Jews owned land and lived in Judea/Samaria until they were massacred by Arabs in the 1920s

Jews owned land and lived in Judea/Samaria until they were massacred by Arabs in the 1920s

Jews owned land and lived in Judea/Samaria until they were massacred by Arabs in the 1920s. Those lands were not known as the West Bank until British imperialism made its presence there in the 20th century. Purely Arab Transjordan, created in 1922 from over 70% of the Mandate for Palestine that Britain received on April 25, 1920, annexed the west bank of the Jordan River after the 1948 fighting. Saying Jews have no rights in places like Hebron is like claiming that if China conquers the Vatican, then Catholics will no longer have rights there. Again, the world would not know of the significance of places like Hebron if not for the Holy Scriptures of the Jews. If one million Arabs can live as citizens without fear in Israel, then why is it Arabs insist lands where both peoples have historical ties must be made judenrein?

U.N. Resolution #242 emerged in the aftermath of the Six Day War. It did not call for Israel to return to those suicidal, pre-'67 armistice lines. Among other things, those lines had made Israel a mere 9-miles wide, a constant temptation to its enemies.

Notice, please, the vast majority of the settlements are built on strategic high ground areas designed to provide precisely what Israel is entitled to under Resolution #242... a slightly increased buffer from those who would destroy it. Furthermore, any eventual Israeli withdrawal was to be linked to the establishment of secure and recognized borders to replace those fragile lines. Many of those now demanding Israel to forsake this have conquered nations and acquired territories hundreds or thousands of miles away from home in the name of their own national security interests.

Legal experts such as William O'Brien, Eugene Rostow, and others have repeatedly stated that non-apportioned areas (the West Bank in particular) of the Palestinian Mandate were open to settlement by all residents of the Mandate, not just Arabs. That Arabs disagree is not a shock. They do not believe Jews have rights in any part of Israel. Keep in mind that most of the 22 so-called Arab states were themselves conquered and forcibly Arabized from non-Arab peoples like Berbers, Copts, Kurds, Black Africans, etc.

Lastly, at Camp David 2000 and Taba, Barak's Israel offered to end the occupation. 97% of the territories, half of Jerusalem, a $33 billion fund, etc. were offered to Arafat in a contiguous state, not disconnected cantons, as Arab spin doctors now claim. Dennis Ross was there as U.S. chief negotiator and confirmed all of this. I will take his word over Arafat's. So much for occupation being the cause of the problem.

Unfortunately, the predominant Arab vision of peace still has no room for a permanent Israel. Some have made a tactical decision to play the game to win as much concessions diplomatically from Israel as possible, making their end goal that much easier to achieve.

Arafat and others speak of the peace of the Quraysh. The Quraysh were a pagan tribe with whom the Muslim Prophet, Muhammad, made a temporary peace with until he gained enough strength to deal the final blow. Even the PLO's late model moderate, Faisal Husseini, called for a purely Arab Palestine "from the River to the Sea."

If one is really interested in seeing what Arab thinking is in these regards, all that is required is an online visit to the Palestinian Authority websites, or a look at its textbooks, maps, insignias and such. There is no Israel present. And these are the good cops. Go to the Hamas site and then understand why the sole, miniscule state of the Jews cannot be expected to commit national suicide so that Arabs can obtain their 23rd state - and second one in Palestine.

About the Author: Gerald A. Honigman is a contributing writer for Jewish Xpress Magazine [http://www.jewishxpress.com/], a monthly publication based in southern Florida.

The Big Lie - "The West Bank is occupied Palestinian land."

The Big Lie - "The West Bank is occupied Palestinian land." 

by Sharon Nader Sloan, Esq. naderlaw@earthlink.net
Lebanese-American
"The West Bank is occupied Palestinian land."  This phase is repeated, as a given, by all the governments of the world and by the entire news media, etc., etc.

This idea that the West Bank is occupied Palestinian land has been accepted by almost everyone.  Yet, it is, in fact, the greatest lie ever perpetrated on the whole of humanity.

If you think this is an outlandish statement please read on and decide for yourself.

Palestinians claim that Palestine is their land, and that Jerusalem is their capital, and that Israel is occupying their land.  To resist occupation they have the right to send suicide bombers into crowded bus stations, pizza parlors, etc., and kill innocent men, women, and children.  And all Arab and Muslim countries support them in their claims and actions against Israel.

Because of this occupation of Palestinian land by Israel, because of this crime committed against their Palestinian brothers, all Arabs hate Israel and want to destroy it.

To anyone who is familiar with the facts, and has an objective eye, all this must be fascinating.  Because never before has a complete lie, on such a large scale, been so successful.

First, if Arab animosity toward Israel is based on their love and support for their Palestinian brothers, and in wanting their Palestinian brothers to have their own state, where was that love and support before the Jewish state existed?  Where were they when the Kingdom of Jordan ruled Palestine?  Why were they not accusing Jordan of occupying Palestinian land?  Why did not the Arab world and the United Nations call on Jordan to stop occupying Palestinian land?  Second, where were the Palestinians themselves, with all their grievances and claims, when Jordan occupied the whole West Bank, including Jerusalem?

Did you know that?  Did you know that for 19 years Jordan occupied and ruled the whole West Bank, including Jerusalem?  Why didn't they
clamor for a Palestinian state then?

All this time, did we hear a word about Palestine being occupied by the Kingdom of Jordan?  Did we hear anything about a Palestinian state?  Or about Jerusalem being the capital of Palestine?  No, we did not.  Why not?
Because there never existed a Palestinian state.

And in the entire history of nations, Jerusalem was never the capital of any country other than that of ancient Israel and modern Israel.  So how can there be a claim on Jerusalem as the capital of a state that never existed?

One of the problems here is that so few people know the history of the world.  Hence, lies and more lies, repeated often enough, are assumed to be facts.

I have heard many scholars, including an Arab journalist, question the very notion of a Palestinian people.  What, they ask, makes a people? Well, there are four elements that define a people:  language, religion, culture, and cuisine.  For example, the Chinese and Japanese are both Oriental.  Still, they are two different peoples, because they each have a different language, a different religion, a different culture, and a different cuisine.

The Palestinians speak the same language, follow the same religion, manifest the same culture, and eat the same cuisine as all the other Arabs.  They are really Arabs who happen to live in a region called Palestine.

Palestine is not, and never was, the name of a country, or the name of a people.

It is the name of a region - just like Siberia is a region, not a country.  There is no Siberian country, nor is there a Siberian people.  It is a region.  Just like the Sahara is a region, not a country.  There is no Saharan country, nor is there a Saharan people.  The Arabs living in that region are Libyans, Moroccans, etc., etc.  It is a region.

Because Palestine is a region, not a country, England was able to carve out half of it and give it to the Arabs living on the other side of the Jordan River and call it the Kingdom of Jordan.  Because Palestine is a region the United Nations was able to divide the rest of it between the Jews and the Arabs living there.  Had the Arabs accepted the United Nations resolution there would have been a newly created Arab state called Palestine.  Instead they rejected the United Nations compromise and went to war to destroy Israel.  They lost the war.  Hence, no Palestinian state.

Here are some cold facts.

King David built the city of Jerusalem, and King Solomon, David's son, built the holy temple.  This commonwealth of Israel lasted for a
thousand years.  There was only one break, when, 400 years after King David, the Babylonian invaders occupied the land for 70 years.  Then, with the help of Cyrus the Great of Persia - yes, Persia - Israel came back to the land, rebuilt the temple, and ruled for another 600
years.

Then the Romans came and ruled the land, then the Crusaders ruled the land, then the Ottoman Empire ruled the land, then the British Empire
ruled the land, then Israel returned to its homeland and built a modern Jewish state.  It was never - repeat, never - a Palestinian state.  So what is all this talk about occupied Palestinian land?

They certainly have a right to live there freely and happily.  Nobody wants to move them away from their land.  But from where comes the
right for a Palestinian state?  Is it because they live there?

Imagine, if the Mexican-American community in California, whose numbers are greater than the number of Palestinians in the West Bank,
decides tomorrow to claim that the United States is occupying their land, because they live there and they want their own Mexican state.
Imagine, if when the U.S.  government says, "No, you can live here but you cannot have sovereignty, you cannot have your own state,"
they start sending suicide bombers, shooters, mortars, etc., etc.  into the rest of the country, what do you think would happen?

This is precisely why there was never any suggestion of a Palestinian state; not under the Romans, not under the Crusaders, not under the
Turks, not under the English, and not under the Arab Kingdom of Jordan, not until after Israel was again established in its homeland.

I believe it is the big lie of our generation and we are all buying into it.

Whatever you believe, don't you think these facts deserve to be raised when discussing Middle East policies?

Thank you for reading this paper.

Sharon Nader Sloan, Esq., Lebanese-American []


This  is a followup

I have received a number of inquiries basically asking:  What about the United Nations’ resolution?  Didn’t the U.N. allocate part of the region for the Arabs?  This is an argument many people use to justify the creation of a Palestinian state.  Let me address this.

Yes, the first United Nations resolution in that conflict was to partition the region between Jews and Arabs.  The Jews accepted that resolution notwithstanding the fact that such acceptance would inevitably create another Arab state called Palestine.  The Arabs, on the other hand, not only rejected the resolution, they trampled on it by declaring war on the new State of Israel.  Five Arab nations attacked her from all sides in order to destroy her.  Well, that did not happen.  The Arabs lost the war and have been whining ever since about United Nations resolutions.

Too late, fellas.

It does not work that way – not in international affairs, nor in human relations.  If you refuse an offer and attempt to destroy it, you no longer have a right to that offer.

I did not address this issue in my first paper, nor did I cover many other details of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  And I did not presume to offer a definitive solution to this painful problem.  Who am I to assume such a role for myself?  Most likely it will be the United States, the European Union, the Russians, the Arabs, and the Israelis who will determine the final outcome of this conflict.

The reason for my paper was to bring forth certain truths and trust that these truths will effect an honorable solution to the problem.

Sooner or later all the parties involved will attempt a serious solution to this problem.  When that happens these truths must be recognized and placed on the negotiating table, or there will never be peace between Arabs and Jews.

Because, unless the Arabs recognize and accept these truths, even if they are given a state of their own, and no matter how many agreements and treaties they sign, they will always feel wronged, cheated, and forced into giving up what they now claim is theirs.  They will continue to plot and look for an opportunity to destroy Israel in order to take back what they claim is theirs, especially the younger generation that has been brainwashed to hate the “occupying enemy.”  Whether there is a Palestinian state or not, there will be no peace.

In fact, a Palestinian state without recognition of these truths will more than likely end up in a full-scale war with Israel, engulfing the entire Middle East.

Peace between the Jews and Arabs can be achieved only in one of two ways.  Either one side completely defeats the other side (given existing circumstances, this is not likely to happen), or all the Arabs recognize and accept the truths around this conflict.

One undeniable truth is that there never was a Palestinian state or a Palestinian nation.  In fact there are no Palestinians.  These are Arabs living in a region that, historically, has been called many things, including Palestine.  But there is no Palestinian people.

They have the same ethnicity, the same language, the same religion, the same culture, the same dress, the same cuisine, etc., etc., as all the other Arabs.  Yes, there are minor differences, the same minor differences that exist between the Welsh, the Scots, and the Londoners.  They are still all Englishmen.  The same minor differences that exist between Yankees and Southerners.  They are still all Americans, etc., etc.  These inconsequential differences do not make a “people.”

The small Arab Christian minority, whose religion is different from the religion of all other Arabs, is not the problem.  Most of them have stated openly that they would rather be Israeli citizens than live under Arafat and his Palestinian Authority.  The problem is the Muslim majority that lives in this region and thinks that living in the region equals sovereignty over the region.

Are the Arabs living in the Sahara region a Saharan people with their own Saharan government?  Are the Russians living in Siberia Siberians with their own Siberian government?  I explained all this in detail in my paper “The Big Lie.”

Again, there are no Palestinians.  Hence, the terrorists are not freedom fighters fighting for their Palestinian independence.  They are simply Arab terrorists.  And the so-called territories are not occupied lands.  They are occupied by their owners.

Another truth is Jerusalem.  The other day Yasser Arafat again talked about Jerusalem being his capital.  Jerusalem was never the capital of any nation other than the nation of Israel.  And Arafat wants it to be the capital of a nation that never existed, nor does it exist today.

Why?  Because he wants it?

Jerusalem is not just sitting there waiting for an owner.  It has an owner.  It belongs to someone.

Leaving out history, religion, the Bible, etc., etc., it belongs to Israel simply by right of conquest; no less than the Falkland Islands are English by right of conquest, even though the English people are foreigners to that land.  They were never there before they took it.  The same with Tahiti.  It is French by right of conquest, even though they are foreigners, etc., etc.  The same with Texas and California.  They are American by right of conquest, even though, etc., etc.  Conversely, Israel ruled and owned that land for a thousand years and now has it again by right of conquest.

Arafat wants the world to take Jerusalem and the so-called territories away from Israel and give them to him.  Why?

Iraq went to war against Kuwait and occupied its land.  This was a peaceful sovereign nation invaded and conquered by an outside enemy.  Hence, it was rightfully called “occupied land.”

Israel did not go to war against a Palestinian state and occupy its land.  Israel was attacked by five Arab nations with intentions to destroy her, and had to defend herself.  In that war Israel conquered the territories, not from Arafat and the Palestinians, but from Jordan and Egypt.

A third truth is that most of the Arabs living in Palestine today are not indigenous to that region.  It was after the Jews changed deserts and swamps into a productive and thriving land that the Arabs migrated there.  Before that time there were only approximately 120,000 Arabs in the entire region, including Jordan.

Arafat himself is not a native of Palestine.  He was born and raised in Cairo.  Few people know this.

Jews, Babylonians, Syrians, Romans, Muslims, crusaders, Ottomans, and the British; they all ruled this land at one time or another.  But never did the Palestinians rule this land.  Never.

Now it is again the land of Israel.  God’s promise, biblical prophecy, 1000 years of historically owning that land (including, during the time of Jesus), or simply “the right of conquest.”  Whatever the reason, the land is now back in the hands of Israel.  It is, therefore, outrageous and deceitful for the Arabs to claim sovereignty over land that was never theirs, and is now owned by someone else.

And it is fascinating, and sad, to watch the nations of the world, and the media, eagerly embrace this deception.  It is the same kind of hypocrisy that allows Syria, a known sponsor of terrorists and an occupier of the sovereign nation of Lebanon, a seat on the Security Council of the United Nations.

We need to repeat these truths over and over again in order to dispel the lies that are being repeated over and over again.

Unless there is a massive and long-term re-education of all the Arab people to these truths, with or without a state of their own, the so-called Palestinians will never, willingly, allow the existence of a State of Israel.  Only when these truths come to light and are accepted by most of the Arab people can meaningful negotiations begin.

Anyone who is not mesmerized by the repetition of the “the big lie” and not victim to political corruption, and seeks justice for everyone, including the so-called Palestinians – they who have been suffering for years due to the lies perpetrated upon them by their political, spiritual, and militant leaders; those who keep them mired in the refugee camps and incite them to die by jihad – anyone whose heart has not turned to stone, cannot help but shout these truths wherever, whenever, and to whomever possible.

I can do no more than bring this to your attention.  Perhaps you can do more.  I pray you will.

THE JEWS OF ARAB LANDS: THE MIDDLE EAST'S IGNORED REFUGEES

 

THE JEWS OF ARAB LANDS: THE MIDDLE EAST'S IGNORED REFUGEES

Visit www.bicom.org.uk for updates, research, biographies, frequently asked questions and further information on this and other articles.
The Jews of Arab Lands: The Middle East’s Ignored Refugees
 
Following the war in Iraq, an opportunity has arisen for Jewish Iraqi expatriates to file for compensation for the property and assets that were confiscated as they were forced to flee the country. The case of the Jews of Iraq is, in fact, similar to the case of the Jewish communities of various other Arab countries.
History:
Indigenous Jewish communities existed since time immemorial in what is known today as the “Arab World”, long before the emergence of the successful movement of Arab imperial expansion in the 7th century. Under the banner of Islam, Jews living in Arab lands were subjugated, discriminated against, and persecuted. A core concept of Islam is the “jihad” that summons the non-Muslims to convert or accept Muslim supremacy, and, if faced with refusal, to attack them until they submitted to Muslim domination. The “dhimmi” status stemming from the “jihad,” is the degrading relationship that was imposed on the Jews.[1]


Immediately before and after the State of Israel was established in 1948 and as a direct result to the opposition to Zionism, the anti-Jewish persecutions intensified, forcing most Arab Jews to flee, primordially, to Israel. By way of example, in Syria, as a result of anti-Jewish pogroms that erupted in Aleppo in 1947, 7,000 of the town’s 10,000 Jews fled in terror. In Iraq, ‘Zionism’ became a capital crime. Bombs in the Jewish Quarter of Cairo, Egypt killed more than 70 Jews. After the French left Algeria, the authorities issued a variety of anti-Jewish decrees prompting nearly all of the 160,000 Jews to flee the country. Muslim rioters engaged in bloody pogroms in Aden and Yemen, which killed 82 Jews. In numerous countries, Jews were expelled or had their citizenship revoked. The repression and violence inflicted upon the Arab Jews represented a mass violation of human rights.[2]


The Right to Redress:
According to International Law, Jews from Arab countries have a right to redress as victims of persecution, for their expulsions, and for the confiscation of properties and assets by Arab regimes. United Nations Resolution 242, adopted in 1967, calls for "a just settlement of the refugee problem." The Resolution makes no distinction between Arab refugees and former Jewish refugees from Arab countries; The Camp David Accords and the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty provide that "the parties agree to establish a Claims Committee for the mutual settlement of all final claims." Former U.S. President Carter stated in a press conference on October 27, 1977 that "Palestinians have rights... obviously there are Jewish refugees... they have the same rights as others do." The Madrid Peace Conference established a Multilateral Working Group in 1991 whose mandate was to ensure the status and rights of "all persons displaced as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict". The rights of Jews displaced from Arab lands was also discussed at 'Camp
David II' in July, 2000. Former U.S. President Clinton spoke of "…Jewish people, who lived in predominantly in Arab countries who came to Israel because they were made refugees in their own land".[3]


According to one authoritative assessment, 850,000 Jews were displaced from Arab countries, of whom 600,000 settled in Israel.[4] The value of the property and assets of the Jews of Iraq alone is estimated in today’s terms at $1 billion.[5]


The Palestinian Refugees:
The Palestinian refugee problem arose as a result of the unwillingness of the Arab countries to accept the 1947 UN Partition Resolution calling for both a Jewish and a Palestinian state.[6] Neither under the international conventions, nor under the major UN resolutions or other relevant agreements between the parties, do the Palestinian refugees have a right to return to Israel.[7] A heavy burden for the origin of the problem lies with the Arabs countries themselves, who encouraged Palestinians to leave their home to make way for the Arab armies intended on invading the nascent Jewish state. Approximately 600,000 Palestinian refugees fled what is now Israel and were confined to various refugee camps.


Remarkably, whereas the response of the international community to assist Palestinian refugees was significant, there was no comparable action with regard to the Jewish refugees. This can be illustrated by the fact that since 1947 there have been 681 UN General Assembly resolutions dealing with the Middle East and the Arab- Israeli conflict, of which 101 refer to the plight of Palestinian refugees, and none that refer specifically to the Jewish refugees. Moreover, whereas UN agencies and organisations were created to deal with Palestinian refugees, no such attention was forthcoming for Jewish refugees.[8]


Population Exchanges:
The population movements highlighted above amounted to a straightforward exchange of population, which have been a regular occurrence in history.[9] In the case under discussion there is a notable asymmetry. Whereas Jewish refuges from Arab countries became, not without many problems, integrated in Israeli society, Arab refugees have largely and purposely been precluded from settling down. They have, with exceptions, been kept artificially confined to camps to keep the Palestinian issue and their grievance against Israel festering. These camps have become breeding ground for terrorists.


In what represents a record not matched by any other refugee group, the international community has spent billions of dollars, sometimes without proper transparency, to provide relief for Palestinian refugees. Strikingly no such international support was ever provided to ameliorate the plight of Jewish refugees from Arab lands.[10] 


United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA):
The Jewish refugees from Arab countries, who were persecuted out of their homes, have resettled around the world and mainly in Israel without any specific international aid or compensation. A similar number of Palestinians who chose to flee rather than make peace with the State of Israel remain refugees and often live in dire conditions in cities designated as refugee camps in the Middle East.


UNRWA is largely responsible for running the administrative services in these camps, and has never created an environment or incentive for these 'refugees' to integrate into their host environment. In fact, they helped the Arab host environments - including the Palestinian Authority - to deliberately prevent such integration, using these people as political pawns in the effort to eliminate the State of Israel. UNRWA has allowed its camps to become armed militant enclaves, using civilians as human shields and cover, in direct contravention of the Geneva Conventions. UNRWA employees, including teachers and others, were associated with terrorist organisations and the UNRWA schools became places where children were inculcated with the glorification of violence and terror against Israel.


The Right of Return:
Palestinians claim a “Right of Return” to what is today Israel, often adding an “equivalent” corollary invitation for Jews from Arab countries to return to their countries of origin. According to Palestinian sources, there are about 3.5 million Palestinian refugees nowadays registered with UNRWA. Israel has a problem agreeing to the “Right of Return” because the latter, coupled with the refugees’ higher birth rate, would dramatically shift the demographic balance of the Jewish state. The invitation for Jews to return is considered to be a disingenuous ploy activated by Palestinians to legitimise their “Right of Return”. This offer is meaningless, given the Jews’ fate under Arab rule and the superior standard of leaving they enjoyed after emigrating to Israel and other Western countries. Great efforts should be made by all those involved, to find a reasonable, viable and fair solution to the refugee problem.


The Way Forward:
The issue of Jewish refugees can be concluded with a formula to settle the issue within the framework of the Arab-Israeli peace process. In the first instance there should be a recognition by the Arab states and the Palestinian leaders, that the claims of Jewish refugees from Arab lands are legitimate, that Arab countries bear a heavy burden in the origin of this problem and that they should also bear the cost of compensation for this injustice. Second, the international community, bearing in mind its role in perpetuating the Palestinian refugee problem through such intermediaries as the UNRWA, should rectify its failure to address the issue over time. Third, Israel should do its utmost to help resolve both refugee problems, and, together with the Jewish Diaspora, must organise a programme of gathering testimonies and documentation to preserve the historical record and claims of the Jews displaced from Arab countries.


Unlike their Palestinian counterparts, the Jewish refugees do not seek the right of return to their country of origin. After much initial hardships the Jews from Arab states have come to play a full and important role in making Israel the great diverse society it is today. The Jewish refugees desire recognition of their plight and compensation for what they were forced to give up such as homes and businesses. The Palestinians should consider beginning proceedings against the Arab states that have hosted their refugees in abysmal conditions for the past 55 years.[11]


Reference - Jewish Population in Arab Countries 1948-2001:


Source: David Matas and Stanley A.Urman, “Jews from Arab Countries: The Case for Rights and Redress”, Justice for Jews from Arab Countries, 2003, www.jewishrefugees.org .

Footnotes:

[1] Bat Ye’or, “The Dhimmi, Jews and Christians under Islam”, London, 1985

[2] David Matas and Stanley A.Urman, “Jews from Arab Countries: The Case for Rights and Redress”, Justice for Jews from Arab Countries, 2003, http://www.jewishrefugees.org

[3] www.jesishrefugees.org

[4] Ibid.

[5] Dr Avi Beker, Secretary General, World Jewish Congress, Ha’aretz, 18 May 2003

[6] Henri Stellman, “1997:Notable Israeli Anniversaries”, The Anglo-Israel Association, London, 1997.

[7] Do Palestinian Refugees Have a Right to Return to Israel? , Ruth Lapidoth.. Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs .

[8] Matas and Urman, op. cit.

[9] Malka Hillel Shulewitz in collaboration with Raphael Israeli, “Exchanges of Populations Worldwide: the First World War to the 1990s in Malka Hillel Shulewitz, Editor, “The Forgotten Millions, The Modern Jewish Exodus from Arab Lands”, London, 1999.

[10] Matas and Urman, op. cit.

[11] It's time to tell the world about the other 1948 refugees, By Neill Lochery, The Jerusalem Post, July 16, 2003

THE JEWISH CLAIM TO THE LAND of Israel

THE JEWISH CLAIM TO THE LAND of Israel

FROM THE KORAN

We know what the BIBLE says about who the land belongs to. Now what does the koran say?

The koran says that allah gave the land of Israel to the Jews and that he will restore them to it at the end of days.

By now you may be scratching your head. Surely this can't be accurate. Every Arab nation in the Middle East, and every good (and bad) Palestinian will tell you that the land belongs to them. So lets see just what the koran does say.

Surah 17 The Children of Israel [17.101-104] And certainly We gave Musa(Moses) nine clear signs; so ask the children of Israel. When he came to them, Firon(Pharaoh) said to him: Most surely I deem you, O Musa, to be a man deprived of reason. He said: Truly you know that none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth has sent down these as clear proof and most surely I believe you, O Firon, to be given over to perdition. So he desired to destroy them out of the earth, but We drowned him and those with him all together; And We said to the Israelites after him: Dwell in the land: and when the promise of the next life shall come to pass, we will bring you both together in judgment.

Here it is clear that allah of the Koran, as well as the real G-D of Israel, has given the land to the Israelites.

In Surah 5 The Dinner Table 5.20-21] And when Musa said to his people: O my people! remember the favor of allah upon you when he raised prophets among you and made you kings and gave you what He had not given to any other among the nations. O my people! enter the holy land which allah has prescribed for you and turn not on your backs for then you will turn back losers.

Surah 3 The Family of Imran [3.26] Say: O Allah, Master of the Kingdom! Thou givest the kingdom to whomsoever Thou pleasest and takest away the kingdom from whomsoever Thou pleasest, and Thou exaltest whom Thou pleasest and abasest whom Thou pleasest in Thine hand is the good; surety, Thou hast power over all things

Therefore, from an Islamic point of view, there is NO fundamental reason which prohibits Muslims from recognizing Israel as a friendly State.

---

FROM MAN

In 1917 Balfour Declaration:  “ His Majesty's Government views 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.

1919 Paris Peace Conference:  "  2)...the Country of Eretz-Israel, within its historical boundaries to be defined by a special Commission, shall at present be entrusted to the care of Great Britain, which in its capacity of trustee, shall place the country under such conditions -- political, administrative, economic etc... -- as will lead up to the steady enlargement and development of the Jewish settlements, so that it may ultimately develop into a Jewish Commonwealth on national lines ...

1919 Letter from Emir Feisal (later King of Iraq) to Felix Frankfurter (member of the American Zionist delegation to the Peace Conference and legal advisor to Chaim Weizmann) expressing sympathy with the Zionist movement and support for its proposals at the Peace Conference, March 1, 1919: " "We are working together for a reformed and revived Near East, and our two movements complement one another. The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist ... and there is room in Syria for us both." 

1919 Covenant of the League of Nations Article 22 June 28, 1919: "Article IV: All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews in Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.

1922 San Remo Conference: Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might 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; ...
Article 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

1922 British White Paper:  "Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change. "

1922 The Palestine Mandate The Council of the League of Nations: July 24, 1922: “Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might 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; “

1937 Peel Commission, appointed in the late 1930's to investigate the 1936 Arab riots, stated “ the field in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, to be the whole of historic Palestine, including Transjordan.”

So we have the HOLY BIBLE, the koran, and several governmental declarations giving this land to the Jews as a national homeland.
Then we have the British Government trying to take back  78% of that land.

What G-D gives as an everlasting covenant, man isn't going to take away!

Arabs Recognized Israel - 1919

 

Arabs Recognized Israel - 1919

The Arab position is that Jewish settlements on the West Bank and Gaza are "illegal", because they interfere with the right, usually articulated with vague references to international law, of the Arabs to create an all-Arab state west of the Jordan. In addition, most of the Arab population in the West Bank and Gaza, according to poll data, support the idea of Arab control over all of "historic Palestine", which is to say, they support Israel´s destruction. History stands witness to the falseness of these claims.
The fact is that the international community, including the emerging Arab nations, recognized Israel at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, which was held by the victorious Allies in order to settle international questions after the 1918 armistice ended World War I. An official Arab and Zionist delegation, as well as delegations from nations and groups from around the world, were invited to attend the conference. The head of the Arab delegation, Emir Feisal, great-grandfather of Abdallah, the present King of Jordan, agreed that "Palestine" would be the Jewish homeland.
Feisal accepted the British Balfour Declaration of Nov. 2, 1917, which afforded recognition to a Jewish national homeland, and agreed with the Zionist delegation, stating, "All such measures shall be adopted as we afford the fullest guarantee of carrying into effect the British Government´s Balfour Declaration." Emir Feisal confirmed this determination in a March 3, 1919 letter to Harvard Law Professor, and later US Supreme Court Justice, Felix Frankfurter, to whom he wrote: "Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted by the Zionist organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as modest and proper. We will do our best, insofar as we are concerned, to help them through. We will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home." In exchange for Arab recognition of Israel, the Allied powers, in 1919, agreed to the eventual sovereignty of almost 20 Arab states, covering vast oil-rich lands, after a period of mandatory oversight by European powers. The Europeans would proceed to draw the borders of their respective mandates and, in essence, create the system of Arab states that would emerge out of the remnants of the old Turkish Ottoman Empire. In 1922, a couple of years after the Conference, in a land for peace deal, the British would split Mandatory Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish Mandate using the Jordan River as the line of demarcation. The Arabs were granted East Palestine, or Transjordan, which would later become Arab Jordan while West Palestine, or Cis-Jordan, would become the Jewish National homeland of Israel.
In 1948, upon Israel´s declaration of Independence from Britain, Jordan and Egypt, by use of aggressive military force, illegally occupied portions of the internationally recognized Jewish State. The Arab occupation continued until Israel reasserted its sovereignty in June 1967, after defending itself against an aggressive military campaign launched by combined Arab forces. Following the 1967 war, UN Resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from "occupied territories." Israel proceeded to fulfill the letter and spirit of UN Resolution 242 when, in 1978, it concluded a peace treaty with Egypt and withdrew from the only territory that was, in fact, occupied by Israel - the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. Since that time, Israel has existed within borders that are, and have been since 1919, recognized by the nations of the world, including the Arab nations.

In light of the seditious opinions of the majority of the Arab population in the West Bank and Gaza, and the murderous campaign that has been launched from that territory against Jewish citizens, its time for Israel to stop playing along with the charade and re-assert its legitimate sovereignty over its internationally recognized territory. While it would be reasonable for Israel to consider the establishment of a regional elected Arab Authority on the West Bank and Gaza, Israel would be acting entirely within international law and custom if it did what any nation would do in similar circumstances: try those involved in conspiring to overthrow the state by violent means and expel them.

EXPLAINING THE JEWISH CLAIM TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL

 

EXPLAINING THE JEWISH CLAIM TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL

For Zion's sake I will not keep silent

And for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest Until her vindication Goes forth as brightness And her salvation as a burning torch ….

For as a young man marries a virgin So shall your sons marry you And as the bridegroom rejoices over his bride So shall your God rejoice over you

Upon your walls, O Jerusalem I have set watchmen All day and all night They shall never be silent

Isaiah 62 .

Dear friends,

Not for a long time has the claim of the Jews to their ancient homeland been so manipulated and perverted as at this moment in history. Arab animosity and an increasing wave of anti-Semitism have penetrated the world media and influenced many governments to deny or distort the real story of the Jews and their land. During the last few months it has become increasingly clear that it is no longer the West Bank which is at the center of this conflict. It is the very existence of the Jewish State which is being challenged. Clear evidence exists that the Palestinian leadership and many Arab states would like to see its total destruction.
At the same time, the world has never been less aware of the claims of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, and even many Jews feel uneasy at being unable to articulate our nation's rights.
It is for this reason that I present herewith a strong and honest defense of the claim of the Jews to the land of Israel. I have written this defense in the form of a lecture which I believe could be given by Israeli ambassadors, leaders and laymen. It is conducive to a Jewish or gentile audience.
The arguments used in this lecture are as old as the people of Israel. I have gathered much information from other sources, too many to mention. I have not done anything else but revise them in the language of our times.
My main purpose is to provide the general public with strong arguments which every Jew should know about. It should furnish him or her with enough knowledge to argue on any occasion in favor of the Jewish State. At the same time it should provide every gentile who has a warm heart for the Jewish people and the State of Israel with much information about the Jew's unique relationship with his ancient land.
Hopefully this information will become well known to members of governments and influential organizations.
While this pamphlet deals with the religious, historical and cultural aspects of the Jewish claim to the land, I hope to write another essay/lecture explaining the current situation and Israel's stand on this matter.
In this most difficult hour for the people of Israel, it is most astonishing and embarrassing that so few spokesmen for the State of Israel know the art of explaining the Jewish claim to the land in proper and adequate terms. I hope that this pamphlet will help to turn this tide and that it will lead to better understanding and more peaceful times.
Nathan Lopes Cardozo Jerusalem. Menachem Av 5761 August, 2001 .Dear friends,
Shalom! Peace be with you!
As you know, our country finds itself in a major conflict with the Palestinians. Throughout the world community there is much misunderstanding and animosity about Israel's stand in this matter and even Israelis are confused and unsure. For this reason I speak to you.
"Love your neighbor as yourself"
First of all, let it be clear that as Jews we feel most embarrassed by this conflict. We are the people of the Bible. Throughout thousands of years, we have carried the message of our prophets, which was a message of peace and of respect for all human beings. Our golden rule was and is the one mentioned in the book of Leviticus: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."
It is this biblical message which has become the foundation stone of all civilized societies. When democracies protest today against war, discrimination, and violence, it is because our forefathers, the ancient Israelites, brought this biblical commandment to the attention of all human beings.
It is for this reason that we are embarrassed. We feel caught up in a contradiction. We wonder how it is that we find ourselves in a major conflict with other human beings while our whole reason for existence is to preach shalom, peace and tranquillity for all mankind.
Indeed, this question haunts us day and night. For us Jews to be forced to take arms into our hands is an insufferable nightmare. In fact our antipathy towards war is so great that when our former Prime Minister Golda Meir was once asked if she would ever forgive the Egyptians for having killed our soldiers she responded that perhaps one day the people of Israel would do so, but that they would never forgive them for having forced our sons to take the lives of others even when that had to be done in self defense. As no other nation we know how much harm can be done to men, women and children when armed men raise their weapons. Four thousand years of endless suffering has taught us this lesson.
Why the conflict?
So why this conflict?
Well, it is a long story and the problem is that most people do not even remember it. Even worse, the real story has been so badly manipulated that it has become unrecognizable. A perversion of the truth has become official for millions.
Let me explain:
We Jews are one of the oldest nations in the world, if not the oldest, having been around nearly 4000 years.
For thousands of years, since the days of Abraham, our forefathers have believed that God granted them the land of Israel as their inheritance. Not only have Jews believed this, but millions of Christians and Moslems. All this is carefully recorded in the Bible, by far the greatest spiritual and historical document of mankind.
Israel did not just become our homeland, it became our soul. When God appeared to our forefathers, He made it clear that we were not just to dwell there but to employ the land to transform ourselves and, subsequently all of mankind. We had to become His representatives and transmit to all men, via the Bible, His great ethical demands.
The moral duty to live in the land
We believe that we do not just have a right to live in this country but, that it is our religious and moral duty, something we owe the world. Our claim to this land is based on a covenant, which is a "treaty" to inspire mankind with the word of God. The central theme of this covenant is the promise of the land to Abraham as the center from where we will be able to fulfil our mission. Indeed, we Jews live by covenants, and we cannot betray our pledge or discard our promise.
One should never forget that without this land and its nation the Bible would not have been heard of. There would not have been knowledge of the Ten Commandments, and neither would the world have been blessed with monotheism or the teachings of Jesus, his apostles, and Mohammed.
It was in this country that our prophets spoke, and their words have entered the pages of holy books. It is in the city of Jerusalem that our King David wrote his Psalms, and it is on the hills of this city that you can still hear their great message.
When the land of Israel became the home of the Jews, it also precipitated a major struggle to hold on to it. Throughout biblical times, Jews, as today, had to fight for this land, and, several times suffered the pain of exile and the joy of homecoming. With the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70 CE, Jews were exiled for nearly two thousand years. They wandered from one country to another, constantly encountering anti-Semitism, hate and discrimination. This ultimately led, in our own days, to the Holocaust in which six million of our fellow Jews were slaughtered in a most brutal way.
The Jews never left this country
Our forefathers never left this country. It was taken by violence. They were forced out against their will, the last time by Titus, the Roman emperor, after which their longest exile of nearly two thousand years started, only ending in 1948 with the establishment of the State of Israel.
Jews never abandoned the land, and they never gave up on regaining it. Throughout all the ages they said, "No" to all conquerors. They said "No," before God and man emphatically and daily. They objected to all occupations and rejected all claims. The Jewish people never ceased to assert its right, its title to the land.
If an object is taken by violence, but the owner does not abandon his hope of regaining it, nobody ever has any claim to the object except the original owner.
True, our protest was not heard in the public squares of the large cities. No Jew was, after all, allowed to speak beyond the walls of the ghettos, and, furthermore, nobody was prepared to listen to his voice. But in our homes, in our synagogues, in our books and in our prayers, we raised our voices and uttered proclamation after proclamation that this land was ours and that one day we would return, however long it would take.
Man does not live where his body resides but where his soul dwells
Indeed, how many times did we, the Jews, not ask ourselves: Where do we live? Where is our home? Where is our country? We realized that we never lived in Poland, Spain or Russia. We may have stayed, but we never settled in those lands. Man does not live where his body resides but where his soul is dwelling, and the soul of the Jew never left the land of his forefathers.
In fact, we started the restoration of this land the day we were exiled by Titus. The land was rebuilt in time and spirit long before it was restored in space. Our prayers give evidence to this in ways unprecedented in the annals of man's history.
The heart of our prayers
For thousands of years millions of Jews prayed (and still pray) three times a day for the restoration of Jerusalem: "Take pity, O God, our Lord, on Israel, Your nation, on Jerusalem, Your city, and on Mount Zion, the habitation of Your glory." "May You build Jerusalem, the Holy City speedily, in our days." In fact our prayer books echo and re-echo with the land of Israel. Almost every page mentions the land and its holy city.
To abandon this land would therefore make a mockery of all our prayers; it would amount to treading on the Bible. We married this land. And three thousand years of loyal commitment to this land cannot be erased.
As we will see, Jews have been rebuilding this land long before they were actually able to resettle it, and resettled it as soon as they had the chance. But even when we were driven out and no longer able to dwell in our land, the land continued to dwell in us. It was our forefathers who gave voice to this in the Psalms when they said:
"By the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion. On the willows there we hung up our lyres"
"If I forget you, O Jerusalem. Let my right hand wither. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy."
All Jews are born in Israel
It was the famous Israeli author Shai Agnon who made the world aware of this most unusual relationship between the Jewish people and the land of Israel. When he received the Nobel Prize for literature in 1966, the King of Sweden, Gustav V1 asked where he was born. This deeply religious man responded in a unparalleled way when he said: " I was born in Buczacks, but that was only in a dream, in reality I was born in Jerusalem and exiled by Titus!" Indeed this most powerful answer captures all of Jewish history. All Jews were born in Jerusalem and exiled by Titus! It is due to a historical "aberration" that any Jew was ever born outside the land.
Let us continue:
*When a Jewish boy is circumcised - when he is only eight days old, we wish him "that he may go up to Jerusalem for the three major festivals." (Sephardi prayer book) This means that for the last two millennia we have made millions of children into lovers of Zion when they were still lying in their crib. Which other nation ever did anything like that?
*During the last two thousand years, the first songs Jews taught their children were not the songs of the street but the songs which King David sang about Jerusalem and the Temple.
*When our children get married and stand under the marriage canopy, a most peculiar scene takes place, which will raise some eyebrows among the uninitiated. In the middle of the ceremony, the bridegroom breaks a glass. This is done so as to express the ongoing pain caused by the destruction of the Temple. Even at his highest joy the Jew cannot forget his loss. How many million of glasses have been broken in Jewish history?
*And what about Jewish homes throughout all the centuries? During the last two thousand years, in millions of Jewish homes, within and outside Israel. a part of the wall remains un-plastered, revealing the raw stones, because Jews refuse to live in beautiful homes without constantly being reminded that Jerusalem and the Temple are not yet rebuilt. Visit any religious home today, anywhere in the world, and one will see this with one's own eyes.
*And when the Jew celebrates a special occasion and holds a feast, the table may be lavishly decorated, but one candle will not be burning as a reminder to the loss of the Temple.
I ask you once more. Is there any nation, including our Arab neighbors, which has ever done anything similar for Jerusalem? You would probably mock us and say that we are obsessed with Jerusalem, and you would be right!
All Jews are buried in the land of Israel
Perhaps the most impressive statement the Jew ever makes concerning his love for this land is when he dies and his remains need to be buried. Where will his bones come to rest? Where else but in Israel? Indeed all Jews are buried in the land of Israel. For all those thousands of years. And if you ask me how that is possible, reminding me that thousand of Jewish cemeteries are found around the world, I will respond that even though the Jew's tombstone may be standing in foreign countries, his bones will indeed be buried in the land. Why? Because Jewish custom has it that before we close the coffin we sprinkle a little bit of earth from the land of Israel on all our dead. Regardless of whether his tombstone stands in Hong Kong, Buenos Aires, Madrid or New York. If we cannot bring our dead to Israel, we bring Israel to our dead.
And when we comfort our mourners we say to them: "May you be comforted with all those who mourn Zion and Jerusalem."
No national home for any other nation
The ancient Jewish State was destroyed by the Romans in the year 70, the State of Israel was born in the year 1948. In the long interval, the Holy Land never became a national home for any other nation, was never regarded as a political entity, and never became an independent state. This is also true as far as the Palestinians Arabs are concerned, as testified by many historians.(1)
It was conquered and re-conquered no less than fourteen times. Each conqueror saw it as occupied territory to be ruled from without. And each one left it with a legacy full of fallen soldiers, slaves and their descendants. There was no shared ethnic or cultural identity with the inhabitants of the land. It was a hodge-podge of nations coming and going.
Except for the Jews, no one else, over these thousands of years, regarded this land as a homeland, as a national political unit worthy of independence and nationhood. To the Turks and the British, it was simply a remote province of the Ottoman Empire and the British Empire. To the Arabs, it was a small segment of a vast dominion to be annexed as part of expansionism. And even the Palestinian Arabs of the larger Arab world, did not think of an independent state till after the State of Israel was established.
For the Jews and, for them alone, this was the one and only homeland. This was the only conceivable place where they could find liberation and independence. It is this land towards which their minds and hearts had been uplifted for many centuries and where their roots had clung in spite of all adversity.
For Jews this is not just a land where historically they had once dwelt, but the country where they became a full nation. In many ways, it is their birthplace and the land where their spiritual character has been molded and preserved. Whatever greatness came about in this land - in song, in story, in human personalities, in ideas or inspiration - all of it is the result of Jews living in the land.
It is here that the Bible saw its light, and where many great religious texts were written throughout the centuries. No other people has created original literary works of decisive significance in the land of Israel. It was in this land that a man of Israel, the son of an Israelite carpenter proclaimed a gospel of love to the pagan world and cleared the way for the days of the Messiah.
Even the Koran, the holy book of the Moslem world, makes it absolutely clear that God wanted this land to belong to the Jews. This statement is found in a section called, The Night Journey, 17:104.
The great Arab contributions to literature and religion came from Mecca, Cairo, Damascus, and Baghdad -- not from Jerusalem. To the Arab nations, the land of Israel is two percent of a vast territory they inhabit; to the Jewish people, Israel is home and the only place they can call their own.

THE INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND JERUSALEM

THE INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND JERUSALEM


International law is often cited as a pretext for the policies of Western governments and human rights agencies toward Judea, Samaria, and Gaza in general and Jerusalem in particular. A certain assumption or presumption about the international law status of these areas is the premise for claims that they are "occupied territory," that Israeli construction in formerly Jordanian-ruled parts of Jerusalem is "illegal," etc.



Given the centrality of allegations about international law in the diplomatic and political assaults on Israel made by such bodies as the European Union, the UN General Assembly, and others, there is a need to know, to understand and to expound the true international law concerning the Land of Israel as a matter of sheer political self-defense. What indeed has been the status of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza under the law of nations?



International law has recognized Jewish rights to sovereignty over the Land of Israel and to settlement throughout the land. In April 1920, at the San Remo Conference (part of the post-World War I peace negotiations), the Principal Allied Powers, acting on behalf of the international community, recognized all the land between the Jordan and the sea, including Jerusalem, as part of the Jewish National Home, based on the Jewish people's historic rights. On the same grounds, the Golan1 and Transjordan too were within the National Home (albeit the eastern border of the National Home, though clearly east of the Jordan, was not yet fixed).



The San Remo decision meant also the juridical creation of "Palestine" as a political entity as well as the introduction of that name as the official designation for the new entity. During the centuries of Ottoman rule, the country was divided among larger administrative entities with their capitals outside the country, the vilayets of Beirut and Damascus, although in the mid-nineteenth century, as a consequence of increasing influence by Christian powers on the Ottoman Empire and Jerusalem's political sensitivity due to the Christian powers' interest in the city, the Jerusalem area was made into an independent sanjaq (district), called "independent" since its governor reported directly to the Ottoman capital, Istanbul (then called Constantinople in the West), not to a provincial (vilayet) governor.



Furthermore, Arab-Muslims traditionally saw the land as an undifferentiated part of Bilad al-Sham, usually translated as Syria or Greater Syria, which comprised the Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan of today, roughly speaking. However, whereas both Jews and Christians saw the country as a distinct geographic concept, they tended to use different names for it. In Jewish tradition the land was long called the Land of Israel, while Christians, through the nineteenth century, were likely to call it Holy Land, with Palestine as one of several alternate names.

The San Remo decision for the Jewish National Home was ratified by the the League of Nations in 1922 and endorsed by a joint resolution of the United States Congress that same year, with a more official US endorsement coming in the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine (proclaimed 1925).



This legal state of affairs was expounded in a legal memorandum drawn up in 19462 by a group of distinguished American-Jewish jurists including Judge Simon Rifkind, Abraham Fortas (later appointed to the Supreme Court), and others.



To measure the extent of American commitment to the National Home at the beginning, we may quote from the terminology of the time: "RES. 52: Expressing satisfaction at the re-creation of Palestine as the national home of the Jewish race" (House Committee on Foreign Affairs). "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..." (1922).



Because the legal issue is once again very much alive, a brief survey of the matter is useful, with particular reference to Jerusalem.3 By the time the League of Nations was replaced by the UN in 1945, Britain had tried to change the legal status of the country as the Jewish National Home. This attempt was embodied in the Palestine White Paper of 1939, on the eve of the Holocaust, and in various subsequent ordinances enacted by the British mandatory government, which made it very difficult for Jewish refugees to enter the country or {for Jews} to buy real estate there. Nevertheless, this British attempt to change the country's status was rejected as illegal by the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission in June 1939.



When the UN was founded in 1945, it reaffirmed through its Charter the existing territorial rights of peoples as they had been before the war (Article 80). However, many or most people today are either not aware that the whole country constituted the Jewish National Home, or believe that the UN had somehow eliminated this status and, in any case, had fixed legal boundaries for Israel through the 1947 Partition Resolution. Yet the 1947 resolution was passed by the General Assembly. Now all General Assembly resolutions on political issues are merely recommendations.



The UN Charter states, defining the powers of the various UN bodies: "The General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security... and... may make recommendations with regard to any such question" (Article 11; also see Arts. 10, 12, 13, 14). Only the Security Council can make binding resolutions, according to the Charter.



Now the Partition Plan, in a not uncommon display of political irrealism, recommended two states in the former mandatory Palestine, one Jewish and one Arab, plus a special status for Jerusalem. The Holy City was to be an internationally governed corpus separatum. While the Jewish leadership accepted the Plan, the Arab governments and local Arab leadership universally rejected it. After the war had begun the UN made no effort to prevent the invasion of the country by Arab states, to prevent Arab attacks on Jews within the country or to eliminate the Arab siege of the Jews in Jerusalem, a city where Jews had been the majority at least since 1870. Thus Israel did not feel bound by the Partition recommendation. Professor Eugene Rostow, an authority on international law, has pointed out that the Arab war on Israel of 1947-49, "made the Partition Plan irrelevant."4



After the battles of the War of Independence had ended, Israel and four Arab states signed armistice agreements. The accord with Jordan (then called Transjordan) specifically stated that no political border with Israel was being recognized, merely an armistice line (the "green line"). And this at Arab insistence! Arab spokesmen repeated this on later occasions. For instance, the Jordanian delegate to the UN told the Security Council a few days before the Six Day War:



There is an Armistice Agreement. The Agreement did not fix boundaries; it fixed a demarcation line. The Agreement did not pass judgement on rights --political, military, or otherwise. Thus I know of no territory; I know of no boundary. (May 31, 1967)



Obviously, since no political border between Jordan and Israel was recognized, then the prior legal status prevailed -- that is, the Jewish National Home recognized and constituted in 1920 at San Remo. Hence, the areas that Jordan called "West Bank," as well as east Jerusalem (which had thousands of Jewish residents before 1948), remained part of the National Home even during Jordanian occupation. The Assembly's repetitions of its Jerusalem recommendation (GA resolutions 194, 303, etc.) could not change this. Nor did the Security Council change the status of Jerusalem by its famous Resolution 242 after the Six Day War.



Although the Council's resolutions are said by the UN Charter to be binding, this resolution did not specify what territories were "occupied." Perhaps the Council was referring to the Sinai Peninsula, occupied by Israel in that just war of self-defense. Furthermore, the Council could not legislate ex post facto, after the fact, to take away the already existing rights of the Jewish people. According to Professor Rostow, "The withdrawal of Great Britain as administrator and trustee did not of course terminate the Mandate as a trust [for the Jewish people]."5



Jerusalem of course took a special place in the age old yearning for a restored Jewish National Home. And in Jerusalem too this yearning ran into opposition not just from Arabs but from Western powers (and others following their lead). They have long refused to recognize any part of Jerusalem as part of Israel, nor do they recognize the Holy City as Israel's capital. Their pretext is the separate status provided for Jerusalem in the Partition Plan. Yet this Plan was merely an Assembly recommendation, whereas the San Remo decision of 1920 was law. Thus, the refusal of the powers to transfer their embassies to Jerusalem, which means refusal to accept the city as Israel's capital, has no foundation in law.



Obviously, the refusal has its reasons. It may stem from the same reasons that induced the British to allow Arab mobs in a series of pogroms (1920, 1929, 1936-38) to drive Jews away from the neighborhood of Jewish holy places, such as the Temple Mount and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. It may be related to Britain's reasons for appointing an Arab mayor for Jerusalem throughout the whole mandatory period, despite the Jewish majority since at least 1870. Now the Ottoman Empire did the same up to 1917, but then the Ottoman Empire was an avowed Muslim state, whereas the British had accepted an international commitment (the Mandate) to foster development of the country as the Jewish National Home.



It is clear that according to the San Remo decision of 1920 and the League of Nations vote of 1922 for the Jewish National Home, Israel's extension of its jurisdiction over all Jerusalem since the Six Day War is legal and proper.



Nevertheless, self-serving interpretations of law are often made by interested parties. In the case of Israel, such interpretations provide pretexts for declarations by governments and groupings of governments --the Arab League, the European Union, the UN General Assembly-- that are hostile to Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem (or anywhere in the country). Such false and hostile interpretations remind us that we dare not place our trust in law or international accords. Yet, the outbursts in the form of declarations and resolutions based on these interpretations have more force and cause more damage than many friends of Israel seem to realize, although they may be less effective than their authors would like). And thus they need to be answered.



1 The Golan was an original part of the Jewish National Home as decided at San Remo and had been populated and ruled by Jews in Second Temple times and afterwards. In 1923, the British authorities transferred the Golan to the French mandate of Syria without approval of the Zionist Organization.



2 Simon Rifkind, Abraham Fortas, et al., Basic Equities of the Palestine Problem: A Memorandum (1946) [reprinted New York: Arno Press, 1977].



3 We shall use the Rifkind-Fortas memorandum, our own study of the UN Charter and subsequent UN acts, writings of Prof. Julius Stone and Prof. Eugene Rostow, and various historical information. We have also benefited from conversations with Attorney Howard Grief of Jerusalem, a former advisor on international law to the Israeli Ministry of Energy, who has done research into the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Decision, the League of Nations Mandate, etc., up to the series of agreements going by the name of the Oslo Accords. The conclusions are my own.



4 Eugene Rostow, "Resolution 242 at Twenty," Jerusalem: Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, 1988; p 5.