The U.N. is an Antisemetic organization - by YJ Draiman

The U.N. is an Antisemetic organization
The U.N. Antisemitism agenda.
This is all smoke and mirrors.
The history of the U.N. in relationship to Israel which affects antisemitism worldwide, has been shameful and catastrophic.
When you have an organization where a substantial part of its members are adamantly anti Israel and promote her destruction.
Members who spew hate and violence.
Members who consistently vote against Israel without justification or humane logic.
An organization that finances terrorism and helps Hamas and its ilk to hide weapons and launch missiles from U.N. facilities against innocent civilians, men, women and children.
Look at the history of U.N. resolutions against Israel and the resolutions against the terrorists organization confronting Israel.
The U.N. an organization that is extremely biased against Israel.
When you put members of states that violate human rights on a daily basis on the Human rights commission, that speaks volumes.
I can go on and on.
Need I say more.
YJ Draiman 

P.S.

Any Israeli leader promoting the uprooting of Jewish Towns, Villages or Settlements is a traitor to the people of Israel. Any Jewish leader authorizing the uprooting of Jews from their homes in Greater Israel should be prosecuted for crimes against the Jewish people and ejected from office permanently.

Under all the Treaties and agreements after WWI and the 1920's. It states: Jewish people have the right to settle and live anywhere in the Mandate for Palestine. (Specifically Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine).

Throughout history, Jewish people have been persecuted and uprooted from their homes and lands in the world at large.

Now that the Jewish people have returned to their ancestral lands and are resettling it. Thus it is the ultimate crime against the Jewish people to uproot them from their own homes in the Jewish homeland by a Jewish government.

YJ Draiman

In June 2011, Dr. Jaques Gauthier, an international human rights lawyer from Toronto addressed the European Parliament in Brussels on the legal issues regarding Jerusalem and Israel. Referring to the 1922 British Mandate for Palestine and to Article 80 of the UN Charter he said: "For anyone who is interested in justice, these are issues which we have to study carefully ... the rights vested in the Jewish people stand on very solid legal ground and are valid to this day. "Under Article 80 and the 1922 Mandate he maintained that Jerusalem cannot be divided and that Jews still have the legal right to settle anywhere in Mandated land. Historically it was always a Jewish territory for the past 4,000 years. It may have been occupied by foreign powers for a period of time. Now that all legitimate foreign powers have relinquished its title and ownership of the land in Palestine. The legal and logical possession reverts back to the Jewish people who have added a great number of Jews to the land.

So since there is no legal ownership of Judea and Samaria, these areas cannot be regarded as "occupied territory". The armistice borders never received international recognition. All of western Palestine, from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, including Gaza and all of Jerusalem (as in Fig.3) remains legally open to Jewish settlement under the original British Mandate. International lawyers maintain that this right of settlement is protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter which recognizes the Trust (British Mandate) handed to it by the League of Nations.

It appears that the world prefers to 'believe a lie' and still cry "occupied territory"!

This is taken out of context. There was a procedure for Jews to enter Palestine.

Jews would be allowed and encouraged to immigrate.

Jews would be assisted in obtaining Palestinian citizenship.

Jews would be allowed to settle anywhere in the Palestine Mandate.

Now, did this right apply to Palestinian Jews and foreign national Jews? Other parts of the mandate suggests not.

The mandate gave the land to the Jews. Arabs had no control of that land for 700 years, and it wasn't up to them what happens to it or how it gets divided. Sorry to bust your bubble. If the intolerant savages would have agreed to a Jewish state which was both legal and rightful, we wouldn't be where we are today. But savages will be savages.

No Jew has the right to yield the rights of the Jewish People in Israel -
David Ben Gurion
(David Ben-Gurion was the first Prime Minister of Israel and widely hailed as the State's main founder).
“No Jew is entitled to give up the right of establishing [i.e. settling] the Jewish Nation in all of the Land of Israel. No Jewish body has such power. Not even all the Jews alive today [i.e. the entire Jewish People] have the power to cede any part of the country or homeland whatsoever. This is a right vouchsafed or reserved for the Jewish Nation throughout all generations. This right cannot be lost or expropriated under any condition or circumstance. Even if at some particular time, there are those who declare that they are relinquishing this right, they have no power nor competence to deprive coming generations of this right. The Jewish nation is neither bound nor governed by such a waiver or renunciation. Our right to the whole of this country is valid, in force and endures forever. And until the Final Redemption has come, we will not budge from this historic right.”
BEN-GURION’S DECLARATION ON THE EXCLUSIVE AND
INALIENABLE JEWISH RIGHT TO THE WHOLE OF
THE LAND OF ISRAEL:
at the Basle Session of the 20th Zionist Congress at Zurich (1937)

"No country in the world exists today by virtue of its 'right'.
All countries exist today by virtue of their ability to defend themselves against those who seek their destruction."