To better understand the legal status of Liberated Judea and Samaria under international law - YJ Draiman
To better understand the legal status of Liberated Judea and Samaria under international law consider the following:
AXIOM: In 1967 Israel liberated the occupied Jewish Palestinian territories. This was done not only for the enemies of Israel, but also to appease Allies and a majority of Israelis. However, the world community, and the enemies of Israel hold forth that during the Six Day War, Israel “captured” the same and liberated Jewish Palestinian territories. Furthermore, Israel is accused of then installing its’ “settlers” with impunity and in obvious violation of international law. Which is true, the AXIOM of 1967 or the current interpretation of international law by the enemies and critics of Israel? For obvious current political and diplomatic reasons, the truth has been swept beneath a new wave of anti-Semitism. However, in order toclarify the legal status of Liberated Judea and Samaria under international law,we only need to examine HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS which many have chosen to forget or ignore. Upon examination of said HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS the only factual conclusion to arrive at is the critics (whether Arab, American, European, or the Israeli Extreme-Left) who accuse Israel of “occupation” are wrong. (How can you consider occupation of your own land - the law of equity works both ways, therefore the Arabs are occupying 120,440 sq, km. of land and homes - which is 5-6 times the size of Israel, which belonged to the million Jewish families the Arab states persecuted and expelled from Arab countries, many of those families have lived in those Arab countries over 2,500 years)
Prof. Eliav Cho'hatman, lawyer and lecturer at the Graduate Institute of Law "Shaare Mishpat” wrote: "When I heard of two states for two peoples, I understood why ... Balfour and San Remo”. To understand this issue, we must go back to November 2, 1917. At that time, Lord Balfour, Foreign Minister of Great Britain, in writing agrees with Chaim Weitzman, then president of the World Zionist Organization. Lord Balfour, in an official letter to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, (honorary president of the Zionist Organization of England) writes that the UK is in favor of the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine which was approved by the Parliament. This is the famous "Balfour Declaration" when in the aftermath of World War I, the League of Nations entrusted Britain with a mandate over Palestine as trustee.
Three years after the Balfour Declaration in 1920, a conference is held in San Remo, during which the great powers share the "spoils of victory”, namely the conquered territories during the war. At this conference, it was decided to introduce the 1917 Balfour Declaration, The San Remo Treaty of 1920 which was confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne(its terms are in effect in perpetuity and have not been abrogated) and the British Mandate for Palestine as trustee for the Jewish people. This decision confirms and guarantees the international recognition of the Jewish right to “self-determination” in Palestine. Furthermore, Britain is entrusted to work towards the realization of this statement (Balfour. note): “to found and reconstitute a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine." Furthermore, and of great importance, The San Remo Treaty, and documents thereto, DID NOT state of any other nation or people; ONLY the Jewish people were allocated ALL of Palestine.
It must be noted that including the incorporation of the Balfour Declaration in the Palestine Mandate of the United Kingdom, the text is the same international resolution supported by 52 member countries of the League of Nations, and the United States, which becomes a member of the international organization a few years later.
In paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Protocol of San Remo, we read: "No territory of Palestine will be sold or leased or held in any way under the control of the government of any foreign power." Also: "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights of other parts of the population are not altered, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency The dense settlement of Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes." Additionally Exclusive Political Rights were assigned exclusively to the Jewish people.
Furthermore, the text states: "The Administration of Palestine is responsible for the adoption of a law on nationality. Must be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who acquire permanent residence in Palestine." At that time, it must be remembered, Palestine is not just the West Bank aka Judea and Samaria of the Jordan, but also, and most importantly (at 70% of the territory) the East Bank, where today is located the new State of Jordan. Per the above stated documents and in violation of international treaties, Jordan is in fact unlawfully occupying land which belongs to Israel.
Mi'kmaq of the British Empire:
What happens next is related to internal political changes in Britain and the election of a government hostile to the creation of a Jewish homeland throughout the territory of Palestine. Britain, having clearly supported the conclusions of the San Remo Conference of 1920, decides to change its’ mind. Britain begins to weave tenuous diplomatic ties with the Arab countries surrounding the area of Palestine and with several Arab leaders in an effort to control natural resources, such as oil. It was after this rapprochement in 1921 that Transjordan is created. Transjordan is a semi-autonomous state compared to the British, led by Abdullah Hussein, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca Ibn Ali, and great-grandfather Abdullah, the current king of Jordan.
In regards to the West bank aka Judea and Samaria of the Jordan River, and the West Bank - Judea and Samaria - nothing changed: these regions are still part of the territories over which should be established the Jewish national home.
According to many lawyers, including Prof. Dr. Cho'hatman with Talya Einhoren and American lawyer Eugene Rostow, (one of the drafters of the famous U.N. Resolution 242), the Partition Plan of 29 November 1947 DOES NOT change the legal right of Israel either. Indeed, having been adopted by the U.N. General Assembly and NOT by the Security Council, the Partition Plan cannot be considered legally binding. At most, it is only a recommendation that only obtains legal validity upon endorsement by the parties in question: The Jews and the Arabs. It must be noted, since the Partition Plan was rejected by the Arab powers, its status remains protocol.
For other lawyers, ignoring documented claims, the Partition Plan has somehow transformed the Judea and Samaria territories into a status which remains cloudy. On one hand, they are not part of the state of Israel created in 1948. Yet, Judea and Samaria do not belong to Jordan which occupied the territory during the War of Independence until the 1967 war liberated it. The Jordanians relinquished any sovereignty, title and interest in Judea and Samaria in 1988
The Jordanian occupation Did the Jewish people lost temporarily the rights to Judea and Samaria with the Jordanian occupation between 1948 and 1967? For many lawyers, the answer is no. Jordan formally annexed the West Bank on April 24, 1950. However, the annexation was held illegal and void by the Arab League and others. Jordan proclaimed sovereignty of the territories the support of only two countries, Britain and Pakistan. Moreover, the same Jordan decided in 1988 to abandon its sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. Incidentally, the term West Bank would therefore no longer be needed. Does the dissolution of the League of Nations, which was replaced by the UN, and the end of the British Mandate for Palestine cause any change in the rights of the Jewish people to their land? Again, the answer is no because, under section 80 of the UN Charter, "nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as affecting directly or indirectly in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the Organization may be parties. " Clearly, this means that the UN is committed in 1945 to protect the legitimacy of the Jewish land rights established by the 1920 San Remo Treaty and the League of Nations.
For Professor Eugene Rostow, mentioned above, the UN CHARTER above clearly holds that "the right of the Jewish people to settle in the land of Israel has never been interrupted on all the territory west of the Jordan River, and since a peace agreement has not and will not be signed between Israel and its neighbors.” He later wrote that "Israel has an undeniable right to establish settlements in the Judea and Samaria aka West Bank under international law."
No unilateral approaches Did the Oslo agreements affect the status of Judea and Samaria under international law point of view? Again, the answer is to be found in the texts themselves. Indeed, it is stated in the preliminary agreement in 1993 that the final peace agreement will be signed by both parties "through negotiations". The agreement called Oslo II, ratified in 1995, provides for its part that neither side "does not initiate or commence proceedings can change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the end of negotiations on the final peace agreement." In other words and clearly stated, ANY unilateral approach - such as the announcement in September by the Palestinians of an independent state - will therefore be in stark contrast not only with the Oslo agreements, (which may be null and void), but also with resolution 242 of the UN that supports each party has the right to "live in peace within secure and recognized borders." The borders of a Palestinian state proclaimed are of course far from being "secure and recognized" the point of view of Israel ... Incidentally, Resolution 242 does not speak of at all about ''Palestinians'', but only of existing states, that is to say, Jordan, Egypt and Syria.
The above text and documents, written in black and white and dating, for some, a century old are easy to read and understand. Yet, it seems hardly anyone in the Prime Minister's office, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or that of Hasbara (PR), has taken the time to build a strategy based upon these documents. Documents which clearly prove that Israel is NOT the colonial and occupying power it is falsely accused of being since 1967.
Moreover, when considering the media archives that preceded the Oslo Accords, it is evident that the official Israeli narrative concerning the Israeli presence in the Judea and Samaria aka West Bank was much less ''scared'' than it is today. Until 1993, Israel gave the impression of much less need of justification for founding Jewish settlements beyond the Green Line. Until that time, Israel did not seem to beg for the international community, and the Arab world in particular, to grant Israel the ultimate favor of keeping the famous "settlement blocs." According to Prof. Eliav Cho'hatman, lecturer at the Graduate Institute of Law "Shaare Mishpat”: “there is no doubt that the Oslo Accords marked the starting point of this attitude” which he deemed as "catastrophic." He explained, “Until then, our leaders did not hesitate to brag of our rights over all the land of Israel from the point of view of international law, but since the agreements were signed, only security patterns are referred to beg that part of these territories we are entitled to remain in our hands." Prof. Cho'hatman says he sent to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during his first term (1996-1999) his work on the above, but regrets such effort was to no avail.
Do not just be right, but also know. There are other arguments for the legitimacy of the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria. For example, the fact these territories cannot be considered ''busy'' since they do not belong,de facto, to an enemy state. Nor can be considered the inconsistency of the term ''1967 borders”, which are NOT “borders” but the cease-fire line between Israeli and Jordanian armies at the end of the War of Independence of 1948. Based upon Documents and International law, the only fully supported rational legal conclusion is Israel has the right to full expectations of “TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY”. As such, and under International Law, any imposition by force or coercion of a border change is “an act of aggression”. Yet the above arguments are not raised. The reasons? They are many: Israel and the Israelis became convinced themselves that they were a colonial power and archives in the world will not be able to release this distorted image. Also in Jerusalem, it probably feels that right or not right, the world has already chosen sides. In the corridors of the Foreign Ministry, it is even said that under international law, "it is 99% opinion, and 1% policy of law." But in Israel, there is another expression that says it is not enough to be right, but you must also be smart. Thus, it is time now for the good of the State of Israel, to be smart and to make the world know what is right.
The Jewish and Arab Refugee resolution
Since the late 1940's the Arab States have persecuted and expelled over a million Jewish families and their children. The Arab States confiscated all the Jewish assets, businesses, homes and Real Estate property which amounts to approx. 120,440 Sq, Km. or 75,000 sq. mi. The confiscated land is about 5-6 times the size of Israel and with the other confiscated assets is valued in the trillions of dollars (without considering another 50,000 sq, km. of land west of the Jordan river. The Arab States, like the Nazis, could not then, and cannot now justify such confiscation. The State of Israel has resettled the majority of the million Jewish families expelled from the Arab countries in Greater Israel. The Arabs claim that about 600,000 Arabs were displaced from their homes during the 1948 war. What seems to be forgotten is the fact that most of the Arab population abandoned their homes at the request of the 5 Arab Armies who were sure to defeat the newly reconstituted Jewish State. About 300,000 Arabs stayed and has grown, while the Jewish population in all the Arab-Muslim state has decreased to below 10,000.
Since then the Arab and Jewish population has increased dramatically. Many new Arabs have moved into the area and many new Jews from the Holocaust and other areas have immigrated to Israel. It is about time that the Arab countries that expelled over a million Jewish families should resettle the Arab refugees in their vast lands, where many of the Arabs originally came from. Instead of funding weapons and war, the Arab countries should utilize the funds to help the Arab refugees to relocate, build housing, schools, commerce and industry and resolve this tragedy once and for all. This simple solution will bring peace and tranquility to the region. YJ Draiman THE RETURN OF THE BAD OLD MIDDLE EAST The Return of the Bad Old Middle East By: Steven Plaut Date: Wednesday, December 31 2008 For most of the past 16 years or so, a seemingly benign specter has been haunting the world - namely, the notion that there exists a New Middle East, one that plays by rules very different from those in the Bad Old Middle East. Beginning with the first of the Oslo Accords in the early 1990s, Israel was launched by its own political leadership into a "peace process" whose main axiom was that the Old Middle East was dead and gone. Oslo was based on the assumption that what was needed to resolve the conflict was a sincere willingness on Israel's part to reach an accommodation with the Arab world through unilateral concessions and especially through Israel's acknowledging the legitimacy of Palestinian demands for statehood. But as we enter the year 2009, the conclusion is unavoidable that there is no such thing as a New Middle East. The Bad Old Middle East keeps reasserting itself - with a vengeance. It is crucial at this point in history for all to abandon the campaign of peace through make-believe that has governed efforts at resolving the conflict since late 1992. No progress can be made until the world renews its acquaintance with Middle East reality and stares it straight in its unpleasant face. Unhappy truths and principles must again be understood and internalized. The most important ones follow. I. Arab terrorism and military aggression are not caused by Israeli occupation but rather by the removal of Israeli occupation. Since Oslo, the working hypothesis of the Israeli government, endorsed by nearly everyone on the planet, has been that the most urgent task at hand was to end the Israeli "occupation" and remove Israel from its position of control over the lives of Palestinian Arabs. The Israeli Left and its amen chorus in the international media have been repeating for so many years that the ultimate cause of Palestinian terrorism and Arab grievances is the "occupation" of "Palestinian lands" by Israel that few are capable any longer of thinking about that assertion critically. It is wrong. The main cause of anti-Israel terrorism today is the removal of Israeli occupation from Palestinian Arabs. This is so obvious that it is a major intellectual challenge to explain why so few people understand it. Israel ended its occupation of the Gaza Strip in its entirety in 2004 and evicted all Jews who had been living there. The result was the massive ongoing rocket assaults launched from the Gaza Strip against Sderot, Ashkelon, and other towns in the south of Israel. The Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon was unilaterally ended in the year 2000 by then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak. The direct result of that move was the launching of 4,000 Katyusha rockets from Lebanon against northern Israel in the summer of 2006 and several times that number now poised to strike Israel. The worst waves of Palestinian suicide attacks were directly triggered by the early Oslo withdrawals - before which there were no suicide bombings. The only possible exception to the rule that removal of Israeli occupation causes terrorism has been the Sinai Peninsula, which is largely empty. Yet given the role of the Sinai and its Egyptian-sponsored smuggling networks in providing a pipeline for rockets and explosives to Hamas in Gaza, it is not even clear that Israel's withdrawal from Sinai is an exception to this rule. There can be no doubt that a complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and a return to pre-1967 borders would trigger a massive rocket and terror assault against the remaining rump areas of Israel, launched from the "liberated" lands in the West Bank. The same thing would result from relinquishing the Golan Heights to Syria. There are worse things in the world than occupation, and the experiences of the past few years have demonstrated how much worse are the consequences that follow the removal of Israeli occupation. The inevitable consequence of a complete withdrawal by Israel to its 1967 borders would be a replay of 1967, when the Arab world hoped to achieve the military annihilation of Israel inside its Green Line borders. This time, though, the Arabs would be using 21st century military technology. Academics can debate about whether animosity to Israel was itself initially stoked by the years of Palestinians living under occupation. But in fact there was more than sufficient Palestinian animosity and terrorism long before Israel occupied anything at all in the 1967 Six-Day War. Be that as it may, progress today can occur only if the starting point is the understanding that removal of Israeli occupation causes terror and violence. II. Israeli goodwill concessions do not trigger goodwill among Arabs, they trigger Arab aggression and violence. The Arabs interpret such goodwill measures as admission of weakness on Israel's part and as demonstrations of Israeli vulnerability and destructibility. More generally, the axiom that Israeli niceness toward Arabs can generate Arab moderation, reasonableness, and friendliness is also false. It cannot. Attempts at buying Arab moderation through demonstrations of Jewish self-restraint and niceness go back decades and predate Israel's independence (back then it was termed havlaga). They have never worked. Present-day attempts to win over Arabs with niceness and restraint range from affirmative action programs that benefit Arabs, to turning a blind eye toward massive lawbreaking by Arabs, particularly regarding construction and squatting on public lands. Niceness means never prosecuting Arab political leaders for treason and espionage or for endorsing terror, no matter how openly they do so. It means exempting Israeli Arabs from military conscription and even from civilian national service. It has even meant that families of Arabs killed while perpetrating terror atrocities against Jews were allowed to draw "survivor benefits" from Israel's social security system (the National Insurance Institute). Outside the Green Line, niceness often consists of endless offers of cease-fires with the terrorists - cease-fires that consist of Palestinians shooting and Israelis not shooting back. It means delivering funds and sometimes weapons to the very groups engaged in terrorism, in an attempt to maintain the fa.ade of an ongoing peace process. None of these measures can assuage Arab bellicosity toward Israel and Jews; actually, each contributes toward its escalation. Should Israel ever nicely withdraw to its pre-1967 borders, the Arab world led by "Palestine" will launch a war against the remaining territory of the Jewish state. It is likely to do so in the name of the "oppressed" Arabs in the Negev and the Galilee supposedly suffering from "discrimination" in the Israeli "apartheid regime." III. The Arab-Israeli war is not about land, and it cannot be resolved by Israel's relinquishing land. The Arab world already controls territory nearly twice that of the United States (including Alaska), whereas all of Israel cannot be seen on most world maps. When Israel was occupying nothing outside of its pre-1967 borders, the Arab world refused to come to terms with its existence and is no more willing to do so today, even if Israel were to return to those same borders. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not about Israel refusing to share land and resources with Palestinians but about the absolute refusal of the Arab world to acquiesce in the existence of any Jewish-majority political entity within any set of borders in the Middle East. This misrepresentation of the conflict serves to prolong it, precisely because it misleads. The Arab world insists that Israel trade land for peace not because it is prepared to in turn offer Israel peace for the land it vacates, but because a smaller Israel will be that much easier to destroy. And even if Israel consisted of nothing more than downtown Tel Aviv, the Arab world would consider it to be an imperialist affront sitting on stolen Arab land - an illegal "settlement." IV. Education and economic progress do not produce political moderation or a desire for peace in the Arab world. To the contrary, there is reason to believe that wealth and education are negatively correlated with moderation, meaning that wealthier and better-educated Arabs are more likely to support terrorism and extremist political ideas. Arab students in European and American universities have been regular recruits for terrorist groups, and most of the al Qaeda terrorists who carried out the 9/11 atrocities had been students. Suicide bombers in Israel often are university students or graduates of Palestinian universities. Some have been highly educated professionals, such as the lawyer who blew herself up in the Maxim restaurant in Haifa, killing 21 people on the spot. Public opinion polls among Arabs often show greater support for violence among the better educated. More generally, in the Middle East poverty and political oppression do not produce terrorism. Anti-Israel terrorism was sparked by the imposition of an enlightened regime on Palestinians by Israel - a regime in which basic freedoms, including freedom of speech and the right to vote in local elections, were enjoyed. Terrorism escalated with each concession by Israel, especially after it agreed to allow Palestinians political autonomy and then statehood. It escalated after Israel removed its administrative control of the Arab population in most of the "Palestinian territories." V. "Talks" cannot produce peace in the Middle East and in fact have harmful effects. There is a Western obsession with the idea that all world problems can be resolved through talking. But how many international conflicts can be said to have been resolved strictly through talking? Especially in the Middle East, there can be no doubt that talking does not resolve hostilities. It makes them worse. The Arab-Israeli war is not a marital spat where bringing together the parties to sit around a table and socialize reduces anger, misunderstanding and tension. The conflict is not about hurt feelings but about the refusal of the Arab world to come to terms with Israel's existence, period, in any set of borders and regardless of whether Jerusalem remains under Israeli control. VI. There is no "two-state solution" or "one-state solution" to the Arab Israeli conflict. The latter solution is particularly popular on the left. Under that scenario, Israel is enfolded into a larger "secular democratic Arab state" with an Arab Muslim majority. It is in fact little more than a prescription for a Rwanda-style genocide of Jews. This is little doubt that a significant number of those proposing such a solution would really like to see this happen. More important, there is no "two-state solution" to the Middle East conflict. Those speaking about a two-state solution really mean a 24-state solution, meaning the Arabs retain the 22 states they already have, adding a 23rd state of "Palestine" in parts of the West Bank and Gaza and pre-1967 Israeli territories, with Israel remaining the Jewish state - the 24th state in the plan - for the moment. That such a solution will not end the conflict but only signal the commencement of its next stage has long been the quasi-official position of virtually all Palestinian groups, which have long insisted that any two-state solution is but a stage in a plan of stages, after which will come additional steps ultimately ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state. The original partition plan of the United Nations had proposed that an Arab Palestinian state arise alongside Israel in 1948. The Arab world rejected this plan altogether. It had no interest in adding one more Arab Islamic state to its portfolio. It went to war to prevent the creation of any Jewish state. The two-state solution is no more realistic an option today than it was in 1948. It is ultimately as much of an existential threat to Jewish survival in the Middle East as the one-state solution. Creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel would be a major step in the escalation of the Arab war against Israel's existence, even if that war is delayed for a time while the world celebrates the outbreak of peace in the Middle East thanks to the end of Israeli "occupation." VII. Israeli Arabs form a potential fifth column, displaying massive animosity and disloyalty to the state in which they have lived for 60 years and openly identifying with the enemies of that state. Sixty years of living under the only democratic government in the Middle East has had surprisingly little impact on the feelings and loyalties of Israeli Arabs, who are by and large hostile to the very existence of the state. They are no more resigned to living as a minority within a majority-Jewish state today than they were in 1948. Their animosity toward Israel is apparent in their voting behavior: the bulk of Israeli Arabs vote for pro-terror Arab nationalist parties with strong fascist tendencies or for the Stalinist HADASH party. When the opportunity presents itself - for example, during the riots in the fall of 2000 or earlier this year on Yom Kippur in Acre - Israeli Arab enmity toward Jews is candidly manifested, and not just in words. Education and prosperity offer little hope of changing this reality. One proof is the behavior of Arab college students in Israel. Despite being beneficiaries of affirmative action preferences in college admissions and access to scarce dormitory space, Arab students are almost uniformly anti-Israel and pro-jihad. Israeli Arabs have long played a Sudeten-like role in the conflict. In any new outbreak of hostilities with neighboring Arab countries, there is a clear and present danger that they will take to the streets in attempts to cripple the country from within. The Arab lynch mobs of the Galilee that operated in October 2000 may have been a small foretaste. For too long the world, led by Israel's own deluded leaders, has been attempting to create peace via the pretense that war is over, misrepresenting the fa.ade of negotiations as actual resolution of conflict. It has been a sham, of course, and any short-lived lulls in the fighting have served only to weaken the resolve of Israelis, whose leaders have repeatedly presented them with a Potemkin peace based on the substitution of wish-making for statecraft. THE BALFOUR DECLARATION How the Balfour Declaration gave rise to the State of Israel Howard Grief By: Howard Grief, (a Canadian trained lawyer who made aliya, explains Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel and Palestine under International Law [..] 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 of a national home for the Jewish people. But under the San Remo Resolution of 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 to ensure that the Jewish National Home would be duly established. This onus the British Government willingly accepted because at the time the Balfour Declaration was issued and adopted at the San Remo Peace Conference, Palestine was considered a valuable strategic asset and communications center, and so a vital necessity for protecting far-flung British imperial interests extending from Egypt to India. Britain was fearful of having any major country or power other than itself, especially France or Germany, positioned alongside the 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 Theodor 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”, another expression found in the Balfour Declaration that generated much controversy, referred to the whole country, including both Cisjordan and 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” meant a partitioned country with certain areas of it set aside for Jews and others for Arabs, that intention would have been stated explicitly at the time the Balfour Declaration was drafted and approved and later adopted by the Principal Allied Powers. No such allusion was ever made in the prolonged discussions that took place in fashioning the Declaration and ensuring it international approval. There is therefore no juridical or factual basis for asserting that the phrase “in Palestine” limited the establishment of the Jewish National Home to only a part of the country. On the contrary, Palestine and the Jewish National Home were synonymous terms, as is evidenced by the use of the same phrase in the second half of the Balfour Declaration which refers to the existing non-Jewish communities “in Palestine”, clearly indicating the whole country. Similar evidence exists in the preamble and terms of the Mandate Charter. The San Remo Resolution on Palestine combined the Balfour Declaration with Article 22 of the League Covenant. This meant that the general provisions of Article 22 applied to the Jewish people exclusively, who would set up their home and state in Palestine. There was no intention to apply Article 22 to the Arabs of the country, as was mistakenly concluded by the Palestine Royal Commission which relied on that article of the Covenant as the legal basis to justify the partition of Palestine, apart from the other reasons it gave. The proof of the applicability of Article 22 to the Jewish people, including not only those in Palestine at the time, but those who were expected to arrive in large numbers in the future, is found in the Smuts Resolution, which became Article 22 of the Covenant. It specifically names Palestine as one of the countries to which this article would apply. There was no doubt that when Palestine was named in the context of Article 22, it was linked exclusively to the Jewish National Home, as set down in the Balfour Declaration, a fact everyone was aware of at the time, including the representatives of the Arab national movement, as evidenced by the agreement between Emir Feisal and Dr. Chaim Weizmann dated January 3, 1919 as well as an important letter sent by the Emir to future US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter dated March 3, 1919. In that letter, Feisal characterized as “moderate and proper” the Zionist proposals presented by Nahum Sokolow and Weizmann to the Council of Ten at the Paris Peace Conference on February 27, 1919, which called for the development of Palestine into a Jewish commonwealth with extensive boundaries. The argument later made by Arab leaders that the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine were incompatible with Article 22 of the Covenant is totally undermined by the fact that the Smuts Resolution – the precursor of Article 22 – specifically included Palestine within its legal framework. [Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.]