Music directly from Israel - Enjoy!

Stations / collected Neve Shalom CROSSROADS

יימלא פי תהלתך \ אסף נוה שלום \ Fill my mouth with you'r glory

מזמור לדוד (כ"ג), \ אסף נוה שלום \ MIZMOR L'DAVID, PSALMS 23

קומי לך (הנה זה בא) \ אסף נוה שלום \ KUMI LAC'H

yifatne | October 24, 2010 

הנה זה בא (קומי לך) מתוך האלבום תחנות שייצא בקרוב בעזרת ה'. לחן ועיבוד מילים מתוך שיר השירים: אסף נוה שלום, גיטרות: אבי סנגולדה, קלידים ומיקס: ג'ף הורביץ, מקהלות: אבי ז'נו, מאסטרינג: אלי יונה.

Here it comes (Komi you) from the album stations go soon by Thursday. Music and lyrics from the song of songs: ASAF Neve Shalom, guitars: AVI Sngolda, keyboard vmiks: Jeff Horwitz, mkalot: AVI ז'נו, mastering: Eli Jonah.

Note:

Yifante's Channel -  Jerusalem, Israel ...  if you wish to contact the singer and order copies of his music CD.

Bee

April 18, 2010 Jerusalem legally belongs to the Jews

Israpundit

I urge you to watch this video interview of Dr Jacques Gauthier in Nov ‘09 in which he explains that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews. As it happens I know him from Toronto. He gave me a copy of his thesis.
On April 24 and 25th he is participating in the Second San Remo Conference to commemorate the ninetieth anniversary of the decision granting Palestine to the Jews. It is taking place in San Remo.

By Ted Belman (written in Nov 07):

I attended a lecture tonight by Jacques Gauthier, a Canadian Lawyer who just received his PhD after twenty years of research on the legal status of Jerusalem and the writing of a dissertation of some 1300 pages with 3000 footnotes. He had to present his thesis to a panel of two leading international lawyers and one world famous Jewish historian. The reason for so many footnotes was to enable him to defend his thesis from intense attack by one of the lawyers who happened to be Jewish anti-Zionist and who had represented the PA on numerous occasions. Gauthier is not Jewish.

Here’s what he said in point form,

1. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 started the whole process but it didn’t create international legal rights.

2. The San Remo decision made on 25 April 1920, incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917[2] and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. It was the basic decision upon which the Mandate for Palestine was constructed. While the decision made at San Remo created the Palestine Mandate de-facto, the mandate document signed by Great Britain as the Mandatory and the League of Nations made it de-jure. It thus became a binding treaty in international law.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, 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.

He pointed out that the Arabs weren’t even mentioned but that civil and religious rights only were accorded other inhabitants . This thereby excludes political rights.

3. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations provides for the creation of mandates.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The legal significance here is that “the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation”. The Mandatory Power was the trustee of that trust.

4 The Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations, included the following significant recital,

“Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

This had never happened before in history. Palestine was to be held for the Jewish people wherever they lived. No such recognition had ever been according to anyone else, anywhere, ever.

ART. 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

Thus the operative clause specifically referred to the preamble and reiterated that there were no political rights for other inhabitants.

ART. 5. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power. ART. 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

5. The United Nations took over from the failed League of Nations in 1945 and its Charter included

Article: 80 .. nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.

Thus the Palestine Mandate continued without change.

6. In 1947, the General Assembly of the UN passed Res 181 which became known as the Partition Plan pursuant to which both Jews and Arabs could announce their state.

First it must be noted that the Charter of the UN specifically gave no power to the General Assembly because that would infringe on the sovereign power of individual members. So the GA could recommend only. Secondly, this recommendation was in violation of the terms of the Mandate. See Art 5 above.

This resolution also provided for a Special Regime for Jerusalem which had the following defined boundaries,

A. SPECIAL REGIME The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations. The Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations. B. BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY The City of Jerusalem shall include the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns, the most eastern of which shall be Abu Dis; the most southern, Bethlehem; the most western, ‘Ein Karim (including also the built-up area of Motsa); and the most northern Shu’fat, as indicated on the attached sketch-map (annex B).

But this regime was to be limited in time. It was not to be an “international city ” for all time as we have been lead to believe.

The Statute elaborated by the Trusteeship Council the

aforementioned principles shall come into force not later than 1 October 1948. It shall remain in force in the first instance for a period of ten years, unless the Trusteeship Council finds it necessary to undertake a re-examination of these provisions at an earlier date. After the expiration of this period the whole scheme shall be subject to examination by the Trusteeship Council in the light of experience acquired with its functioning. The residents the City shall be then free to express by means of a referendum their wishes as to possible modifications of regime of the City.

This provision for a referendum was of critical importance to the acceptance of Res 181 by Ben Gurion. He knew that the Jews were in a majority within these boundaries and would be in 10 years when the referendum was to be held. Thus he was confidant that Jerusalem would return to Jewish hands.

Keep in mind that the disposition of this area was to be determined not by Israel but by the residents of Jerusalem so defined. Currently the Jews have a 2:1 majority there.

Needless to say that after the Armistice Agreement of ‘49 the Jordanians who were in control of Jerusalem violated every provision of this resolution calling for among other things respect for holy places. The referendum never took place.

After the ‘67 war in which Israel regained the land to the Jordan including Jerusalem, Res 242 of the Security Council was passed authorizing Israel to remain in possession of all the land until they had “secure and recognized boundaries”. It did not require Israel to withdraw from all of the territories and it was silent on Jerusalem.

Also it “Affirms further the necessity for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem”. There was no reference to Res 181 nor was there a distinction made between Jewish and Arab refugees.

Based on this, I suggest that,

Not only should Israel be demanding that the referendum be held now, Jerusalem should be the first order of business. Olmert is sloughing us off by saying “Jerusalem is not on the table yet”.

He should demand that the referendum take place before the balance of the land is negotiated. If the Arabs won’t agree to the referendum there is nothing to talk about.

Obviously, Olmert isn’t going to ask for a referendum or insist that Jerusalem not be divided.

In closing I would like to stress one more thing.

By virtue of this preamble

“Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

in the mandate, the United Nations, the League’s successor, has recognized the Jewish historical rights to reconstitute their national home in Palestine. That’s Zionism. “Zion” is Jerusalem.

Thus the UN has recognized Jerusalem as the home of the Jewish people.

____________________________

April 10, 2010

Commemoration of the San Remo Conference in 1920

PRESS RELEASE

On April 24 and 25, 2010, the European Coalition for Israel (ECI), in conjunction with the Canadian Supporters for Israel’s Legal Rights (CASILER), will commemorate the 90th anniversary of the signing of the San Remo Resolution. A series of events in Villa Ormond in San Remo, Italy, are being sponsored by the Mayor of San Remo, Maurizio Zoccarato and the International Institute for Humanitarian Law.

At an international seminar on Saturday April 24, 2010, legal experts, political insiders and media pundits will examine “The Legal significance of the San Remo resolution as it relates to the status of Israel and Jerusalem under International Law.”

On the speakers list are legal expert Dr. Jacques Gauthier, Salomon Benzimra, P. Eng., political activist Goldi Steiner, from Canada, MEP Bastiaan Belder from the European Parliament and MP Fiona Nierenstein from the Italian Parliament.

MK Danny Danon, Deputy Speaker of the Knesset will represent Israel. The

international media will be represented by renowned political analysts Daniel Pipes and Caroline Glick.

Keynote speaker Dr. Jacques Gauthier has done extensive research on the legal status of the Old City of Jerusalem, which he presented for his doctoral thesis at the University of Geneva in 2007 and in which he concluded that “the Old City of Jerusalem is historically part of Israel as defined by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers in San Remo in 1920.”

On Sunday April 25, an official ceremony marking the 90th anniversary of the signing of the San Remo resolution will be held in Villa Ormond. Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini has been invited as keynote speaker (to be confirmed) and will be joined by international dignitaries from three continents.

Descendants of some of the original signatories, such as Lord Balfour and Prime Minister Lloyd-George have been invited to attend the event. A separate visit will be arranged to the historical Villa Devachan, original site of the signing of the resolution.

“For the past two decades, the Middle East process has been based on the notion of ‘land for peace’. We do not believe that diplomacy should be divorced from international law. None of the recent peace plans issued to date mentions the legal rights of Israel enshrined in international law. This seminar will take a closer look at the historical and legal realities of the Middle East based on the proceedings of the San Remo Peace conference on 24-25 April 1920.”

For more information please contact:

Europe: Tomas Sandell (ECI)

Organizer: info@ec4i.org

North America: Goldi Steiner (CASILER)

Co-organizer: goldis@rogers.com

Website: www.ec4i.org (click on green box on the left

Jerusalem, capital of Israel

Abbas: I won't withdraw settlement freeze demand

In interview with Der Spiegel, Palestinian president says he's disappointed Obama 'backed away' from insistence on complete halt to West Bank construction prior to resumption of peace talks. 'World must not drive the Palestinians to the point of total hopelessness,' he warns

Ynet.com

"Naturally, I'm not pleased with the American's change of course. But I will not back down," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said. In an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel, published Sunday, the Palestinian leader said, "I was initially very optimistic after (US President Barack) Obama won the election. His Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, kept coming to us and promised to urge the Israelis to stop settlement construction completely. Mitchell said that the negotiations would only resume after a moratorium. The American government suddenly backed away from this position in September. Opinion A ridiculous vision / Hagai Segal Notion of Palestinian declaration of independence should be met with laughter Full Story "I still hope that he will revive the peace process. At least he has to convince the Israelis to announce a complete freeze on construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem for a few months," Abbas said. "It isn't my job to tell the Americans how to deal with Israel. But they have options. They are, after all, the most powerful country in the world. Obama said that a Palestinian state constitutes a vital American interest. The president is under an obligation to apply all of his energy to achieving peace and the vision of a Palestinian state." Asked by Der Spiegel whether the real reason for the current standstill is that he does not trust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu," Abbas said, "What he has said so far, at any rate, leads me to question whether he really wants a solution. He has not expressly accepted the two-state solution. "He's the one who is setting preconditions. He declares Jerusalem as the 'undivided and eternal capital of the State of Israel.' He refuses to discuss the question of Palestinian refugees. And he insists that we accept Israel in advance as a Jewish state," the Palestinian president said of the Israeli premier. In the interview, Abbas reiterated his demand that Israel stop settlement construction completely and recognize the 1967 borders prior to the resumption of peace talks. 'We were in a race against time' According to him, these demands are not preconditions, but rather "steps that are overdue after the first phase of the international roadmap for peace. "Unlike Israel, we have met our obligations: We have recognized Israel's right to exist, and we are combating violent Palestinian groups. The Americans, the Europeans and even the Israelis have acknowledged this," he said. Abbas said the Palestinians negotiated "very seriously" with former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. "We exchanged maps showing the locations of the borders. Then he left office. His successor Tzipi Livni lost the subsequent election. "We were in a race against time to reach a solution. But I wasn't the one who thwarted an agreement. Olmert resigned from office shortly before the finish line," he told Der SpiegeAsked whether his decision not to run again for the office of president of the Palestinian Authority constitutes an admission that he will no longer be able to make the Palestinian dream of a sovereign state a reality, Abbas said, "That's absolutely correct. The road to a political solution is blocked. For that reason, I see no purpose in remaining president of the Palestinian Authority. "And I also have a warning for the world: Do not drive the Palestinians to the point of total hopelessness," he said.

Barkat agrees to evacuate Beit Yehonaton

Photo by: Ehud Zion Waldoks

ByBY ABE SELIG
04/02/2010 01:47

Over 200 additional Arab Silwan homes built without permits to be demolished.

The Jerusalem Municipality on Wednesday evening announced that Mayor Nir Barkat had agreed to carry out a court order to evacuate and seal Beit Yehonatan, a seven-story Jewish-owned structure built without the proper permits in the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan.

Barkat made clear his intention to do this in a letter sent on Wednesday to State Attorney Moshe Lador, who last week sent a letter to Barkat, demanding that he uphold the court order to evacuate and seal the building. Barkat had initially refused to do so.

Nonetheless, in Barkat’s Wednesday response to Lador, the mayor made it clear that he was carrying out the order under “protest and heavy criticism,” and that while the city would act to evacuate and seal the Jewish-owned building in the predominately Arab area, more than 200 Arab-owned homes in Silwan built without the proper permits would be evacuated and demolished as well.

The move will also nullify a recent plan suggested by the municipality, which would change the status quo in the neighborhood with regards to building permits, and would have made both Beit Yehonatan and most of the illegally-built Arab homes in the area legal.

In his letter to Lador, Barkat reiterated that the municipality’s plan would have made it possible to reduce the disagreement and friction surrounding illegal construction in Silwan by nearly 90 percent, and that carrying out hundreds of demolition orders in the area instead would create a “high potential for conflict.”

Barkat also made it clear that the municipality would uphold the law without discriminating between Arabs and Jews.

“I am shouting in your ears that the enforcement policy in the city of Jerusalem as regards Beit Yehonatan is discriminatory, selective and lacks any real justification,” Barkat wrote in his response to Lador. “And the explanations that have been provided thus far are [not sufficient].”

Obama going weak at the knees (Regarding Israel)

Israpundit.com

By Ted Belman

A few days ago I was dispirited by the article Netanyahu agreed to a freeze in Jerusalem.

Afterward I talked to Arlene Kushner who remained confident that Netanyahu won’t divide Jerusalem. Then I talked with an American ME investigative journalist who had just returned to the US from a whirlwind trip to Israel and surrounding countries.

This is what he had to report,

1. Nevertheless, relations are so strained that Obama and Netanyahu aren’t on speaking terms, so he doubted the story.

2. There is a big aversion in Israel to breaching the US/Israel relationship. He cited past examples where it didn’t work out for Israel.

3. Bibi is walking a tightrope between not causing a breach in US/Israel relations and not capitulating.

4. Obama made promises to Netanyahu regarding Iran in exchange. What they were exactly wasn’t said but they included meaningful sanctions by the end of January.

What is meaningful, who knows. Did he also promise that if Netanyahu waited, the US wouldn’t object. If Israel attacks Iran, the US will not be able to stay out of the fight.

Now it appears that Obama doesn’t have the stomach for meaningful sanctions. In a FrontPageMag article today, Hillary Goes Weak-Kneed on Iran it is reported

[..] A squishy, misguided, weak-kneed liberalism has emerged in Hillary Clinton’s comments about the kind of sanctions that would work best in halting Iran’s nuclear program. Rather than take the one step that would really be effective — cutting off the flow of refined gasoline to Iran — she instead insists that we need to target the Iranian leadership with sanctions.

Her husband wisely rejected the same kind of advice in deciding on the sanctions to impose on Serbia during the Bosnia war, opting for broad-based economic sanctions to deter aggression. The sanctions were incredibly effective, and the mere threat of their re-imposition in 1996 was enough to bring Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic to his knees.

But now Hillary says sanctions must target Iran’s Revolutionary Guard “without contributing to the suffering of the ordinary (Iranians), who deserve better than what they currently are receiving.”

But the impotence of sanctions that do not go for the jugular is obvious, and the abysmal record of targeted sanctions aimed at Iranian leaders is enough to discredit the entire process. However, sanctions can be effective — immediately — if they strike at a nation’s most vulnerable point.

The House of Representatives approved a resolution at the end of December that imposed sanctions against Iran, banning any company from doing business in the United States if it supplied oil products to Iran. Co-sponsored and pushed by Illinois Republican Rep. Mark Kirk (who deserves support in his bid for a Senate seat), the measure has real teeth and is now pending before the Senate.

Hillary’s comment about avoiding sanctions that “contribute to the suffering” of the people of Iran can only be interpreted as a push-back against the sanctions that have passed the House.

The clock is ticking.

Netanyahu agreed to a freeze in Jerusalem

I’m worried. I can no longer be assuaged by the balm that its only a 9 month freeze in Judea and Samaria only and that even there that we are going to build the 3000 units for which permits were issued. What, you say but Bibi let tenders go for 700 units in Gilo. That may be so, but according to this report he needed Obama’s permission to do so. Save for those units, there has been a construction freeze in Jerusalem for the last year and in Judea and Samaria for the last year and a half. Obama is intent on imposing a solution. That’s why he cancelled the Bush letters which committed “the United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan”. If we expect to retain the blocks, why we we ever agree to Obama’s veto on construction in them.

Netanyahu Sought US Permission to Build in Jerusalem

by Hillel Fendel

(IsraelNN.com) The story behind the recent announcement of 700 new housing units in Jerusalem does not paint a pretty picture for future construction in new Jerusalem neighborhoods. The new units are a result of strong pressure and even threats by coalition partner Shas, a request by Prime Minister Netanyahu to the U.S., one-time permission for a precise amount of housing units, and a coordinated, weak condemnation.

The information comes from an unnamed senior source in the Prime Minister’s Bureau and sources close to Housing Minister Ariel Attias, reports correspondent Haggai Huberman. Attias of Shas reportedly told Netanyahu that his party would no longer be able to tolerate what had become a “construction freeze” in Jerusalem – and that he would make a public statement to this effect if the situation continued.

In fact, two months ago, Minister Attias told a television interviewer that not a single construction project had been authorized in eastern Jerusalem since Netanyahu took office at the end of March.

Sources close to Attias said that he was motivated by fears that he would be severely criticized by Shas supporters. They added that because of the ultimatum Attias issued Netanyahu, the Prime Minister agreed to issue the housing tenders – but said that they must be coordinated with the Americans.

The tenders in question, announced nearly a month ago, were for nearly 700 units: 198 in three projects in Pisgat Ze’ev, 377 in N’veh Yaakov, and 117 in Har Homa. All three neighborhoods are in areas liberated by Israel in the Six Day War of 1967.

The PM’s bureau source said that the numbers were determined in coordination with the Obama Administration, after Netanyahu explained that he must find a way to appease the nationalist and Shas camps regarding the freeze in Judea and Samaria.

Two other tenders – 150 units in Pisgat Ze’ev and 130 in Har Homa – are still in limbo, according to Housing Ministry sources, because adding them would mean that Israel exceeds the 700 approved by the United States.

Immediately following the announcement of the tenders, the U.S. government publicized a condemnation of sorts, stating that the US objects to new Israeli construction in eastern Jerusalem and that Jerusalem’s final status must be resolved via bilateral negotiations with the support of the international community.

The PM’s Bureau source said that both the tender announcement and the condemnation were timed to coincide with the Christmas vacation, so that neither would receive much attention.

Why we must support Israel?

By David Rushton
I don’t have to tell you that the United States is in deep, deep trouble. We have a major financial crisis that can never be reversed and the country is also morally bankrupt. We have allowed President Obama to spend all of our savings and put every single American in debt that we can never repay. Americans are afraid to go out on the streets because of drugs and crime. We can only pull ourselves out of the pit if we reverse the trend of ignoring God and leaving Him out of our government, schools and churches.
Some tell us there is more than one god. Others say there is only one God and his name is Allah. Even our schools are teaching that Allah is God. But that is just another preposterous lie and sad to say many Americans are too timid to fight back with the truth.
There is only one God and His Name is not Allah
Have you noticed that Muslims always say what they want to say? We have been taught not to answer them. We are supposed to just remain silent and listen. The press and the government spout Muslim lies and we are expected not to refute them. Well, I think it’s time we had some equality and I don’t care in the slightest about political correctness. The truth has been suppressed for far too long and that is why we are in such a mess today. It’s time we started to stand up for God and for truth.
America became the leader of the Western World precisely because she honored God and supported Israel. We must come back to God and support our one true friend and ally in the world – Israel. The most obvious reason that we should support Israel is that God has commanded it. I know that God is no longer respected or even recognized in Washington today so it’s not surprising that our government leaders have no idea what I am talking about. Most of them do not read the Bible and of the few who read it most do not want to understand it. Our Presidents hold the Bible when they take the oath of office but if they opened it and read it with understanding they would know that they are destroying this once great nation by their very ignorance of God. More than that, they are destroying the whole world because, right or wrong, the United States is still the leader of the world in so many respects.
It saddens me to see all the “God Bless America” bumper stickers on cars all over the U.S. because I know that the drivers of so many of those cars have no idea who God is or what He expects of them. If only they would open their Bibles and seek the truth they would find, among other things, that God is irrevocably tied to Israel and that the anti Israeli actions of our leaders are criminally wrong.
Israel, a Blessing or a Curse?
The truth is that America is cursed and cannot be blessed until our leaders obey God. If our leaders did get serious about knowing God’s will they might find these startling facts.
God made a covenant with Abraham as follows.
“I will Bless them that Bless thee and I will Curse him that Curses thee and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” (Genesis 12:3)
God had just told Abraham to leave his birthplace, which in today’s terms was Iraq, and make the awesome journey to the Promised Land, Israel. He said that if Abraham would do that God would bless the whole world through his descendents and also bless all who blessed his family.
The world has been immeasurably blessed by Jews. Do you have any idea how many Jews have helped mankind through their discoveries in Medicine and Physics alone? Until Yasir Arafat won the Nobel Prize for Peace the prize really meant something. Now it is worthless and they proved it by giving one to Gore and one to Obama. But in spite of the Nobel Committee’s very obvious decline into Political Correctness and senility the record of prizes won by Jews is nothing short of amazing.There are less than 12 Million Jews in the entire world yet they have received 185 Nobel Prizes. Most of them were in Physics and Medicine, through which they have blessed all of mankind.
There are more than 1.4 billion Muslims yet they have won only 9 prizes and most of them were for literature most of which would be of interest only to Muslims.
Muslims outnumber Jews 117 to 1 yet Jews have won the prize 20 to 1. In order to equal the Jews blessing to the world based on the Nobel factor, Muslims would have to have won more than 2000 Nobel prizes. But they won only 9.
So judge for yourself if God’s prediction came true.
Who has the right to sell the Land of Israel to the Muslims?
God says in Lev 25:23, speaking to the Jewish People, “The Land shall not be sold forever: for the Land is Mine.” God owns the Land of Israel and has entrusted it to his Chosen people, Israel. I know that the Israelis have not been perfect and certainly most of them do not follow the God of the Land. I also know that according to Bible prophecy they have been scattered throughout the Nations. But, they are still God’s People and they always will be. And no matter what they might have done to contradict God’s laws, God’s covenant with Moses is still as valid today as it was when God made it. God does not break His Covenants.
What does God think of the nations who demand that Israel give up land for peace? It is not theirs to give. It belongs to God Almighty and those who force Israel to give that land to anyone are stealing God’s land from Him and cursing Israel at the same time.
The United States and all the other nations of this world have cursed Israel and consequently brought God’s judgment upon themselves. I absolutely believe that the current world financial crisis is a direct result of God’s judgment for what the world has done, and is doing, to Israel.
Please let me repeat “I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curses thee.”
We all believe in the law of gravity. That’s why we know we can’t jump out of a building and fly to the ground. If we can believe in that why is it so hard for us to believe other laws that God has set into motion. The law of blessing and cursing is just as tangible as the law of gravity. God made both of them. And there’s more to come. The Bible says that God will judge the Nations who divide His Land. In Joel chapter 3 (NIV) we read
1 “In those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, 2 I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. There I will enter into judgment against them 
concerning my inheritance, my people Israel, for they scattered my people among the nations and divided up my land.”
It is interesting to note that the valley of Jehoshaphat runs beside the walls of Jerusalem and the name means “Adonai will Judge” (Adonai means Lord in Hebrew). God restored the fortunes of His people when He caused them to return to the Land after 2000 years of wandering. The United States forced the Oslo Accord and that led to the division of the land of Israel. If the U.S. does not change course in the very near future and return to being a supporter of Israel we will be judged by Almighty God for dividing His Land.
Who owns Jerusalem?
Islam claims all of Jerusalem because they claim Mohammed went to heaven from there. Not only did this not happen but Mohammed never set foot in Jerusalem. They made up the story of his journey to heaven because they were determined to take God’s Holy City for themselves. They wanted to destroy the roots of Judaism and Christianity all in one blow. They have never had any right to any part of Jerusalem except as temporary conquerors. They built two shrines to their false god right on top of the ruins of God’s Holy Temple and they remain there today in defiance of the One True God.
God says no less than five times in scripture that he has written his name on the city of Jerusalem. This is why Jerusalem was chosen as the eternal and undivided capital of the Land of Israel. It has been Israel’s capital for almost 3000 years. The only other peoples to claim Jerusalem were the Muslims, the Crusaders, and the British and none of them lasted very long. Jews have lived in the Holy city for 3000 years and they are the only rightful inhabitants to this day. King David bought the Temple mount and there his son Solomon built the first Temple. David did not take it in battle. He bought it to make sure no one else could claim it. Here is what the Bible says about this city. I wish our President would read it.
And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a light alway before me in Jerusalem , the city which I have chosen me to put my name there. 1 Kings 11:36And he built altars in the house of the LORD, of which the LORD said, In Jerusalem will I put my name. 2 Kings 21:4And he set a graven image of the grove that he had made in the house, of which the LORD said to David, and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever: 2 Kings 21:7But I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there; and have chosen David to be over my people Israel . 2 Chronicles 6:6 Also he built altars in the house of the LORD, whereof the LORD had said, In Jerusalem shall my name be for ever. 2 Chronicles 33:4
The United States joined all of the other nations who had Embassies in Jerusalem in moving them to Tel Aviv after the Israeli victory in 1967 that united the country. This was a cowardly act in which the United States turned her back on Israel and God and sided with God’s enemies, the rulers of Islam. Of course. the move was actually made by the pro-Muslim State Department and the Congress and President had no say in the matter.
In 1995 the United States Congress enacted a law demanding that the embassy be moved from Tel Aviv back to the capital of Israel thus agreeing that Jerusalem is the capital. But the law allowed the president the ability to delay the move for a period of six months if national security concerns warranted it. Thus the Congress played right into the hands of our Muslim enemies. On the one hand they said, “We know what is right.” On the other hand, they said, “But if you Muslims scream loud enough, we will not act on our conscience.” Obviously, if that is the benchmark, the embassy will never be moved. But if the American people screamed loud enough the government would have to do the right thing.
The last three presidents were too weak to sign that bill into law. Three men who took the oath of office and swore to serve this nation under God have committed the most terrible treason because they have refused to allow God’s will to be done. Clinton refused to sign it. Bush refused and now, of course, Obama has refused. All of them have bowed to the Muslim will instead of the will of the American people whom they are supposed to serve.
In December 2009 US President Barack Obama again invoked a six-month delay on the move of the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Yes, your President, the one who held a Bible at his inauguration, would rather obey the Muslim leaders than God. He bowed down in front of the “king” of Saudi Arabia, but he refuses to bow to the God Almighty.
And what about Gaza?
God says in Joshua 15:47 that Gaza belongs to the Tribe of Judah. Because the American government forced Prime Minister Sharon to give Gaza to the enemy there are no members of the tribe of Judah left in Gaza today. How dare the United States defy God so batently?
All of the Jewish population of Gaza was forced to leave on August 22 2005
The Bible says that God is slow to anger however, as American plans for stealing Gaza unfolded God was preparing a little surprise off the coast of Africa. The little surprise grew in size and power as it headed towards the United States.
The day after the completion of the Gaza evacuation, the government of the Bahamas issued a tropical storm warning. By Wednesday, August 24 at 11 am, the newly formed tropical depression was upgraded to Tropical Storm Katrina; and by Thursday, August 25 at 5 pm, Katrina became a hurricane. In a period of only 72 hours, tropical depression 11 developed and hit southeast Florida (the only area untouched by the past six hurricanes) as a hurricane.
Hurricane Katrina is now expected to be the costliest weather related disaster in U.S. history. It was devastating in intensity and size. If it hadn’t been for a last minute break in the eye-wall it would have very likely destroyed the city of New Orleans and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.Residents of Gaza were forced to leave their homes by the authorities.Residents of New Orleans were forced to leave their homes by the authorities.
Residents of Gaza left their homes not knowing if they would ever return. Residents of New Orleans left their homes not knowing if they would ever return
All of the Israeli homes in Gaza were destroyed. Many of the homes in New Orleans were destroyed.
Gaza cemeteries had to be evacuated because Muslims would have desecrated the corpses. They destroyed all of the synagogues left behind as it was.
Graves in New Orleans were under water and the coffins with their remains were moved by the flood waters.
8,500 Jews were forced to leave their homes in Gaza.850,000 people had to leave New Orleans.
That’s one hundred to one.
This is not the end of this article. It will be in four parts. Of course I am anticipating the howls of rage from Muslims and others who do not believe in God and all of their angry comments will be answered.
IN PART 2Who are the Palestinians and who is “occupying” what?

David Rushton Most recent columns
David Rushton was born in London where his parents were staunch conservatives. He immigrated to the United States in the sixties and formed a patriotic organization advocating conservative principals which include rallies and marches. He had his own radio talk show for many years and was also a guest on such programs as “Twentieth Century Reformation Hour.”
In the last few years David wrote several books about the dangers of radical Islam and spoke on this subject in some of the largest Conservative Churches in the United States.
He now resides with his wife Marcia in Costa Rica.

Exposed: Secret talks to carve up Israel, again

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

by Aaron Klein

JERUSALEM – Israel and the Palestinian Authority are negotiating indirectly via the U.S., Jordan and Egypt to outline a future Palestinian state that would encompass Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Middle East security and diplomatic officials told WND.

Popular perception has it that talks between Israel and the PA are stalled over a Palestinian demand that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu extend a 10-month West Bank settlement freeze to include Jewish communities in eastern Jerusalem.

Just yesterday, Netanyahu's office released a statement declaring the prime minister would "never" cede control of united Jerusalem nor retreat to the 1967 borders, referring to an evacuation of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. The statement came after Egypt's foreign minister said in Cairo last week Netanyahu was ready to discuss making "Arab Jerusalem" the capital of a Palestinian state.

According to Middle East security and diplomatic officials, however, Netanyahu's statement may be misleading unless he meant he would not retreat to the exact 1967 lines. Those officials, from Egypt, Jordan, the PA and Israel, told WND in separate interviews over the course of the last few weeks that Israel is in advanced stages of outlining a future Palestinian state that would encompass most of the West Bank. Also Jerusalem is being discussed between Israel and members of the Obama administration, the officials said

To point out the advanced levels of the current talks, a PA official told WND that a visit next week by President Obama's national security adviser, Jim Jones, will center around security arrangements for a future Palestinian state in the West Bank.

The arrangements may include a contingent of Jordanian troops in the strategic territory as well as private Palestinian firms and international soldiers participating in the patrol of the Palestinian side of a future border, the official said.

Regarding international forces, one Jordanian security source said there are "very serious talks about bringing international forces to the borders between the West Bank and Israel, especially the Jordan Valley, where the Israelis would have security guarantees from an international force working in collaboration with the Palestinians."

Officially, White House spokesman Mike Hammer said that in his consultations, Jones "will discuss the full range of regional challenges and opportunities at this critical time in the Middle East."

According to the Middle East security officials, Netanyahu agreed in principal to establish a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders – the Gaza Strip, West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. However, Israel would retain what are known as major settlement blocks, including Ariel, Gush Etzion and Maale Adumim.

The officials said the formula, established under Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert, would call for a 100 percent territorial exchange, meaning that any West Bank Jewish communities retained by Israel would be compensated to the PA using other land, such as territory in the Israeli Negev alongside the Gaza Strip.

Status of Jerusalem up for talks

With regard to Jerusalem, talks between the U.S. and Israel are in the infancy stages.

The officials from the Obama administration most publicly identified with brokering Israeli-Palestinian talks include Jones and Obama's envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, George Mitchell. However, WND has learned Dennis Ross, an Obama foreign policy adviser who served as Mideast envoy to the Clinton administration, is actively engaged in brokering a deal regarding Jerusalem.

Israeli diplomatic sources said Ross wants to use the formula established under the Clinton administration that would see Jewish sections of Jerusalem becoming Israeli while areas largely inhabited by Arabs would become Palestinian. About 100,000 Arabs live illegally on Jewish-owned land in Jerusalem.

The fact that the talks are ongoing through mediators leaves Netanyahu and PA President Mahmoud Abbas open to declaring that there are no direct negotiations.

Israeli leaders in the recent past claimed talks were not occurring or did not include certain territories only later to admit the territory in question had been ceded in secret negotiations.

After months of denials the status of Jerusalem was on the table during negotiations, Olmert's office finally confirmed in August 2008 that Jerusalem had been included in talks. Also, weeks before he departed office, Olmert gave an interview to Israel's leading daily, Yediot Aharonot, admitting that during negotiations he offered Abbas 94 percent of the West Bank and peripheral areas of eastern Jerusalem. Olmert's office repeatedly had denied such talks.

Similarly, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ran for office in 2000 on the very election platform that he would not withdraw from the Gaza Strip. Sharon was running against Amram Mitzneh, a leader of Israel's leftist Labor party who had pledged to evacuate Gaza. In 2004, Sharon did an about face and announced his Gaza disengagement policy. One year later, Sharon pulled all Jewish communities out of the Gaza Strip.

.

Egyptian FM: Bibi agreed to make Arab Jerusalem Palestinian capital

By Haaretz Correspondent and Agencies , By Barak Ravid

Egypt's foreign minister said in Cairo last week that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is ready to discuss making "Arab Jerusalem" the capital of a Palestinian state.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority could abandon its demand for a freeze on construction in East Jerusalem in exchange for an easing of the siege on Gaza and a halt to Israeli assassinations in the West Bank.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit met the foreign ministers of Egypt, France, Jordan, Spain and Tunisia in Cairo last week to revive the nascent Mediterranean Union. He briefed them about Netanyahu's talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak a few days earlier, Israeli and European officials said. Aboul Gheit reportedly said Israel's willingness to give the Palestinians "100 percent of the West Bank" and the readiness to discuss Arab Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine indicate "openness, goodwill and a change compared to the past." According to the Arab foreign ministers, the Palestinians have agreed to waive their conditions for reopening the negotiations with Israel in exchange for other terms that Netanyahu could accept more easily. The Palestinians previously had demanded a complete freeze on construction in East Jerusalem and resuming talks from the point they left off. Now their conditions are Israel stopping its assassinations and military operations in Palestinian cities; easing the blockade on the Gaza Strip and bringing in construction material to enable Gaza's rehabilitation; rezoning West Bank areas where Palestinians have full authority (A) and where they have only civil authority (B) - meaning, having the Israel Defense Forces withdraw to where it was before the Al-Aqsa intifada in September 2000; releasing certain Palestinian prisoners to the PA; and removing eight specific roadblocks in the West Bank. If Israel agrees to these terms, the Palestinians will return to the negotiations even if the building in East Jerusalem continues and the talks do not pick up where they left off. Aboul Gheit said the United States would issue a statement against Israeli construction in East Jerusalem and expressing its commitment to the territory of the future Palestinian state. The visiting foreign ministers agreed that the difficulty in resuming the talks is due to Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' refusal to announce their new positions publicly.

Our Jewish Soul Land Called Israel

Our Jewish Soul Land Called Israel

Land of Israel. The Jewish history and the historic ties of the Jews to Israel and the holiest city for all Jews around the world, Jerusalem.

The Mideast Peace Deal You Haven’t Heard About

Netanyahu has agreed to terms of reference for future negotiations, that enshrine Clinton’s statement,

“an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”

No surprise there. It was obvious when she made the statement right after Bibi agreed to the freeze. In fact the deal was done in the summer.

In addition Jerusalem is on the table and so is the refugee problem. So much for no preconditions.

by Steven J. Rosen, ForeignPolicy.com

For a year or two at an early stage in his career, I commuted to and from our adjacent offices each morning and evening with Martin Indyk, later a top peace-process official of the Clinton administration at the Camp David negotiations and now vice president for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. I had just left the Rand Corporation to work at AIPAC, the main pro-Israel lobbying organization in Washington.

Even in those pre-Oslo days of 1982 to 1983, Martin was a True Believer in the idea of a grand land-for-peace bargain between Israel and moderate Palestinians. Reviewing each day the latest installments in the Middle East epic as we rolled down Rock Creek Parkway, we argued all the way. I heaped scorn on any solution that required Israel to trust Palestinian intentions, and I held that Israel’s security could only be based on a qualitative military edge and the balance of power. I told Martin that he and our mutual friends Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller, and Dan Kurtzer, though with the noblest of intentions, were pursuing an illusion.

Martin emphatically thought I was wrong about the Middle East, and he also thought I was blind to an enduring reality in Washington. He said that Democratic and Republican administrations of the left and right may come and go, and some presidents will have less confidence in Middle East peacemaking than others, but no U.S. president will be able to sustain a policy of benign neglect of the peace process for long. The American people, the United States’ European allies, and U.S. friends in the Arab world all need to have a ray of hope. They need to believe that active diplomacy under U.S. leadership is bringing closer a resolution of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, because it is a conflict that roils other American interests and destabilizes U.S. relations in the region and throughout the world. Martin often cited our friend, the late Peter Rodman, who taught us that U.S. policy in the Middle East is a bicycle. You can keep your balance if you roll forward even at a snail’s pace, but if you try to stand still you will fall off.

Martin never did succeed in converting me to the peace camp, but over time I saw the undeniable evidence that he was right about the imperatives of U.S. foreign policy. Sooner or later, every president turns to the peace process, and the Mideast advisors who move to the president’s inner circle are the ones he thinks have the best ideas about how to move forward toward a contractual peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

I think Benjamin Netanyahu has gone through a personal evolution a little like my own. He continues to be profoundly skeptical that signing a piece of paper can put an end to this conflict. He is a fierce advocate of defensible borders and military strength as the true guarantors of Israel’s security. Nevertheless, he has come back to a second term as prime minister with a deeper appreciation of the reality that his relations with the United States, Europe, and moderate Arab neighbors depend on the perception that he can be a partner in the search for diplomatic progress with the Palestinians.

And he certainly knows that many harbor doubts about him. That is why Bibi agreed to do something unprecedented, something that six previous Israeli prime ministers since the 1993 Oslo Accords (Rabin, Peres, Barak, Sharon, Olmert, and Netanyahu himself in his previous term) refused to do. Very much against the will of his party and coalition, Netanyahu consented to putting a freeze on “natural growth” of settlements. He has drastically curtailed the volume of construction starts, even in the “consensus” settlement blocs that he believes were conceded to Ariel Sharon by George W. Bush.

Now, below the radar, Netanyahu is making a series of additional concessions to Barack Obama and his Mideast peace envoy, George Mitchell. Their current priority is negotiating “terms of reference” to permit the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations (TORs in negotiators’ vernacular). Dismissed by some as mere “talking about talking,” TORs are in fact vital elements to create the parameters for serious negotiations. For example, then-Secretary of State James Baker shuttled around the region for eight months to negotiate the TORs that made the 1991 Madrid conference possible. All that was done just to phrase a letter of invitation that all sides could accept. The result was far from trivial; it was a framework that opened the way to all the direct negotiations that followed over the ensuing two decades.

Mitchell’s challenge today is to define such a framework that can bridge differences between Netanyahu and his Palestinian counterpart, Mahmoud Abbas. Defying skeptics who say you can bridge a river but not an ocean, Mitchell keeps going at it, and his perseverance is paying off. While no one was watching, Netanyahu has in fact agreed to language that Mitchell can accept. With the Israeli agreement in his pocket, Mitchell is now working to bring Abbas around, according to sources close to the discussions.

The issues are not small. Abbas wants to enshrine the 1967 boundary as sacrosanct, even though that line was merely a military demarcation after the war that ended in 1949 and had never been recognized by the Palestinians or anyone else as a legal border. Reflecting the Israeli consensus, Netanyahu insists that future agreed frontiers have to meet Israel’s security imperatives and reflect post-1967 demographic realities, whether or not they diverge from the former armistice line. But Netanyahu has accepted a solution based on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s formulation: “an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”

Abbas wants Israeli territorial concessions in Jerusalem as a precondition for negotiations. Netanyahu has accepted that the Palestinians will bring their claims for Jerusalem to the table, but he is not going to make this or any other concession just to bring Abbas to negotiate. Mitchell’s TORs will include implementation of all existing agreements between the parties, as well as the 2003 “Roadmap” for a two-state solution. These already define Jerusalem as a subject for discussion.

Abbas wants an absolute two-year deadline for the achievement of a permanent agreement. Netanyahu is accepting target dates for agreements, but he does not believe achievement can be guaranteed. Mitchell has the language he needs for the TORs regarding target dates.

Abbas wants language that obliges Israel to repatriate and compensate descendents of Palestinians who lost their homes in the upheavals before 1949. Netanyahu has agreed to participate in multilateral solutions for this “refugee” problem, provided these solutions do not include an obligation that will dilute Israel’s own Jewish majority. Mitchell will point out that a solution to the refugee question is already incorporated in the documents to which the TORs will refer.

Abbas wants the 2002 Saudi-initiated Arab Peace Initiative to be the basis of negotiations. Netanyahu has agreed to have it listed among the references, though it is not among the signed agreements whose specific terms are binding. In any case, the Roadmap already contains a positive reference to the Saudi peace plan, and the Roadmap will be a major source document for the TORs.

The Palestinians eschew the concept of interim agreements because they fear that any temporary arrangements will become final. Israel believes that interim steps are a necessity for building confidence between the two parties. The Roadmap’s Phase II already contains “the option of creating an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty,” and the Oslo Accords are replete with interim steps. This will not be an obstacle to agreed TORs.

Mitchell has not announced the agreement with Netanyahu because delicate negotiations with Abbas still lie ahead. He did say on Nov. 25, “We have been in discussions with both Israelis and Palestinians for some time regarding terms of reference for negotiations. We have closed many gaps between them. And while admittedly important differences remain, we’ve made very substantial progress.”

Now, a month later, the work on the Israeli side is done. Netanyahu has put the ball in the Palestinian court.

Steven J. Rosen served for 23 years as foreign-policy director of the American NIsrael Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and was a defendant in the recently dismissed AIPAC case. He is now director of the Washington Project at the Middle East Forum.

Deputy FM: Foreign diplomats will not take Jerusalem from Israel

Published:

12.19.09, 12:53 / Israel News

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said that "as the Romans could not disconnect Israel from Jerusalem, so will diplomats from the UN or the European Union be unable to do so". Speaking at a cultural event in Jerusalem, he warned against one-sided moves by the Palestinians. "If one-sided decisions are made it will halt everything and Israel will no longer be obligated to honor accords made since Oslo. Israel will also have the legitimacy to make one-sided moves," he said. (Roni Sofer)

Hunt for Auschwitz Arbeit Macht Frei sign thieves

Page last updated at 01:40 GMT, Saturday, 19 December 2009

Hundreds of thousands of people passed under the sign to their deaths

Polish police are using a sniffer dog in their search for thieves who took the infamous Arbeit Macht Frei sign over the entrance to Auschwitz.

Detectives and other police officers were sent to the site of the former Nazi camp where more than one million people, mostly Jewish, were murdered.

A replica of the sign, which translates as "Work Sets You Free", has been put up temporarily.

The theft on Friday has caused outrage in Israel, Poland and elsewhere.

"The theft of such a symbolic object is an attack on the memory of the Holocaust, and an escalation from those elements that would like to return us to darker days," said Avner Shalev from the Yad Vashem memorial centre in Jerusalem.

"I call on all enlightened forces in the world who fight against anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia and the hatred of the other to join together to combat these trends."

In Brussels, European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek, a former Polish prime minister, appealed to the thieves to return the sign.

"Give it back out of respect for the suffering of over a million victims, murdered in this Nazi camp, the biggest cemetery of humankind," he said.

Metal bars cut

The wrought-iron sign was half-unscrewed, half-torn off from above the death camp's gate between 0330 and 0500 on Friday, said a police spokeswoman.

HISTORY OF AUSCHWITZ SIGN Made by Polish political prisoners in 1940 Letter 'B' thought to have been reversed as act of defiance - making it appear upside-down Locals say Red Army soldiers were bribed to leave it in Poland after camp was liberated Occasionally replaced by replica while conservation work is done Audio-slideshow: Auschwitz decay

Investigators say at least two people would have been needed to steal the 5-m (16-ft), 40-kg (90-lb) sign.

Police said they were reviewing footage from a surveillance camera that overlooks the entrance gate and the road beyond but declined to say whether the crime was recorded, The Associated Press news agency reports.

Auschwitz museum spokesman Jaroslaw Mensfelt said it might have been too dark for the camera to have captured images.

He said the thieves apparently carried the sign 300m (yards) to an opening in a concrete wall. The opening was left intentionally to preserve a poplar tree dating back to the time of World War II.

Four metal bars that had blocked the opening had been cut and footprints in the snow led from the wall opening to the nearby road, where police presume the sign was loaded on to a vehicle.

Another police official said earlier that while all leads were being considered, police were focusing on a theft ordered by a private collector or a group of individuals.

It is the first time the sign, made by Polish prisoners, has been stolen since it was erected in 1940.

A 5,000-zloty ($1,700; £1,050) reward has been offered for information leading to the capture of the thieves.

Auschwitz, which receives more than a million visitors a year, has been run as a state museum since 1947.

Germany recently pledged 60m euros ($86m) to an endowment fund to help preserve the camp.