THE JEWS IN PALESTINE
INTRODUCTION TO 2
IMPORTANT ARTICLES
A cadre (working membership)
of Trotskyism must and will understand this history very well. The Jews at the
end of the First World War were given ALL of Palestine
We Trotskyists are not on our
knees praying and never will be, not are we starry eyed optimists. We are
realists. The Jews were robbed of their Homeland by force, the force of British
Imperialism, from 1922 to 1939, with the infamous White Paper of that year. And
it will be returned to the Jewish people by force as well, the force of the
Socialist Revolution.
Do not just read these two
documents…study them! Belman who hails from Toronto, his people previously from
Eastern Europe, now living in Jerusalem, is a secularist, and is a lawyer,
hence the precision in this summary. Grief I believe is also a lawyer and his
article is the definitive statement. You can take everything these two say here
is the definitive truth. Every Trotskyist leader will stand on the basis of
these truths contained in these two documents or will not stand at all.. Our
challenge to Irish Anti-Semites.
2 ARTICLES FOR ALL TO READ
CAREFULLY
ARTICLE ONE BY TED BELMAN
SUMMARY OF ISRAEL JUDEA
AND SAMARIA
by Ted Belman
Background: The Middle East was a part of the Ottoman
Empire , which had ruled it
some 400 years when World War I broke out. The Ottomans allied themselves with Germany Middle East was reconfigured. The original plan was to create a
Jewish state in what the British called Mandatory Palestine (some 45,000 square
miles on both sides of the Jordan
river ) and an Arab state in
the rest of the region. In 1922, the British put the Hashemite family in charge
of “administering” the area on the east side of the Jordan — some 78% of the
land destined to be the Jewish state — leaving the Jews with some 8,840 square
miles, 1/10 of 1% of the area of the Middle East, for a future homeland. The
land holdings of the 22 Arab League countries, in contrast, is 6,145,389 square
miles.
1. According to
international law, the Jewish people are the sole beneficiary of
Self-Determination in the land that was Mandatory Palestine. The rights of the
Jewish People to Palestine
The process began at San
Remo, Italy, when the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I — Great
Britain, France, Italy and Japan — agreed to create a Jewish national home [*]
in what is now the Land of Israel.
The 1920 San Remo Resolution This
was passed by the San Remo Supreme Council. This council was given the power of
disposition by the Great Powers and was convened for the purpose of dividing
what was the Ottoman Empire , i.e., redrawing the borders of the Middle East and giving its land to its original inhabitants. The relevant
resolution reads as follows:
“The High Contracting Parties
agree to entrust… the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as
may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory [authority
that] will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration… in
favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish
people.”
The San Remo Resolution also
bases itself on Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which
declares that it is “a sacred trust of civilization” to provide for the
well-being and development of colonies and territories whose inhabitants are
“not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the
modern world.” Specifically, a resolution was formulated to create a Mandate to
form a Jewish national home in Palestine
Professor Jacques Gauthier
wrote that the San
Remo Palestine
The 1922 Mandate for
Palestine The League of Nations’ resolution creating the Palestine Mandate
included the following significant clause: “Whereas recognition has thereby
been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine Palestine
The 1924 Anglo-American
Convention on Palestine United States of America Palestine
“Whereas the Principal Allied
Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting
into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of November 1917 , by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and
adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine
The United States of America Palestine
2. The British Mandatory was
not a sovereign. All its rights and obligations relating to Palestine League
of Nations , and it was not
given the power to take any steps which violated the terms of the Mandate. It
could not change the terms of the Mandate at its pleasure, as it did in the
following two cases:
Ceding 77.5 % of Palestine
Ceding the Golan to Syria
3. The Mandatory violated
article 5 & article 27 of the Mandate when it ceded 77.5% of Palestine Syria
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. 27: The Mandatory had no right to amend the Mandate terms without
the full consent of the League
of Nations or its Mandates
Commission.
4. In the 1924 Anglo American
Convention the U.S. Great Britain Palestine
Drawing the borders of Palestine
Reconstituting Palestine
Recognizing the Jewish
People’s historical connection to the land
There was not even one word
in the Mandate or the Anglo American convention about creating an Arab land in Palestine
In November 2009, the Office
for Israeli Constitutional Law (OFICL), a non-governmental legal action
organization, sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, warning
that by labeling Jewish settlements in the West Bank illegal, she is violating
international law, as well as American law. OFICL director Mark Kaplan said:
“The mandate expired in 1948
when Israel
5. The Lodge-Fish Resolution
of September
21, 1922 ,was a Joint Resolution
passed by both houses of the U.S. Congress and signed by President Warren
Harding, endorsing the Balfour Declaration with slight variations. This made
the text of the Joint Resolution part of the law of the United States
“Resolved by the Senate and
House of representatives of the United States of America United states of America Palestine
confirming the irrevocable
right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea :
6. Under American Law when a
joint resolution is passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives
in an identical form and then signed by the President, it becomes the Law of
the U.S.
7. Both the Lodge-Fish
Resolution and the Anglo American Convention underwent the above noted process
(see point 6). Therefore reconstituting Palestine
Any attempt to negate the
Jewish people’s right to Palestine — Eretz-Israel — and to deny them access and
control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations
is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy
Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which
dictates that Treaties “shall be the supreme Law of the Land”.
8. The 1924 Anglo American
Convention on Palestine Palestine Arab State Palestine Palestine
9. The significance of the
above (see #8) is that no decision made by the US Britain France Italy Japan US Britain San Remo San Remo League of Nations and its 51 members. This resolution became a binding
international Treaty. The Treaty became Res Judicata. Consequently all the
above noted countries are bound by their own approval. Thus they are prevented
from changing their approval without Israel
10. No decision, policy or
measure taken by subsequent American administrations may be in conflict with
the Terms of the Palestine Mandate. (The sole purpose of the Mandate was-to
reconstitute Palestine US
11. Both their Excellencies,
the Emir Faisal and Abdullah approved the League of Nations decisions. At different points in history,
Emir Faisal, in an agreement with Weitzman, agreed to support the Zionist claim
on both sides of the Jordan
river and later Abdullah,
agreed with Churchill to support the Zionist claim to the territory from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean , including Judea and Samaria Gaza Golan Heights . The
Supreme Council did not want to approve the final borders of Palestine Jordan
12. All rights emanating from
the three international treaties were approved by the League of Nations and inherited by the United Nations. They did not
expire. The United Nations had no right to vary them.
The UN has no right to pass a
resolution which ran contrary to an existing earlier decision/ resolution on
its books. The UN or Britain
The same Supreme Council that
drew the borders for Iraq Syria and Lebanon Israel Jordan Mediterranean . This was approved by the League, and its members: Britain France Japan Italy
13. The General Assembly does
not have the right to create enforceable resolutions or borders. So even if the
Arabs had accepted the Green Line [the armistice lines after the 1948
Arab-Israeli war], these borders would not have been legally enforceable.
14. The Partition Plan of
1947 only demarcated the cease fire lines. It had no binding legal force.
It was not approved by the
Arabs. In order for the Green Line to have had any sort of legal significance
that approval would have been necessary at the very least;
The General Assembly has no
power to change borders. Therefore its decision or advice was insignificant
from a legal perspective.
The UN has no power to vary
an existing valid international treaty which the League of Nations – its predecessor – had approved. (Res Judicata). The
UN inherited from the League
of Nations the granting to Israel Mediterranean and the Jordan River .
The UN has no power to draw
new agreements which run contrary to existing valid International Agreements or
treaties which it had inherited from its predecessor, the League of Nations .
No borders decided by the San
Remo Conference and approved by the League of Nations ,
save those of Israel
In 1923 Britain – the
Mandatory and Trustee of the Palestine Mandate of 1922, and of the British
American Convention of 1924 – contrary to the explicit terms of the Mandate,
ceded the Golan to Syria.[5]“This treaty which was concluded by the principal
powers, in effect, as representative of the League of Nations, is binding on
the League, particularly after it approved it. The League cannot therefore
change the mandate provisions. (Nor, of course, does the Mandatory have that
right)”[6]
OFICL chairman Michael
Snidecor has stated, “The General Assembly has no authority to create countries
or change borders. The UN partition plan [1967] was just that — a plan.”
Significant precedents:
1. The Vienna
Rights gained from Mandates
don’t cease at the expiration of the Mandate
The principle of law that
rights once granted or recognized under a treaty or other legal instrument do
not expire with the expiration of that treaty or instrument is now codified in
article 70(1)(b) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (the
Treaty on Treaties). This article states that “unless the treaty otherwise
provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty… does not
affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through
the execution of the treaty prior to its termination”.
As a result, Jewish rights to
Palestine Land of Israel
The South Africa
Article 80 of The UN charter:
No right gained by a country through a mandate will expire as a result of the
expiration of the mandate.
End Notes
[*] Jewish National Home
and “homeland for the Jewish people” were a less in-your-face way of saying
“Jewish State.”
[1] See, for
example, this, this, this, this and this, for
starters. Other articles can be retrieved by goggling for “Howard Grief” and/or
“Yoram Shifftan”.
OFICL chairman Mark Kaplan
has pointed out that IDF’s presence in the West Bank has added to this misconception of illegal activity.
“Israel Israel Judea
and Samaria the Hague Geneva
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259243026960&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull).
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259243026960&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull).
[2] Jacques Gauthier, Thesis Defense,
http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2007/12/02/an-e-mail-that-is-about-jacques- gauthiers-phd-dissertation-on-the-legal-status-of-jerusalem-an- important-document-to-be-read-by-the-annapolis-process-and-the-un-lawyers/,
http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2007/12/02/an-e-mail-that-is-about-jacques- gauthiers-phd-dissertation-on-the-legal-status-of-jerusalem-an- important-document-to-be-read-by-the-annapolis-process-and-the-un-lawyers/,
[3] Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders
of Israel under International Law: A Treatise on Jewish Sovereignty over the Land
of Israel
[4] Jacques Gauthier re: minutes of San Remo
Conference.
http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2007/11/jerusalem-is-jewish-issue.html
http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2007/11/jerusalem-is-jewish-issue.html
[5] Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial: The Origins
of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine, pg 236.
[6] Jacques Gauthier, Thesis, pg 404.
Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the Isra Pundit.com
website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem .
Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com
THANKS TO
ARTICLE 2 BY HOWARD GRIEF
Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People
to the Land
of Israel
and Palestine under International
Law
The objective of this paper
is to set down in a brief, yet clear and precise manner the legal rights and
title of sovereignty of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel Palestine
As part of the settlement in
which the Arabs received most of the lands formerly under Turkish sovereignty
in the Middle East , the whole of Palestine Jordan
Under the terms of the
settlement that were made by the Principal Allied Powers consisting of Britain,
France, Italy and Japan, there would be no annexation of the conquered Turkish
territories by any of the Powers, as had been planned in the secret Sykes-Picot
Agreement of May 9 and 16, 1916. Instead, these territories, including the
peoples for whom they were designated, would be placed under the Mandates
System and administered by an advanced nation until they were ready to stand by
themselves. The Mandates System was established and governed by Article 22 of
the Covenant of the League of
Nations , contained in the
Treaty of Versailles and all the other peace treaties made with the Central
Powers – Germany Austria-Hungary Bulgaria Turkey Palestine
The moment of birth of Jewish
legal rights and title of sovereignty thus took place at the same time Palestine Judea
in fulfillment of the Balfour Declaration and the general provisions of Article
22 of the League Covenant. This meant that Palestine
The details for the planned
independent Jewish state were set forth in three basic documents, which may be
termed the founding documents of mandated Palestine Israel April 25, 1920 , the Mandate for Palestine Britain League of Nations on July 24, 1922 , and the Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23,
1920 . These founding
documents were supplemented by the Anglo-American Convention of December 3, 1924 respecting the Mandate for Palestine Palestine Land of Israel
The San Remo Resolution
converted the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917 from a mere statement of
British policy expressing sympathy with the goal of the Zionist movement to
create a Jewish state into a binding act of international law that required
specific fulfillment by Britain of this object in active cooperation with the
Jewish people. Under the Balfour Declaration as originally issued by the
British government, the latter only promised to use their best endeavors to
facilitate the establishment in Palestine April 24-25, 1920 , the Principal Allied Powers as a cohesive group
charged the British government with the responsibility or legal obligation of
putting into effect the Balfour Declaration. A legal onus was thus placed on Britain Britain France Germany Suez Canal .
The term “Jewish National
Home” was defined to mean a state by the British government at the Cabinet
session which approved the Balfour Declaration on October 31, 1917 . That was also the meaning originally given to this
phrase by the program committee which drafted the Basel Program at the first
Zionist Congress in August 1897 and by Theodore Herzl, the founder of the
Zionist Organization. The word “home” as used in the Balfour Declaration and
subsequently in the San Remo Resolution was simply the euphemism for a state
originally adopted by the Zionist Organization when the territory of Palestine
was subject to the rule of the Ottoman Empire, so as not to arouse the sharp
opposition of the Sultan and his government to the Zionist aim, which involved
a potential loss of this territory by the Empire. There was no doubt in the
minds of the authors of the Basel Program and the Balfour Declaration regarding
the true meaning of this word, a meaning reinforced by the addition of the
adjective “national” to “home”. However, as a result of not using the word
“state” directly and proclaiming that meaning openly or even attempting to hide
its true meaning when it was first used to denote the aim of Zionism,
ammunition was provided to those who sought to prevent the emergence of a
Jewish state or who saw the Home only in cultural terms.
The phrase “in Palestine Transjordan . It was absurd to imagine that this phrase could be
used to indicate that only a part of Palestine was reserved for the future
Jewish National Home, since both were created simultaneously and used
interchangeably, with the term “Palestine” pointing out the geographical
location of the future independent Jewish state. Had “Palestine
There is therefore no
juridical or factual basis for asserting that the phrase “in Palestine
The San Remo Resolution on Palestine Palestine Palestine Palestine February 27, 1919 , which called for the development of Palestine Palestine Palestine
The San Remo Resolution on
Palestine became Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres which was intended to end
the war with Turkey, but though this treaty was never ratified by the Turkish
National Government of Kemal Ataturk, the Resolution retained its validity as
an independent act of international law when it was inserted into the Preamble
of the Mandate for Palestine and confirmed by 52 states. The San Remo
Resolution is the base document upon which the Mandate was constructed and to which
it had to conform. It is therefore the pre-eminent foundation document of the
State of Israel and the crowning achievement of pre-state Zionism. It has been
accurately described as the Magna Carta of the Jewish people. It is the best
proof that the whole country of Palestine Land of Israel
The Mandate for Palestine Britain Palestine
In conferring the Mandate for
Palestine Britain Britain League of Nations as the supervisor of the Mandatory to ensure that all
the terms of the Mandate Charter would be strictly observed. The Mandate was
drawn up in the form of a Decision of the League Council confirming the Mandate
rather than making it part of a treaty with Turkey League of Nations
and Britain
The first drafts of the
Mandate for Palestine October 24, 1919 , took personal charge of the Mandate drafting process
in March 1920. He shut out the Zionist Organization from further direct
participation in the actual drafting, but the Zionist leader, Chaim Weitzman,
was kept informed of new changes made in the Draft Mandate and allowed to
comment on them. The changes engineered by Curzon watered down the obvious Jewish
character of the Mandate, but did not succeed in suppressing its aim – the
creation of a Jewish state. The participation of the Zionist Organization in
the Mandate drafting process confirmed the fact that the Jewish people were the
exclusive beneficiary of the national rights enshrined in the Mandate. No Arab
party was ever consulted regarding its views on the terms of the Mandate prior
to the submission of this instrument to the League Council for confirmation, on
December
6, 1920 . By contrast, the
civil and religious rights of all existing religious communities in Palestine,
whether Moslem or Christian, were safeguarded, as well as the civil and
religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and
religion. The rights of Arabs, whether as individuals or as members of
religious communities, but not as a nation, were therefore legally assured. In
addition, no prejudice was to be caused to their financial and economic
position by the expected growth of the Jewish population.
It was originally intended
that the Mandate Charter would delineate the boundaries of Palestine France Palestine Syria December 23,
1920 . The borders were based
on a formula first put forth by the British Prime Minister David Lloyd George
when he met his French counterpart, Georges Clemenceau, in London on December
1, 1918 and defined Palestine as extending from the ancient towns of Dan to
Beersheba. This definition was immediately accepted by Clemenceau, which meant
that Palestine Palestine Jordan River . The very words “from Dan to Beersheba Palestine Palestine Syria Palestine February 3, 1922 , which took effect on March 10, 1923 . It illegally removed the portion of the Golan that
had previously been included in Palestine Sea of Galilee ) wholly within the bounds of the Jewish National
Home, and made other small territorial adjustments. The British and French
negotiators had no legal right to remove or exclude any “Palestine Palestine Palestine Palestine Britain France
The 1920 Convention also
included Transjordan in the area of the Jewish National Home, but a
surprise last-minute intervention by the US June 3, 1922 and led directly to the sabotage of the Mandate.
Thereafter, the British never departed from the false interpretation they gave
to the Jewish National Home which ended all hope of achieving the envisaged
Jewish state under their auspices.
The question of which state,
nation or entity held sovereignty over a mandated territory sparked great
debate throughout the Mandate period, and no definitive answer was ever given.
That is extremely surprising because the Treaty of Versailles, signed on June 28, 1919 and ratified on January 10, 1920 , stated flatly in Article 22 that the states which
formerly governed those territories which were subsequently administered by a
Mandatory had lost their sovereignty as a consequence of World War I. That
meant that Germany Africa and the Pacific, while Turkey Middle East , prior to the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.
The date when the change of sovereignty occurred could only have been on
January 30, 1919, the date when it was irrevocably decided by the Council of Ten
in adopting the Smuts Resolution, that none of the ex-German and ex-Turkish
territories would be returned to their former owners. These territories were
then placed in the collective hands of the Principal Allied and Associated
Powers for their disposition. In the case of Palestine April 24, 1920 when the Balfour Declaration was adopted as the
reason for creating and administering the new country of Palestine Palestine Palestine Palestine Palestine
This situation continued so
long as the Mandate was in force and the Jewish people living in Palestine
The decisive moment of change
came on May 14, 1948 when the
representatives of the Jewish people in Palestine Palestine Land of Israel Israel Land of Israel Israel
The most amazing development
concerning the question of sovereignty over Palestine Jordan June 5-10, 1967 , did not do so – except in the case of Jerusalem Israel Israel Land of Israel
Israel’s legal rights and
title of sovereignty over all of the Land of Israel – specifically in regard to
Judea, Samaria and Gaza – suffered a severe setback when the Government of
Prime Minister Menahem Begin approved the Camp David Framework Agreement for
Peace in the Middle East, under which it was proposed that negotiations would
take place to determine the “final status” of those territories. The phrase
“final status” was a synonym for the word “sovereignty”. It was inexcusable
that neither Begin nor his legal advisers, including Aharon Barak, the future
President of the Israel Supreme Court, knew that sovereignty had already been
vested in the Jewish people and hence the State of Israel many years before, at
the San Remo Peace Conference. The situation became much worse, reaching the
level of treason when the Government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signed the
Declaration of Principles (DOP) with the Palestine Liberation Organization
(PLO) and agreed to give it about 90% or more of Judea and Samaria and most of
Gaza over a five-year transitional period in order to “achieve a just, lasting
and comprehensive peaceful settlement and historic reconciliation through the
agreed political process” with the Arabs of Palestine. The illegal surrender of
territory to the “Palestinian Authority” originally called the “Council” in
Article IV of the DOP was hidden by the use of the word “jurisdiction” instead
of “sovereignty” in that article. Further dissimulation was shown by the
sanitized reference to “redeployment of Israeli military forces in Judea ,
Samaria
To understand why even the
State of Israel does not believe in its own title of sovereignty over what are
wrongfully termed “occupied territories” even by leading politicians and jurists
in Israel
The non-ratification of the
Treaty of Sevres of August 10, 1920 with Turkey which contained the San Remo
Resolution on Palestine and the non-inclusion of this Resolution in the Treaty
of Lausanne of July 24, 1923. This gave the wrong impression that the legal
status of Palestine Turkey
The non-enforcement of most
of the terms of the Mandate within Palestine
The deliberate
misinterpretation of the meaning of the Mandate by the British government to
include obligations of equal weight which it supposedly had undertaken in favor
of the Arabs of Palestine, when in actual fact no such obligations ever
existed, particularly the obligation to develop self-governing institutions for
their benefit, which – on the contrary – were meant for the Jewish National
Home.
The issuance of several White
Papers beginning with the Churchill White Paper of June 3, 1922 and culminating
with the Malcolm MacDonald White Paper of May 17, 1939, whose effect was to
nullify the fundamental terms of the Mandate and prevent a Jewish state
covering the whole of Palestine from ever coming into being during the British
administration of the country. What the British essentially did in governing Palestine
The illegal introduction of
Article 25 into the Mandate Charter that after its application on September 16,
1922 led to the dislocation of Transjordan from the Jewish National Home and
also had a deleterious influence on the administration of Cis-Jordan by
encouraging the false idea that Arab national rights existed not only in the
severed part of the Jewish National Home across the Jordan, but in the
remaining part as well.
The end result of British
sabotage, misinterpretation, distortion and outright denial of what the Mandate
stood for was that Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty over the whole
of Palestine as originally envisaged in the San Remo Resolution and the Mandate
became so blurred, obfuscated and confused by the time the Mandate ended that
it was no longer understood or held to be true. Not even the legal experts of
the Jewish Agency for Palestine League of Nations .
The mutilation of the Mandate
Charter was continued by the United Nations when this new world organization
considered the question of Palestine August
31, 1947 , the United Nations
Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) proposed an illegal partition plan
which recognized Arab national rights in western Palestine Galilee , Judea , Samaria Ashdod Negev including Beersheba November 29,
1947 as Resolution 181 (II).
The Jewish Agency for Palestine Palestine Palestine December 23, 1920 . The Jewish Agency should have relied on these three
documents exclusively in declaring the Jewish state over all of Palestine Syria Lebanon
Another facet of the story
that concerned the illegal denial of Jewish legal rights and title of
sovereignty over Palestine United States May
17, 1939 . The United States Palestine December 3, 1924 . This imposed a solemn obligation on the US US US
American inaction against the
British government was particularly unforgivable in view of the fact that the
articles of the Mandate were a part of American domestic law and the US was the
only state which could have forced the British to repudiate the malevolent
White Paper and restore the right of the Jews of Europe to gain refuge in their
homeland.
Both the Mandate and the
Anglo-American Convention have ceased to exist. However, all the rights of the
Jewish people that derive from the Mandate remain in full force. This is the
consequence of the principle of acquired legal rights which, as applied to the
Jewish people, means that the rights they acquired or were recognized as
belonging to them when Palestine was legally created as the Jewish National
Home are not affected by the termination of the treaty or the acts of
international law which were the source of those rights. This principle already
existed when the Anglo-American Convention came to an end simultaneously with
the termination of the Mandate for Palestine May 14-15, 1948 . It has since been codified in Article 70(1)(b) of
the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This principle of
international law would apply even if one of the parties to the treaty failed
to perform the obligations imposed on it, as was the case with the British
government in regard to the Mandate for Palestine
The reverse side of the
principle of acquired legal rights is the doctrine of estoppel which is also of
great importance in preserving Jewish national rights. This doctrine prohibits
any state from denying what it previously admitted or recognized in a treaty or
other international agreement. In the Convention of 1924, the United States Palestine Land of Israel US Israel Judea , Samaria Gaza Israel United States December 5, 1925 . This convention has terminated, but not the rights
granted under it to the Jewish people. The American policy opposing Jewish
settlements in Judea , Samaria Gaza United States
The gravest threat to Jewish
legal rights and title of sovereignty over the Land of Israel Syria Jordan Lebanon Iraq
It is a matter of the
greatest irony and astonishment that the so-called Palestinian nation has
received its greatest boost from Israel Judea , Samaria Gaza
The situation in which the
Arabs of Palestine and the Land of Israel claim the same legal rights as the
Jewish people violates the authentic international law that was created by the
San Remo Resolution, the Mandate and the 1920 Franco-British Convention. It is
part of the worldwide folly that has occurred since 1969 when the “Palestinian
people” were first accorded international recognition, that authentic
international law has been replaced by an ersatz international law
composed of illegal UN Resolutions. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and
the Hague Regulations of 1907 are acts of genuine international law, but they
have no direct application or relevance to the legal status of Judea, Samaria
and Gaza which are integral territories of the Jewish National Home and the
Land of Israel under the sovereignty of the State of Israel. These acts would
apply only to the Arab occupation of Jewish territories, as occurred between
1948 and 1967, and not to the case of Israeli rule over the Jewish homeland.
The hoax of the Palestinian people and their alleged rights to the Land of Israel
The Arabs of the Land of Israel Israel Land of Israel Israel
CONCLUSION
These articles by Ted Belman
and Howard Grief are not meant to be casual reading. They need to be studied
and indeed debated. That is also why on the website “Trotskyism” we place them
always readily available as a page on the front cover. The aim is not to have
these read, digested and their practical significance pursued on an individual
manner, but in a social manner. This analysis must be made to live inside the
Irish political scene and the way to do this is by means of a political
campaign by a tightly composed Trotskyist organization, or league of like
minded individuals joined together willingly to pursue a common purpose.
This is also a good time to
draw attention to why this is so necessary in the Ireland
But today, read the following
piece that we conclude with, which shows Adams and McGuiness of Sinn Fein today
attacking Israel
Irish Government should
expel Israeli Ambassador — Adams
Sinn Féin leaders are
attending demonstrations in Dublin Belfast Derry today to protest at the actions of Israel
Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams will attend a demonstration at Belfast City Hall at 4pm. Martin McGuinness is to attend a protest at the Guildhall in Derry at 5pm while Sinn Féin Vice President Mary Lou McDonald and Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD will attend an event at the Spire in Dublin’s O'Connell Street at 6pm.
Speaking from the Belfast demonstration Gerry Adams said:
“I welcome the fact that Minister Micheál Martin has summoned the Israeli ambassador to explain the actions of Israeli forces in killing up to 20 civilians taking part in a peaceful humanitarian mission to Gaza.
Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams will attend a demonstration at Belfast City Hall at 4pm. Martin McGuinness is to attend a protest at the Guildhall in Derry at 5pm while Sinn Féin Vice President Mary Lou McDonald and Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD will attend an event at the Spire in Dublin’s O'Connell Street at 6pm.
Speaking from the Belfast demonstration Gerry Adams said:
“I welcome the fact that Minister Micheál Martin has summoned the Israeli ambassador to explain the actions of Israeli forces in killing up to 20 civilians taking part in a peaceful humanitarian mission to Gaza.
“This morning’s murderous
attack is an affront to international law and has endangered the lives of Irish
citizens. It requires a firm and resolute response by the Irish Government
which must now expel the Israeli Ambassador.
“The government must also use it’s influence to discontinue the EU’s preferential trade agreement withIsrael
“In the wake of this morning’s tragedy, the Irish Government should support and seek the backing of other countries for a new international aid mission toGaza
“The government must also use it’s influence to discontinue the EU’s preferential trade agreement with
“In the wake of this morning’s tragedy, the Irish Government should support and seek the backing of other countries for a new international aid mission to
The Harp and the Shield of
David
By Shulami Eliash
ISAAC HERZOG, GREAT FRIEND OF THE IRISH
REPUBLIC VATICAN
“Yet I tremble”, words spoken by Isaac Herzog to his friend
after talking to the Vatican, recognizing that the Vatican was kindly enough,
but was being blackmailed by its own doctrine and tradition of Jew Hatred.
(taken from page 63 of that book. You can access part of
that book on Google)
Herzog made the point, the central point, that he feared his
entreaties to the Vatican would come to nothing, because the only solution lay
in fast transit to Palestine out of the jaws of the Nazis, but that everything
in the Catholic Religion worked against just this only and sole solution,
because it the Catholic Faith had always taught that the Jews were a wandering
race because they had rejected Jesus as “Messiah”.
“Catholics are heirs to a long tradition that embodies a
belief that the homelessness of the Jew stems from his rejection of the
Christian Messiah.”
Herzog, according to this book, was desperate. He was in Rome
in order to effect a change.
And he was very worried that a change could not be
made. It is his reasoning to his friend that is so important and indeed so
telling in its precision.
Herzog had had a long association with Catholicism/Irish
Republicanism. He too just as much as Collins or De Valera had joined the Irish
struggle to rid Ireland of British Imperialism. He was a very close friend to
De Valera and I presume to the other Sinn Fein leaders also, such as Collins.
As they fled from the British troops in Dublin
these Sinn Fein leaders were put up by Herzog in his home. This Jew, and other
Dublin Jews like the Briscoes, did not just talk the talk, they walked the
walk of the Irish struggle against the British.
So winding on a couple of decades…In the critical moments in
Rome as the Jews were being
slaughtered in Poland Herzog was trying to get the Vatican
to speak out.
He was also drawing on all of that experience that he had
with the Irish Catholic Republicans like De Valera.
This deep felt experience led him to
reach terrible conclusions about the Vatican
and the Holocaust which was raging as he spoke. It was that the issue was not
about kindness. The Pope and the Cardianls were probably very kind people.
He said to his friend after meeting the Vatican
that the Irish also were indeed as kind a people as exists.
Then Herzog made a great switch and deep insight in his
explanation which gets to the very heart of Anti-Semitism then and since, up to
the present day, with special emphasis on today’s Irish “Left”.
The issue he explained to his friend was rather about
Catholic Doctrine: 1. that Catholics were taught that Jews killed Jesus, and 2.
that Jews were a wandering race without a country of their own because the Jews
had killed Jesus.
And the Vatican
did not speak out on the mass murder by the Nazis as Herzog knew deep down in
his consciousness they would not, and they would not because they could not.
This is, in fact, the root of all Anti-Semitism. With
obvious application to Anti-Semitism in Ireland
today. (The visit of Ambassador O’Reilly to the Jabotinsky Institute in an
almost comical fashion reinforces this)
Who listens to the (somewhat marginalized) Catholic Church
in Ireland
today, some say in argument, trying to dismiss this very point!
Well plenty do. Adams and McGuiness are devout Catholics for
a start, so it has not lost all influence!
But to argue like that misses the whole point.
Which is, that in the course of 2000 years of Catholic teaching that the Jews
are a cursed race because of the Jesus narrative, that this “propaganda” itself
becomes a material force in society, not just words but an actual material and
physical entity.
Strangely that leads on to Lenin’s “What is to be done”
where Lenin pondered in philosophical mode what ARE the main and ruling ideas in
any society.
Understanding that has got great implications as to how Anti-Semitism
in Ireland can
be defeated. It has got to be fought at the level of consciousness in the only
way possible, by a cadre of people who are mobilized within a disciplined
“army” to fight it.
Anti-Semitism in the left took a big kick forward when
Adams/McGuiness gained the ascendancy in Sinn Fein. The old leadership based on
the Eire Nua philosophy left some room for the Northern Protestants. Adams
and co. were far more sectarian.
This change went hand in hand with strident Anti-Semitism
which is the essence of adopting The Palestinian Narrative. Somehow the two
went hand in hand.
The Irish “left” had no theoretical independence and both
adapted to and added to this fatal “Palestinian Narrative”.
All mysteriously ensconced within the Jesus killed by the
Jews Narrative. “Mysteriously” in the sense that much of this was and is
subconscious. That is what Herzog meant that the Irish were a kindly people but
were being blackmailed by their tradition. The essence of Anti-Semitism!
Irish Ambassador Visits the Jabotinsky Institute:
Why Did Ireland Israel
1. The Balfour Declaration of 1917
started the whole process but it didn’t create legal rights.
2. The San Remo 25 April 1920 incorporated the
Balfour Declaration of 1917 1 and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations . It was the basic
document upon which the Mandate for Palestine
The High Contracting Parties agree to
entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine
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 for Arabs.
3. Article 22 of the Covenant of theLeague of Nations provides for the
creation of mandates.
3. Article 22 of the Covenant of the
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 civilization 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 civilization.
The Mandatory Power was the trustee of that trust.
4. The resolution of theLeague of Nations creating the
Palestine Mandate, included the following significant recital
“Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people withPalestine Palestine
4. The resolution of the
“Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with
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 noPalestine
ART. 5. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no
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 failedLeague of Nations in 1945 and its
Charter included
5. The United Nations took over from the failed
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 Palestinian 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.
This resolution also provided for a Special
regime for Jerusalem
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.
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
The Statute elaborated by the Trusteeship Council the aforementioned principles shall come into force not later than1 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.
The Statute elaborated by the Trusteeship Council the aforementioned principles shall come into force not later than
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
Keep in mind that the disposition of this
area was to be determined not by Israel Jerusalem
Needless to say that after the Armistice
Agreement of ’49 the Jordanians who were in control of Jerusalem
After the ’67 war in whichIsrael Jordan Jerusalem Israel Israel Jerusalem
After the ’67 war in which
The true basis for a lasting peace in Israel
A far-sighted Arab-Jewish agreement was arrived at 85 years
ago but was never fully implemented. This still-legal agreement provides the
basis for a solution today and should become widely publicized and supported.
In 1919, following the end of World War I, an international
Paris Peace Conference was convened by the victorious Allies to settle
international questions. Delegations attended from around the world including
an official Arab and Zionist delegation. The Arab delegation was led by Emir
Feisal I, who agreed that the entire Palestine
territory of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 would become the Jewish national
home and expressed that position in separate letters to Zionist leaders Dr.
Chaim Weitzman and Felix Frankfurter. In return for Arab support the Zionists
promised economic and technical assistance to the local Arabs and the Allied
powers agreed to grant eventual sovereignty to many of the Arab peoples in the
region that were previously under control of the former Turkish Ottoman Empire.
This conference, and a subsequent one at San
Remo Italy ,
amicably settled the issues among the parties with voluntary, legally binding,
international agreements. In 1922 the League of Nations
assigned Britain
as the Mandatory to faithfully carry out these agreements. It was British
Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill who in violation of the San Remo Treaty of
1920 unilaterally divided Mandatory Palestine into an exclusively Arab sector
(Trans Jordan) and a Jewish sector. The Arabs received 76% of the original
territory, comprising 35,000 square miles, located east of the Jordan
River . That left the Jewish sector with only 10,000 square miles
out of their original 45,000 square miles, which was still less than 1% of the
combined Arab areas of 5 million square miles. That remaining Jewish sector is
today contested with the ‘Palestinians’ claiming the ‘West Bank’ and Gaza to
create, in effect, a second Palestinian state. (Jordan
is mostly Palestinian.) It was the British, in 1919, who began to undermine
their own Mandate and to instigate the Arabs against Jews.
“Under this settlement, the whole of Palestine
on both sides of the Jordan
was reserved exclusively for the Jewish People as the Jewish National Home, in
recognition of their historical connection with that country, dating from the
Patriarchal Period. … The Palestine
aspect of the global settlement was recorded in three basic documents that led
to the founding of the modern State of Israel: … The British Government
repudiated the solemn obligation it undertook to develop Palestine
gradually into an independent Jewish state. … The US
aided and abetted the British betrayal of the Jewish People by its abject
failure to act decisively against the 1939 White Paper despite its own legal
obligation to do so under the 1924 treaty. The UN Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947 illegally
recommended the restriction of Jewish legal rights to a truncated part of Palestine .
… Despite all the subversive actions to smother and destroy Jewish legal rights
and title of sovereignty to the entire Land
of Israel
It has been argued, by scholars of international law, that
the agreements of the international Paris Peace Conference of 1919, and their
formal assignment to Britain
as the Mandatory by the League of Nations , continue to
be legally binding on all parties under international law. In addition to
Jewish legal claims based on the 1922 law a case can be made that it is also
morally binding and that England
is guilty of bad faith and for having engaged in deliberate sabotage of that
agreement. A most promising beginning for Arab-Jewish relations in the Middle
East was deliberately undermined by England
and this part of history must be brought to bear upon the present conflict. Israel
has a right to make full land claims under that 1922 Mandate by the League
of Nations . The Arabs should also be made aware that it was England
that instigated them against the Jews in pursuit of British imperial interests
and to the disadvantage of both Arabs and Jews.
Significantly, Arab support for a Jewish state was clearly
manifested at the Paris Peace conference of 1919. This should also be part of
the legally binding Arab obligations to acceptance of a Jewish state with full
rights. Emir Feisal I, son of Hussein, Sheriff of Mecca led the Arab delegation
to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Excerpts of two letters from Emir Feisal
to Zionist leaders Dr. Chaim Weitzman and to Felix Frankfurter indicate their
friendly relations and high hopes for Jewish – Arab cooperation. Also note in
the following text the term ‘Palestine ’
clearly refers to the Jewish national home and not to any Arab entity or
people.
From Emir Feisal to Dr. Weitzman:
“His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting
on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weitzman, representing
and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship
and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish People, and realizing
that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national
aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of
the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good
understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following
Articles:” … Article IV: “All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage
and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as
quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer
settlements and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the
Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall
be assisted in forwarding their economic development.”
From Emir Feisal to Felix Frankfurter:
“… We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in race,
having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of the powers stronger than
themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step
towards the attainment of their national ideals together.” “We Arabs,
especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist
movement. Our deputation here in Paris
is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist
Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and
proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them
through: we wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.” …. “People less informed
and less responsible than our leaders and yours, ignoring the need for
cooperation of the Arabs and the Zionists have been trying to exploit the local
difficulties that must necessarily arise in Palestine
in the early stages of our movements. Some of them have, I am afraid,
misrepresented your aims to the Arab peasantry, and our aims to the Jewish
peasantry, with the result that interested parties have been able to make
capital our of what they call our differences. …” (To read full text go
to www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/feisal1.html and www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/feisal2.html
What remains now is for all parties to courageously and
boldly cast off the mindless schemes of Oslo
and the Road Map and return to the sanity and statesmanship of the 1919
agreement. Those Arabs who have an acquired identity as ‘Palestinian’ should be
given a far better alternative option than to be buried alive inside a
non-viable illegal micro-state carved out of the Israeli heartland.
The Win-Win solution
Contrary to popular belief,
the Arab-Israeli conflict has a reasonable solution. An orderly resettlement
elsewhere of the so-called Palestinian Arabs would solve this long-standing
‘intractable’ problem. To propose this solution today elicits automatic
rejection by almost everyone and perhaps even anger and hostility at its very
mention (although attitudes may finally be changing). This is because the minds
of many have been so thoroughly conditioned, with layer upon layer of repeated
falsehoods, such that open-minded reconsideration is almost impossible. But
resettlement could become the basis of a win-win solution for both sides.
For example Saudi Arabia Israel Saudi Arabia Israel
Palestinians could begin
using their legitimate ‘right of return’ to exit the territories, and the
refugee camps, and migrate back to their ancestral home in Arabia and thereby
also be closer to Mecca and Medina. A fraction of the countless billions spent
on weapons by the Arab governments could fund the cost of establishing new
settlements for the Palestinians. Israel Israel
In early 2004 a poll by the Palestinian Center
Israeli Arabs could play a
constructive role in this because of their higher level of education and their
experience living as full citizens in democratic Israel
Once the migration starts
toward a far better future the movement could well accelerate voluntarily
because the first ones to relocate would receive the best ‘ground floor’ opportunities
and the last ones to move would get what remains. Today there are tens of
millions of people on the move around the world in search of better living
conditions, so relocation is a long established and viable option for everyone.
Another important advantage
is that Israeli-Palestinian interaction would be limited to the selling of Arab
homes in the territories and an orderly exit. No more frustratingly complex
agreements as with Oslo Israel U.S. Israel
The Arab states are
intentionally not addressing their expulsion of over a million Jewish people
from their countries and confiscating their assets, businesses, home and real
estate holdings 5-6 times the size of Israel
Part of the problem are those
Arab governments who deliberately keep the Israel-Palestinian conflict alive to
divert attention from their own corrupt regimes. Also, western governments
still pander to their corrupt Arab clients for purely expedient reasons. But
new progressive voices are emerging among Arab intellectuals and even among
some Moslem clerics that call for Arab societal reform, and who also recognize
Jewish rights in the land of Israel
What is also needed is Saudi
cooperation and active support. The Saudis have long been responsible for
promoting anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, and anti-American hatred along with
funding terror and the teaching of a hateful form of Islam. With their ‘royal’
family of thousands of princes living lavishly, off of oil income and the labor
of foreign workers, they are a cesspool of corruption that even Osama bin Laden
finds offensive.
It is time to demand that the
Saudis make a major contribution to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. They
caused much of the problem and they must now assist with the solution. It is
time for the Bush administration to make the Saudis ‘an offer they can’t
refuse’ and have them realize they have a direct interest in providing ‘land
for peace’.
For too long many people have
labored under a collective mindset resembling a bad dream where big lies become
entrenched wisdom and truth is constantly strangled. Unless we change direction
there will be dire consequences extending well beyond the peoples of the
region. Those who still have minds and morals intact now have an obligation to
think clearly and with sanity and support this approach to finally resolving
the Arab-Israeli conflict.
See:
The mandates for Mesopotamia , Syria Palestine League of Nations at its San Remo Great Britain United States Palestine League
of Nations in July 1922. The
mandates for Palestine Syria September 29,
1922 . In this document, the League of Nations recognized the “historical connection of the Jewish
people with Palestine
No comments:
Post a Comment