Venezuela: US-backed Coup Underway

The attempt to dethrone President Nicolás Maduro has not come out of the blue. Since Maduro became president after the death of Chávez in 2013, the US has resolutely aimed at a regime change.

This is a chain of events totally misrepresented by the western mainstream media, as usual.

The US has tried to persuade parts of the Venezuelan army to turn against Maduro, but without any result so far. That is why Washington relies first and foremost on the internal opposition and on diplomatic pressure.

The US gives assistance to the political opposition and tries to unite it as much as possible. According to the color revolution handbook, NGOs, student organizations and local organizations are funded, trained and coached to organize street riots as effectively as possible. The street violence must destabilize the country to such an extent that the government is forced to resign, or that the army intervenes and deposes the government.

Since 2013, the opposition twice unleashed a cycle of large-scale violence. In 2014, 43 people were killed and 800 injured. In 2017, 131 people died.

In the meantime, the economic situation deteriorated very much. This was mainly the result of an economic model that is extremely dependent on oil prices, but also of an outright economic warfare against the regime.

They lied about Iran. They lied about Vietnam. They lied about Chile. They lied about Iraq. They lied about Afghanistan. They lied about Iraq again. They lied about Libya. They lied about Syria. But yeah, sure, this time (with Venezuela) it’s for a good cause (it’s not).

Venezuela holds sway over a considerable supply of global oil, thus having the ability to influence its price of what is termed “black gold”. In 2017 Venezuela was the seventh largest oil exporter in OPEC, accounting for 6.4% of OPEC’s crude oil exports.

The oil price drop of 2015 which affected Venezuela was a global phenomenon.

Since the formation of OPEC in the 1970s, the Saudi Kingdom has been able to use its immense reserves to undermine other oil-producing countries’ attempts to maintain a high and stable price for petroleum. Even if all these nations were to ally, the Saudi Kingdom can turn the tap up or down and change the entire global economy to benefit its own geopolitical agenda and that of its U.S. patron. It did so in the late 1970s to offset lowered production in Iran after the 1979 revolution. And it did so again in 2015, partly in response to the success of the Iran-U.S. nuclear deal. It’s not a perfect mechanism; the price drop hurt the Saudi economy before prices slowly climbed anew. But the most severe effects were felt by the United States’ designated enemies: Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

Weaponized oil prices are a useful tool in globalist conquest, one piece on the chessboard worth holding. But President Maduro seems to be immune to the temptation of the western bribe or its callous threats.

Now he will have to stand the test of an offer he perhaps cannot refuse; the embargoes and bloodshed that have and will continue to befall his nation for his “lack of cooperation”. This is, as Russia states, a “direct path to bloodshed”. This prophesy is quickly becoming true as Maduro has called for the expansion of armed civilian militias as the threat of more violence on the streets of Caracas continues to grow. The militias, created by deceased former president Hugo Chávez to resist “imperialist aggression,” currently consist of about 100,000 members. Maduro’s proposed expansion of the civilian force would increase its size to 500,000.

Furthermore, up to 400 Russian military contractors are in Venezuela to beef-up security for Maduro, according to reports.

Maduro’s announcement was accompanied by a rousing speech in which he called upon Venezuelans to decide if they are “with the homeland” or against it, adding that “now is not the time to hesitate.”

A lengthy western media onslaught has pinned Venezuela’s economic troubles on Maduro’s regime; ignoring western trade embargoes entirely, not to mention the geopolitical significance of Venezuela’s oil supply and its closeness to Russia and China. It is in imperialist interests to subjugate Venezuela.

If the opposition does ultimately capture the presidency, the best-case scenario is that Venezuela adopts the ruinous austerity policies of Macri’s Argentina or Temer’s Brazil. The worst-case scenario could look something like the U.S.-led occupation of Haiti, with the country’s oil industry turned over to the multinationals, like Iraq’s was more than a decade ago.

Juan Guaidó: the western choice for regime change in Venezuela.

Maduro says Venezuela is “the victim of a US conspiracy,” referring to reports that US Vice President Mike Pence promised Guaido full American support the day before he declared himself Venezuela’s new leader. An act of unabashed interference and sponsorship in foreign elections.

Maduro has spoken at length on the situation:

“This is the reason for the coup. They don’t want us to get better. They sabotage us and try to destroy the (Venezuelan) economic system.”

“We will continue denouncing US lies, and I will continue to encourage national dialogue because I am up for a dialogue with all the political opposition, with the opposition media,” he said. “I think dialogue should prevail. I believe in dialogue.”

Guaidó is the thirty-five-year-old president of Parliament. He is very close toLeopoldo López, with whom he is in daily contact, despite his house arrest. Together they founded the right-wing party Voluntad Popular. In the past, this party organised armed pickets that killed people, set fire to public buildings and hospitals, led to attacks on ministries, etc.

Strengthened by Trump’s backing, the opposition took to the streets the same day with the aim of ousting President Maduro and forming a provisional government. Amnesty was promised to the military who would defect. Six days later, on 21 January, some rebellious soldiers posted a video message online in which they declared themselves loyal to the opposition leader.

Tensions increased. On 22 January, Mike Pence, vice president of the US, posted a video message calling on Venezuelans to take to the streets and get rid of Maduro. One day later, the opposition did what Pence asked, they massively took to the streets. There were also large counter-demonstrations by supporters of the government. Guaidó proclaimed himself the new president. He was immediately recognized by the governments of the US, Brazil and Canada, among others. Russia, China, Turkey and Mexico, a large and important country in the region, continue to recognize Maduro. Europe takes a cautious and moderate position.

The situation as it unfolds.

It is unlikely that the recognition of Guaidó by the US and some other countries will bring down President Maduro. But it may lead to further destabilisation of the country. The White House has opted for the strategy of chaos, as it has already done in so many other places.

The recognition of Guaidó will give the opposition a boost. If Guaidó is not allowed to hold the presidency, this may lead to more economic sanctions. The US is currently considering a ban on oil imports. This would have serious consequences for Venezuela’s financial position and would further reduce oil production.

An increasing number of recognitions of Guiadó as president will make it more likely that more countries will adopt economic sanctions against Venezuela. Threatening sanctions, stronger opposition and increasing violence will intensify the pressure on military officers and the PSUV top, in the hope that they will eventually change camps.

At the moment a foreign military intervention is unlikely, even with escalating violence. But in the past Trump has not ruled out such an intervention. With the recent election of the belligerent Bolsonaro, such an intervention could possibly be outsourced by the US to Brazil, together with Colombia, Peru and other countries in the region.

In any case, the interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign country that the US is exhibiting today is unashamed and unprecedented. It violates the most elementary principles of the United Nations.

The deadlock in Venezuela can only be resolved through national dialogue. Maduro, for his part, is in favor of calling for a dialogue, directed to the country as a whole by the governments of Uruguay and Mexico. Any foreign interference or pressure will only add fuel to the flames.

Advertisements

Terraforming has begun: “Global dimming” is a plot to exterminate humanity by terraforming the atmosphere with smog pollution, killing Earth’s food crops and unleashing ecological collapse

Article from Mike Adams at Natural News.

Now we come to the end game for humanity. This is it, folks: They have a plan to collapse global food production, kill off over 90% of the human race, devastate natural ecosystems and pollute the Earth’s atmosphere… and it’s all being sold to you under the banner of “environmentalism.”

The scheme is called “global dimming,” and it’s a dangerous geoengineering plot to spray billions of tons of smog into the atmosphere so that pollution levels would block sunlight and halt global warming. This is literally what the mad environmental scientists are now proposing — the very same people who have, for years, claimed that “chemtrails” are a conspiracy theory and don’t exist. Now, all of a sudden, they want to chemtrail the entire planet in order to “save” us all from global warming.

“Stratospheric aerosol injection” now the new name for chemtrails / geoengineering

The global dimming scheme is, of course, based on spraying chemtrails into the upper atmosphere using thousands of high-altitude flights that release pollution to dim the sun. The very idea of “chemtrails” has, until now, been mocked by the media and the science establishment, who have for years claimed the very idea of chemtrails is a lunatic conspiracy theory. So they’ve changed the name to “stratospheric aerosol injection,” and they now have a science paper that outlines all the costs involved.

“We lay out a future solar geoengineering deployment scenario of halving the increase in anthropogenic radiative forcing,” writes Wake Smith and Gernot Wagner in their paper, “Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment.” Published in Environmental Research Letters, you can view the full text of the study at this link.

Geoengineering is another term that many people use synonymously with “chemtrails.” And now it’s a strategy being openly advocated by scientists to halt so-called “climate change,” a fake science hoax that has been perpetrated on the world by power-hungry globalists who want humanity to surrender to global rule in the name of “saving the planet.”

The study cites the specific aircraft that would be needed to achieve chemtrails pollution. “[P]urpose-built high-altitude tanker with substantial payload capabilities” would be deployed to spray sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. The paper proposes 4000 flights a year, costing $2.25 billion per year, continuing over 15 years to make sure the atmosphere is significantly polluted to dim the sun and achieve the terraforming goals of globalists (see more details, below).

In the conclusion of their abstract, the study authors explain the program would require, “thousands of flights annually by airliner-sized aircraft operating from an international array of bases,” making it almost impossible to keep secret.

Of course, this very program has already begun, and secrecy isn’t necessary when you have the entire media and science establishment condemning any belief in chemtrails as a form of mental illness. So just remember: As they pollute the skies and dim the sun, if you point out that they’re polluting the skies and dimming the sun, you’re a “conspiracy theorist.”

And there’s no such thing as chemtrails, you see. Nope, it’s “stratospheric aerosol injection” now, which sounds almost sciency. That’s how this program is already being perpetrated right under our noses, right now, even while the media runs a global cover-up to dismiss such ideas as bizarre theories.

The global controllers hope you never read the science papers, of course, because there, geoengineering is routinely cited and even advocated as the “solution” to climate change.

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) explained… and yeah, it’s just another name for chemtrails

“Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) would require lofting hundreds of thousands to millions of tons of material each year to altitudes up to ~20 km,” explain study authors. They also ask, “Could it be done in secret?”

The study offers heavy discussion on the design and costs of aircraft that could deliver the planned pollution to the upper atmosphere:

IPCC (2018) states that ‘there is high agreement that aircrafts after some modifications could inject millions of tons of SO2 in the lower stratosphere (~20 km)’.

The overall goal of the geoengineering program is to inject 5 million tons of SO2 (sulfur dioxide, otherwise known as “smog”) into the atmosphere. Achieving that goal, “assumes a rational actor seeking to implement a scientifically sensible SAI program,” write the study authors, somehow claiming it is “rational” to disperse mass pollution across the atmosphere of your own planet. The same authors also claim this program must be conducted, “purely out of humanitarian and environmental considerations.”

Shocking realization: This is terraforming planet Earth to collapse the global food supply and kill off humans

In considering the sheer lunacy of the “Stratospheric Aerosol Injection” plan, I feel compelled to state that these climate change / global warming scientists are dangerously insane sociopaths and they must be stopped before they murder us all. These lunatics, if given enough government funding, will literally murder our planet and destroy human civilization. Such is the cost of the decades of false propaganda in our public schools that has brainwashed children into believing “climate change” is real and must be halted. The schemes now being proposed to halt this non-existent problem will, themselves, bring about the global destruction that children are being warned about with global warming.

This global pollution / terraforming program, if allowed to continue, could unleash the following devastating consequences, especially if deployed at a time when the sun is in its own dimming cycle that would accelerate global cooling.

#1) Global collapse of food crops – The reduction in solar radiation caused by geoengineering, combined with the natural cycle of global cooling from sun cycles, could produce a sharp reduction in food crop production across the globe. This would result in increased food prices and reduced food supplies, adding to vectors for civil unrest and “climate refugees” invading First World nations to escape starvation.

#2) Global rise in cancer from vitamin D deficiency – Reduction in solar radiation reaching the surface of the planet would exacerbate vitamin D deficiencies that already strongly contribute to cancer fatalities around the world. Sunlight is currently the primary source of vitamin D for billions of world citizens. Dimming the sun would be a death sentence for millions each year who would suffer the dire consequences of chronic vitamin D deficiencies.

#3) Global drop in IQs due to increased air pollution – Increases in air pollution have been scientifically found to lower children’s IQs. In addition, air pollution is scientifically documented to damage DNA in the wombincrease the risk of ventricular arrhythmia and increase the risk of bone loss in humans.

#4) Massive loss of habitat and ecosystems due to decreased sunlight and colder temperatures – Entire ecosystems — such as rainforests — could be devastated by a pollution-initiated drop in solar radiation. Marine ecosystems also rely heavily on solar radiation to power the photosynthesis of ocean plants such as seaweeds, grasses and algae, which serve as a pillar food source for the entire marine food web. Dimming the sun would have devastating consequences for all ecosystems on the planet, resulting in a catastrophic loss of life, habitat and eco-diversity.

#5) Huge increase in global acid rain that will devastate forests and food crops – The mass injection of SO2 into the atmosphere will result in SO2 being dispersed into lower levels of the atmosphere over time. There, mixed with rain storms, it will create sulfurous acid, otherwise known as acid rain. This acid rain will devastate forests and food crops and result in the acidification of crop soils, destabilizing soil microbes and leading the widespread crop losses.

#6) Decreased plant production of oxygen that’s necessary for humans, primates and mammals to survive – Nearly all plants depend on solar radiation for photosynthesis, which uses CO2 as a “fuel” and produces oxygen (O2) as a byproduct. Reducing solar radiation through chemtrails pollution would reduce the production of oxygen by plants, resulting in a global fall in atmospheric oxygen levels, ultimately leading to the mass asphyxiation of humans, primates and mammals if allowed to continue. Even the EPA (see source below) admits that SO2 interferes with human respiration and makes it difficult for people to breathe.

Photosynthesis-600

Even the EPA recognizes sulfur dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that makes it difficult for humans to breathe

Note carefully that the geoengineering efforts being advocated to dim the sun are based on sulfur dioxide, a known pollutant. “Short-term exposures to SO2 can harm the human respiratory system and make breathing difficult,” warns the EPA. “…[G]aseous SOx can harm trees and plants by damaging foliage and decreasing growth… SO2 and other sulfur oxides can contribute to acid rain which can harm sensitive ecosystems,” the EPA writes.

In other words, it isn’t even debated whether sulfur dioxide is a pollutant. It’s smog (or technically, it reacts to create smog), and the very idea that mass polluting the atmosphere with SO2 would somehow “save” the planet is rooted in nothing less than advanced psychosis or some other dangerous form of mental illness. That such schemes are marketed under the banner of “science” just shows how twisted the institution of science has now become.

Why would any rational institution seek to mass pollute our entire planet and destroy food crops, forests, mammals, primates and humans? The answer is even more shocking than the proposal itself, it turns out. Keep reading, as one possible explanation for all this continues below…

It wasn’t long ago that scientists warned about “global cooling” and the coming Ice Age

It was only a generation ago that young scientists were being warned that Earth was entering a “global cooling” crisis that would bring about a whole new ice age. This was the climate panic of the 1970s and early 1980s. Today’s older scientists remember the warnings quite well. We were all told that if we didn’t find a way to warm the planet, we would all perish as Earth was turned into a ball of ice.

Beginning in the 1990s, the scientists flipped the script, reversing their warning and suddenly claiming the problem was too much heat. We were all going to die from global warming if we didn’t change something, we were told. A decade or so later, when it was revealed that government science scammers were faking all the warming data, they changed the scam to “climate change,” since they couldn’t scientifically support either warming or cooling.

Here’s the cover of TIME Magazine from 1977, which warns, “How To Survive The Coming Ice Age,” then urges readers to get on board to save the planet, saying, “51 Things You Can Do to Make a Difference.”

Time-Magazine-Ice-Age-400

Today, we’re told the most absurd, insane things by these scientists who insist that the climate never changed at all before the year 1920, with the rise of the combustion engine and “human activity.” And now we’re constantly terrorized by the fake news media into thinking that if we don’t pollute the Earth’s atmosphere with smog, we will all somehow die from the rise of carbon dioxide, the No. 1 most important greening nutrient for plants, forests and food crops.

So now they’ve decided they have to poison the atmosphere to fight climate change, and they’ve got about a billion gullible world citizens convinced that this is somehow an amazing idea. What they would really unleash, of course, is absolutely catastrophic to all life on our world. Remember: They want to disperse billions of tons of sulfur dioxide (smog) into the atmosphere through massive government-funded chemtrailing of the planet. The question now emerges: Is the destruction of humanity deliberate? If so, who would hatch such a nefarious plan?

Geoengineering is a planet-wide weapon system being deployed to eliminate human life on Earth while terraforming the planet for some other purpose

Here’s the cosmic inconvenient truth that Al Gore doesn’t want you to consider. What we are really witnessing here is the planned terraforming of planet Earth for some other purpose. And by “other,” I mean other than human.

If you wanted humans to thrive on planet Earth, you would not unleash mass pollution, acid rain, food crop failures, oxygen depletion and global dimming. You would, instead, try to reduce pollution, support plant life, enhance food crop production and protect global ecosystems from pollution. That’s the normal, rational thing that any human being would naturally want to pursue.

Yet we are subjected to these nefarious geoengineering schemes that directly contradict every principle of sustainable life on Earth. And it’s all described as a way to “save” the planet, even as it would destroy global life support for humans.

I can’t help but be reminded of the outstanding film Oblivion, starring Tom Cruise. In the film, the Cruise character thinks he’s protecting human civilization, but he’s actually (unknowingly) working for extraterrestrials who are stealing Earth’s resources and exterminating humans. The film is one of the best science fiction films of all time, and its story sounds eerily similar to what may be happening right now with so-called “geoengineering.”

Who (or what) would want to alter the atmosphere, decimate oxygen levels, destroy the food supply and collapse human civilization? The answer should be obvious: Something that is in competition with humans and sees no further use for humanity. Human life on Earth appears to be in the process of being “cleansed” in a cosmic ethnic cleansing scheme that will produce an altered, low-oxygen atmosphere that might prove advantageous to a life form which isn’t already part of Earth’s existing ecosystem. The reduction in solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface would make the planet more hospital to a life form that originated from a planet located farther from its home sun than Earth is from our own sun.

It raises the obvious, if bizarre-sounding, question: Are Earth’s globalists preparing the planet for a post-human era? And is that plan disguised as a “climate change” emergency course of action so that the gullible people can be told the mass pollution of the skies is a bold plan to save humanity rather than exterminate it? What if “climate change” is actually a cosmic false flag hoax that was designed from the very start to convince Earthlings to support their own extermination? Given the now-planned destruction of Earth’s atmosphere in the name of “climate change,” we must now consider such possibilities, no matter how bizarre they first seem.

Why are all the globalists suddenly talking about escaping to Mars and terraforming Marsinto a habitat where humans can survive? Why are globalists now so desperate the alter Earth’s atmosphere and make the planet inhospitable to humans? Why such a recent focus on the Arctic seed vault to preserve the seeds of life in preparation for a global cataclysm? Why are so many globalist insiders building underground bunkers and living in them?

I don’t have the answers to all these questions, but I do know that the fairy tale stories we’re being told about “climate change” and how we must save the planet by polluting the skies are rooted in complete quack science fiction and brainwashing propaganda.

On the other hand, if humans are stupid enough to destroy their own planet in the name of saving the planet, perhaps they’re simply not qualified to participate in an intelligence universe after all. Natural selection, after all, is likely playing out on a cosmic scale, and Earth appears to be flunking the cosmic IQ test that wonders, “Hey, is that civilization stupid enough to commit suicide based on a fairy tale hoax?”

So far, it appears the answer for Earth and humans is a resounding “Yes!”

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel

By  of Foreign Policy Journal.

The popular belief that Israel was established by the United Nations is rooted in falsehood and prejudice against the rights of the Palestinians.

There is a widely accepted belief that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 “created” Israel, based upon an understanding that this resolution partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority or legitimacy to the declaration of the existence of the state of Israel. However, despite its popularity, this belief has no basis in fact, as a review of the resolution’s history and examination of legal principles demonstrates incontrovertibly.

Great Britain had occupied Palestine during the First World War, and in July 1922, the League of Nations issued its mandate for Palestine, which recognized the British government as the occupying power and effectively conferred to it the color of legal authority to temporarily administrate the territory.[1] On April 2, 1947, seeking to extract itself from the conflict that had arisen in Palestine between Jews and Arabs as a result of the Zionist movement to establish in Palestine a “national home for the Jewish people”,[2] the United Kingdom submitted a letter to the U.N. requesting the Secretary General “to place the question of Palestine on the Agenda of the General Assembly at its next regular Annual Session”, and requesting the Assembly “to make recommendations, under Article 10 of the Charter, concerning the future government of Palestine.”[3] To that end, on May 15, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 106, which established the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) to investigate “the question of Palestine”, to “prepare a report to the General Assembly” based upon its findings, and to “submit such proposals as it may consider appropriate for the solution of the problem of Palestine”.[4]

On September 3, UNSCOP issued its report to the General Assembly declaring its majority recommendation that Palestine be partitioned into separate Jewish and Arab states. It noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent). Growth of the Jewish population had been mainly the result of immigration, while growth of the Arab population had been “almost entirely” due to natural increase. It observed that there was “no clear territorial separation of Jews and Arabs by large contiguous areas”, and even in the Jaffa district, which included Tel Aviv, Arabs constituted a majority.[5] Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. The district with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership was Jaffa, where 39 percent of the land was owned by Jews, compared to 47 percent owned by Arabs.[6] In the whole of Palestine at the time UNSCOP issued its report, Arabs remained “in possession of approximately 85 percent of the land”,[7] while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8]

Despite these facts, the UNSCOP proposal was that the Arab state be constituted from only 45.5 percent of the whole of Palestine, while the Jews would be awarded 55.5 percent of the total area for their state.[9] The UNSCOP report acknowledged that

With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the ‘A’ Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle.[10]

In other words, the report explicitly recognized that the denial of Palestinian independence in order to pursue the goal of establishing a Jewish state constituted a rejection of the right of the Arab majority to self-determination. And yet, despite this recognition, UNSCOP had accepted this rejection of Arab rights as being within the bounds of a legitimate and reasonable framework for a solution.

Following the issuance of the UNSCOP report, the U.K. issued a statement declaring its agreement with the report’s recommendations, but adding that “if the Assembly should recommend a policy which is not acceptable to both Jews and Arabs, the United Kingdom Government would not feel able to implement it.”[11] The position of the Arabs had been clear from the beginning, but the Arab Higher Committee issued a statement on September 29 reiterating that “the Arabs of Palestine were determined to oppose with all the means at their disposal, any scheme that provided for segregation or partition, or that would give to a minority special and preferential status”. It instead

advocated freedom and independence for an Arab State in the whole of Palestine which would respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law, and would protect the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities whilst guaranteeing freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places.[12]

The U.K. followed with a statement reiterating “that His Majesty’s Government could not play a major part in the implementation of a scheme that was not acceptable to both Arabs and Jews”, but adding “that they would, however, not wish to impede the implementation of a recommendation approved by the General Assembly.”[13]

The Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question was established by the General Assembly shortly after the issuance of the UNSCOP report in order to continue to study the problem and make recommendations. A sub-committee was established in turn that was tasked with examining the legal issues pertaining to the situation in Palestine, and it released the report of its findings on November 11. It observed that the UNSCOP report had accepted a basic premise “that the claims to Palestine of the Arabs and Jews both possess validity”, which was “not supported by any cogent reasons and is demonstrably against the weight of all available evidence.” With an end to the Mandate and with British withdrawal, “there is no further obstacle to the conversion of Palestine into an independent state”, which “would be the logical culmination of the objectives of the Mandate” and the Covenant of the League of Nations. It found that “the General Assembly is not competent to recommend, still less to enforce, any solution other than the recognition of the independence of Palestine, and that the settlement of the future government of Palestine is a matter solely for the people of Palestine.” It concluded that “no further discussion of the Palestine problem seems to be necessary or appropriate, and this item should be struck off the agenda of the General Assembly”, but that if there was a dispute on that point, “it would be essential to obtain the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on this issue”, as had already been requested by several of the Arab states. It concluded further that the partition plan was “contrary to the principles of the Charter, and the United Nations have no power to give effect to it.” The U.N. could not deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country…. The United Nations Organization has no power to create a new State. Such a decision can only be taken by the free will of the people of the territories in question. That condition is not fulfilled in the case of the majority proposal, as it involves the establishment of a Jewish State in complete disregard of the wishes and interests of the Arabs of Palestine.[14]

Nevertheless, the General Assembly passed Resolution 181 on November 29, with 33 votes in favor to 13 votes against, and 10 abstentions.[15] The relevant text of the resolution stated:

The General Assembly….

Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;

Requests that

(a) The Security Council take the necessary measure as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

(b) The Security Council consider, if circumstances during the transitional period require such consideration, whether the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace. If it decides that such a threat exists, and in order to maintain international peace and security, the Security Council should supplement the authorization of the General Assembly by taking measure, under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter, to empower the United Nations Commission, as provided in this resolution, to exercise in Palestine the functions which are assigned to it by this resolution;

(c) The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution;

(d) The Trusteeship Council be informed of the responsibilities envisaged for it in this plan;

Calls upon the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect;

Appeals to all Governments and all peoples to refrain from taking action which might hamper or delay the carrying out of these recommendations….[16]

A simple reading of the text is enough to show that the resolution did not partition Palestine or offer any legal basis for doing so. It merely recommended that the partition plan be implemented and requestedthe Security Council to take up the matter from there. It called upon the inhabitants of Palestine to accept the plan, but they were certainly under no obligation to do so.

A Plan Never Implemented

The matter was thus taken up by the Security Council, where, on December 9, the Syrian representative to the U.N., Faris El-Khouri, observed that “the General Assembly is not a world government which can dictate orders, partition countries or impose constitutions, rules, regulations and treaties on people without their consent.” When the Soviet representative Andrei Gromyko stated his government’s opposing view that “The resolution of the General Assembly should be implemented” by the Security Council, El-Khouri replied by noting further that

Certain paragraphs of the resolution of the General Assembly which concern the Security Council are referred to the Council, namely, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), outlining the functions of the Security Council in respect of the Palestinian question. All of the members of the Security Council are familiar with the Council’s functions, which are well defined and clearly stated in the Charter of the United Nations. I do not believe that the resolution of the General Assembly can add to or delete from these functions. The recommendations of the General Assembly are well known to be recommendations, and Member States are not required by force to accept them. Member States may or may not accept them, and the same applies to the Security Council. [17]

On February 6, 1948, the Arab Higher Committee again communicated to the U.N. Secretary General its position that the partition plan was “contrary to the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter”. The U.N. “has no jurisdiction to order or recommend the partition of Palestine. There is nothing in the Charter to warrant such authority, consequently the recommendation of partition is ultra vires and therefore null and void.” Additionally, the Arab Higher Committee noted that

The Arab Delegations submitted proposals in the Ad Hoc Committee in order to refer the whole legal issue raised for a ruling by the International Court of Justice. The said proposals were never put to vote by the president in the Assembly. The United Nations is an International body entrusted with the task of enforcing peace and justice in international affairs. How would there be any confidence in such a body if it bluntly and unreasonably refuses to refer such a dispute to the International Court of Justice?

“The Arabs of Palestine will never recognize the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them”, the Arab Higher Committee declared, and they would “consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power or group of powers to establish a Jewish State in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense by force.”[18]

On February 16, the U.N. Palestine Commission, tasked by the General Assembly to prepare for the transfer of authority from the Mandatory Power to the successor governments under the partition plan, issued its first report to the Security Council. It concluded on the basis of the Arab rejection that it “finds itself confronted with an attempt to defect its purposes, and to nullify the resolution of the General Assembly”, and calling upon the Security Council to provide an armed force “which alone would enable the Commission to discharge its responsibilities on the termination of the Mandate”. In effect, the Palestine Commission had determined that the partition plan should be implemented against the will of the majority population of Palestine by force.[19]

In response to that suggestion, Colombia submitted a draft Security Council resolution noting that the U.N. Charter did “not authorize the Security Council to create special forces for the purposes indicated by the United Nations Palestine Commission”.[20] The U.S. delegate, Warren Austin, similarly stated at the 253rd meeting of the Security Council on February 24 that

The Security Council is authorized to take forceful measures with respect to Palestine to remove a threat to international peace. The Charter of the United Nations does not empower the Security Council to enforce a political settlement whether it is pursuant to a recommendation of the General Assembly or of the Security Council itself. What this means is this: The Security Council, under the Charter, can take action to prevent aggression against Palestine from outside. The Security Council, by these same powers, can take action to prevent a threat to international peace and security from inside Palestine. But this action must be directed solely to the maintenance of international peace. The Security Council’s action, in other words, is directed to keeping the peace and not to enforcing partition.[21]

The United States nevertheless submitted its own draft text more ambiguously accepting the requests of the Palestine Commission “subject to the authority of the Security Council under the Charter”.[22] Faris El-Khouri objected to the U.S. draft on the grounds that “before accepting these three requests, it is our duty to ascertain whether they are or are not within the framework of the Security Council as limited by the Charter. If it is found that they are not, we should decline to accept them.” He recalled Austin’s own statement on the lack of authority of the Security Council, saying, “It would follow from this undeniable fact that any recommendation on a political settlement can be implemented only if the parties concerned willingly accept and complement it.” Furthermore, “the partition plan itself constitutes a threat to the peace, being openly rejected by all those at whose expense it was to be executed.”[23] Austin in turn explained the intent of the U.S. draft that its acceptance of Resolution 181 is

subject to the limitation that armed force cannot be used for implementation of the plan, because the Charter limits the use of United Nations force expressly to threats to and breaches of the peace and aggression affecting international peace. Therefore, we must interpret the General Assembly resolution as meaning that the United Nations measures to implement this resolution are peaceful measures.

Moreover, explained Austin, the U.S. draft

does not authorize use of enforcement under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter to empower the United Nations Commission to exercise in Palestine the functions which are assigned to it by the resolution, because the Charter does not authorize either the General Assembly or the Security Council to do any such thing.[24]

When the Security Council did finally adopt a resolution on March 5, it merely made a note of “Having received General Assembly resolution 181″ and the first monthly Palestine Commission report, and resolved

to call on the permanent members of the Council to consult and to inform the Security Council regarding the situation with respect to Palestine and to make, as the result of such consultations, recommendations to it regarding the guidance and instructions which the Council might usefully give to the Palestine Commission with a view to implementing the resolution of the General Assembly.[25]

During further debates at the Security Council over how to proceed, Austin observed that it had become “clear that the Security Council is not prepared to go ahead with efforts to implement this plan in the existing situation.” At the same time, it was clear that the U.K.’s announced termination of the Mandate on May 15 “would result, in the light of information now available, in chaos, heavy fighting and much loss of life in Palestine.” The U.N. could not permit this, he said, and the Security Council had the responsibility and authority under the Charter to act to prevent such a threat to the peace. The U.S. also proposed establishing a Trusteeship over Palestine to give further opportunity to the Jews and Arabs to reach a mutual agreement. Pending the convening of a special session of the General Assembly to that end, “we believe that the Security Council should instruct the Palestine Commission to suspend its efforts to implement the proposed partition plan.”[26]

The Security Council President, speaking as the representative from China, responded: “The United Nations was created mainly for the maintenance of international peace. It would be tragic indeed if the United Nations, by attempting a political settlement, should be the cause of war. For these reasons, my delegation supports the general principles of the proposal of the United States delegation.”[27] At a further meeting of the Security Council, the Canadian delegate stated that the partition plan “is based on a number of important assumptions”, the first of which was that “it was assumed that the two communities in Palestine would co-operate in putting into effect the solution to the Palestine problem which was recommended by the General Assembly.”[28] The French delegate, while declining to extend either approval for or disapproval of the U.S. proposal, observed that it would allow for any number of alternative solutions from the partition plan, including “a single State with sufficient guarantees for minorities”.[29] The representative from the Jewish Agency for Palestine read a statement categorically rejecting “any plan to set up a trusteeship regime for Palestine”, which “would necessarily entail a denial of the Jewish right to national independence.”[30]

Mindful of the worsening situation in Palestine, and wishing to avoid further debate, the U.S. proposed another draft resolution calling for a truce between Jewish and Arab armed groups that Austin noted “would not prejudice the claims of either group” and which “does not mention trusteeship.”[31] It was adopted as Resolution 43 on April 1.[32] Resolution 44 was also passed the same day requesting “the Secretary-General, in accordance with Article 20 of the United Nations Charter, to convoke a special session of the General Assembly to consider further the question of the future government of Palestine.”[33] Resolution 46 reiterated the Security Council’s call for the cessation of hostilities in Palestine,[34] and Resolution 48 established a “Truce Commission” to further the goal of implementing its resolutions calling for an end to the violence.[35]

On May 14, the Zionist leadership unilaterally declared the existence of the State of Israel, citing Resolution 181 as constituting “recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State”.[36] As anticipated, war ensued.

The Authority of the U.N. with Regard to Partition

Chapter 1, Article 1 of the U.N. Charter defines its purposes and principles, which are to “maintain international peace and security”, to “develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”, and to “achieve international co-operation” on various issues and “promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all”.

The functions and powers of the General Assembly are listed under Chapter IV, Articles 10 through 17. It is tasked to initiate studies and make recommendations to promote international cooperation and the development of international law, to receive reports from the Security Council and other organs of the U.N., and to consider and approve the organization’s budget. It is also tasked with performing functions under the international trusteeship system. Its authority is otherwise limited to considering and discussing matters within the scope of the Charter, making recommendations to Member States or the Security Council, or calling attention of matters to the Security Council.

Chapter V, Articles 24 through 26, states the functions and powers of the Security Council.  It is tasked with maintaining peace and security in accordance with the purposes and principles of the U.N. The specific powers granted to the Security Council are stated in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII. Under Chapter VI, the Security Council may call upon parties to settle disputes by peaceful means, investigate, and make a determination as to whether a dispute or situation constitutes a threat to peace and security. It may recommend appropriate procedures to resolve disputes, taking into consideration that “legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice”. Under Chapter VII, the Security Council may determine the existence of a threat to peace and make recommendations or decide what measures are to be taken to maintain or restore peace and security. It may call upon concerned parties to take provisional measures “without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned.” It may call upon member states to employ “measures not involving the use of armed force” to apply such measures. Should such measures be inadequate, it may authorize the use of armed forces “to maintain or restore international peace and security”. Chapter VIII states that the Security Council “shall encourage the development of pacific settlements of local disputes” through regional arrangements or agencies, and utilize such to enforce actions under its authority.

The functions and powers of the International Trusteeship System are listed under Chapter XII, Articles 75 through 85. The purpose of the system is to administer and supervise territories placed therein by agreement with the goal of “development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned”. The system is to operate in accordance with the purposes of the U.N. stated in Article 1, including respect for the right of self-determination. The General Assembly is tasked with all functions “not designated as strategic”, which are designated to the Security Council. A Trusteeship Council is established to assist the General Assembly and the Security Council to perform their functions under the system.

Chapter XIII, Article 87 states the functions and powers of the Trusteeship Council, which are shared by the General Assembly. Authority is granted to consider reports, accept and examine petitions, provide for visits to trust territories, and “take these and other actions in conformity with the terms of the trusteeship agreements.”

Another relevant section is Chapter XI, entitled the “Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories”, which states that

Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories…

To that end, Member states are “to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions”.

Conclusion

The partition plan put forth by UNSCOP sought to create within Palestine a Jewish state contrary to the express will of the majority of its inhabitants. Despite constituting only a third of the population and owning less than 7 percent of the land, it sought to grant to the Jews more than half of Palestine for purpose of creating that Jewish state. It would, in other words, take land from the Arabs and give it to the Jews. The inherent injustice of the partition plan stands in stark contrast to alternative plan proposed by the Arabs, of an independent state of Palestine in which the rights of the Jewish minority would be recognized and respected, and which would afford the Jewish population representation in a democratic government. The partition plan was blatantly prejudicial to the rights of the majority Arab population, and was premised on the rejection of their right to self-determination. This is all the more uncontroversial inasmuch as the UNSCOP report itself explicitly acknowledged that the proposal to create a Jewish state in Palestine was contrary to the principle of self-determination. The plan was also premised upon the erroneous assumption that the Arabs would simply acquiesce to having their land taken from them and voluntarily surrender their majority rights, including their right to self-determination.

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The U.S., Syria, and other member nations were correct in their observations that, while the Security Council did have authority to declare a threat to the peace and authorize the use of force to deal with that and maintain or restore peace and security, it did not have any authority to implement by force a plan to partition Palestine contrary to the will of most of its inhabitants. Any attempt to usurp such authority by either the General Assembly or the Security Council would have been a prima facie violation of the Charter’s founding principle of respect for the right to self-determination of all peoples, and thus null and void under international law.

In sum, the popular claim that the U.N. “created” Israel is a myth, and Israel’s own claim in its founding document that U.N. Resolution 181 constituted legal authority for Israel’s creation, or otherwise constituted “recognition” by the U.N. of the “right” of the Zionist Jews to expropriate for themselves Arab land and deny to the majority Arab population of that land their own right to self-determination, is a patent fraud.

Further corollaries may be drawn. The disaster inflicted upon Palestine was not inevitable. The U.N. was created for the purpose of preventing such catastrophes. Yet it failed miserably to do so, on numerous counts. It failed in its duty to refer the legal questions of the claims to Palestine to the International Court of Justice, despite requests from member states to do so. It failed to use all means within its authority, including the use of armed forces, to maintain peace and prevent the war that was predicted would occur upon the termination of the Mandate. And most importantly, far from upholding its founding principles, the U.N. effectively acted to prevent the establishment of an independent and democratic state of Palestine, in direct violation of the principles of its own Charter. The consequences of these and other failures are still witnessed by the world today on a daily basis. Recognition of the grave injustice perpetrated against the Palestinian people in this regard and dispelling such historical myths is essential if a way forward towards peace and reconciliation is to be found.

[Correction (May 8, 2017): As originally published, this article stated that “In the whole of Palestine at the time UNSCOP issued its report, Arabs owned 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent.” The UNSCOP report did not say Arabs owned 85 percent of the land, but that they were “in possession of” 85 percent of the land. The text has been corrected.]

Notes

[1] The Palestine Mandate of the Council of the League of Nations, July 24, 1922, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp.

[2] Great Britain had contributed to the conflict by making contradictory promises to both Jews and Arabs, including a declaration approved by the British Cabinet that read, “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, 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.” This declaration was delivered by Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to representative of the Zionist movement Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild in a letter on November 2, 1917, and thus came to be known as “The Balfour Declaration”, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/balfour.asp.

[3] Letter from the United Kingdom Delegation to the United Nations to the U.N. Secretary-General, April 2, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/87aaa6be8a3a7015802564ad0037ef57?OpenDocument.

[4] U.N. General Assembly Resolution 106, May 15, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/f5a49e57095c35b685256bcf0075d9c2?OpenDocument.

[5] United Nations Special Committee on Palestine Report to the General Assembly, September 3, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3?OpenDocument.

[6] “Palestine Land Ownership by Sub-Districts (1945)”, United Nations, August 1950, The map was prepared on the instructions of Sub-Committee 2 of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian question and presented as Map No. 94(b). Statistics were as follows (Arab/Jewish land ownership in percentages): Safad: 68/18; Acre: 87/3; Tiberias: 51/38; Haifa: 42/35; Nazareth: 52/28; Beisan: 44/34; Jenin: 84/1, Tulkarm: 78/17; Nablus: 87/1; Jaffa: 47/39; Ramle: 77/14; Ramallah: 99/less than 1; Jerusalem: 84/2; Gaza: 75/4; Hebron: 96/less than 1; Beersheeba: 15/less than 1.

[7] UNSCOP Report.

[8] Walid Khalidi, “Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution”, Journal of Palestine Studies XXVII, no. 1 (Autumn 1997), p. 11, http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/diplomacy/Khalidi,%20Revisiting%20the%201947%20UN%20Partition%20Resolution.pdf. Edward W. Said, The Question of Palestine (New York: Vintage Books Edition, 1992), pp. 23, 98.

[9] Khalidi, p. 11.

[10] UNSCOP Report.

[11] “U.K. Accepts UNSCOP General Recommendations; Will Not Implement Policy Unacceptable by Both Arabs and Jews”, Press Release, Ad Hoc Committee on Palestinian Question 2nd Meeting, September 26, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ecb5eae2e1d29ed08525686d00529256?OpenDocument.

[12] “The Arab Case Stated by Mr. Jamal Husseini”, Press Release, Ad Hoc Committee on Palestinian Question 3rd Meeting, United Nations, September 29, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/a8c17fca1b8cf5338525691b0063f769?OpenDocument.

[13] “Palestine Committee Hears U.K. Stand and Adjourns; Sub-Committees Meet”, Press Release, Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine 24th Meeting, United Nations, November 20, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/12966c9f443583e085256a7200661aab?OpenDocument.

[14] “Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question Report of Sub-Committee 2”, United Nations, November 11 1947, http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf.

[15] United Nations General Assembly 128th Plenary Meeting, United Nations, November 29, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/46815f76b9d9270085256ce600522c9e?OpenDocument.

[16] United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, November 29, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330061d253?OpenDocument.

[17] United Nations Security Council 222nd Meeting, December 9, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ce37bc968122a33985256e6900649bf6?OpenDocument.

[18] “First Special Report to the Security Council: The Problem of Security in Palestine”, United Nations Palestine Commission, February 16, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/fdf734eb76c39d6385256c4c004cdba7?OpenDocument.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Draft Resolution on the Palestinian Question Submitted by the Representative of Colombia at the 254th Meeting of the Security Council, February 24, 1948, http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/S684.pdf.

[21] U.N. Security Council 253rd Meeting (S/PV.253), February 24, 1948, http://documents.un.org.

[22] Draft Resolution on the Palestinian Question Submitted by the Representative of the United States at the Two Hundred and Fifty Fifth Meeting of the Security Council, February 25, 1948, http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/S685.pdf.

[23] United Nations Security Council 260th Meeting, March 2, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/fcbe849f43cbb7158525764f00537dcb?OpenDocument.

[24] Ibid.

[25] United Nations Security Council Resolution 42, March 5, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/d0f3291a30a2bc30852560ba006cfb88?OpenDocument.

[26] U.N. Security Council 271st Meeting, March 19, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/5072db486adf13d0802564ad00394160?OpenDocument.

[27] Ibid.

[28] United Nations Security Council 274th Meeting, March 24, 1948, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL4/812/32/PDF/NL481232.pdf?OpenElement.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid.

[31] United Nations Security Council 275th Meeting, March 30, 1948, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL4/812/32/PDF/NL481232.pdf?OpenElement.

[32] United Nations Security Council Resolution 43, April 1, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/676bb71de92db89b852560ba006748d4?OpenDocument.

[33] United Nations Security Council Resolution 44, April 1, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/1b13eb4af9118629852560ba0067c5ad?OpenDocument.

[34] United Nations Security Council Resolution 46, April 17, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/9612b691fc54f280852560ba006da8c8?OpenDocument.

[35] United Nations Security Council Resolution 48, April 23, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/d9c60b4a589766af852560ba006ddd95?OpenDocument.

[36] The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, May 14, 1948, http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/peace%20process/guide%20to%20the%20peace%20process/declaration%20of%20establishment%20of%20state%20of%20israel.