 |
|
THE HANDSTAND |
OCTOBER 2003 |
 tall tales .... A CONVEYANCE FEE IN SIMPLE From Jack Graham To Steve Myers, Editor of Exegesis, Greeting: -- We have agreed that theAbrahamic covenants in the 12th, 13th, 17th, and 22nd chapters of Genesis, as they appear in the English of the King James Bible at any rate, are expressed in the language of a conveyance in fee simple. The language corresponds perfectly to the language in Coke and Litteton on tenures. TheKing James Bible is probably the most venerable translation into English. And I can compare other translations, Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish. In taking these precautions, I still end up with the same sense that God. promised Abraham and his heirs a large tract of land, (actually somewhat larger than what later become the Byzantine province, the Ottaman province,and the British mandate of Palestine, because it included land on both sides of the River Jordan)... And this land was given to the twelve, or thirteen tribes of Israel. It is often said that there were only twelve tribes, but I think historically there were actually thirteen tribes, if we count thetribe of Menasseh. In any event, the conveyance in fee simple was made and accomplished as an historical fact. That was a fulfillment of the promise made by God. The question remains whether the fee simple was subject to divestiture. Inthe civil law and under the common law, and in every civilized system of law, including the law given by Moses, and under the law of nations as it has existed from time immemorial, every estate in land, including land granted absolutely and forever, can and frequently is divested by conveyance, by mortgage foreclosure of the equivalent, by escheat of the equivalent, by adverse possession, or overthrow of the sovereign power on which title depends as by conquest, by treaty, etc. There is no such thingin law as an indefeasible estate in land, and never has been, nor does a fee simple satisfy that description. Until Zionism perverted Judaism, and convinced some Jews to take land inhabited by Arabs for centuries, nobody ever claimed that fee simple or the equivalent was an estate in land would or might of necessity last forever. Everybody has understood absolute title to mean title which will last forever unless lawfully divested. The promises of God to Abraham were to give to his descendants, ( and by theway, the Jews of our time are not the only descendants of Abraham, andinclude many who are not descendants of Abraham) the territory later occupied by the twelve or thirteen tribes absolutely and forever, i. e., in fee simple, and thus they were given full title to last until they were divested of it according to law. The Old Testament, if I may use that term, includes the prophecies of Jeremiah, Isaiah, and others, and these prophecies contain many warnings that, if the people of ancient Israel did not obey God' law, they would suffer consequences, including divestiture oftheir lands, as occurred when the Assyrians carried away the so-called "ten lost tribes" in about 721 B. C., leaving Judah which was destroyed by theBabylonians about 538 B. C. The fact that these divestitures took place, following prophetic warnings, proves conclusively that the language of the Abrahamic covanants in Genesis was not meant in some mystical sense to be the promise of an indefeasible estate, for it was an estate that was divested following divine warnings which were articulated by holy prophets. One reason why Zionism is such a detestable perversion of Judaism is that itrests on a deliberately twisted meaning of ancient scripture to justifyselfish taking of land belonging to others. It is not the only perversionof holy religion. The so-called "evangelical Christian" fanatics who wantto rebuild the temple of the Jews so "Jesus can come again" are an equally repulsive perversion of Christianity, and so also there are disgustingperversions of Islam, otherwise a magnificently philosophical religion, that take shape in Hamas, Al Qaeda, etc., which are truly enemies of all mankind. Present-day Zionism depends upon a wild and false misinterpretation of theAbrahamic covenants in Genesis. Zionism, in any event, has no basis ininternational law. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 concerned only Palestine as distinguished from Jordan, as can be easily demonstrated from historical context. Nor did the British Empire have authority under international law to promise the Jews of the world that they could drive out the Arabs then occupying Palestine, for such a promise, if it had been made, would have been prohibited by international law as it then stood in in the form of establishrf custom and finds expression in our own time in the second and fifty-first articles of the United Nations Charter. Moreover, such an interpretation would violate other equally binding promises made by theBritish Empire through Sir Henry McMahon to the sherif of Mecca in 1915. Inorder to read the Balfour Declaration of 1917 in keeping with international law and British promises to Arabs, one must deny the extravagant claims of Zionists, and accept the British White Paper of 1939. The British mandate, which could have provided a peaceful solution but would have prevented immigration pressure upon Palestine which has since created the impossible conflict between Arabs and Jews, was willfully destroyed by Jewish terrorists as vicious and inhuman as the worst perversions of Islam we see today, -- I refer to the Abraham Stern's Gang and Menachem Begin's Irgun Zvai Leumi, who blew up the King David Hotel to prevent impementation of the British White Paper of 1939. Since the destruction of the British mandate over Palestine and the rise ofthe state of Israel in 1948, which was the will of international outlaws, not the will of God, the Israel Lobby has bribed and compromised Congress, and the United States, contrary to our enlightened national interests, in consequence of which Congress has invested, directly or indirectly three trillion dollars in the Jewish supremacist state of Israel, adjusted to 2002 values. The state of Israel has stolen our military secrets, bombed our navy, misled us with "cooked" intelligence, bilked us of foreign aid, and embarrassed us internationally. The Israel Lobby pushed the country into an unnecessary war in Iraq, a war based on fake Mossad intelligence of weapons of mass destruction, peddled by Likudniks in the Bush administration with divided loyalties, including David Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, and Douglas Feith, who betrayed the United States in order to support theZionist government of Israel. The reason why I stand with Bush, despite hisimperfections, is that he has at least tried to do right at Aqaba. (By the time he left here, there was still no agreement on the drafts," said Mr Daoud, head of the PA's Palestine Media Centre. "So the Americans took the initiative to formulate statements for both sides. While Abu Mazen expressed Palestinian commitments, unfortunately the Americans allowed Israel to change its statement. "When Sharon spoke of a Palestinian state at Aqaba it did not conform to the road map. He spoke of a democratic, contiguous state but dropped references to it being independent and sovereign." Harvey Morris, The Financial Times; Tuesday, June 10, 2003). TheIsrael Lobby has bought both Democrats and Republicans with the same ruthless disregard for the well-being of the United States. Now we are in Iraq, we cannot withdraw, and we must settle the country as best we can. We are there, more than anything else, because of the systematic corruption of the government of the United States by Zionists. Many of us resent it deeply as we witness the thinly disguised bribery of Congress by the Israel Lobby, as by giving Tom Harkin of Iowa $520,000, and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey $434,000, in exchange for their servility. We cannot terminate this wholesale buying and selling of public officers at the moment, but someday it will come to an end, and then there will be ugly consequences. American Jews must decide whether they favor Israel first, or the United States first. There is no doubt in my mind that many Jews enjoy all the benefits of American citizenship, yet betray our country every day to support Israel against our enlightened national interests. They cheated the American people out of vast assets to promote injustice against Arabs in Palestine. There are many American Jews who oppose this kind of disloyalty to the United States. There have been Jews of national and international standing who have spoken out, including such characters as Martin Buber, I. F. Stone, Alfred Lillienthal, and Israel Shamir. These remarks are not anti-Jewish hatred, as the Israel Lobby always claims whenever its outrages are protested, but factual realities about which all loyal Americans, including many good Jews, have expressed grave concern. Increasingly the American people are aware of the illicit influence which Zionism has gained by deceitful and disloyal methods within the government of the United States. You may have noticed recently a CNN poll in which 66% voted to cut off all American aid to Israel unless Ariel Sharon complies with Bush's demand not to build a wall or fence on the West Bank. That shows that Americans are waking up. I have Jewish friends who will receive my protection, whatever it is worth, if that backlash arrives, as I fear is becoming increasingly likely. I have Jewish friends who being good Americans,are always loyal first to the United States, and opposed to the religious fanaticism of Zionism. There are a number of rabbis who have protested against Zionism as a selfish, materialistic perversion of all that is good in Judaism, which, in any objective measure, it certainly is. John Remington Graham of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X) 
|
|