In UNESCO, Palestinians claim ownership of Dead Sea Scrolls

As is if were not bad enough that UNESCO recently passed a resolution declaring the Temple Mount to be Muslim, not Jewish, now the Palestinian Authority plans to seize ownership of the Dead Sea Scrolls and “demand that UNESCO order Israel to surrender the artifacts.”

Among the Scrolls are partial or complete copies of every book in the Hebrew Bible (except the book of Esther)….

The Qumran Caves Scrolls preserve a large range of Jewish religious writings from the Second Temple period, including parabiblical texts, exegetical texts, hymns and prayers, wisdom texts, apocalyptic texts, calendrical texts, and others.

The Green Line is an administrative default border (an armistice line) that never existed prior to 1949, and was created under arbitrary conditions following Israel’s Independence War.

This latest attempt to hijack history comes after Palestinians have advanced the irrational argument that Jesus was a Palestinian because Bethlehem is administered by the PA; never mind that Jesus (Yeshua) was “from the House of David” according to Scriptures. Palestinian Media Watch has cited the regularity of the references to “Jesus the Palestinian” by prominent Palestinians, including the Governor of Ramallah, Leila Ghannam (“We all have the right to be proud that Jesus is a Palestinian”); senior PA leader Jibril Rajoub  (“The greatest Palestinian in history since Jesus is Yasser Arafat“); and an editorial in the PA official daily — Al-Hayat Al-Jadida — that referred to the “holy Trinity” of Arafat, Abbas and Jesus.

Pure lies and fabrication of history are nothing new for Islamic supremacists hell-bent on degrading, delegitimizing, destroying and even attempting to erase Israel’s presence in ancient Biblical history. And now they know that at UNESCO, they will find willing accomplices. The Dead Sea Scrolls in themselves bear witness to the ancient Jewish presence in the land; that may be why the Palestinians want to get hold of them, so as to try to make sure that people aren’t able to use them to make the case for Israel.


Source: for MORE

Israeli Settlements, the Violet Line and the Cheshire Cat

If there is anything that perplexes good friends of Israel, it is the issue of settlements beyond the “Green Line” (a misleading term, as we shall see). In a familiar phenomenon, a foreign politician arrives in Jerusalem to make a speech that manifests genuine admiration of the State of Israel and its achievements, but proceeds to an equally genuine cry of distress over its settlement policies. Why? Because they are supposedly “illegal under international law.”

These friends, as we shall see, are making a widespread basic mistake. Because of the endless talk of a “two-state solution,” the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is viewed as if it had always been a war between two states. In fact, it began as a civil war under the British Mandate for Palestine and continued as such until at least the late 1980s. By that time, almost all the present settlements were already in existence. Consequently, the provisions of international law that should apply to them are those that pertain to civil wars, not to inter-state wars.


To start with, let us set aside some questions whose answer is relatively simple. First, the present Israeli occupation of lands acquired during the Six Day War of 1967 is not illegal per se, because it resulted from aggression by the neighboring states concerned. Hostilities with Egypt started when Egypt blockaded the Israeli port of Eilat, an act of aggression that was followed by Egypt’s demand for the removal of United Nations peacekeepers from the border between the two states (obviously in preparation for further acts of aggression). Hostilities with Jordan began with a Jordanian bombardment of the Israeli part of Jerusalem. As for Syria, it had for years been engaged in constant aggression by way of encroachments into Israeli territory and bombardment of Israeli villages from the Golan Heights. Moreover, a recent expert report (2012) of the International Committee of the Red Cross emphasized that International Humanitarian Law “did not set any limits to the time span of an occupation” (see p. 72); rather, the longer the occupation lasted, the more the “occupying power” was required to upgrade the infrastructure, etc., for the benefit of the inhabitants.

Second, the sale of goods produced in those Israeli settlements is not illegal in most of the world’s markets. In the European Union (EU), for example, it is legal under two conditions. One condition is obligatory: those goods do not enjoy the reductions in customs duties that pertain to free trade agreements between Israel and the EU, because these agreements apply explicitly to the area of pre-1967 Israel. The other condition is optional: the EU Commission issued guidelines in November 2015 on how to label such products. After a fuss, the Commission conceded that the individual European governments could decide whether and how to implement the guidelines, while emphasizing that such labeling is not a boycott and that the EU opposes any boycotts of Israel. (See here for a comprehensive discussion of the matter, also regarding other disputed territories.)

Source: for MORE