Israel's Legal Right to Samaria is enshrined in International Law! A cold, hard look at the law reveals an undeniable if inconvenient (for some) truth

Israel's Legal Right to Samaria is enshrined in International Law!

A cold, hard look at the law reveals an undeniable if inconvenient (for some) truth: Israel and the Jewish People have full sovereign rights to Judea and Samaria. A fair and objective analysis of the various post-WWI agreements, decisions, conferences, treaties, declarations, covenants and conventions regarding the Question of Palestine (not to be confused with today's made-up "Palestine" that the "Palestinians" claim as theirs) can only lead to this conclusion.

The most significant of these decisions was the San Remo Resolution of 1920, which recognized the exclusive national Jewish rights to the Land of Israel under international law, on the strength of the historical connection of the Jewish people to the territory previously known as Palestine. The outcome of this declaration gave birth to the "Mandate for Palestine," an historical League of Nations document that laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. In fact, in San Remo, the nations of the world had formally obligated themselves not only to establish a Jewish state on the historic Jewish Homeland but also to facilitate its development as well (see Article 6 of the still-binding Mandate for Palestine). This plainly means that today's Israeli settlements are in fact 100% legal and that the accusation of "occupation" is completely false. Back then, the concept of a "Palestinian People" was unheard of and "Palestine" referred only to a Levantine region and never to an Arab nation or state. Believe it or not.

So if the world ratified into international law that a Jewish state be established within the boundaries of Mandatory Palestine, how is it we hear nothing about this today? Why has this truth completely disappeared from today's narrative? By what right do the nations of the world shirk their obligations and deny the State of Israel and the Jewish people their due? Suffice to say that if the truth, any truth, is not actively preserved and if the facts are forgotten, falsity and misinformation fill the vacuum. That is why "Palestinian rights", "Israeli occupation" and "1967 borders" dominate the headlines today.

The Legal Right: Following the WWI defeat of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations (precursor to the U.N.) decided to divide up the huge landmass of the vanquished Ottomans as follows: a mandate, or trusteeship, for France (Lebanon and Syria) and a mandate for Britain (Iraq and Palestine [comprised of what is today Israel, Gaza, Judea, Samaria and Jordan]). The legal position of the whole of Palestine was clearly defined in several international agreements, the most important of which was the one adopted in April 1920 at the San Remo Conference, attended by the Principal Allied Powers (Council of Four). It decided to assign the Mandate for Palestine under the League of Nations to Britain. Two years later an agreed text was confirmed by the League and came into operation in September 1923. In Article 2 of that document, the League of Nations declared that

"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.”

The preamble clearly stated that

"recognition has hereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

It was on this basis that the British Mandate was established. The San Remo Agreement was the last legally binding international decision regarding the rights to the land in the West Bank of Jordan and thus, according to international law which is still binding to this day, these parts, Judea and Samaria, belong to Israel and the Jewish People, period.

The significance for Israel and the Jewish People of San Remo cannot be overestimated. None other than Chaim Weitzman, the Zionist leader of that time, declared:

"The San Remo decision...is the most momentous political event in the whole history of our (Zionist) movement, and, it is perhaps, no exaggeration to say in the whole history of our people since the Exiles"

Powerful words indeed, yet regrettably so unfamiliar. It makes one wonder just how many of today's "Middle East experts", journalists and opinion makers know the details of this and other important agreements of that era? How many have even a rudimentary understanding of San Remo's historical and legal importance?

This four minute video will give you the basics about the San Remo Conference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijS8mFP4I1A

Renowned scholar and jurist Dr. Jacques Gauthier, a non-Jewish Canadian attorney specializing in international law as it applies to Israel and the territory she holds, spent 20 years researching the legal status of Jerusalem. The video below is a segment of his address to the ICEJ conference in Jerusalem, September 2010 (see his entire address here). Invest 16 minutes of your time to watch as he eloquently and passionately encapsulates Israel's legal foundation for her right to sovereignty over Judea and Samaria. A must-view video for those who really want to understand Israel's legal rights to Judea and Samaria and the legitimacy of the settlements therein.

See minutes 34:12 to 50:02 of this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55GR84ITI6w

The dissolution of the League of Nations in 1946 in no way altered the Jewish People's rights to Judea and Samaria, given to them by the nations of the world, first in San Remo, then in the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine. When the United Nations was established, Article 80 of its charter clearly specified that rights previously granted by the League would be legally binding.

In the aftermath of the defensive war of June 1967, forty-five years after the League of Nations Declaration in San Remo, Israel retrieved some of her rightful possessions of the territories assigned to the Jewish People as a National Home. How her possession of her own homeland can be called the "Occupation of Palestinian territories" is beyond explanation. What is tragic is that the Jews themselves have adopted this usage and made it a cornerstone of their own national policy.

The Mandate for Palestine was not a naïve vision briefly embraced by the international community. Fifty-one member countries – the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:

Have you ever asked yourself why during the period between 1917 and 1947 hundreds of thousands of Jews throughout the world woke up one morning and decided to leave their homes and go to Palestine? The majority did this because they heard that a future National Home for the Jewish people was being established in Palestine, on the basis of the League of Nations’ obligation under the “Mandate for Palestine.” This historical document laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law.

The “Mandate for Palestine” was not a naïve vision briefly embraced by the international community. Fifty-one member countries – the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:

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

American Support for a Jewish National Home:

On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution (the Lodge Fish Resolution) of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine – anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:

“Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.” [italics in the original]

On September 21, 1922, President Warren G. Harding signed the Lodge-Fish Resolution, endorsing the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

The U.S. Government (not a member of the League of Nations) maintained that her participation in WWI and her contribution to the defeat of Germany and the defeat of her Allies, entitled the United States to be consulted as to the terms of the “Mandate for Palestine.”

The outcome of this request was a “Convention [Treaty] between the United States of America and the United Kingdom with respect to the rights of the two governments and their nationals in Palestine,” a relationship governed by international law. The Convention contains the entire text of the “Mandate for Palestine” including the preamble and was concluded and signed by their respective plenipotentiaries in London on December 3, 1924; Ratification advised by the Senate, February 20, 1925; Ratified by President Calvin Coolidge, March 2, 1925; Ratified by Great Britain, March 18, 1925; Ratifications exchanged at London, December 3, 1925; Proclaimed, December 5, 1925.

In ratifying the Convention, the United States of America formally recognized the terms of the “Mandate for Palestine” and the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.

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”.

We collectively and individually must do all we can to support the Jewish people and the state of Israel. There is no more crucial time than today, and I believe that this body has the capacity to help defeat the “Occupation” mantra by insisting that the land of Israel has been given to the Jewish people as of right, and in accordance with existing international law.

The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law and protected to this day by Article 80 of the UN Charter, that laid down the Jewish right of settlement in the whole of western Palestine, recognizes the continued validity of the rights granted to all states or people, or already existing international instruments including those adopted by the League of Nations [such as the “Mandate for Palestine”]. The Mandate unconditionally rejects Arab claims to national political rights in the land, in favor of the Jews self-determination and political development, in recognition of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel.

Eleven successive British governments, Labor and Conservative, from David Lloyd George (1916-1922) through Clement Attlee (1945-1952) viewed themselves as duty-bound to fulfill the “Mandate for Palestine” placed in the hands of Great Britain by the League of Nations.

The British objectives in “mentoring” a national home for the Jewish People under the Mandate for Palestine rested on a solid consensus, expressed in a series of accords and declarations that reflected the “will” of the international community. The Mandate itself notes this intent when it cites that the Mandate is based on the agreement of “the Principal Allied Powers” and declares:

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

A June 1922 letter from the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, Winston Churchill, reiterated that:

“The [Balfour] Declaration of 1917 [was] re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres” “the Jewish people … are in Palestine as a right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historical connection.”

In the first Report of the High Commissioner on the Administration of Palestine (1920-1925) presented to the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, published in April 1925, the most senior official of the Mandate, the High Commissioner for Palestine, underscored how international guarantees for the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine were achieved:

“The Balfour Declaration was endorsed at the time by several of the Allied Governments; it was reaffirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920; it was subsequently endorsed by unanimous resolutions of both Houses of the Congress of the United States; it was embodied in the Mandate for Palestine approved by the League of Nations in 1922; it was declared, in a formal statement of policy issued by the Colonial Secretary in the same year, “not to be susceptible of change;” and it has been the guiding principle in their direction of the affairs of Palestine of [then] four successive British Governments. The policy was fixed and internationally guaranteed.”

Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Secretary, made this reading of the mandate explicit. “There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent “natural law” claim to the area. Neither customary international law nor the United Nations Charter acknowledges that every group of people claiming to be a nation has the right to a state of its own.”

It is important to point out that political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs, were guaranteed by the same League of Nations in four other mandates—in Lebanon and Syria [The French Mandate], Iraq and later Trans-Jordan [The British Mandate].

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 a violation of international law.

Even before the Mandate for Palestine was published in July 1922, the British Government found Jewish settlement to be legal and legitimate. In an Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine during the period of 1920-1921, Herbert Samuel,[the] High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief of the British Government had this to say:

“There are at the present time 64 of these settlements, large and small, with a population of some 15,000. Every traveler in Palestine who visits them [the Jewish settlement], is impressed by the contrast between these pleasant [Jewish] villages, with the beautiful stretches of prosperous cultivation about them and the primitive conditions of life and work by which they are surrounded. "Large sums of money were collected in Europe and America, and spent in Palestine, for forwarding the [Zionist] movement. Many looked forward to a steady process of Jewish immigration, of Jewish land colonization and industrial development, until at last the Jews throughout the world would be able to see one country in which their race had a political and a spiritual home, in which, perhaps, the Jewish genius might repeat the services it had rendered to mankind from the same soil long ago.

“The British Government was impressed by the reality, the strength and the idealism of this [Zionist] movement. It recognized its value in ensuring the future development of Palestine, which now appears likely to come within the British sphere of influence. It decided to give to the Zionist idea, within certain limits, its approval and support. By the hand of Mr. Balfour, then Foreign Secretary, it made, in November, 1917, the following Declaration:

His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish People, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish Communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other Country.”

The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law and protected to this day by Article 80 of the UN Charter, that laid down the Jewish right of settlement in the whole of western Palestine, recognizes the continued validity of the rights granted to all states or people, or already existing international instruments including those adopted by the League of Nations [such as the “Mandate for Palestine”]. The Mandate unconditionally rejects Arab claims to national political rights in the land, in favor of the Jews self-determination and political development, in recognition of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel.

Eleven successive British governments, Labor and Conservative, from David Lloyd George (1916-1922) through Clement Attlee (1945-1952) viewed themselves as duty-bound to fulfill the “Mandate for Palestine” placed in the hands of Great Britain by the League of Nations.

The British objectives in “mentoring” a national home for the Jewish People under the Mandate for Palestine rested on a solid consensus, expressed in a series of accords and declarations that reflected the “will” of the international community. The Mandate itself notes this intent when it cites that the Mandate is based on the agreement of “the Principal Allied Powers” and declares:

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

A June 1922 letter from the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, Winston Churchill, reiterated that:

“The [Balfour] Declaration of 1917 [was] re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres” “the Jewish people … are in Palestine as a right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historical connection.”

In the first Report of the High Commissioner on the Administration of Palestine (1920-1925) presented to the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, published in April 1925, the most senior official of the Mandate, the High Commissioner for Palestine, underscored how international guarantees for the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine were achieved:

“The Balfour Declaration was endorsed at the time by several of the Allied Governments; it was reaffirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920; it was subsequently endorsed by unanimous resolutions of both Houses of the Congress of the United States; it was embodied in the Mandate for Palestine approved by the League of Nations in 1922; it was declared, in a formal statement of policy issued by the Colonial Secretary in the same year, “not to be susceptible of change;” and it has been the guiding principle in their direction of the affairs of Palestine of [then] four successive British Governments. The policy was fixed and internationally guaranteed.”

Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Secretary, made this reading of the mandate explicit. “There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent “natural law” claim to the area. Neither customary international law nor the United Nations Charter acknowledges that every group of people claiming to be a nation has the right to a state of its own.”

It is important to point out that political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs, were guaranteed by the same League of Nations in four other mandates—in Lebanon and Syria [The French Mandate], Iraq and later Trans-Jordan [The British Mandate].

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 a violation of international law.

It is interesting to mention here the San Remo resolution.
The San Remo conference, San Remo, Italy, from 18 to 26 April 1920 was an important milestone on the road to international legal status and a Jewish national home. The Principal Allied Powers of WWI present at San Remo were GB, France, Italy and Japan. The US was present as observer.
Eight points were established making it clear that the Jewish community in Palestine should know that it is in Palestine as of right.
That was the reason why it was necessary that the existence of a Jewish national Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.

Believe it or not… Israel’s Legal Right to Samaria is enshrined in International Law! A cold, hard look at the law reveals an undeniable if inconvenient (for some) truth: Israel and the Jewish People have full sovereign rights to Judea and Samaria. A fair and objective analysis of the various post-WWI agreements, decisions, conferences, treaties, declarations, covenants and conventions regarding the Question of Palestine (not to be confused with today’s made-up “Palestine” that the “Palestinians” claim as theirs) can only lead to this conclusion. The most significant of these decisions was the San Remo Resolution of 1920, which recognized the exclusive national Jewish rights to the Land of Israel under international law, on the strength of the historical connection of the Jewish people to the territory previously known as Palestine. The outcome of this declaration gave birth to the “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document that laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. In fact, in San Remo, the nations of the world had formally obligated themselves not only to establish a Jewish state on the historic Jewish Homeland but also to facilitate its development as well (see Article 6 of the still-binding Mandate for Palestine). This plainly means that today’s Israeli settlements are in fact 100% legal and that the accusation of “occupation” is completely false. Back then, the concept of a “Palestinian People” was unheard of and “Palestine” referred only to a Levantine region and never to an Arab nation or state. Believe it or not.

So if the world ratified into international law that a Jewish state be established within the boundaries of Mandatory Palestine, how is it we hear nothing about this today? Why has this truth completely disappeared from today’s narrative? By what right do the nations of the world shirk their obligations and deny the State of Israel and the Jewish people their due? Suffice to say that if the truth, any truth, is not actively preserved and if the facts are forgotten, falsity and misinformation fill the vacuum. That is why “Palestinian rights”, “Israeli occupation” and “1967 borders” dominate the headlines today.

The Legal Right: Following the WWI defeat of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations (precursor to the U.N.) decided to divide up the huge landmass of the vanquished Ottomans as follows: a mandate, or trusteeship, for France (Lebanon and Syria) and a mandate for Britain (Iraq and Palestine [comprised of what is today Israel, Gaza, Judea, Samaria and Jordan]). The legal position of the whole of Palestine was clearly defined in several international agreements, the most important of which was the one adopted in April 1920 at the San Remo Conference, attended by the Principal Allied Powers (Council of Four). It decided to assign the Mandate for Palestine under the League of Nations to Britain. Two years later an agreed text was confirmed by the League and came into operation in September 1923. In Article 2 of that document, the League of Nations declared that

“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.”

The preamble clearly stated that

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

It was on this basis that the British Mandate was established. The San Remo Agreement was the last legally binding international decision regarding the rights to the land in the West Bank of Jordan and thus, according to international law which is still binding to this day, these parts, Judea and Samaria, belong to Israel and the Jewish People, period.

The significance for Israel and the Jewish People of San Remo cannot be overestimated. None other than Chaim Weitzman, the Zionist leader of that time, declared:

“The San Remo decision…is the most momentous political event in the whole history of our (Zionist) movement, and, it is perhaps, no exaggeration to say in the whole history of our people since the Exiles”

Powerful words indeed, yet regrettably so unfamiliar. It makes one wonder just how many of today’s “Middle East experts”, journalists and opinion makers know the details of this and other important agreements of that era? How many have even a rudimentary understanding of San Remo’s historical and legal importance?

This four minute video will give you the basics about the San Remo Conference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijS8mFP4I1A

Renowned scholar and jurist Dr. Jacques Gauthier, a non-Jewish Canadian attorney specializing in international law as it applies to Israel and the territory she holds, spent 20 years researching the legal status of Jerusalem. The video below is a segment of his address to the ICEJ conference in Jerusalem, September 2010 (see his entire address here). Invest 16 minutes of your time to watch as he eloquently and passionately encapsulates Israel’s legal foundation for her right to sovereignty over Judea and Samaria. A must-view video for those who really want to understand Israel’s legal rights to Judea and Samaria and the legitimacy of the settlements therein.

See minutes 34:12 to 50:02 of this video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55GR84ITI6w

The dissolution of the League of Nations in 1946 in no way altered the Jewish People’s rights to Judea and Samaria, given to them by the nations of the world, first in San Remo, then in the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine. When the United Nations was established, Article 80 of its charter clearly specified that rights previously granted by the League would be legally binding.

In the aftermath of the defensive war of June 1967, forty-five years after the League of Nations Declaration in San Remo, Israel retrieved some of her rightful possessions of the territories assigned to the Jewish People as a National Home. How her possession of her own homeland can be called the “Occupation of Palestinian territories” is beyond explanation. What is tragic is that the Jews themselves have adopted this usage and made it a cornerstone of their own national policy.

This excerpt was taken from the Shomron Central Blog. See the whole Blog here:

http://shomroncentral.blogspot.com/

From: http://www.thejc.com/blogs/michael-gottlieb/israels-legal-right-judea-and-samaria-under-international-law

UN resolution 181 was adopted on November 29th, 1947. It proposed the partition of Palestine (west of the Jordan River) between the Jewish and the Arab peoples (in the vocabulary of the resolution), and confirmed the rights of both Jews and Arabs living in the land to live where they did. However, it restricted the political rights of Jews living in areas designed to be Arab, and vice versa. Resolution 181, too, was bound by art. 80 of the Charter of the United Nations to the 1922 decision of the League of Nations (affirming the Jews’ right to settle in all of Palestine). However, resolution 181 only had advisory status, and was in effect rejected by the Arab states when they attacked the newly founded state of Israel, which made resolution 181 null and void.
In the 2004 case for the international court of The Hague, the court also formulated an opinion (or advice), and not a legal verdict. This, in fact, was based on political rather than legal considerations. Israel is not a partner of the court (nor is the US, as far as I understand), so this opinion has no legal obligations for Israel.

Jerusalem Belongs to Jews 

Jacques Gauthier, a non-Jewish Canadian lawyer who spent 20 years researching the legal status of Jerusalem, has concluded: “Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, by international law.” Gauthier has written a doctoral dissertation on the topic of Jerusalem and its legal history, based on international treaties and resolutions of the past 90 years.  The dissertation runs some 1,300 pages, with 3,000 footnotes.  Gauthier had to present his thesis to a world-famous Jewish historian and two leading international lawyers – the Jewish one of whom has represented the Palestinian Authority on numerous occasions.

This article was first published on January 27, 2008 by Arutz Sheva and especially in the light of the present situation it is still relevant and important today. That is why it is posted again. (ed.) 

Gauthier’s main point, as summarized by Israpunduit editor Ted Belman, is that a non-broken series of treaties and resolutions, as laid out by the San Remo Resolution, the League of Nations and the United Nations, gives the Jewish People title to the city of Jerusalem.  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.

San Remo
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. "Gauthier notes that the San Remo treaty specifically notes that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” – but says nothing about any “political” rights of the Arabs living there. The San Remo Resolution also bases itself on Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which declares that it is a “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. League of Nations
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 and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” No such recognition of Arab rights in Palestine was granted. In 1945, the United Nations took over from the failed League of Nations – and assumed the latter’s obligations.  Article 80 of the UN Charter states: “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.”

UN Partition Plan
However, in 1947, the General Assembly of the UN passed Resolution 181, known as the Partition Plan.  It violated the League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine in that it granted political rights to the Arabs in western Palestine – yet, ironically, the Arabs worked to thwart the plan’s passage, while the Jews applauded it. Resolution 181 also provided for a Special regime for Jerusalem, with borders delineated in all four directions: The then-extant municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns up to Abu Dis in the east, Bethlehem in the south, Ein Karem and Motza in the west, and Shuafat in the north. Referendum Scheduled for Jerusalem
The UN resolved that the City of Jerusalem shall be established as a separate entity under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.  The regime was to come into effect by October 1948, and was to remain in force for a period of ten years, unless the UN’s Trusteeship Council decided otherwise.  After the ten years, the residents of Jerusalem “shall be then free to express by means of a referendum their wishes as to possible modifications of regime of the City.”

The resolution never took effect, because Jordan controlled eastern Jerusalem after the 1948 War of Independence and did not follow its provisions.

After 1967
After the Six Day War in 1967, Israel regained Jerusalem and other land west of Jordan.  Gauthier notes that the UN Security Council then passed Resolution 242 authorizing Israel to remain in possession of all the land until it had “secure and recognized boundaries.”  The resolution was notably silent on Jerusalem, and also referred to the “necessity for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem,” with no distinction made between Jewish and Arab refugees.

Today
Given Jerusalem’s strong Jewish majority, Gauthier concludes, Israel should be demanding that the long-delayed city referendum on the city’s future be held as soon as possible.  Not only should Israel be demanding that the referendum be held now, Jerusalem should be the first order of business. “Olmert is sloughing us off by saying [as he did before the Annapolis Conference two months ago], ‘Jerusalem is not on the table yet,'” Gauthier concludes. “He should demand that the referendum take place before the balance of the land is negotiated. If the Arabs won’t agree to the referendum, there is nothing to talk about.”

reconstitution of Jewish rights

As noted above, the Mandate provided “Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

The key word is "reconstituting". That means "what was, should be restored". Thus Gauthier spend a major part of his these investigating what was starting with Noah's disposition of his land.

For Gauthier, the issue of who is entitled to Jerusalem is Res Judicata.
i.e. decided legally.

Pervert NOT , Violate Not the Law of the Land

The Law of Return to the Land established in 1950 ,

to the Land and not to the State which institutions form the structure of the Law of the Land ,

Mandate for Palestine has never been superseded nor annulled nor voided and neither invalidated ,

Moreover when the 47 partition is shown as illegal to the said Mandate which Mandate was reinforced by the UN chapter 80 which in 1945 was the result of a strong Jewish delegation ,

Reinforced against hostile ambitious States and their death mercenaries ,

Hence obvious is that disengagement policy with Road Map are illegal ,

Arab initiative of 2002 is also illegal per the said Mandate ,

We cannot surrender Jewish Lands just cause they say peace for such move is illegal ,

Can Olmert and Government be sued for such illegal move ?

NO , in fact useless , all the Judicial system is sold out ,

Keep in mind Sharon Greek Island affair , Olmert Bank Leumi affair , Ramon kiss affair , all official figures turned into Etrog to save their political skin in return for them to proceed with Auschwitz Borders process as some want it because they don't want Israel as a Jewish state , No Jerusalem , No Temple Mount , No biblical hills , places , heritage , history and land connected to the Jews and Internationally recognized,

Olmert Government Failures, Law violations, Law perversion must resign,

But what for if it is just to replace it by an other Government which wouldn't reject such Auschwitz Borders process , reject Road Map and 2002 Wahabist machination,

If you think Bibi is better then you're wrong, think twice,

Bibi also support Peres 'Peace valley' and 'economic corridors ' which are indented to bolster terror PLO-PA , lift up checkpoints and road blocks for greater terror movement ,

'Never Again' is never again to count on anyone else to do the job we Jews must do .

we must counter domestics and foreign enemies .

Such actual Israeli Leadership is very bad example for soldiers , for such leadership weakens national security , such leadership undermines Israel as the Jewish State , and such Leadership endangers Israel destiny ,

Even the scholars experts of Winograd Commission characterized such Israeli Leadership as stroke with very serious and grave lack of rational thinking-calculations and examples abound .

So what?

In the Torah it was revealed 3320 years ago that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews. We don't need proof from some lawyers or graver-diggers or what now. But do Olmert, Peres and Livni care? If it means keeping their positions in this corrupt government and impressing the world, they'd give EVERYTHING away - except for their own personal homes, of course.

Tomorrow the PA or other Arabs will dig under the earth and find that Jerusalem including the Kotel and other holy sites belongs to them.  1.27.2008

UN Security Council vs. UN General Assembly

The author ignores the legal distinctions between the two: resolutions of the former have the force of (international) law; not so with the latter. Whatever significance (moral or otherwise) a resolution of the General Assembly may have, it is not International Law. So in a strictly legal argument regarding the status of Jerusalem, the Assembly may be ignored.
It seems also strange that the author ignores the legal status of Jordan - the argument that Jordan is the Palestinian state: Jordan was a part of Palestine during the Mandate - Until Britain turned it into an independent (Palestinian) State.

Why Jerusalem Is Part Of Israel

There's no chance a corpus separatum would work today. It would deny Jerusalem's inhabitants a say in their own future according to democratic principles and it would deny them the right to join Israel if the city wished to do so. And a majority of its inhabitants are Jews.

The results of a referendum would leave the city as part of Israel and there is no real desire for a change in the status quo after 40 odd years - nor has any Jerusalemite expressed any desire for such a change in the city's status.

International Law mk#1

International Law and Two State Solution mk#1 was the 1919 Paris agreement. This emerged from the 1917 Balfour declaration and was further given endorsement in the 1922 Mandate which gave Britain the job of implementing it. Britain created Jordan but neglected to create the Jewish state! But in 1948 the Jews created the Jewish state and International Law should have been invoked to define the borders. But the UN is biased against Israel despite the laws which it is supposed to enforce. The UN still fails to uphold the law and creates new laws (actually resolutions) in violation of its charter. Israel must insist that the law of 1919/1922 is fully implemented.

Will God only save the Nation of Israel?

Again you have to read G-d's word. Genesis chapter 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. This verse contains one of the promises to Abraham. These same promises were made to Isaac and Jacob and King David to whom this promise was made 1Chro 22:10 He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.
It could be said that this promise was about Solomon David's son but the promise looks forward to David's Greater Son the one who was to be born as a baby in Bethlehem. The Apostle Peter speaks about the same promises 2 Pet 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, Also Read Romans chapter 9 which speaks of G-d's promises and refers us back to Hosea ch2:23 where we read And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.
All these promises will be accomplished by the Messiah of it Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

An so we see it's not just Israel that will be saved but all those who hear and Love G-d as Creator and giver of Life.

CHAIM (#1) is correct

Also, the mandate said NO PORTION OF THE MANDATE WOULD BE GIVEN OVER TO FOREIGN CONTROL, but the Brits gave Jordan to an Arabian "Prince", from MECCA to compensate him for loosing Saudi Arabia to the Saud family. I.e., the nations, as the Rebbe said, don't care what the law was in the past; and because they are motivated by self interest, not what is "right" (despite what they pretend), they will change their conditions whenever it suits them. So, again, as CHAIM says, THEY DON'T CARE!! When will you get it that it is WE who must care enough to insist that it is ours, AND ACT LIKE IT. Then, and only they, will the nations listen to us. And, as to the Israeli Leftists, relying on them is even more foolish than on the Goyim.

A pointless waste of time

it's a shame but that's how it's been for 6000 years. Man has not listened to G-d. G-d gave Israel the land and the promises because he knew what Esau was like. A man who sold his birthright for a bowl of soup.

And that's a picture of man to day G-d has made sure promises of gifts to those who hear his word. And the stupid thing is that men despise his free gift for the temporary rubbish that this world offers, steals, corrupts. The Arab Palestinian has a perpetual hatred for the Jew that goes right back to Esau and Jacob and there will be no peace between Muslim and Jew until the Messiah comes. How can The cry of peace from the Muslim Arab be honest when their religion is based on the death of all Jews and Christians? If the majority wont hear G-d's word that's them pushing there own self destruct button. Turn to G-d and he will save you, It wont be a pointless waste of time.

Jerusalem is a Straw man At Best

Look fellow posters, I am an American born Jew and a decades long Zionist. I do what I can to aid my brethren in Israel. That said: using the biblical argument is valueless. No country (and not the US), pay any attention to it. Many in Israel, for the sake of peace, are willing to cede some Arab neighborhoods to a Pals state, as fostered by our President (Bush). The problem is what is peace? Using the current Gaza crisis and outright lies by the residents, (accusing Israel of starving them), the folly of having removed 22 settlements and a brigade of soldiers from the area, the hasty decision to go to war with Hezbollah to facilitate the release of those 2 soldiers (causing 153 Jewish and Israeli-Arab deaths), this long standing controversy over Jerusalem, is really about horse trading and part of a much larger problem. Israel gives, and the Pals get, in exchange for a paper agreed to peace. If deeds and not words are any indication of the future, Israel has a long fight ahead of it. to secure it's survival. Abbas is demanding ALL of Jerusalem as part of any state. Sooner or later, Israel's Olmert or whomever, will have to confront the larger issues, borders, refugees, demilitarization, water and air rights, and W. Jerusalem (which the Arabs sometimes claim as their own).
If Jerusalem is put on the table, whether at the beginning or end, there will be a deadlock, as per Camp David. Abbas is still demanding the right of return, a non-starter. Israel is in denial, playing with fire, and hopelessly bogged down in rhetoric. I mean, the Arabs want ALL THE SETTLEMENTS DISMANTLED..GET IT, ALL! They want it all, peace by piece. Give them the finger, and they will take the arm, then the entire body. That is what this conflict is all about., UN 242 and League of Nations notwithstanding. Get it?

Dave Levy, Burbank. CAUSA (1/28/08)

Israel own the Land

There are many voices claiming the Land of Israel, and sadly, Israel's voice calling for the restoration of her ancient homeland is often unheard or shouted down in the halls of
international agencies, the United Nations, governments, and the liberal media. It is as though four thousand years of unbroken history and attachment to this land do not qualify the Jewish people to a rightful return. In a day when the world is working to restore
nations from the yoke of colonialism to their rightful ethnic, indigenous people, Israel, which has one of the most ancient claims, cannot get a fair hearing in most circles. The Land of Israel really belongs to God, and He has chosen to whom it will belong. In Leviticus 25:23, He says, "The land is Mine and you are sojourners with Me." Israel was formerly known as Canaan, and God by divine choice gave it to Abraham and his descendants as an everlasting possession in an everlasting covenant

Jerusalem IS Jewish!

Not that many of us needed the findings of the Canadian professor on this subject, but what explains the strange and bizarre attitude of the Israel government on this issue? Why does this "Jewish" government even entertain the notion of the division of the city, as if its ownership is in dispute?
Why doesn't it defy "international opinion," and proudly declare to the whole world: JERSALEM IS OURS AND WE HAVE NOTHING TO DISCUSS? Oh, how the ranks of Israel's defenders would increase in strength.

And Rashi said 1,000 years ago (b.1040 - d.1105)

First Rashi in the Torah covers this very point

1. In the beginning. Said Rabbi Isaac: It was not necessary to begin the Torah except from “This month is to you,” (Exodus. 12:2) which is the first commandment that the Israelites were commanded, (for the main purpose of the Torah is its commandments, and although several commandments are found in Genesis, e.g., circumcision and the prohibition of eating the thigh sinew, they could have been included together with the other commandments). Now for what reason did He commence with “In the beginning?” Because of [the verse] “The strength of His works He related to His people, to give them the inheritance of the nations” (Ps. 111:6). For if the nations of the world should say to Israel, “You are robbers, for you conquered by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan],” they will reply, "The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it (this we learn from the story of the Creation) and gave it to whomever He deemed proper When He wished, He gave it to them, and when He wished, He took it away from them and gave it to us.