Letter To The New York Times

Image via Wikipedia

From the New York Times featured headliner in yesterday’s paper: NYT states that it (the latest deaths) started when Israel fired back.  NYT claims Israel “ignited” the violence by responding to Palestinians’ terror attacks.  Also, the NY Times purposely chose an emotive image of a Palestinian child’s funeral, particularly as Israel was also burying its dead as a result of a terror attack.

This morning, I felt challenged.  It’s hard to be complacent when there is a war against the good in this world.  The way we see it, here, on this corporeal existence, can be seen through the kaleidoscope of the NYT or other news media as good versus evil, almost like a movie, but it’s real.  Here, the truths and consequences are distorted in some brainwashed conspiracy to accept the violation of basic human rights to live and breathe in the form of apathy.  We as mere puppets in this game of weaving truths against untruths play the biggest part of all.  We have become that of which he hate.  We have become intolerant, ignorant, inpatient, and willing to let the media’s bias take a stranglehold of our consciousness and let them play it all out with words and pictures.  This society has become stupid.  We are letting others teach us about intolerance, bigotry, anti-Semitism, and hate to form our subconsciousness, and our conscience decisions without even thinking we are doing so.  Judgment in the confluence (a flowing together) that it is, is left to a priori (involving deductive reasoning from the general principle to a necessary fact, not supported by fact) that manifests itself as profound sublimation (divert expression to a more social or culturally accepted form) than it is to make our own judgments based on our own knowledge of facts and truth instead of the above mentioned prevarication (to shift or turn direct speech or behavior; to evade the truth; to be intentionally ambiguous).  Which means, friends, that we need to educate ourselves and not be the media wherewithal they so desperately want us to be.

August 21, 2011

To the NYT:

I’m remembering a time, this decade, when there was a terrorist attack on a bus in Israel were there were multiple deaths and injuries.  As I was watching in horror, a cameraman from a major US network panned over to the attempts of paramedics trying to revive a Jewish infant in the ambulance via CPR, to no avail.  As soon as the scope of the horror of such atrocity was evident , the cameraman panned away immediately. The image was never seen again.

As you show the dead infant in the man’s arms, as horrible as it is, no matter who they are, why are we not also reminded of the death of other human beings on Israel’s side? Has the NYT actually become the apathetic machine who scores indifference to the general media when it comes to Israeli deaths, infants or adults?  Is there no questioning as to why such bias and condemning behavior in the name of human lives of the existential threat of reality that Israel must live in day-to-day terror no NYT employee would dare live through, in as much as they and their children (and I say children because they are the product of this hypocrisy through which their parents are teaching) sit pretty and comfortable in their cushy chairs of hypocrisy on the other side of the world?  Indeed, there is something really wrong here.

Gloss over as much as you like NYT, the truth will not be suppressed by your conscience indignation of willingness to be a form of anti-Semitic propaganda to the world.  Take a history lesson and see that it is the evil of Islāmic  doctrine that will never cease to try to destroy the Jews, whether or not Israel gives up what it is that you want them to give up. Peace will not or
does not occur within evil.   You will see that history and facts are on the side of Israel, whether through the UN or others, that you negate to mention in your articles.

A challenge, if you dare, live among the Palestinians, be their proctor from within the Gaza strip or Ramallah and see if you will survive without the help of Israel.  I dare the NYT to live there and report from there and see how well your untruths will reveal themselves.  Or maybe too afraid to live among them, why I wonder?

Former Congressman & Obama Confidant Asks President To Free Jonathan Pollard

August 5, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Aaron Troodler

As the bi-partisan movement to free Jonathan Pollard continues to gain momentum, former Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida recently wrote to President Obama and asked that he commute Pollard’s sentence to time served (the full text of the letter appears below and a copy is attached). Congressman Wexler‘s letter is especially noteworthy in that he is a close friend of President Obama, who regularly consults him on issues relating to the Jewish community.

Jonathan Pollard has spent more than 25 years languishing in a federal prison for passing classified information to Israel, an ally of the United States. “The purpose of this letter is to advocate that Mr. Pollard be held to the same standards of punishment for his actions as others convicted of similar crimes,” wrote Congressman Wexler in his letter to the President.  “Mr. Pollard is the only person in U.S. history to receive a life sentence for disclosing classified information to an American ally. In fact, he is the only American citizen convicted of such a crime to be sentenced to more than 14 years in prison. Currently, the punishment for such a crime is set at a maximum of ten years.” “Having spent over 25 years in incarceration, seven of which were spent in solitary confinement, and having expressed remorse for his crimes, it is my humble opinion that Mr. Pollard has served sufficient time – both  terms of punishment for his crimes and in terms of deterrence to would-be perpetrators,” continued Congressman Wexler. “I therefore ask that you consider asserting your constitutional authority to grant clemency for Mr. Pollard.” Congressman Wexler is currently the President of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, which works with leaders and policymakers in the United States and the Middle East, including the Obama administration, to help reach a just and comprehensive peace that will bring an end to the Arab-Israeli
conflict. Congressman Wexler served as an advisor to President Obama on issues relating to Israel and the Middle East during his 2008 presidential campaign. He continues to work with the President today through his work at the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace. In addition, it has been reported that Wexler is a member of a team of high-profile in the American Jewish community who have been tapped by the President’s campaign advisers to assist him in responding to criticism of his stance on Israel during his upcoming presidential campaign. Wexler’s letter is particularly timely, in that earlier this week, Jonathan Pollard underwent an urgent surgical procedure after suffering from intense pain caused by problems with his kidneys, gall bladder, and high blood pressure. In addition, earlier this week, Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts addressed the Members of Congress about Jonathan Pollard’s case. In what is believed to be the first speech about Pollard on the floor of the House of Representatives, Congressman Frank called on President Obama to heed the numerous calls to free Pollard.

Congressman Wexler represented Florida’s 19th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives for seven terms, from 1997 until he retired in January 2010. During his time in Congress, Wexler served on the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Foreign Affairs. He also chaired the Subcommittee on Europe, and was a member of the  on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight, the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, and the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property. During his tenure in Congress, Wexler was known as an effective and well-respected leader, who was named one of the “50 Most Effective Legislators in Congress” by Congressional Quarterly. Congressman Wexler was also an outspoken advocate for the strong bond between the United States and Israel, and a leading proponent of Israel’s right to self-defense and the need for a just and comprehensive resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Before his election to the U.S. House of Representatives, Wexler served in the Florida Senate
from 1990 to 1996. Congressman Wexler’s letter to President Obama comes in the wake of numerous calls for clemency for Pollard from prominent government officials, high-ranking
individuals in the national intelligence arena, leading professionals in the legal world, and renowned religious and communal leaders:

Former CIA Director James Woolsey, former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, former Deputy Attorney General and Harvard Law Professor Philip Heymann, and former  Senator and Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Dennis DeConcini, each of whom had the opportunity to thoroughly review Pollard’s classified file and is fully familiar with the circumstances of his case, have called for Pollard’s release.  Henry Kissinger, who served as United States Secretary of State and National Security Advisor under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, and who was a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board at the time of Pollard’s sentencing, sent a letter to President Obama requesting that he commute Pollard’s sentence to time served. Lee Hamilton, a former U.S. Congressman from Indiana who served as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee at the time of  Pollard’s sentencing, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and is currently member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, also called on President Obama to free Pollard. In addition, a wide array of American leaders have called for a commutation of Pollard’s sentence, including former Vice President Dan Quayle, former U.S. Secretary of
State George Shultz, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Senator John McCain of Arizona, former Arkansas governor and former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, former Senator and Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Arlen Specter, Senator Charles Schumer of New York, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb, Congressman Allen West of Florida, former Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming, former New York City Mayor and former Republican Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani,
Congressman Michael Grimm of New York, former Republican Senator Steve Symms of Idaho, former Republican Congressman Matthew Salmon of Arizona, Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, well-known conservative leader Gary Bauer, Rev. Theodore Hesburgh of Notre Dame, well-known Christian leader Pat Robertson, Pastor John Hagee, and Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree, who was President Barack and First Lady Michelle Obama’s law professor at Harvard and remains friends with them today. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also sent a letter to President Obama calling for Pollard’s release. In addition, several months ago thirty-nine members of Congress submitted a “Dear Colleague” letter led by Congressman Barney Frank in support of commuting Jonathan Pollard’s sentence. Further, a broad-based interfaith coalition comprised of more than 500 members of the clergy and community leaders sent a letter to President Obama in January 2011 in which they called on the President to commute Pollard’s sentence.

Jonathan Pollard recently wrote a letter containing a personal appeal for clemency to President Obama, which was hand-delivered to the President by Israeli President Shimon Peres. Peres also raised the issue of clemency for Pollard in a recent White House meeting with President Obama.  Despite numerous pleas by Israeli leaders and people throughout the United States and Israel, President Obama recently refused to grant Pollard “compassionate leave,” which would have enabled him to visit his ailing father, Morris, on his deathbed, and rejected countless appeals asking the President to allow Pollard to attend his father’s funeral following Morris Pollard’s death. Jonathan Pollard has repeatedly expressed his remorse publicly and in private in letters to many Presidents and others. His health has deteriorated significantly during his two-and-a-half decades in prison.  Pollard’s life sentence is grossly disproportionate when compared to the sentences of others who have spied for allied nations. Despite the fact that Pollard entered into a plea agreement and fully cooperated with the prosecution in his  case, he nonetheless received a life sentence and a recommendation that he never be paroled, which was in complete violation of the plea agreement he had reached with the government.

The following is the text of Congressman Wexler’s letter to President Obama:

July 25, 2011

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Washington, DC 20500

Re: Jonathan Pollard

Dear Mr. President,

I write to you in order to join the long list of Members of Congress, former administration officials, Nobel Laureates, diplomats and religious leaders asking you to grant clemency for Jonathan Pollard. This letter does not seek to diminish the significance of his crime, nor does it wish to dispute the conditions under which the sentence was originally passed. The purpose of this letter is to advocate that Mr. Pollard be held to the same standards of punishment for his actions as others convicted of similar crimes.  Mr. Pollard is the only person in U.S. history to receive a life sentence for disclosing classified information to an American ally. In fact, he is the only American citizen convicted of such a crime to be sentenced to more than 14 years in prison. Currently, the punishment for such a crime is set at a maximum of ten years.  Having spent over 25 years in incarceration, seven of which were spent in solitary  confinement, and having expressed remorse for his crimes, it is my humble opinion that Mr. Pollard has served sufficient time – both in terms of punishment for his crimes and in terms of deterrence to would-be perpetrators. I therefore ask that you consider asserting your constitutional authority to grant clemency for Mr. Pollard.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Warmest wishes,

Robert Wexler  President, S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace

Shira’s note: This one stumps me in that I am angry as to why Mr. Pollard has not been freed under this administration. Some would conclude that Obama is directly using Mr. Pollard as a political pawn in his political world. It is certainly pathetic that he has not answered the overwhelming chorus to free him. Obama’s proponents would conclude and indeed have opinions in backing this decision, which would fringe as anti-Semitic. Yep, I said it. What is the answer if not that? I have written to Jonathan and have prayed for him in that he will be freed and see the beauty that he deserves to see. He has done his time. It is time for Obama to let him go.  Go here: http://www.jonathanpollard.org/ get the info you need. Write to him, support him, and pray for his freedom anon.  Here’s his address:  Jonathan Pollard #09185-016; c/o FCI Butner; POB 1000; Butner, NC 27509-1000

Cognitive Eco-Dissidence

Shira Loustaunau

July 30,  2011

“The greatest private pleasure comes from serving the highest unity, the general welfare of  all.”  Henry A. Wallace, former Secretary of Agriculture and vice president under Franklin D Roosevelt.

The Wallace Global Fund’s documentary “A Blind Spot” about our dependence on fossil fuel has achieved the archetypical, ecological slap in the face, as in, welcome to the real world.  This slap in the face, as it were, brought to us from the teachings of well-renowned physicists, psychologists, sociologists, economists, scientists, and biologists who have studied about our extreme dependence of fossil fuels, are given to us in a succinct and profound way to make each of us understand that this is the most serious problem to face the human race since we have been human.  We will eventually run out of fossil fuel, for that is the trend today, and if we do not do something soon to change this course, we will run out of options.  Unfortunately, since the 1970s, the same principle above has been told over and over and yet not enough has been done about it.

Here is this concept to ruminate upon given to us by Zygmunt Bauman, a Polish sociologist, who stated “Rational people go guietly, meekly into a gas chamber if you only allow them to believe it’s a bathroom.”  It was the Jews’ rational best interest to not resist for fear of being killed.  This is a system of make believe and this particular message is that you have to make believe that what you know is going to happen to you is not going to happen to you. To elaborate and use the metaphors above, we would like to believe that the earth is infinite, our rationale depends on and it is in our best interest, when in reality the truth is we have been led to believe, as exemplified by the gas chamber, that our dependence on fossil fuels will never end, but in fact will.  In the words of David Jensen, activist, “we live in a world of make-believe …that the planet isn’t being killed or the belief that the age of oil is going to continue.  We would like to make believe that we can have infinite growth on a finite planet.  We have to make believe that you can kill a planet and live on it too.”  This awareness is too prevalent.  It’s easy to think that it is in our best interest to not deal with this problem and that someone intelligent or the people we vote into office are looking out for these things, for this is not the case.  In order to achieve change, we must to do our own thinking.  We cannot let other people do our thinking for us, why?  Because the greed in people control their best interest and thus have ulterior motives for which they will try to steer us in the wrong direction.  It is obvious to us now that the people in power cater to these same fossil fuel/oil companies for their own benefit, and we are left to take action now.

The onus is on all of us.  As a nation of consumers through capitalization, the automobile industry, and the advertising industry, we developed a culture that reinforces our concept that there are no consequences to our actions.  This has occurred over generations.  We are a race of giants by the energy-consuming apparatus we have.  “We advertised ourselves into being the world’s greatest consumers, victims of the greatest propaganda system ever devised in modern history.”   Being victims do not take away the responsibility that we all share in changing the course of destroying our Earth.  Can one really make a difference in our pollution levels through consumerism?  No, we have to do it together, for each other.  Take a step back, look at where we are headed and decide for yourself what you can do.  We cannot let future generations be ignorant, let alone ourselves.  Make no mistake, we are destroying our world.  In the Internet age, there are many valuable resources to teach, share, and defeat ignorance concerning this issue as fast as we can.  It’s not enough to say that we can recycle, turn down the heat, bike instead of ride to work, we have to stop taking for granted our use of energy, for us, for each other, for nature.  We cannot expect someone else to do it for us anymore.  We must attain balance and harmony with nature.  This is the only way.

I will end this article with the hope that you will watch this documentary and learn something you did not know before.  It is done by the Wallace Global Fund and Dislexic Films.  Shown in the beginning of the documentary, in 1949, Shell produced a promotional film named “Oil for Aladdin’s Lamp.”  It is based on the same dependence of oil then and even more so now.  You will be amazed by what you see and learn.  There is one quote from this film I will share with you, remembering that this is in 1949: “The machine age which has given us a national standard of living with would ground to a halt if it were not for petroleum…”

Today, we need a new paradigm, a revolution to save nature, more so than ever before.  For that, we have to change man’s nature.  Nothing else will suffice.  Our hopes and old methods no longer exist.  What should we name this new revolution?  We can leave that one for the children.

A Cap and Trade Dilemma

Image via Wikipedia

06/29/2011

Okay, question 1: What is cap and trade? If you answered a capitalistic measure of pollutants by emission trading, you are correct.

Question 2: Where lays the onus for cap and trade? Climate change, either warming or cooling, has been debated for decades now. Depending on where you stand on this issue, the burden of proof lies in consumerism via CO2. On the other hand, according to Joseph D’Aleo, co-founder of the Weather Channel and executive director of ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project), who stated in the 2009 Old Farmer’s Almanac that the US annual mean temperature has fluctuated for decades and has only risen 0.21° Fahrenheit since 1930. He goes on to say that this is caused by fluctuating solar activity levels and ocean temperatures and not carbon emissions. Mr. D’Aleo is not alone.

This unequivocally differs from the ongoing barrage of global warming issues, facts and myths. In essence, signatures from 31,487 scientists/physicists compiled from 1997 to 2007 with a new review incorporating research literature up to 2007 results in this overwhelming statement of the Global Warming Petition Project (petitionproject.org): “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s climate.”

So… here is the dilemma. Let’s make a comparison: we have a scientifically proven environmental campaign that states that the Earth is not warming, and in fact, cooling by thousands of scientists with scientific data from around the world, or, the movie An Inconvenient Truth’s message by Al Gore, et al, that contains “many serious, incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse”, as stated on the Petition Project’s website.

As easy as it sounds from both sides of global warming or cooling, it is still the environmental Rubik’s cube. The question remains, as consumers, what do we choose, how do we filter what we are told or what we read in order to come to a solution to our pollution? The answer could be, if we create a capitalist society built on consumerism and materialistic values, we could not choose, for if we did, it would be based on hypocrisy because we were made to consume and consuming we are, to the detriment of our home and ourselves.

Global Warming…What’s The Worry?

Image via Wikipedia

6/30/2011

In the all-encompassing macrocosm of warmer temperature issues, it is easy to get mired in the muck of scientific data, political views and motivations, and the ever challenging, ‘what is the answer to global warming?’ Research has shown from prolific scientists on both sides of the aisle of, is it global warming or just panic stricken multitudes of concerned inhabitants of this Big Blue Beautiful World we call home? Why is it so hard to take care of our home?

According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a 2007 report it states: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentration”. The ‘greenhouse gas’ is mainly CO2. Anthropogenic means we are all responsible, not technically, but in a way; anthropogenic means of or relating to the study of the origins and development of human beings. A statement as this should grab our attention to take more action against global warming, but then you have this from a 2009 report, authored by physicists, David H. Douglas, PhD, and John Christy, PhD, on rising global temperatures. In their scientific summary http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/E&E%20douglass_christy-color.pdf, the answer to global warming is easily read as, “… (Their) conclusions are contrary to the IPCC 2007 statement”. The statement is quoted above.

It is plain to all of us that in order for us to move past these objective or subjective views, whatever the motivations, we as a people need to do our part and educate ourselves more in depth. For us to make a difference whether you agree it is global warming or not, it is obvious we are having some impact on the world, and if we do not act, life will be hell on Earth, and I’m not just talking temperature.

In 2011, we are witnessing global crisis never before seen. Unfortunately, it is only when we cannot live on a day-to-day basis that we are accustomed to, when we cannot afford the gas, when our lifestyles are completely changed then it will be time to take a look at what’s happening and ipso facto do something about it.

The Upcoming Flotilla to the Gaza Strip

We that believe in facts in the face of ignorance and misconceptions from that fact, and anti-semitism, call it like it is, and will you find summaries like this below. In the text of another (Rowan Dean), it’s their neurotic ploy as ‘Revelance Deprivation Syndrome’ (or RDS). Please read and teach.  We need all the help we can get.  Also, I have inserted a very important letter we should share. S.

The Upcoming Flotilla to the Gaza Strip.

To: Representatives of the Foreign Press in Israel

Re: Press Participation in the Flotilla

Dear friends,

A flotilla of ships is due to arrive soon in the Middle East in order to try and enter the Gaza Strip. This flotilla is a dangerous provocation that is being organized by western and Islamic extremist elements to aid Hamas, which the world defines as an extremist Islamic terrorist organization.

Those participating in the flotilla have declared that it is their intention to “break” the naval blockade that has been imposed on the Gaza Strip for security reasons, given Hamas’s efforts to smuggle weaponry and terrorists into the Gaza Strip.

The flotilla intends to knowingly violate the blockade that has been declared legally and is in accordance with all treaties and international law. The Government of Israel has instructed the IDF not to allow the flotilla to reach its goal.

As the Director of the Government Press Office, I would like to make it clear to you and to the media that you represent, that participation in the flotilla is an intentional violation of Israeli law and is liable to lead to participants being denied entry into the State of Israel for ten years, to the impoundment of their equipment and to additional sanctions.

I implore you to avoid taking part in this provocative and dangerous event, the purpose of which is to undermine Israel’s right to defend itself and to knowingly violate Israeli law.

Please pass along the contents of this letter to your editorial boards around the world.

Sincerely,

Oren Helman, Director
Government Press Office

A do or die moment

Shira’s note: It’s looking, very sadly, like we are in for more hate, war and evil in the Middle East. I am disheartened at what is happening, and I fear for us, all of us. Yet, along with Ms. Glick’s plea at the end of her story of praying for strength and resoluteness from our leaders and peoples, we still have hope and faith that things will go for the better. As I type, I feel sometimes this is how it is supposed to be for goodness and Godliness to prevail. Please leave your thoughts to share…S.

A do or die moment.

Jerusalem Issue Briefs-The Gaza Flotillas to Come: Some Ground Rules before Setting Out

Shira’s note…this is a note from Mr. Baker in very plain English what we already know. Wake up people, these anti-Semites want to kill us! I actually think that’s what Mr. Baker is saying so eloquently.

Jerusalem Issue Briefs-The Gaza Flotillas to Come: Some Ground Rules before Setting Out.

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

Shira’s note: I would say this news is more important to know about what’s happening in Egypt than most other’s for these are underlying facts driving toward an ominous fate.

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs.

There’s hope yet…

This is encouraging for us….these are the facts. Read and remember and share this letter with as many people you know…S.

Attorneys from Israel and North America in a letter to UN Secretary
General – the unilateral decision to establish a Palestinian State violates
international law
Chani Lu – Tadmit   29 May 2011

Dozens of Attorneys from Israel and North America in a letter to UN
Secretary General – the unilateral decision to establish a Palestinian State
violates international law

Late last week, dozens of attorneys and experts in international law
appealed to United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon to prevent the
General Assembly resolution recognizing a Palestinian state within the 1967
borders, on the grounds that it  violates of international law and
contravenes previous United Nations resolutions.

Notable among the signatures were those of Dr. Alan Baker, former legal
advisor to the Foreign Ministry and former Ambassador to Canada; Dr. Meir
Rosenne, also former legal advisor to the Foreign Ministry, former
Ambassador to the United States and one of the principal framers of the Camp
David accords; Professor Talia Einhorn, Professor Eliav Shochetman, and
Legal Forum Attorney Yossi Fuchs who initiated the letter.

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon,
Secretary-General of the United Nations,

1st Avenue & 44th St., New York, NY 10017

May 25, 2011

Excellency,

Re: The proposed General Assembly resolution to recognize a Palestinian
State “within 1967 borders”- an illegal action

We, the undersigned, attorneys from across the world who are involved in
general matters of international law, as well as being closely concerned
with the Israeli- Palestinian dispute, appeal to you to use your influence
and authority among the member states of the UN, with a view to preventing
the adoption of the resolution that the Palestinian delegation intends to
table at the forthcoming session of the General Assembly, to recognize a
Palestinian state “within the 1967 borders”.

By all standards and criteria, such a resolution, if adopted, would be in
stark violation of all the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians,
as well as contravening UN Security Council resolutions 242(1967) and
338(1973) and those other resolutions based thereon. Our reasoning is as
follows:

1.  The legal basis for the establishment of the State of Israel was the
resolution unanimously adopted by the League of Nations in 1922, affirming
the establishment of a national home for the Jewish People in the historical
area of the Land of Israel. This included the areas of Judea and Samaria and
Jerusalem, and close Jewish settlement throughout. This was subsequently
affirmed by both houses of the US Congress.

2.   Article 80 of the UN Charter determines the continued validity of the
rights granted to all states or peoples, or already existing international
instruments (including those adopted by the League of Nations). Accordingly
the above-noted League resolution remains valid, and the 650,000  Jews
presently  resident  in  the  areas  of  Judea,  Samaria  and eastern
Jerusalem, reside there legitimately.

3.   “The  1967  borders”  do  not  exist,  and  have  never  existed.  The
1949 Armistice  Agreements  entered  into  by  Israel  and  its  Arab
neighbors, establishing the Armistice Demarcation Lines, clearly stated that
these
lines “are without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary
lines  or  to  claims  of  either  Party  relating  thereto”.  Accordingly
they cannot be accepted or declared to be the international boundaries of a
Palestinian state.

4.   UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973)called upon
the parties to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and
specifically stressed the need to negotiate in order to achieve “secure and
recognized boundaries”.

5.   The Palestinian proposal, in attempting to unilaterally change the
status of the territory and determine the “1967 borders” as its recognized
borders, in addition to running squarely against resolutions 242 and 338,
would be a fundamental breach of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian agreement on
the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in which the parties undertook to
negotiate the issue of borders and not act to change the status of the
territories pending outcome of the permanent status negotiations.

6.   The Palestinians entered into the various agreements constituting what
is known   as   the   “Oslo   Accords”   in   the   full   knowledge   that
Israel’s settlements existed in the areas, and that settlements would be one
of the issues to be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations.
Furthermore,   the   Oslo   Accords   impose   no   limitation   on
Israel’s settlement activity in those areas that the Palestinians agreed
would continue  to  be  under  Israel’s  jurisdiction  and  control  pending
the outcome of the Permanent Status negotiations.

7.   While the Interim Agreement was signed by Israel and the PLO, it was
witnessed by the UN together with the EU, the Russian Federation , the US,
Egypt and Norway. It is thus inconceivable that such witnesses, including
first and foremost the UN, would now give license to a measure in the UN
aimed at violating this agreement and undermining major resolutions of the
Security Council.

8.   While the UN has maintained a persistent policy of non-recognition of
Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem pending a negotiated solution, despite
Israel’s historic rights to the city, it is inconceivable that the UN would
now recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, the borders of
which  would  include  eastern  Jerusalem.  This  would  represent  the
ultimate in hypocrisy, double standards and discrimination, as well as an
utter disregard of the rights of Israel and the Jewish People.

9.   Such unilateral action by the Palestinians could give rise to
reciprocal initiatives   in   the   Israeli   Parliament   (Knesset)   which
could   include proposed legislation to  declare Israel’s sovereignty over
extensive parts of Judea and Samaria, if and when the Palestinians carry out
their unilateral action.

Excellency,

It appears to be patently clear to all that the Palestinian exercise, aimed
at advancing their political claims, represents a cynical abuse of the UN
Organization and of the members of the General Assembly. Its aim is to by-
pass the negotiation process called-for by the Security Council.

Regrettably this abuse of the UN and its integrity, in addition to
undermining international law, has the potential to derail the Middle-East
peace process.

We trust that you will use your authority to protect the UN and its
integrity from this abuse, and act to prevent any affirmation or recognition
of this dangerous Palestinian initiative.

Sincerely,

Ambassador (Ret) Attorney Baker Alan, Ambassador (Ret) Dr. Rosenne Meir, Dr.
Arnon Harel. Adv.
Prof. Einhorn Talia, Prof. Shochetman Eliav, Abu Lior, Adv., Asraf Shlomo,
Adv. (LL.B, LL.M)
Baba-Nahary Merav, Adv., Benjamin Aryeh N., Adv. LL.M Ben-Shahar Meir, Adv.
LL.B, LL.M
Bulshtein Ariel, Adv., Burstyn Yitzhak .adv LL.M, Carmi Anat, Adv.
Cohen Hila, Adv. Daniely Mirit, Adv., David Liat, Adv. (LL.B, LL.M)
Dermer Yossi, Adv., Eagle Shira, Adv. Eisenberg M., Adv Elad Cohen, Adv.
Elkalay Shimrit, Adv., Friedman Shlomo, Adv., Fuchs Yossi ,Adv.
Ganan Yuval. Adv. Goelman Avinoam, Adv. Goldman Ezra Adv.,
Guggenheim Chanania U., Adv Hacohen Itay, Adv. Harshoshanim Ariel, Adv.
Hershkovitz David, Adv. LL.M Jarden Elon ,Adv., Kavatz Gad, Adv.
Koslowe Avital Adv. (LL.B, LL.M) Lapidot Harel, Adv.
Lapidot Ohad Ziv, Adv., Levy Yechezkel, Adv. LL.M. Magen Alon, Adv. LL.B
Meiri Eddy, Esq. Morginstin Philip B.,Adv Nadel Gill, Adv.
Naor Avi, Adv., Nimni Eliyahu, Adv. Nir-Tzvi Doron, Adv. Orbach Nir, Adv.
Peretz Yitzhak, (LLB, Hons.) Adv. Rotenberg Zvi E. ,Adv., Shaya Dotan, Adv.
Shimon Yehuda Arye, Adv. Shmuelyan Eli, Adv., Tamari Amir, Adv.
Tamari Ilana, Adv., Teplow Michael I., J.D adv. Vaknin Emanuel, Adv.
Weistuch Elad, Adv. Wiseman Gabriel, Adv. Yamin Uri, Adv.