trump who is doing all possible to keep Iran from getting nukes and worship Barry O who did all possible fort Iran to get bikes and to use them against Israel and eventually here. Another 9 11 but Nukes.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to bobinreverse. | July 27, 2019 at 10:54 pm

    After which Iran would cease to exist.

      HImmanuelson in reply to JusticeDelivered. | July 28, 2019 at 12:48 am

      Iran may no longer exist in that scenario but the mullahs are just fanatical and crazy enough to trade Iran for Israel.

      Mutually assured destruction only worked for the US and Russia because both countries wanted to continue existing.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to HImmanuelson. | July 28, 2019 at 1:09 am

        Don’t be so sure, they need many nukes to acutally destroy Israel, but the psycho’s in control won’t wait they will detonate the first one, probably in Tel Aviv and then Israeli forces will destroy every major city in Iran.

        Once Israel has made the choice they don’t tend to screw around about it.

          JusticeDelivered in reply to Gremlin1974. | July 28, 2019 at 7:38 am

          I think that Iran would make an excellent spent nuclear waste & belligerent Muslim depository, surrounded by a vast glass parking lot shortly after nuking anything in Israel.

          HImmanuelson in reply to Gremlin1974. | July 29, 2019 at 12:30 am

          Gremlin, Israel is the size of New Jersey, with just a few big cities. It wouldn’t take a lot of nukes to destroy Israel any more than it would take a lot of nukes to destroy New Jersey.

          Israel would absolutely destroy Iran when they retaliated but Israel would still be destroyed and uninhabitable. The thing is, the mad Mullahs are on the record as saying it would be worth it, there are a lot of other Muslims in the world that would still be alive.

    Actually it’s not US Jews. It’s US non-orthodox Jews. Orthodox Jews are very, very conservative and tend to support Israel and vote republican. By huge majorities. I would guess at least 90%. It is the non-orthodox who traded Judaism for Liberalism, unfortunately. Hopefully they will see the errors of their ways and return speedily.

      HImmanuelson in reply to krb. | July 29, 2019 at 12:31 am

      You’re painting with too wide a brush. There are a number of Conservative Jews and even a sizable minority of Reform Jews that voted Republican in the last elections.

Israel should annex the West Bank and bulldoze Gaza into the sea. If there are any “Palestinians” who don’t like that, they can go live with their Arab brothers in an Arab country. The Arabs will welcome them like kings (sarc – the Arabs don’t want them).

    DaveGinOly in reply to Elric. | July 28, 2019 at 5:57 pm

    In 1948, Arab nations expelled 840,000 Jews (true “refugees,” they were ejected from their homes), most of which were taken in by Israel. At the same time, the Arabs allowed the “Palestinians” (fake “refugees,” who voluntarily fled their homes) to languish in Gaza to become poster children for the evils of Zionism. It was a political decision by the Arabs to leave them there for their propaganda value, with no regard for their well-being as fellow Muslims.

“Regarding the rest of the Palestinian mandate, ….”

The Palestinian part of the mandate is the huge section that because the Kingdom of Jordan; the rest is Israel.

What is so hard about this?

    JusticeDelivered in reply to LIDavidD. | July 27, 2019 at 11:05 pm

    It is notable that so called palestinians are rejects from Jordan. Jordan knows that they are really stupid troublemakers.

      The destruction of Lebanon by Falestinian militia ejected by Jordan and the murders of Jews at the 1972 Olympics shows how sane and peaceful these Falestinians are. Their inability to even pronounce the name of their supposed historical country shows how shaky their claim to Palestine is.

People have some strange ideas about the Palestinian Mandate.

While the original Palestinian Mandate charged Britain with safeguarding the historic homeland of the Jews, the White Paper of 1939 stated that the Mandate had been met. It limited Jewish immigration, restricted Arab to Jewish land transfers and that an independent state in Palestine could not be a Jewish state, but rather one which protected the rights of all its citizens equally.

But, no such state was set up. When the British left the Palestine territory, a group of Jewish residents unilaterally declared the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel. Now, it did use the boundaries established by the non-binding boundaries proposed by the UN in 1947. But, the government declared was nit set up by the UN, Britain nor was it voted in by a universal plebiscite. So, SURPRISE, just as with the establishment of the United States, someone with a vested interest in the territory objected. Also, like the US, Israel maintained its existence and even expanded its territory through armed conflict.

So, whatever the “borders” of Israel were in 1948 are irrelevant. Israel was established through force of arms and expanded its borders through armed conflict. And, the Jews had no greater right to the territory than other groups living there in 1948.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Mac45. | July 27, 2019 at 11:24 pm

    History of the region is complicated, yet if you are going to talk about force of conflict, you should at include the fact that in every case those conflicts were started by Arabs. Those who start and lose wars should have to pay, and loss of land is an appropriate outcome.

    I am not claiming that Israel is always right, but they sure as hell are in the right at least an order of magnitude more often then their enemies.

      Of course these conflicts were “started” b y the Arabs. The Arabs viewed the Jewish immigrants to Palestine as being trespassers who unilaterally took control of the area without the consent of the other long time inhabitants of the area, the Arab population.

      What people either do not know or refuse to admit is that no world power authorized the establishment of Israel. Not the UN, Britain, which had control of the territory following WWI. None of the surrounding nations, no one. A group of Jewish residents arbitrarily and unilaterally simply declared a portion of that territory to be the State of Israel, a religious state. They held that through force of arms and then expanded their territory through armed conflict. This has been done thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of time through out history. But, some people feel the need to attempt to justify what was essentially an effective land grab.

        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | July 28, 2019 at 1:14 am

        The Arabs viewed the Jewish immigrants to Palestine as being trespassers

        The Arabs knew very well who were the indigenous people of the land.

        the other long time inhabitants of the area, the Arab population.

        Most of the Arab residents in 1948 were recent immigrants. And unlike the Jews they were immigrants, not natives returning home.

        group of Jewish residents arbitrarily and unilaterally simply declared a portion of that territory to be the State of Israel, a religious state.

        Again, this is an outright lie. The State of Israel was not and is not a religious state. Maybe it should be, but it isn’t.

          Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | July 28, 2019 at 2:02 pm

          ” The Arabs viewed the Jewish immigrants to Palestine as being trespassers

          The Arabs knew very well who were the indigenous people of the land.”

          Most of the Jews, who were in Palestine in 1948, immigrated there since 1900. They came mainly from Europe and were comprised of several different ethnicities. So, they were HARDLY the INDIGENOUS people, at the time. Now, by your reasoning, the current non-Native American inhabitants of the US would have to cede their current control of any land to which a prior group of inhabitants laid claim. Good lock with that.

          ” the other long time inhabitants of the area, the Arab population.

          Most of the Arab residents in 1948 were recent immigrants. And unlike the Jews they were immigrants, not natives returning home.

          Look, a Jew is someone who ascribes to the Jewish faith. A Jew is not a separate and distinct ethnicity. If Sammy Davis, jr, had immigrted to Israel, he would have been immigrating as a member of a religious faith, not as a member of an ethnic group which had some long ago connection to the territory. Also, the Arabs had been living in the territory for the last 1000 years and were the majority at the time.

          ” group of Jewish residents arbitrarily and unilaterally simply declared a portion of that territory to be the State of Israel, a religious state.

          Again, this is an outright lie. The State of Israel was not and is not a religious state. Maybe it should be, but it isn’t.”

          Not a lie. The modern State of Israel was established to benefit a specific religious group, the Jews. And, it readily acknowledges that it is a religious state, even today. Though no religious requirement exists for citizenship or to hold political office, the state is still disposed to Jewish residents, at the expense of Arab residents.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 30, 2019 at 3:47 am

          Look, a Jew is someone who ascribes to the Jewish faith. A Jew is not a separate and distinct ethnicity.

          WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

          Jews are not a religion, Jews are a nation that has a religion. Most members of the nation do not believe in the religion.

          Being a Jew is exactly like being a USAn or a Frenchman; it’s a matter of birth or naturalization, not belief. A Jew is a Jew no matter what he believes. There are many atheist Jews, Christian Jews, Buddhist Jews, etc. Cardinal Lustiger was a Jew. Cardinal O’Connor was a Jew, though he didn’t know it. But a gentile who believes everything Judaism teaches but does not lawfully convert is not a Jew. In exactly the same way, someone who loves the USA and everything it stands for but has not been lawfully naturalized is not a USAn, while the likes of Barack 0bama and John Walker Lindh are.

          The modern State of Israel was established to benefit a specific religious group, the Jews. And, it readily acknowledges that it is a religious state, even today.

          No, it does not. It is not and never has been a religious state, and to claim otherwise is an outright lie.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 30, 2019 at 3:52 am

          Most of the Jews, who were in Palestine in 1948, immigrated there since 1900.

          They did not immigrate, they returned. Israel was their homeland, the only place they were from. Everywhere else, no matter how long Jews had lived there, they were told to go back where they came from, because everyone knew and acknowledged that they were not from those places, they were foreigners and temporary visitors, who expected to go home as soon as that became possible.

          So, they were HARDLY the INDIGENOUS people, at the time.

          That is exactly what they were and are. Jews are indigenous to Israel, and to nowhere else.

          Now, by your reasoning, the current non-Native American inhabitants of the US would have to cede their current control of any land to which a prior group of inhabitants laid claim. Good lock with that.

          If you have people who owned the land you’re occupying, and had it forcibly stolen from them, and have kept their claim alive all these years, then they can go to court and reclaim it.

    Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | July 27, 2019 at 11:33 pm

    the Jews had no greater right to the territory than other groups living there in 1948.

    That entire territory has belonged to the Jewish nation for over 3300 years. If someone forces you out of your home it doesn’t stop being yours. Stolen property doesn’t stop belonging to the owner just because time has passed. Even adverse possession (which doesn’t work against a government) rests on the owner having abandoned the property by allowing others to use it openly and notoriously without making any protest. Ever since the Jews lost the land they have been serving notice on the world three times a day, every day, of their intention to return home and retake possession. That’s better than publishing an ad in a newspaper once every three years or whatever [your state’s name here]’s adverse possession law requires.

    Further, under modern international law, the last binding international agreement on the land was at San Remo, which decided the entire territory was to become a Jewish homeland. The UK’s mandate was conditioned on that, and when it restricted Jewish immigration and banned Jews from purchasing land it violated and forfeited its mandate.

      Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | July 28, 2019 at 12:16 am

      You really should invest in an encyclopedia. The territory has belonged to everybody but the Jews for the last 2600 years.

      As to someone forcing you out of your home and it still being yours, the Israelites invaded the territory, if you believe the accounts in the Torah and Bible. Not to mention seizing the lands of those they conquered as they expanded north. So, do the people who lived there when they invaded actually “own the land” or do the invading Israelites?

      So, under your legal argument, I guess that none of the current residents of any area in the Us actually own their property, if it was previously inhabited by Native American tribes from whom it was “stolen”. LOL.LOL, LOL. Please. You can not be serious. There hasn’t been a nation of Israel or Judah for over 2000 years and yet you are trying to push forward a legal claim based upon adherence to a religious faith? I wonder how much of the State of Israel Sammy Davis, jr.’s ancestors were entitled to.

      Ah, San Remo. The San Remo conference contained the following text:

      “The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

      It incorporated the British Balfour Agreement [1917] but, as you can clearly see, nothing could be done which would in any way prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Now, I think that establishing a theological government could be taken as prejudicing the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish inhabitants, who were the majority population in the territory at the time.

      No, Ben-Gurion and Co. unilaterally declared the existence of a nation-state, Israel, without any authority to do so. And they held it by force of arms.

        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | July 28, 2019 at 12:56 am

        The territory has belonged to everybody but the Jews for the last 2600 years.

        Lie. It has belonged to the Jews in exactly the same way that any stolen property belongs to its owner.

        As to someone forcing you out of your home and it still being yours, the Israelites invaded the territory, if you believe the accounts in the Torah and Bible. Not to mention seizing the lands of those they conquered as they expanded north. So, do the people who lived there when they invaded actually “own the land” or do the invading Israelites?

        Who are those people? Where are they? They no longer exist, and left no heirs, so they can’t own anything.

        So, under your legal argument, I guess that none of the current residents of any area in the Us actually own their property, if it was previously inhabited by Native American tribes from whom it was “stolen”.

        Did the tribe living there at the time own it? In what sense? Did they even have a concept of land ownership? If so, do they still exist, and have they continued to assert their ownership throughout this time? If so then of course it’s theirs. How could it not be?

        There hasn’t been a nation of Israel or Judah for over 2000 years

        That is an outright and obvious lie. The Jewish nation has continued to exist for all that time. When did it disappear, and how could it then come back to life?

        I wonder how much of the State of Israel Sammy Davis, jr.’s ancestors were entitled to.

        What have his ancestors got to do with it? He’s a member of the nation and has the same share in its assets as a naturalized USAn or Frenchman has in those nations’ assets.

        The rest of your comment is either so asinine or such a vicious lie that it deserves its own rebuttal, so I’m ending this here and will continue in the next comment.

          Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | July 28, 2019 at 2:33 pm

          ” The territory has belonged to everybody but the Jews for the last 2600 years.

          Lie. It has belonged to the Jews in exactly the same way that any stolen property belongs to its owner.”

          The argument that the land was stolen, again? Not gonna wash. Try again.

          “As to someone forcing you out of your home and it still being yours, the Israelites invaded the territory, if you believe the accounts in the Torah and Bible. Not to mention seizing the lands of those they conquered as they expanded north. So, do the people who lived there when they invaded actually “own the land” or do the invading Israelites?

          Who are those people? Where are they? They no longer exist, and left no heirs, so they can’t own anything.”

          There were several tribes, including the Canaanites who lived in the territory. And, I’m sure that their ethnic successors live in the region. Never forget, that the current Jewish population, of the world, is NOT an ethnicity. It is a religious group. Sammy Davis’ would have no ethnic ties to Palestine. Nor would anyone of Bulgar, Frank, or another European ethnic origin.

          ” So, under your legal argument, I guess that none of the current residents of any area in the Us actually own their property, if it was previously inhabited by Native American tribes from whom it was “stolen”.

          Did the tribe living there at the time own it? In what sense? Did they even have a concept of land ownership? If so, do they still exist, and have they continued to assert their ownership throughout this time? If so then of course it’s theirs. How could it not be?”

          Yes, many Native American tribes did “own” territory which they controlled and governed it through a structured government. And, yes many of them still exist. Now, this notion of “asserting” their ownership. Where exactly did the Jews assert their ownership of even Jerusalem, in the 2000 years since they lost control of it? In some world court? Perhaps the got thr Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Greeks and the Romans to acknowledge that it was theirs and returned control of it to them. No? One can “assert” anything that one wishes. But, unless someone agrees with them, it means nothing.

          ” There hasn’t been a nation of Israel or Judah for over 2000 years

          That is an outright and obvious lie. The Jewish nation has continued to exist for all that time. When did it disappear, and how could it then come back to life?”

          Israel ceased to exist, as an independent state in approximately 700 BC. Judea was gone by 50 BC. It was resurrected by Ben-Gurion in 1948, by a unilateral declaration.

          ” I wonder how much of the State of Israel Sammy Davis, jr.’s ancestors were entitled to.

          What have his ancestors got to do with it? He’s a member of the nation and has the same share in its assets as a naturalized USAn or Frenchman has in those nations’ assets.”

          As no Jewish nation existed between 65BC and 1948, Sammy Davis, jr. was not a member of any Jewish State. In fact, no one alive in 1948, was ever a member of any Jewish nation. A nation has to have territory which it controls. It has to have a government. Jews had neither for 2000 years. But, my point was that Sammy Davis, jr, though Jewish, would have no ethnic claim on any territory in Palestine based upon his ancestry, because there is no evidence that anyone one of his ancestors was a member of any ethnic group which had lived in that area. Judaism is a RELIGIOUS faith, it is not an ethnic group.

          “The rest of your comment is either so asinine or such a vicious lie that it deserves its own rebuttal, so I’m ending this here and will continue in the next comment.”

          You mean you could not come up with ANY rebuttal for them.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 30, 2019 at 4:07 am

          You continue to lie and lie and lie and lie.

          There were several tribes, including the Canaanites who lived in the territory. And, I’m sure that their ethnic successors live in the region.

          Bullsh*t. You’re “sure” of it?! Based on what? There are no Canaanites. They don’t exist. Anywhere.

          the current Jewish population, of the world, is NOT an ethnicity. It is a religious group.

          Wrong. An ethnicity is exactly what they are. Most of them are not religious at all.

          Sammy Davis’ would have no ethnic ties to Palestine. Nor would anyone of Bulgar, Frank, or another European ethnic origin.

          A naturalized Jew is a Jew just as a naturalized Frenchman is a Frenchman, or an adopted child is an heir. And there are no Jews of Bulgar, Frank, or other ethnic origins. Jews were never Bulgars or Franks, and if there were ever any Bulgars or Franks who became Jews they were no longer Bulgars or Franks, in their eyes or in those of the Bulgars and Franks.

          Now, this notion of “asserting” their ownership. Where exactly did the Jews assert their ownership of even Jerusalem, in the 2000 years since they lost control of it?

          Everywhere in the world. Wherever Jews have existed, they have served notice on the world, not once in three years but three times a day, of their continued claim on their property and their intent to retake it as soon as that became possible. That is more than enough to keep a claim alive under any civilized legal system.

          No? One can “assert” anything that one wishes. But, unless someone agrees with them, it means nothing.

          Are you really this ignorant or just pretending. I think you’re pretending.

          As no Jewish nation existed between 65BC and 1948, Sammy Davis, jr. was not a member of any Jewish State.

          Who said anything about a state? Now you’re going to pretend that nation and state are synonyms. Nobody is going to buy such a stupid position.

          A nation has to have territory which it controls. It has to have a government.

          Since when? No, it doesn’t.

          But, my point was that Sammy Davis, jr, though Jewish, would have no ethnic claim on any territory in Palestine based upon his ancestry,

          And again, his ancestry has nothing to do with it. He’s a member of the nation. Born or naturalized doesn’t make any difference.

          “The rest of your comment is either so asinine or such a vicious lie that it deserves its own rebuttal, so I’m ending this here and will continue in the next comment.”

          You mean you could not come up with ANY rebuttal for them.

          Now you’re really making an idiot of yourself. I said I was going to continue it in the next comment, and I did.

        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | July 28, 2019 at 1:10 am

        The San Remo conference contained the following text:

        “[…] it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

        Yes, the civil and religious rights. Note very well that it did not refer to any political rights. Of course neither the civil nor the religious rights of any non-Jew have ever been under any kind of threat in Israel, and nobody, not even the most right-wing radical, has ever proposed any sort of restriction on such rights.

        And here we come to your most ridiculous statement of all, which is so ridiculous that you couldn’t possibly believe it yourself, and thus must be deliberately lying.

        establishing a theological government

        A what?! Israel is an aggressively secular state. Its founders were secularists, atheists, mostly socialists, who regarded all religion as superstition and expected it to wither away in the modern age. They did their best to brainwash secularism into the religious immigrants they brought in, and to a great extent they succeeded. The notion that Israel is some sort of theocracy is too ridiculous to exist outside neo-nazi propaganda. Even a religious state would not have affected non-Jewish residents’ civil or religious rights in any way; the secular state certainly didn’t. And as you cited, the San Remo resolution specifically protected the political rights of Jews outside “Palestine” but not of gentiles in it. Thus, under its terms, Israel did not have to give Arabs the vote; but it did anyway, because of its own notions of democracy.

        No, Ben-Gurion and Co. unilaterally declared the existence of a nation-state, Israel, without any authority to do so.

        They had at least the same right that the founders of any other state in history had.

          Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | July 28, 2019 at 3:02 pm

          ” The San Remo conference contained the following text:

          “[…] it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

          Yes, the civil and religious rights. Note very well that it did not refer to any political rights. Of course neither the civil nor the religious rights of any non-Jew have ever been under any kind of threat in Israel, and nobody, not even the most right-wing radical, has ever proposed any sort of restriction on such rights.

          And here we come to your most ridiculous statement of all, which is so ridiculous that you couldn’t possibly believe it yourself, and thus must be deliberately lying.

          establishing a theological government

          A what?! Israel is an aggressively secular state. Its founders were secularists, atheists, mostly socialists, who regarded all religion as superstition and expected it to wither away in the modern age. They did their best to brainwash secularism into the religious immigrants they brought in, and to a great extent they succeeded. The notion that Israel is some sort of theocracy is too ridiculous to exist outside neo-nazi propaganda. Even a religious state would not have affected non-Jewish residents’ civil or religious rights in any way; the secular state certainly didn’t. And as you cited, the San Remo resolution specifically protected the political rights of Jews outside “Palestine” but not of gentiles in it. Thus, under its terms, Israel did not have to give Arabs the vote; but it did anyway, because of its own notions of democracy.”

          In 1948, Ben-Gurion and bunch of Jewish leaders unilaterally declared the existence of the State of Israel. It was proclaimed to be the homeland of the people of the Jewish faith [Remember Sammy Davis, jr? Jews are NOT an ethnic group]. And, it was set up in direct violation of the wishes of the Islamic, Arab majority. The manifestation of Israel was done on a religious basis.

          “No, Ben-Gurion and Co. unilaterally declared the existence of a nation-state, Israel, without any authority to do so.

          They had at least the same right that the founders of any other state in history had.”

          Now you get it. But, there were no “rights” involved. The residents of the American Colonies had no “right” to rebel. They made up a bunch of them in order to justify their actions. The United States had no “right” to deny the Confederate States their action to secede. There was no bar against leaving the Union, in the Constitution. But, the North made up a bunch of reasons to treat the Confederate States as rebels, not merely a group of states exercising their legal right to leave the voluntary union of which they were part. And, the State of Israel has been doing the same thing since its inception.

          The State of Israel had no “right” to exist. It was not authorized to exist by the government holding control of the territory in which was raised, prior to its existence. It was brought into existence to be a homeland for those of the Jewish religion. When the majority population, and their allies, objected to this action, the new State of Israel maintained its existence through force of arms.

          Now, I do not have any problem with the existence of the modern State of Israel. It exists and it has for the last 70 years and is currently recognized ny the vast majority of nations on the planet. All I ask for is historical honesty. And that honesty is that the Jewish founders of the modern State of Israel had no more “right” to founding a nation in Palestine than did the Arab majority which had lived there for the last millennium or more. They jumped the gun and, through force of arms managed to get away with it. But, the Arab residents, especially those displaced by direct actions of the Israelis are never going to accept that. They view this the same way you do, Jews stole THEIR land. They have a RIGHT to that land through generations of occupation and control. In other words, they view themselves as the victims. And, their victimhood, in Palestine, is much more recent than that of the people of the Jewish faith who lost control over 2000 years ago.

        krb in reply to Mac45. | July 28, 2019 at 1:51 pm

        You’re kidding right? If we say the Jews left Egypt maybe 4000 years ago to go to Israel, they were in Israel until the first exile which I think was the Babylonian exile. You know the Temple Mount, about which there seems to be controversy? What Temple was that? That was the Jewish Temple. On land purchased by King David and built by King Solomon. After the exile against any historical possibility they returned and thrived. They were exiled a second time and against any historical possibility they returned and thrived and rebuilt the Temple while Persia was the dominant force. You’ve heard of the Greeks? That’s modern recorded history. Israel was a Jewish province then. Have you heard of the Romans? That’s modern recorded history. Israel was a Jewish province then. Jews have continued to live in Israel since then, practicing Judaism though with the absence unfortunately of the Temple, may it be rebuilt speedily. It was never a Palestinian state. My recollection is that “Palestine” is the general term from Roman times that they called their various satraps (?) but I’m going from memory on that one. Certainly though there has never been a Palestinian state, and when people referred to Palestinians before 1948, they were referring to those who lived in the area – largely Jews. In fact many Jewish organizations called themselves and their members Palestinians because “Israel” had not been established as a formal country in modern times, since the Jews were exiled.

          Mac45 in reply to krb. | July 28, 2019 at 3:17 pm

          So, in the 20th Century, who are the Jews? Well, for one thing they are not am ethnic group. They are an amalgam of races [Sammy Davis, jr., remember]. They are also an amalgam of ethnic types [Bulgars, Franks, Semites, Americans, etc] They have a more or less common religious language, but as a group they speak multiple world languages. In other words, the only true common denominator among Jews, is their religious faith. And, it was much the same in the era of the Temple.

          Both ancient Israel and Judea were comprised of several different ethnic groups. There were even two distinct countries. The Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered and ceased to exist, as an independent state, in ~750BC. The same thing happened to Judea in ~65BC. So, the Jews did not control the territory in Palestine for ~2000 years and even became the minority religion by 1948.

          Mac45 in reply to krb. | July 28, 2019 at 3:53 pm

          Ph, more more thing. The Jews never left Egypt. At the time of the Exodus, Judaism did not exist. These people are referred to, variously, as Hebrews and Israelite. They did not become Jews [practitioners of Judaism] until sometime later. Nowadays, we have Jews of virtually every ethnic persuasion.

          Milhouse in reply to krb. | July 30, 2019 at 9:22 am

          Ph, more more thing. The Jews never left Egypt. At the time of the Exodus, Judaism did not exist. These people are referred to, variously, as Hebrews and Israelite. They did not become Jews [practitioners of Judaism] until sometime later. Nowadays, we have Jews of virtually every ethnic persuasion.

          More nonsense. “Jews” are not practitioners of Judaism. Almost none of the founders of Israel were such practitioners. The name “Jew” means a native of Judaea, which is what was left of Israel after Assyria conquered the northern kingdom and deported its entire population (as it did to all the nations it conquered). The Jews are the Hebrews and the Israelites, the only ones left. And they are a nation, in the same sense as any nation, which is not the same thing as a state. Nations have states, when they can. Without them they usually wither away, but the Jews are proof that that isn’t necessary.

          Milhouse in reply to krb. | July 30, 2019 at 9:25 am

          PS, one more thing: The religion known in English as Judaism certainly did exist at the time of the Exodus. But English didn’t exist then, so even if it had a name in Hebrew (which I doubt) it didn’t have one in English.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Mac45. | July 28, 2019 at 6:35 pm

        (This is in reply to your next post, to which I am unable to reply directly.)

        “No, Ben-Gurion and Co. unilaterally declared the existence of a nation-state, Israel, without any authority to do so.”

        And how, pray tell, does anyone gain the authority to establish the existence of any geo-political entity? They do so by exercising the political will to do so, seizing the initiative, exercising the force of arms (or the threat thereof), and with the assent of a critical mass of the people (which can be, in fact, a small minority or the population). As unrighteous as this may seem, this is how it has always been done, with few exceptions, and many variations on the theme.

    HImmanuelson in reply to Mac45. | July 28, 2019 at 1:13 am

    > But, the government declared was nit set up by the UN, Britain nor was it voted in by a universal plebiscite

    So what? It was formed in the same way as virtually every other country in the world. I don’t see why you have the need to hold Israel to standards unlike any other country in the world.

    > Israel was established through force of arms
    LOL. WRONG. Israel declared itself a country in the same way that virtually every country in the world was formed. Then it was immediately invaded by all of its neighbors. You’re twisting the meaning of that term to the point where it’s meaningless.

    > and expanded its borders through armed conflict.
    Again, Israel was repeatedly attacked by its neighbors. You can claim that its borders were expanded through armed conflict but you’re again stretching the meaning of the term into taffy.

    > And, the Jews had no greater right to the territory than other groups living there in 1948.
    Completely wrong but let’s examine your claim and see how it stacks up.

    The Jews are the indigenous population of that land with something like 3300 years of history there. That’s where the ancient kingdoms of Judah and Israel were and where the ancient Temple was. Jews had an almost unbroken presence on that land from 1500 BCE until the present day.

    The Arabs? Well, the Jews had been living there for ~2200 YEARS before the first Muslim walked the planet.

    Moving to more modern times, Jews began moving back to the area in large numbers in the early and mid 1800’s and buying up large tracts of land from absentee Ottoman landowners, draining the swamps, creating farms and jobs and an economy. By nearly every account, the lands were sparsely populated and in many respects a wasteland.

    It wasn’t until the very late 1800’s and early 1900’s before Arabs started moving into the area from surrounding countries because there was an economy that offered them jobs. Many of the Arabs that moved to the area, moved there 30-40 years before Israel was re-declared. Arab claims of “deep roots” in the area are largely mythical although it is true of some Arab families. Arab immigrants that fled in ’48 were deemed genuine “Palestinian refugees” if they’d been in the area for 2 years!

    Jerusalem in the 1830’s? Plurality Jewish, all the way up to now.

    These are just a couple of the aspects, there’s far, far more to discuss and none of the arguments are kind to the Palestinian claims.

      Mac45 in reply to HImmanuelson. | July 28, 2019 at 3:46 pm

      Yes, the modern State of Israel was set up as many states have been set up throughout history; somebody simply declared themselves in control of the land and held it by force of arms. But, many people keep claiming that the Jews had some “right” to do this. And, this is false.

      Now, while the British were still in legal control of Palestine, Ben-Gurion established the State of Israel. This was done without the authorization of the controlling government, Britain, and over the strenuous objections of the majority Arab population. This majority, and their allies, viewed this as “stealing” their land and responded with force of arms. Israel resorted to arms to maintain the control which they had assert over the territory. So, Israel was born through force of arms, just as the US was.

      When Israel was attacked at later times, it could have repulsed the attacks and simply retreated to its original borders. However, it did not do that. It claimed the extraterritorial lands it had occupied during these wars. So, it expanded its territory through force of arms.
      First of all, Muslim, like Jew, denotes a member of a religious faith, not a member of an ethnic group. Arabs can be Jews, as well as Muslims. So, it is possible that there were significant numbers of Arabs living in the region long before Mohammad appeared in the scene. In the 1800s, the area which became known as Palestine, was not inhabited by a majority of Jewish residents. There was a Jewish presence in the territory, but there was such a presences worldwide, hence the “Jewish Question” in Europe. The fact still remains that in 1948, the multi-ethnic Jewish population was still a minority with regard to the Arab population. And, the State of Israel was founded over the objections of the majority, by a religious and ethnic minority.

      Remember this very important fact. Religious affiliation is not the sole determinant of ethnicity. Japanese Christians share a distinct ethnic culture from French Christians. And, the same is true of members of the Jewish faith. There are schisms within the faith. The argument that people of the Jewish faith are somehow an ethnic group [Sammy Davis, jr. not withstanding] which is indigenous to the Palestine Territory is simply another attempt to justify the establishment of the State of Israel. And, not a very good one. Tell it like it is. A group of Jews decided that they wanted to establish a state favorable to and controlled by members of the Jewish faith and they did just that, largely through force of arms.

        HImmanuelson in reply to Mac45. | July 29, 2019 at 1:11 am

        > But, many people keep claiming that the Jews had some “right” to do this. And, this is false.

        Again, I’m struck by your double standards. You appear to have one set of standards for Israel and another for the rest of the world. Or is your contention that virtually every country in the world had no right to be formed?

        > Now, while the British were still in legal control of Palestine, Ben-Gurion established the State of Israel.

        Your history is seriously flawed. as are your arguments. The British declared their mandate of Palestine as over when the UN voted to partition the land and the State of Israel was formed on midnight of the day after. Try again.

        > Israel resorted to arms to maintain the control which they had assert over the territory. So, Israel was born through force of arms

        Seriously, this is your argument? You distort the terminology past the breaking point for what? That’s incredibly lame.

        > When Israel was attacked at later times, it could have repulsed the attacks and simply retreated to its original borders.

        It could have but no country in the world behaves that way. and “international law”, such as it is, differentiates between defensive conflicts and aggressive ones. Again, I’m struck by your double standards. And stuck even more how you are forced to stretch the meaning of terms to the point of absurdity for your point to be valid.

        > First of all, Muslim, like Jew, denotes a member of a religious faith, not a member of an ethnic group

        LOL. Really? Jews aren’t a member of an ethnic group? Millions of Jews disagree with you.

        > there were significant numbers of Arabs living in the region long before Mohammad appeared in the scene.

        Ummm, you do know where the term Arab came from, right? And when Mohammad appeared on the scene? There were NOT significant numbers of Arabs in that land before Mohammad appeared on the scene. Seriously, you appear to be just making things up and throwing them out there as facts.

        > In the 1800s, the area which became known as Palestine, was not inhabited by a majority of Jewish residents.

        Maybe because the area of Ottoman Palestine at the time was much bigger than modern day Israel?

        > The fact still remains that in 1948, the multi-ethnic Jewish population was still a minority with regard to the Arab population.

        Wrong again. The Jewish population was 4-5x bigger.

        OK, I’m done here. It’s perfectly fine for you to have your own opinions (we all do) but you seem to have created your own facts, almost all of which seem to be made up and are demonstrably false.

        This is really a waste of time.

          Milhouse in reply to HImmanuelson. | July 30, 2019 at 9:49 am

          Now, while the British were still in legal control of Palestine, Ben-Gurion established the State of Israel.

          Your history is seriously flawed. as are your arguments. The British declared their mandate of Palestine as over when the UN voted to partition the land and the State of Israel was formed on midnight of the day after. Try again.

          Technically Mac45 is correct. The UN proposal was made in November 1947. The UK didn’t abandon its mandate until the midnight between the 14th & 15th of May, 1948, but the State of Israel was declared at 2:00 pm on the 14th, a full 10 hours before the British left. Though asserting that the British were still in legal control is contentious, because as the Jews saw it they had forfeited their mandate ten years earlier when they issued the infamous White Paper, which was in direct contradiction to the mandate.

          When Israel was attacked at later times, it could have repulsed the attacks and simply retreated to its original borders.

          It could have but no country in the world behaves that way. and “international law”, such as it is, differentiates between defensive conflicts and aggressive ones.

          True, but also the original declaration of necessity applied to the whole mandate, since there were no other legal borders for it to apply to, and the 1949 armistice specifically provided that the armistice lines were not to be regarded as borders.

          Thirdly, immediately after the Six Day War Israel offered to give all the territories back if the Arabs would make peace. They of course issued their famous “three nos”, which included refusing to accept anything short of the whole Palestine.

          LOL. Really? Jews aren’t a member of an ethnic group?

          Yes, this seems to be Mac45’s absurd position. Which means he is forced to absurdly claim that Israel’s militantly anti-religious founders were religious!

          The fact still remains that in 1948, the multi-ethnic Jewish population was still a minority with regard to the Arab population.

          Wrong again. The Jewish population was 4-5x bigger.

          No, he’s right there. Throughout the British mandate, Jews were a minority in mandatory Palestine. Jewish immigration wasn’t as high as had been hoped, and of course after the White Paper it shut down, while Arab immigration was high and never stopped. The British didn’t even keep records of how many Arabs immigrated; it was more or less an open border.

    mrzee in reply to Mac45. | July 28, 2019 at 5:21 pm

    The 1939 White Paper was submitted to the League of Nations Mandate Commission which rejected it for violating the terms of the Mandate. It’s implementation was completely illegal. The Second World War broke out less than a week later and the LoN was no longer able to prevent Britain from implementing it.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Mac45. | July 28, 2019 at 6:18 pm

    “…Palestine could not be a Jewish state, but rather one which protected the rights of all its citizens equally.”

    Arguably, this criterion has been met. The rights of all are protected in Israel. It is a great irony that people of Arab descent find their rights most respected in the “Jewish” state of Israel, and in the “Great Satan,” the United State of America. Not a Muslim country in the world accords its own citizens as much human dignity or respects the rights of its Arab citizens as the two afore-mentioned countries. If they sometimes fail to live up to expectations, then that is because they are run by human beings. But it would be grossly unfair to say Israel does not respect the rights of its Arabs when no Arab country respects the rights of its citizens as well as does Israel. (And certainly mandatory countries such as Syria and Jordan to not respect the rights of all of their citizens half as well as Israel manages, but Israel draws all the criticism for not living up to the requirement of the mandates?)

Israel did itself no favors. Rather than clearly state that its borders had been reestablished, it “annexed” the eastern portion of Jerusalem which had been under Jordanian control and only established military rule over the West Bank.

This. The so-called “west bank” (a ridiculous name that is meaningless outside the context of the short-lived Transjordanian annexation, and should have disappeared with it) is not part of Israel. This isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of Israeli law. The Knesset could have changed that at any time in the last 52 years, but it has refused to do so, in fact hasn’t even considered doing so.

The reason, however, wasn’t so much to placate the world as because the prevailing opinion in Israel was that annexing these areas would automatically mean that the Arab inhabitants would have to be given Israeli citizenship and would be able to elect 20 or more MKs, in addition to the dozen or so that Israeli Arabs currently elect.

Proposals to annex the areas without giving the vote to avowed enemies were (and mostly still are) regarded as impossible, against “international law”, racist, fascist, “apartheid”, “transfer”, or what-have-you. And there still lies the problem. The Israeli public needs to be convinced that it’s possible and acceptable to do this, and that the benefit would outweigh the cost. Unfortunately too many of them seem impervious to the concept.

The UN General Assembly voted to partition the land between the Jews and Arabs in a non-binding vote in November 1947.

The General Assembly voted to propose a partition. It was never anything but a proposal, and since it was always clear that the Arabs would reject it I have never understood why Jews all over the world were so jubilant about it. The GA has no authority to actually do anything. It certainly can’t partition a country, or create sovereign states. Its only function is to talk, and propose things, and see how its proposals are accepted or rejected by those involved.

DouglasJBender | July 28, 2019 at 5:28 am

God gave Israel their land. Then He exiled them from it when they continually rebelled against and disobeyed Him. He allowed a remnant to return, but they and the land remained under Gentile control.

God prophesied that He would bring the people of Israel back to the land “in the latter days”, and that the nation of Israel would be “born in a day” (no “gestation period”, basically). This happened in 1948 A.D., and more specifically and finally in 1967 A.D., when Israel regained control of the holiest sites of Jerusalem. Both these years (even the month of May in 1948 and the month of June in 1967) were, in a round-about way (but precisely), prophesied in the Old Testament. I can explain in detail in another, later, post.

Israel is God’s chosen nation and people. The nation of Israel also functions as God’s prophetic “time-piece”, in many ways. No one really knows how long the “Last Days” will last, but the Bible indicates we are already IN the “Last Days”, because Israel has been reborn as a nation, and it has essentially regained control of the holiest places of Jerusalem.

Jesus is the Savior of the world, and is the Jewish Messiah. He came first as the “Suffering Servant”, to offer Himself as the sacrifice for sin. He died on the cross for our sins, and we can be forgiven and made right with God, if we repent and accept His sacrifice on our behalf. But the time of His return is drawing nearer (months? years? a few decades?), and at His return He will come as a conquering King. There are many signs that point to His return being “near, at the door”. I cannot say how “near”, but the Rapture of true Christians who are counted worthy will occur first; then, 7 years (or a few months longer than 7 years) later, Jesus will return as conquering King to save Israel and defeat all the wicked.

Everything I have said in this post is true.

Muslims regard anything that has once been conquered for Islam to be Islam’s by right forever. That isn’t just the disputed areas in Israel, but also includes Spain, Sicily, Greece, misc other parts of Italy, and the remainder of the Balkans. When Palestinians refer to “the occupation”, that is the sense in which they mean it. Muslims also do not regard any non-Muslim claim to land, anywhere in the world, to be legitimate, but that’s a somewhat different problem.

broomhandle | July 28, 2019 at 1:22 pm

This is a great post on the subject. Every time any aspect of “Palestine” is in the news this is the kind of response that is needed instead of just fending off the immediate attack. “Palestine” is a lie.

“…the land east of the Jordan River was viewed as a land that the British could option to separate (Article 25), which they did. That land ultimately became the Kingdom of Jordan.”

The two-state solution has already been put into effect. What is today called the “two-state solution” is actually a “three-state solution” and a bad deal for Israel.

A long video, but the types that hang out here will find it eminently fascinating (on several levels, guaranteed you will learn something), as it is a view of the existence of Israel and the history of its border from a legal perspective with special regard for international law (the discussion on the nature of international law alone is worth the price of admission, as they say):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYZBjoeeehg&t=4s

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend