EGYPT-ISRAEL TREATY NOT SACRED

LAND FOR PEACE (THE FUTURE 7 YEARS OF HELL ON EARTH)

JOEL 3:2
2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.

THE WEEK OF DANIEL 9:27 WE KNOW ITS 7 YRS

Heres the scripture 1 week = 7 yrs Genesis 29:27-29
27 Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.
28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also.
29 And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her maid.

DANIEL 11:21-23
21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.
24 He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.

DANIEL 9:26-27
26 And after threescore and two weeks(62X7=434 YEARS+7X7=49 YEARS=TOTAL OF 69 WEEKS OR 483 YRS) shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;(ROMAN LEADERS DESTROYED THE 2ND TEMPLE) and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.(THERE HAS TO BE 70 WEEKS OR 490 YRS TO FUFILL THE VISION AND PROPHECY OF DAN 9:24).(THE NEXT VERSE IS THAT 7 YR WEEK OR (70TH FINAL WEEK).
27 And he( THE ROMAN,EU PRESIDENT) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:(1X7=7 YEARS) and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,(3 1/2 yrs in TEMPLE SACRIFICES STOPPED) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

JEREMIAH 6:14
14 They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.

JEREMIAH 8:11
11 For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.

1 THESSALONIANS 5:3
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

ISAIAH 28:14-19 (THIS IS THE 7 YR TREATY COVENANT OF DANIEL 9:27)
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

Egypt PM: Israel Treaty Not Sacred-Egyptian prime minister Essam Sharaf told Turkish television the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty wasn't sacred and was subject to change.By Gavriel Queenann First Publish: 9/15/2011, 8:19 PM

Egyptian Prime Minister Essam Sharaf on Thursday said the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty is not sacred and is subject to change.The Camp David agreement depends on what benefits the region, Sharaf said in an interview on Turkish television, adding, Egypt will make changes to the treaty if necessary.Sharaf's statements follow the popular sentiments of the street in Cairo, but altering the treaty would require the consent of all three signatories - Egypt, Israel, and the United States.Contrary to Sharaf's rhetoric, however, Egypt's caretaker junta has consistently downplayed the chances of such a move due to sharp opposition from US officials, and Israel.Making such a move without Israeli or US consent would likely lead to a loss of the billions in US aid dollars underwriting Egypt's regional muscle and could lead to a war with Israel over the Sinai.Meanwhile, the last three Israeli diplomats left Cairo today and landed in Tel Aviv . According to media reports in Egypt, they were the acting ambassador, the security officer and deputy.These were the last remaining Israeli diplomats in the country after the dramatic evacuation from last Friday's attack on the embassy and completed its final evacuation.Earlier this week, Egyptian security forces detained 92 protesters who had allegedly been involved in the Israeli Embassy assault in Cairo on Friday night. In total, police and soldiers arrested 130 protesters, according to state television.

Reports in Egypt say that some of the detainees are suspected of trying to break into another building, located several hundred meters from the embassy building.
Egyptian Information Minister Osama Hassan Khaykl appeared on Egyptian television and said that the protesters who were arrested will face charges.Egypt will take legal measures, said Khaykl who condemned the embassy attack, to see the persons involved charged for their actions in court.

EU effort fails to avert UN confrontation on Palestine 15.09.11 @ 13:39 By EUOBSERVER

Palestine's FM al-Malki has said Palestine will on 23 September submit a bid to become a full UN member. The US is set to veto it while France is expected to vote in favour. EU envoy Ashton has spent this week in the Middle East trying to avert the confrontation.

UN Chief Calls PA to Return to Negotiations-UN chief Ban Ki-moon says PA should return to talks with Israel, says the peace deadlock is harming the whole Middle East.By Elad Benari First Publish: 9/16/2011, 12:12 AM

United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon called the Palestinian Authority on Thursday to return to talks with Israel, the Al-Arabiya network reported.Ban was quoted as saying the peace deadlock between the two sides is harming the whole Middle East. He added both sides must make concessions to get back into talks.I am asking them to enter into meaningful negotiations and the international community has a duty to create some conditions favorable to this, Ban told a press conference.He said Israel’s approval for construction of new homes in the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria has not been helpful, but added, At the same time, Palestinians should also try to sit together with Israeli people.I am deeply concerned that with the lack of progress in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Ban was quoted as saying. We are now experiencing very deteriorating, rapidly deteriorating situations between and among many important players in the region.The UN leader referred to the downgrade in the relations between Israel and Turkey and last week’s attack on the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, saying the Israeli-Turkish relationship is now going in a very negative way and adding the embassy attack was very worrisome.Ban called for strong regional leadership for lasting peace and security in the Middle East.

Ban’s comments came after PA Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki announced Thursday that the entity plans to submit its bid for full UN membership with the Security Council on Friday, September 23.The announcement ended speculation that Abbas would consider alternate plans forwarded by various diplomats who had frantically tried to dissuade the PA from pursuing a unilateral course via the UN.Last week, Ban reaffirmed his support for an independent Palestinian state, but said UN membership for the PA was an issue for member states to decide.One member, the United States, has already announced it will veto any statehood bid by the PA.

Lieberman Orders Embassies to Protest PA Apartheid State-FM Lieberman has instructed Israeli embassies around the world to protest remarks by a PA official that Palestine will be Judenrein By David Lev First Publish: 9/15/2011, 2:18 PM

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has instructed Israeli embassies in Europe and the U.S. to file strong protests with the governments of their host countries against comments by the Palestinian Authority representative delegation's United Nations observer, who said that the Arab state the PA plans to declare in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem will be free of Jews.In response to a reporter's question Tuesday, the PA official, Maen Areikat, said that after a military occupation of 44 years, I think it would be best for the two nations to split. He added that Jews would not be welcome to live in the PA state. The implication, said Lieberman, was that more than 350,000 Jews who live in areas the PA claims for its state would have to leave their homes.The Palestine Liberation Organization, however -- tasked with making the formal request to the United Nations for recognition of the PA as a new Arab country, and accepting the entity into its ranks as a full member -- has announced that the new state would welcome all faiths.Lieberman said Thursday that Areikat's comments were similar to other statements made directly by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, who has spoken of the need to deport all Jews from PA controlled areas. Both Areikat's and Abbas' statements, said Lieberman, prove that the PA plans to make its state Judenrein, borrowing a term describing the Nazis' policy of destroying Jews and murdering them. The nations of the world should take these comments into account when deciding how to vote on the PA's demand to set up a state, Lieberman said.

In June, Abbas himself made a similar statement. Telling reporters that he would under no conditions recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Abbas said that he would agree to an international force to ensure enforcement of a peace agreement between Israel and the PA state to prevent terrorism. But, he said, I will not agree to allowing Jews to participate in this force, and I will not agree to allow even one Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land.Earlier, Yuli Edelstein, in charge of the government's public information efforts, said that after endless attempts by the PA to delegitimize Israel and attempts to brand us as an apartheid state, it turns out that the Palestinians are the ones who are interested in apartheid.

Op-Ed: Judenrein State, Part I: Western Hypocrisy
Published: Thursday, September 15, 2011 5:51 PM

Nothing illustrates the hypocrisy better than a comparison of their demand that Israel accept an Arab right of return with their ambition for a state that would be ethnically cleansed of all Jews.Matthew M. Hausman, Att'y

Part I: Western Hypocrisy

In seeking to impose a Palestinian state on Israel, the Obama Administration, European Union, and western media have displayed a cynical contempt for history that is astounding in its breadth and scope. Pressure is brought to bear solely on Israel, who is expected to sacrifice sovereignty and security in the name of an ideal that is premised on a repudiation of the Jews’ right to self-determination in their ancient homeland. The Palestinians are expected to concede nothing – not even their oft-stated goal of the phased destruction of Israel. Nothing illustrates the hypocrisy better than a comparison of their demand that Israel accept an Arab right of return with their ambition for a state that would be ethnically cleansed of all Jews. Like the Nazis with whom the Mufti and other Arab leaders were so closely allied during the Second World War, they seek to create a Judenrein state as a springboard for the elimination of a Jewish presence in the Mideast. Ironically, western progressives are enabling the process, even though it entails human rights violations that would certainly be illegal in liberal democracies. The continuing support for the Palestinian cause by the United States and European Union – and their contribution of billions of dollars that fund anti-Semitic propaganda masquerading as school curriculum, line the pockets of the corrupt Abbas regime or end up in the coffers of Hamas – would indicate an abdication of reason if the true goal were to achieve a lasting, substantive peace.

However, such behavior is not incongruous if the real purpose is political realignment with the Arab-Muslim world at the expense of Israel’s integrity as a democratic, Jewish nation. Although Obama and the EU claim only to support the rights of the Palestinians as an indigenous people, they have adopted the cause by uncritically promoting a revisionist narrative that is built on a denial of Jewish history. However, the Jews’ rights as an indigenous people were recognized historically and under international law long before the term Palestinian was ever used to refer to an Arab population that accreted largely through immigration during the sunset years of the Ottoman Empire. The Jewish people originated in ancient Israel; the Palestinians did not.The Arab-Muslim world’s true intentions regarding peace with Israel should be apparent from its centuries-long oppression and subjugation of Jews in Arab lands and its stated refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation. The two-state solution is proffered as a ruse for the destabilization of Israel, and western apologists are complicit in the charade by their refusal to insist on Arab recognition of Jewish historical rights, and by their failure to condemn the Palestinian goal of state building through ethnic cleansing. The Jews’ rights as an indigenous people were recognized historically and under international law long before the term Palestinian was ever used.
Whereas any perceived attempt by Israel to transfer Arab populations would certainly inspire international condemnation, the Palestinians’ open and notorious aim of expelling Jews from historically Jewish lands – lands that were never part of any sovereign Arab nation – is met with conspicuous silence or tacit approval. Indeed,

President Obama’s demand last year for a building freeze in Jerusalem was a blatant attempt to coerce Israel to implement apartheid-like measures against her own citizens in order to limit the Jewish population of her capital.Jewish habitation in Judea, Samaria, and Israel proper, including Jerusalem, was a fact from antiquity into modern times – until Jordan conquered the territories and dispossessed their Jewish inhabitants during Israel’s War of Independence.When Jordan (then known as Transjordan) conquered Judea and Samaria in 1948, it expelled the Jews living there, collectively dubbed these territories the West Bank, and annexed them in violation of international law. Israel’s subsequent acquisition of these lands in 1967 in truth effectuated their liberation from foreign occupation; and renewed Jewish habitation thereafter constituted nothing more than repatriation. Israel’s liberation and administration of Judea and Samaria were perfectly legitimate under prevailing standards of international law, despite Palestinian claims to the contrary. In fact, it is Palestinian land-claims that are dubious, based as they are on Jordan’s transfer of its negotiating rights over these territories to the Palestinian Authority as part of the Oslo process. Because Jordan seized these lands illegally, however, it never possessed lawful title in the first place, and accordingly had no legitimate rights to convey to the PA.

In consideration of these facts, it is reasonable to question why Israel should even entertain the notion of a two-state solution, particularly as it requires her to discount the indigenous heritage of her own people and surrender ancestral lands to those who unapologetically call for her destruction. One must also question the wisdom of negotiating with the PA, which could easily be displaced by Hamas through open revolt or by an Islamist-influenced election such as occurred in Gaza. This is a particular concern in view of the political upheavals currently sweeping across the Arab world, where popular unrest has reinforced the legitimacy of military juntas and strengthened the political profile of Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Op-Ed: Judenrein State, Part II: Alternatives
Published: Thursday, September 15, 2011 5:12 PM

The political unrest now rocking the Arab world emphasizes the risk that an independent Palestinian state would be subject to the same destabilizing influences and form a terror haven on what are now Israel's security buffers. The other choices.

Part II: Alternatives

In determining the permanent status of Judea and Samaria, many advocates believe Israel instead should be guided by the principles laid out at the San Remo Conference of 1920, during which the Supreme Council of Principal Allied Powers made decisions implicating the future of the territories they liberated from the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. The Council, among other things, incorporated the Balfour Declaration into its program and recognized that the Jews comprised a people defined not solely by religion, but by nationality and descent as well. Moreover, it recognized that the Jews were indigenous to the Land of Israel and, accordingly, that they had the right to self-determination in their homeland. The Mandate for Palestine of 1922 further guaranteed the right of close settlement, which recognized that Jews could settle anywhere west of the Jordan. No similar recognition was accorded Palestinian-Arab nationality at that time because it simply did not exist.

Rather, the local Arabs considered themselves to be culturally part of the greater Syrian community, and much of their population had accrued through late migration into the area only after the Jews had begun rehabilitating the land and creating economic opportunities that did not exist elsewhere in the Mideast. The acceptance of the San Remo program by the League of Nations – and the restatement of its ambitions in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine – evidenced an acknowledgment of the Jews’ status as an indigenous people and their right to settle anywhere in their homeland, including Judea and Samaria, and thus underscored the legal basis for the reestablishment of the Jewish state. Consequently, traditional recognition of the Jews’ indigenous rights should inform any proposals for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. This would be consistent with the ideals set forth in the Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples, voted on by the U.N. in 2007. Of particular relevance is the language contained in Article 10, which states:Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.

Though the true intent of this nonbinding declaration may have been to promote the Palestinian cause at Israel’s expense, it cannot be divorced from the long-standing recognition under international legal conventions that the Jews are indigenous to the Land of Israel. Accordingly, it implicitly reinforces the Jewish connection to lands the Palestinians now attempt to claim as their own, and provides justification for potential resolutions that are premised on legally-cognizable Jewish claims, rather than on politically-motivated or apocryphal Palestinian pretensions.If a state of Palestine were to be created, any policies requiring the ethnic cleansing of Jewish inhabitants would violate international law as recognized at San Remo and under the original Mandate for Palestine, which the United Nations is currently bound to honor by virtue of Section 80 of the U.N. Charter.Such ethnic cleansing would also contravene the precepts set forth in the Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other conventions. In order to exist in compliance with international law, such a state would have to provide for the Jews – as indigenous people – to remain on their ancestral lands in Judea and Samaria. It would also need to recognize the Jewish right of close settlement. Jewish residents of such a state would have to retain Israeli citizenship and be governed by Israeli law, and the Arab state subsuming their communities would have to recognize Israeli sovereignty within their enclaves.

Jews wishing to travel to Israel proper would have to be free to do so without harassment. Such arrangements exist in other parts of the world, for example, in North America, where Alaskans cut off from the mainland United States are permitted to travel through Canada in order to visit the lower Forty-Eight, or in Europe where citizens of EU countries are permitted to travel across national borders unimpeded. Indeed, the Quartet seeks to impose just such an arrangement on Israel by demanding that Gaza be connected by a corridor to a Palestinian State in Judea and Samaria.It is unlikely, however, that a Palestinian state would recognize any Jewish rights or permit Jewish residency. It is equally unlikely that it would recognize Jewish autonomy or Israeli sovereignty. A more realistic scenario – if there is to be a Palestinian entity – might be the creation of a federation or confederation in which some of the territories currently under Israeli administration would be linked with Jordan, where a majority of the population already identifies as Palestinian. A confederation could be created by ceding some territory for a semi-autonomous region that would then be joined with Jordan under an umbrella government of general, limited powers. The concept of confederation provides that Jordan and a Palestinian entity would each maintain individual sovereignty and would exercise unilateral powers outside the scope of the general government’s jurisdiction. The authority of the general government would be limited to those powers specifically agreed upon by the constituent entities.The risk of confederation, however, is that the entities could elect to separate in order to establish an independent Palestinian state.

A similar but distinct concept is federation, in which sovereign authority would be constitutionally allocated among the member states and the general government, but in which the structure of government could not be altered by the unilateral acts of its constituents. That is, neither entity could dissolve the union in order to establish an independent Palestinian state. Such a federation would consist of Jordan and a Palestinian entity created on land transferred from Judea and Samaria, but would not include Jewish towns or population centers. Likewise, Israel would retain control of all land necessary to ensure her security and to protect her water rights in the Jordan valley. These same constraints on land transfers would apply to a confederation as well.Regardless of the technical form, the resulting Palestinian-Jordanian entity would be independent from Israel and would include no land or power sharing in Jerusalem, which would remain exclusively under Israel’s dominion and control. Jerusalem was never the capital of any sovereign Arab nation, and Jordan’s illegal occupation from 1948 to 1967 does not provide a legal basis for Palestinian claims over the city.In contrast, Israel does have a lawful historical claim to Jerusalem, in which Jews have constituted the majority population for generations, since long before Israeli independence to the present day. Moreover, Jerusalem was the ancient capital of Jewish kingdoms that were the only sovereign nations ever to occupy the land. Consequently, there can be no justification for dividing the city. Arabs residing in Jerusalem would remain subject to Israeli civil and criminal law, and Israel would continue to protect and facilitate access to all religious sites and shrines as she always has done. Israel could enforce a similar arrangement between Gaza and Egypt, after which Israel would sever any remaining connection to Gaza. Thus, Egypt would be solely responsible for servicing Gaza’s infrastructure, utility, and humanitarian needs, leaving Israel to concentrate on consolidating and enhancing her security presence along her southern border.

These concepts are not new or unique, but rather were the subject of analysis and debate in the 1990s by the late Daniel J. Elazar, founder of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and others. Proposals involving these and similar models were put forth as alternatives to a free-standing Palestinian state. A federal model was considered by many to be a more workable paradigm than independent Palestinian statehood for protecting Israeli security, particularly by those who recognized that the Oslo process tended to sacrifice Israeli rights and security concerns. Proponents of some kind of Arab federal union believed that the costs of administering a hostile population would continue to grow, but that an independent state of Palestine would threaten Israel’s security and pose an existential challenge to her long-term survival.These ideas are regaining currency today in part because the political unrest now rocking the Arab world emphasizes the risk that an independent Palestinian state would be subject to the same destabilizing influences. It is likely that such a state would quickly become a terrorist haven and a hostile military threat, particularly if it were to be created from lands that currently provide Israel with strategic security buffers.Not everyone believes that the creation of such entities will resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact, there is growing support in some segments of Israeli society for formal annexation of Judea and Samaria, in whole or in part, or for de facto annexation through the extension of Israeli civil law into these territories.Although there may be disagreement regarding the most appropriate strategy, there is increasing consensus among Israelis that they must create their own solutions based on their own needs and concerns, instead of waiting passively while a two-state plan is foisted upon them by outside powers who have no regard for Israeli sovereignty.

There is increasing consensus among Israelis that they must create their own solutions based on their own needs and concerns.Despite international pressure for the creation of a Palestinian state devoid of Jews, Israel must be guided by her own priorities, and must not lose sight of the rights of Jews as indigenous people in their homeland, including those rights recognized at San Remo and reinforced by the Mandate. A Palestinian state created by dispossessing Jews from their ancestral lands would be in violation of international law and would represent a repudiation of history.Unfortunately, American and European support for a Judenrein Arab state illustrates that international law is not applied equitably when the net effect would be the validation of historical Jewish rights or Israeli national integrity.
Therefore, Israel must resist all calls for her to sacrifice her security needs and Jewish character, and should work instead to expose the double standard underlying the international community’s unjust and unreasonable demands.

Beinisch Rules: If It's Not State Land - Demolish It-Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch rules: Anything not declared state land in Judea and Samaria is private land which should be razed.By Elad Benari First Publish: 9/16/2011, 4:09 AM

Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch has ruled that any area in Judea and Samaria that has not been declared state land is considered private land and all buildings in such areas must be demolished.Beinisch made this ruling in a hearing that was held this week in the Supreme Court about homes in the Jewish neighborhood of Givat HaYovel in Eli north of Jerusalem.12 homes in the neighborhood were slated to be demolished last year, including the homes of fallen IDF soldiers Roi Klein and Eliraz Peretz. Defense Minister Ehud Barak petitioned the Supreme Court to postpone the destruction just two weeks before it was scheduled to take place.There are other homes in danger of being razed in Haresha, located in the Talmonim bloc between the city of Modiin and Beit El. The communities are being targeted by leftist groups such as Peace Now which claim that the homes were built on property belonging to PA Arabs.In her ruling this week, a copy of which was obtained by Arutz Sheva’s Haggai Huberman, Beinisch stated, The State shall notify the court within 60 days which lands in HaYovel and Haresha are private land, as opposed to state land. In the statement filed on the State’s behalf regarding the lands that have not been declared state land, and are thus in the category of private land, the State shall determine what is the timetable for the demolition of structures built in these lands, subject to a hearing to be held during this time period to the current holders of these lands, with the exception of the Peretz family.A thorough check by Huberman revealed that of all the homes in HaYovel, only two homes are on land not defined as state land, one of them being the home of Eliraz Peretz, in which case Peace Now has withdrawn the petition it filed. This leaves only one home in HaYovel that is not defined as being on state land.

Huberman notes that this one home is a case similar to the case of the three homes in Migron which were recently demolished in the middle of the night. In the case of Migron, Peace Now withdrew its petition after realizing that the case was faultily prepared and it could not prove Arab ownership for these specific homes.In the case of HaYovel as well, notes Huberman, there is no Arab claim on the home, but the State Attorney’s Office and the Deputy Attorney General have explained that the State does not intend to declare the land on which the home stands as state land because there are old signs of processing of the land that were found in the area.
Huberman explains that this decision leaves an opening for leftist groups to someday file another petition to the Supreme Court, claiming that the land is Arab land.
Beinisch has come under fire by nationalists recently, particularly after she allowed the nighttime destruction in Migron and ignored the fact that children were left homeless as a result. This latest ruling is sure to add to the criticism of her.
National Union Chairman MK Yaakov Ketzaleh Katz responded to Beinisch’s ruling Thursday, saying, As she nears retirement, Judge Beinisch is not asking for a list of tens of thousands of housing units illegally built by Arabs and Bedouin in the Galilee, Negev, Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria in order to destroy them, but is only interested in the list of Jewish homes.A few months before leaving the job she is eager to fulfill her desire to see Judea and Samaria free of Jews and to build the Arab nation in the land Israel,he added.Katz said that he intends to submit a bill to the Knesset stating that any land, in which the State was involved in its construction, should be expropriated and retroactively declared state land.

Jordan: Only 300 at Million Man March on Israeli Embassy-Protesters in Jordan call to shut down Israeli embassy, burn Israeli flag. No violent incidents.By Elad Benari First Publish: 9/16/2011, 1:11 AM

The planned million man march on the Israeli Embassy in Jordan fizzled to only about 300 young protesters on Thursday, The Associated Press reported.According to the report, the demonstration was small and peaceful, possibly because the Muslim Brotherhood accounted for only about 100 of the protesters, while others were mostly youths.The protesters chanted, We want to get rid of the (Israeli) embassy, and burned an Israeli flag about a mile (1.5 kilometers) down the hill from the Israeli Embassy.One protester told AP, We reject the peace treaty (signed between Jordan and Israel in 1994) and we don’t want an Israeli Embassy in Jordan.According to the news agency, police formed several lines and set up metal fences to prevent the protesters from marching toward the embassy. In one incident, a handful of demonstrators pushed one of the fences against policemen, but they were quickly pushed back. Dozens of riot police also stood guard blocks away from the protest and near the embassy.On Wednesday, it was reported that Jordanian activists were planning a million man march, in which they would demand that the Israeli Embassy in Amman be shut down.The call to protest was welcomed among many political parties, among them the Coordination Committee of the Jordanian opposition parties, which includes seven parties, and the Islamic Action Front Party which represents the extreme Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan.Israel subsequently decided to evacuate its embassy in Amman, fearing that the protest might escalate to a violent riot such as the one in the Israeli Embassy in Cairo last week.