If you declare West Bank (Judea and Samaria) as Occupied territory, Than Jordan and the other 21 Arab State are occupied territories.

Draimanformayor Twentyseventeen commented on an article.

November 18 at 5:00pm · 

If you declare West Bank (Judea and Samaria) as Occupied territory, Than Jordan and the other 21 Arab State are occupied territories. Any resolution/recommendation by the U.N. has to be accepted and executed by both parties to be valid. The Arabs never accepted it, therefore it is not valid. The Arabs had their chance numerous times, but they refused to accept it. I might also State that Jordan which is a State never in existence prior to WWI, was established on land originally allocated to the Jewish people. (The British in violation of the San Remo Treaty of 1920 assigned it to the Arabs as an Arab State, this is the State for the Arabs and not West of the Jordan River) They were all established by the same Allied Powers after WWI, (Oil interests and sources seem to be a bribe to large to ignore. Therefore the treasonous treatment of the nations pertaining to Israel and its rights to its ancestral land under the San Remo Treaty of 1920.

The recent rush to recognize “Palestine” by the British Parliament and the Government of Sweden fails to take into account several anomalies and illegalities which can not but be viewed as biased anti-Jewish animus.

The State of Israel was, of course, just one of many new or recreated nations that, in the wake of World War I, were carved out of the former German, Austro-Hungarian, Czarist and Ottoman empires.

These included, for example, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Mandate Syria and Mandate Iraq. All of these states entailed the granting of sovereignty, or promised sovereignty in the case of the Mandates, to previously largely disenfranchised peoples, and all also encompassed other ethnic groups within their borders that chafed at the new national arrangements. Yet, 66 years later, none have stirred anything like the animosity displayed by a mainly liberal-left elite in Europe, in thrall to a rampant radical Islamism, to the fact of a recreated liberated Jewish national home.

Rather, a vocal anti-Jewish lobby in Europe and Britain today has opted instead for a smug and casual hatred of the Zionist project, under a transparently ludicrous veneer of moral superiority.

It is not to be forgotten that the medieval blood libel that Jews kill Christians, particularly children, to use the blood of Christian innocents for Jewish rituals, was first introduced in England with the earliest recorded such claim involving the death of one William of Norwich in 1144.

And it should also be remembered that the blood libel was exported from England to the continent, where over eight centuries it provided a rationale for the murder of thousands of Jews. It’s most gruesome and horrific iteration was the Final Solution proposed by an amoral German Nazi regime, but since the end of World War II it has enjoyed its greatest popularity in the Arab world.

Today, Britain and Europe, with enthusiastic backing from a demographically significant European Muslim migrant population together with financial muscle from Arab Muslim kings, emirs and other petty but the extremely wealthy oil money of the Middle East tyrants, join in the markedly racist and illegal call for the creation of a Judenrein “Palestinian” state, while still others call for the Jewish state to be subsumed into a bi-national (read: Arab majority) “Palestine”.

Indeed, with the renewed anti-semitic upsurge in Ireland, long a PLO/Fatah/Hamas backer from the time of the now-sanitized, re-invented Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, together with official political bodies in the UK and Sweden, there is a concerted European push calling for the recognition of “Palestine”, claiming that such recognition would “contribute to securing a two-state solution.” (In my opinion the Arab-Palestinian state already exists in Jordan).

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Any unilateral moves and declarations by Europe to recognize “Palestine” are based on questionable legal, historic and political premises since no Palestinian state exists, and the issue of the status of the territories is subject to negotiation.

In fact, the European and British claim that recognizing “Palestine” would “contribute to securing a two-state solution” is the antithesis of what it purports to be by pre-judging the outcome of the very negotiations, under international law and several UN resolutions, they purport to support.

One does not need a degree in international law or political history to see what is the real aim of the parties concerned.

Furthermore, those aims rely on illegal interpretations of international rulings and a willingness to manipulate the law to produce a Final Solution by other means.