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:
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.
Jerusalem Belongs to Jews
Jerusalem is a Straw man At Best
Israel own the Land
Jerusalem IS Jewish!
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.
TheSan 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 inPalestine 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 inPalestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it
should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.
The
Eight points were established making it clear that the Jewish community in
That was the reason why it was necessary that the existence of a Jewish national Home in
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:
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:
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 .
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.
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 theSan 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 withPalestine 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.”
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
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
UN Partition Plan
However, in 1947, the General Assembly of the UN passed Resolution 181, known as the Partition Plan. It violated theLeague 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 ofJerusalem 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.”
However, in 1947, the General Assembly of the UN passed Resolution 181, known as the Partition Plan. It violated the
The UN resolved that the City of
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.
After the Six Day War in 1967,
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.”
Given Jerusalem’s strong Jewish majority, Gauthier concludes,
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 toJerusalem is Res Judicata.
i.e. decided legally.
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
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 underminesIsrael 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 .
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
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 thatJerusalem including the Kotel and other holy sites belongs to
them. 1.27.2008
Tomorrow the PA or other Arabs will dig under the earth and find that
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 ofJordan - 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.
It seems also strange that the author ignores the legal status of
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 ofIsrael 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.
The results of a referendum would leave the city as part of
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 inBethlehem . 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 justIsrael that will be saved but all those who hear and Love
G-d as Creator and giver of Life.
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
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
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.
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.
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).
IfJerusalem 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?
If
Dave Levy, Burbank. CAUSA (1/28/08 )
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. TheLand 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
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
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 ofIsrael 's defenders would increase in strength.
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
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment