To better understand the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law consider the following: - YJ Draiman

To better understand the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law consider the following:

AXIOM: In 1967 Israel liberated occupied Jewish Palestinian territories.  This was done not only for the enemies of Israel, but also to appease Allies and a majority of Israelis.  However, the world community, and the enemies of Israel hold forth that during the Six Day War, Israel “captured” the same liberated Jewish Palestinian territories.  Furthermore,Israel is accused of then installing its’ “settlers” with impunity and in obvious violation of international law. Which is true, the AXIOM of 1967 or the current interpretation of international law by the enemies and critics of Israel? For obvious current political and diplomatic reasons, the truth has been swept beneath a new wave of anti-Semitism. However, in order to clarify the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law, we only need to examine HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS which many have chosen to forget or ignore. Upon examination of said HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS the only factual conclusion to arrive at is the critics (whether Arab, American, European, or the Israeli Extreme-Left) who accuse Israel of “occupation” are wrong.

Prof. Eliav Cho'hatman, lawyer and lecturer at the Graduate Institute of Law "Shaare Mishpat” wrote: "When I heard of two states for two peoples, I understood why ... Balfour and San Remo”.  To understand this issue, we must go back to November 2, 1917.  At that time, Lord Balfour, Foreign Minister of Great Britain, in writing agrees with Chaim Weitzman, then president of the World Zionist Organization. Lord Balfour, in an official letter to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, (honorary president of the Zionist Organization of England) writes that the UK is in favor of the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. This is the famous "Balfour Declaration" when in the aftermath of World War I, the League of Nations entrusted Britain with a mandate over Palestine. 

Three years after the Balfour Declaration in 1920, a conference is held in San Remo, during which the great powers share the "spoils of victory”, namely the conquered territories during the war. At this conference, it was decided to introduce the 1917 Balfour Declaration, The San Remo Treaty of 1920 (its terms are in effect in perpetuity) and the British Mandate for Palestine as trustee for the Jewish people. This decision confirms the international recognition of the Jewish right to “self-determination” in Palestine.  Furthermore, Britain is entrusted to work towards the realization of this statement (Balfour. note): “to found a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine." Furthermore, and of great importance, The San Remo Treaty, and documents thereto, DID NOT state of any other nation or people; ONLY the Jewish people were allocated ALL of Palestine.

It must be noted that including the incorporation of the Balfour Declaration in the Palestine Mandate of the United Kingdom, the text is the same international resolution supported by 52 member countries of the League of Nations, and the United States, which becomes a member of the international organization a few years later. 

In paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Protocol of San Remo, we read: "No territory of Palestine will be sold or leased or held in any way under the control of the government of any foreign power." Also: "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights of other parts of the population are not altered, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency The dense settlement of Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

Furthermore, the text states: "The Administration of Palestine is responsible for the adoption of a law on nationality. Must be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who acquire permanent residence in Palestine." At that time, it must be remembered, Palestine is not just the West Bank of the Jordan, but also, and most importantly (at 70% of the territory) the East Bank, where today is located the new State of Jordan.  Per the above stated documents, Jordan is in fact unlawfully occupying land which belongs to Israel.

Mi'kmaq of the British Empire:

What happens next is related to internal political changes in Britain and the election of a government hostile to the creation of a Jewish homeland throughout the territory of Palestine.Britain, having clearly supported the conclusions of the San Remo Conference of 1920, decides to change its’ mind.  Britain begins to weave tenuous diplomatic ties with the Arab countries surrounding the area of Palestine and with several Arab leaders in an effort to control natural resources, such as oil.  It was after this rapprochement in 1921 that Transjordan is created. Transjordan is a semi-autonomous state compared to the British, led by Abdullah Hussein, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca Ibn Ali, and great-grandfather Abdullah, the current king of Jordan. 

In regards to the West bank of the Jordan River, and the West Bank - Judea and Samaria - nothing changed: these regions are still part of the territories over which should be established the Jewish national home. 

According to many lawyers, including Prof. Dr. Cho'hatman with Talya Einhoren and American lawyer Eugene Rostow, (one of the drafters of the famous U.N. Resolution 242), the Partition Plan of 29 November 1947 DOES NOT change the legal right of Israel either. Indeed, having been adopted by the U.N. General Assembly and NOT by the Security Council, the Partition Plan cannot be considered legally binding. At most, it is only a recommendation that only obtains legal validity upon endorsement by the parties in question: The Jews and the Arabs. It must be noted, since the Partition Plan was rejected by the Arab powers, its status remains protocol. 

For other lawyers, ignoring documented claims, the Partition Plan has somehow transformed the Judea and Samaria territories into a status which remains cloudy. On one hand, they are not part of the state of Israel created in 1948.  Yet, Judea and Samaria do not belong to Jordan which occupied the territory during the War of Independence until the 1967 war liberated it. 

The Jordanian occupation
Did the Jewish people lost temporarily the rights to Judea and Samaria with the Jordanian occupation between 1948 and 1967? For many lawyers, the answer is no. Jordan formally annexed the West Bank on April 24, 1950. However, the annexation was held illegal and void by the Arab League and others.  Jordan proclaimed sovereignty of the territories the support of only two countries, Britain and Pakistan. Moreover, the same Jordan decided in 1988 to abandon its sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. Incidentally, the term West Bank would therefore no longer be needed.

Does the dissolution of the League of Nations, which was replaced by the UN, and the end of the British Mandate for Palestine cause any change in the rights of the Jewish people to their land? Again, the answer is no because, under section 80 of the UN Charter, "nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as affecting directly or indirectly in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the Organization may be parties. " Clearly, this means that the UN is committed in 1945 to protect the legitimacy of the Jewish land rights established by the League of Nations. 

For Professor Eugene Rostow, mentioned above, the UN CHARTER above clearly holds that "the right of the Jewish people to settle in the land of Israel has never been interrupted on all the territory west of the Jordan River, and since a peace agreement has not and will not be signed between Israel and its neighbors.” He later wrote that "Israel has an undeniable right to establish settlements in the West Bank." 

No unilateral approaches 
Did the Oslo agreements affect the status of Judea and Samaria under international law point of view? Again, the answer is to be found in the texts themselves. Indeed, it is stated in the preliminary agreement in 1993 that the final peace agreement will be signed by both parties "through negotiations". The agreement called Oslo II, ratified in 1995, provides for its part that neither side "does not initiate or commence proceedings can change the status of the West Bankand the Gaza Strip to the end of negotiations on the final peace agreement." In other words and clearly stated, ANY unilateral approach - such as the announcement in September by the Palestinians of an independent state - will therefore be in stark contrast not only with the Oslo agreements, (which may be null and void), but also with resolution 242 of the UN that supports each party has the right to "live in peace within secure and recognized borders." The borders of a Palestinian state proclaimed are of course far from being "secure and recognized" the point of view of Israel ... Incidentally, Resolution 242 does not speak of at all about ''Palestinians'', but only of existing states, that is to say, Jordan, Egypt and Syria. 

The above text and documents, written in black and white and dating, for some, a century old are easy to read and understand.  Yet, it seems hardly anyone in the Prime Minister's office, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or that of Hasbara, has taken the time to build a strategy based upon these documents.  Documents which clearly prove Israel is NOT the colonial and occupying power it is accused of being since 1967.

Moreover, when considering the media archives that preceded the Oslo Accords, it is evident that the official Israeli narrative concerning the Israeli presence in the West Bank was much less ''scared'' than it is today. Until 1993, Israel gave the impression of much less need of justification for founding Jewish settlements beyond the Green Line. Until that time, Israel did not seem to beg for the international community, and the Arab world in particular, to grant Israel the ultimate favor of keeping the famous "settlement blocs."  According to Prof. Eliav Cho'hatman, lecturer at the Graduate Institute of Law "Shaare Mishpat”: “there is no doubt that the Oslo Accords marked the starting point of this attitude” which he deemed as "catastrophic."  He explained, “Until then, our leaders did not hesitate to brag of our rights over all the land of Israel from the point of view of international law, but since the agreements were signed, only security patterns are referred to beg that part of these territories we are entitled to remain in our hands." Prof. Cho'hatman says he sent to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during his first term (1996-1999) his work on the above, but regrets such effort was to no avail.

Do not just be right, but also know. 
There are other arguments for the legitimacy of the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria.  For example, the fact these territories cannot be considered ''busy'' since they do not belong, de facto, to an enemy state. Nor can be considered the inconsistency of the term ''1967 borders”, which are NOT “borders” but the cease-fire line between Israeli and Jordanian armies at the end of the War of Independence of 1948.  Based upon Documents and International law, the only fully supported rational legal conclusion is Israel has the right to full expectations of “TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY”.  As such, and under International Law, any imposition by force or coercion of a border change is “an act of aggression”. 

Yet the above arguments are not raised. The reasons? They are many: Israel and the Israelis became convinced themselves that they were a colonial power and archives in the world will not be able to release this distorted image. Also in Jerusalem, it probably feels that right or not right, the world has already chosen sides. In the corridors of the Foreign Ministry, it is even said that under international law, "it is 99% opinion, and 1% policy of law." But in Israel, there is another expression that says it is not enough to be right, but you must also be smart. Thus, it is time now for the good of the State of Israel, to be smart and to make the world know what is right. 

The Jewish and Arab Refugee resolution

Since the late 1940's the Arab States have expelled over a million Jewish people. The Arab States confiscated Jewish assets, businesses, homes and Real Estate which amounts to approx. 120,440 Sq, Km. or 75,000 sq. mi.  The confiscated land is about 5-6 times the size of Israel and with the other confiscated assets is valued in the trillions of dollars. The Arab States, like the Nazis, could not then, and cannot now justify such confiscation.  The State of Israel has resettled the majority of the million Jews expelled from the Arab countries in Greater Israel. The Arabs claim that about 600,000 Arabs were displaced from their homes during the 1948 war. What seems to be forgotten is the fact most of the Arab population abandoned their homes at the request of the 5 Arab Armies who were sure to defeat the newly reconstituted Jewish State. About 300,000 Arabs stayed.

Since then the Arab and Jewish population has increased dramatically. Many new Arabs have moved into the area and many new Jews from the Holocaust and other areas have immigrated toIsrael. It is about time that the Arab countries that expelled over a million Jews should resettle the Arab refugees in their vast lands. Instead of funding weapons and war, the Arab countries should utilize the funds to help the Arab refugees to relocate, build housing, schools, commerce and industry and resolve this tragedy once and for all. This simple solution will bring peace and tranquility to the region.

The details for the planned independent Jewish state were set forth in three basic documents, which may be termed the founding documents of mandated Palestine and the modern Jewish state of Israel that arose from it. These were the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920

The details for the planned independent Jewish state were set forth in three basic documents, which may be termed the founding documents of mandated Palestine and the modern Jewish state of Israel that arose from it. These were the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920

http://middleeastfacts2016.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-details-for-planned-independent_21.html

The details for the planned independent Jewish state were set forth in three basic documents, which may be termed the founding documents of mandated Palestine and the modern Jewish state of Israel that arose from it. These were the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920, the Mandate for Palestine conferred on Britain by the Principal Allied Powers and confirmed by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, and the Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920. These founding documents were supplemented by the Anglo-American Convention of December 3, 1924 respecting the Mandate for Palestine. It is of supreme importance to remember always that these documents were the source or well-spring of Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty over Palestine and the Land of Israel under international law, because of the near-universal but completely false belief that it was the United Nations General Assembly Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947 that brought the State of Israel into existence. In fact, the UN resolution was an illegal abrogation of Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty to the whole of Palestine and the Land of Israel, rather than an affirmation of such rights or progenitor of them.

The San Remo Resolution converted the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917 from a mere statement of British policy expressing sympathy with the goal of the Zionist movement to create a Jewish state into a binding act of international law that required specific fulfillment by Britain of this object in active cooperation with the Jewish people. Under the Balfour Declaration as originally issued by the British government, the latter only promised to use their best endeavors to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. But under the San Remo Resolution of April 24-25, 1920, the Principal Allied Powers as a cohesive group charged the British government with the responsibility or legal obligation of putting into effect the Balfour Declaration. A legal onus was thus placed on Britain to ensure that the Jewish National Home would be duly established. This onus the British Government willingly accepted because at the time the Balfour Declaration was issued and adopted at the San Remo Peace Conference, Palestine was considered a valuable strategic asset and communications center, and so a vital necessity for protecting far-flung British imperial interests extending from Egypt to India. Britain was fearful of having any major country or power other than itself, especially France or Germany, positioned alongside the Suez Canal.

The term "Jewish National Home" was defined to mean a state by the British government at the Cabinet session which approved the Balfour Declaration on October 31, 1917. That was also the meaning originally given to this phrase by the program committee which drafted the Basel Program at the first Zionist Congress in August 1897 and by Theodore Herzl, the founder of the Zionist Organization. The word "home" as used in the Balfour Declaration and subsequently in the San Remo Resolution was simply the euphemism for a state originally adopted by the Zionist Organization when the territory of Palestine was subject to the rule of the Ottoman Empire, so as not to arouse the sharp opposition of the Sultan and his government to the Zionist aim, which involved a potential loss of this territory by the Empire. There was no doubt in the minds of the authors of the Basel Program and the Balfour Declaration regarding the true meaning of this word, a meaning reinforced by the addition of the adjective "national" to "home". However, as a result of not using the word "state" directly and proclaiming that meaning openly or even attempting to hide its true meaning when it was first used to denote the aim of Zionism, ammunition was provided to those who sought to prevent the emergence of a Jewish state or who saw the Home only in cultural terms.

The phrase "in Palestine", another expression found in the Balfour Declaration that generated much controversy, referred to the whole country, including both Cisjordan and Transjordan. It was absurd to imagine that this phrase could be used to indicate that only a part of Palestine was reserved for the future Jewish National Home, since both were created simultaneously and used interchangeably, with the term "Palestine" pointing out the geographical location of the future independent Jewish state. Had "Palestine" meant a partitioned country with certain areas of it set aside for Jews and others for Arabs, that intention would have been stated explicitly at the time the Balfour Declaration was drafted and approved and later adopted by the Principal Allied Powers. No such allusion was ever made in the prolonged discussions that took place in fashioning the Declaration and ensuring it international approval.

There is therefore no juridical or factual basis for asserting that the phrase "in Palestine" limited the establishment of the Jewish National Home to only a part of the country. On the contrary, Palestine and the Jewish National Home were synonymous terms, as is evidenced by the use of the same phrase in the second half of the Balfour Declaration which refers to the existing non-Jewish communities "in Palestine", clearly indicating the whole country. Similar evidence exists in the preamble and terms of the Mandate Charter.

The San Remo Resolution on Palestine combined the Balfour Declaration with Article 22 of the League Covenant. This meant that the general provisions of Article 22 applied to the Jewish people exclusively, who would set up their home and state in Palestine. There was no intention to apply Article 22 to the Arabs of the country, as was mistakenly concluded by the Palestine Royal Commission which relied on that article of the Covenant as the legal basis to justify the partition of Palestine, apart from the other reasons it gave. The proof of the applicability of Article 22 to the Jewish people, including not only those in Palestine at the time, but those who were expected to arrive in large numbers in the future, is found in the Smuts Resolution, which became Article 22 of the Covenant. It specifically names Palestine as one of the countries to which this article would apply. There was no doubt that when Palestine was named in the context of Article 22, it was linked exclusively to the Jewish National Home, as set down in the Balfour Declaration, a fact everyone was aware of at the time, including the representatives of the Arab national movement, as evidenced by the agreement between Emir Feisal and Dr. Chaim Weizmann dated January 3, 1919 as well as an important letter sent by the Emir to future US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter dated March 3, 1919. In that letter, Feisal characterized as "moderate and proper" the Zionist proposals presented by Nahum Sokolow and Weizmann to the Council of Ten at the Paris Peace Conference on February 27, 1919, which called for the development of Palestine into a Jewish commonwealth with extensive boundaries. The argument later made by Arab leaders that the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine were incompatible with Article 22 of the Covenant is totally undermined by the fact that the Smuts Resolution - the precursor of Article 22 - specifically included Palestine within its legal framework.

The San Remo Resolution on Palestine became Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres which was intended to end the war with Turkey, but though this treaty was never ratified by the Turkish National Government of Kemal Ataturk, the Resolution retained its validity as an independent act of international law when it was inserted into the Preamble of the Mandate for Palestine and confirmed by 52 states. The San Remo Resolution is the base document upon which the Mandate was constructed and to which it had to conform. It is therefore the pre-eminent foundation document of the State of Israel and the crowning achievement of pre-state Zionism. It has been accurately described as the Magna Carta of the Jewish people. It is the best proof that the whole country of Palestine and the Land of Israel belong exclusively to the Jewish people under international law.

The Mandate for Palestine implemented both the Balfour Declaration and Article 22 of the League Covenant, i.e. the San Remo Resolution. All four of these acts were building blocks in the legal structure that was created for the purpose of bringing about the establishment of an independent Jewish state. The Balfour Declaration in essence stated the principle or object of a Jewish state. The San Remo Resolution gave it the stamp of international law. The Mandate furnished all the details and means for the realization of the Jewish state. As noted, Britain's chief obligation as Mandatory, Trustee and Tutor was the creation of the appropriate political, administrative and economic conditions to secure the Jewish state. All 28 articles of the Mandate were directed to this objective, including those articles that did not specifically mention the Jewish National Home. The Mandate created a right of return for the Jewish people to Palestine and the right to establish settlements on the land throughout the country in order to create the envisaged Jewish state.

In conferring the Mandate for Palestine on Britain, a contractual bond was created between the Principal Allied Powers and Britain, the former as Mandatory and the latter as Mandatory. The Principal Allied Powers designated the Council of the League of Nations as the supervisor of the Mandatory to ensure that all the terms of the Mandate Charter would be strictly observed. The Mandate was drawn up in the form of a Decision of the League Council confirming the Mandate rather than making it part of a treaty with Turkey signed by the High Contracting Parties, as originally contemplated. To ensure compliance with the Mandate, the Mandatory had to submit an annual report to the League Council reporting on all its activities and the measures taken during the preceding year to realize the purpose of the Mandate and for the fulfillment of its obligations. This also created a contractual relationship between the League of Nations and Britain.

San Remo: The Forgotten Milestone How can there be peace and reconciliation without acknowledging fundamental historical and legal facts?

MainOp-EdsSan Remo: The Forgotten Milestone

Op-Ed: San Remo: The Forgotten Milestone

How can there be peace and reconciliation without acknowledging fundamental historical and legal facts?

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services415

Published: Sunday, April 26, 2015 12:15 AM

Salomon Benzimra, P. Eng.

The writer, an engineer living in Toronto, Canada is co-founder of Canadians...

►More from this writer

Ninety five years ago, prime ministers, ambassadors and other dignitaries from Europe and America gathered in the ItalianRiviera.  Journalists from around the world reported on the upcoming San Remo Peace Conference and the great expectations the international community placed on this event, just a year after the Paris Peace Conference had settled the political map of Europe at the end of World War One.


On Sunday, April 25, 1920, after hectic deliberation, the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers (Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the U.S. acting as an observer) adopted the San Remo Resolution -- a 500 word document which defined the future political landscape of the Middle East out of the defunct Ottoman Empire.

This Resolution led to the granting of three Mandates, as defined in Article 22 of the 1919 Covenant of the League of Nations.  The future states of Syria-Lebanon and Iraq emerged from two of these Mandates and became exclusively Arab countries.  But in the third Mandate, the Supreme Council recognized the “historical connection of the Jewish people to Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country” while safeguarding the “civil and religious rights” of the non-Jewish population.
Subsequently, the British limited the Jewish Homeland in Palestine to the area west of the Jordan River and allowed eastern Palestine to be gradually administered by the Hashemites.  The territorial expansion to the east eventually gave birth to the Kingdom of Transjordan, later renamed Jordan in 1950.

The importance of the San Remo Conference with regard to Palestine cannot be overstated:

• For the first time in history, Palestine became a legal and political entity;
• The Jewish people were recognized as the national beneficiary of the trust granted to Britain in Palestine for the duration of the Mandate -- a “sacred trust of civilization” as per the League Covenant;
• The Balfour Declaration of 1917 -- which “viewed with favour” the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine -- was now to be “put into effect”and thus became a binding act of international law;
• The de jure sovereignty of Palestine was vested in the Jewish people, though it was kept in abeyance until the Mandate expired in 1948;
• The terms of the San Remo Resolution were included in the Treaty of Sèvres and remained unchanged in the finally ratified Treaty of Lausanne of 1923.
• The Arabs received equivalent national rights in all the remaining parts of the Middle East -- over 96% of the total area formerly governed by the Ottoman Turks).

The San Remo Conference was hailed as a major historical milestone.  Celebrations were held throughout the world with tens of thousands of people marching in London, New York and Toronto.  But theArabs of Palestine, led by the Mufti of Jerusalem, were strongly opposed to any form of national Jewish homeland: the first anti-Jewish riots erupted in Jaffa just before the San Remo Conference convened -- a harbinger of the violent Arab rejectionist stance that continues to threaten the existence of Israel to this day.


When the notion of “occupation” took root, it soon turned into “illegal occupation”, then “brutal oppression” and, finally, “apartheid”.
While the Middle East peace process has been going on for over two decades, it is astonishing that San Remo and the ensuing Mandate for Palestine have hardly been mentioned.  Is it deliberate? Is it a mere omission?  How could there be peace and reconciliation without acknowledging fundamental historical and legal facts?

Middle-East diplomacy has often relied on “constructive ambiguity”, a concept earlier introduced by Henry Kissinger to keep the dialogue open and avoid discussing core issues deemed problematic.  In the ongoing peace process, the ambiguity of language did not produce constructive results.  On the contrary, layer upon layer of distortions and gross falsehoods piled up over the initial ambiguity of “land for peace.”
When the notion of “occupation” took root, it soon turned into “illegal occupation”, then “brutal oppression” and, finally, “apartheid” which is a crime against humanity in international law.  Once corrupted language describes a distorted reality and the distortion spreads, thought becomes corrupt and any resulting action is bound to fail.

Commemorating the San Remo Conference should be more than a mere remembrance. It enjoins us to consider the legal reach of the binding decisions made in 1920 and to ensure that we do not entertain incompatible positions when political expediency clashes with unassailable rights enshrined in international law, namely the acquired rights of the Jewish people in their ancestral land.  No wonder the Palestinian Authority -- intent on eliminating the “Zionist entity,” as spelled out in the PLO Charter -- abhors the provisions of the San Remo Resolution, which they view as the root of a catastrophe engineered by “Zionist gangs.”

In reality, the San Remo Resolution and the ensuing clauses of the Mandate for Palestine are akin to a treaty entered into and executed by each and every one of the 52 member states of the League of Nations, in addition to the United States which is bound by a separate treaty with Great Britain, ratified in 1925.
So next time you hear about the “occupation of the West Bank” and its supposedly “illegal settlements” -- an almost daily occurrence in the discourse of the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters -- you should remember that this territory, as the rest of Israel, was lawfully restored to the Jewish people in 1920 and its legal title has been internationally guaranteed and never revoked ever since.  Any negotiation toward achieving a lasting peace should be based on this premise.

Last but not least, San Remo marks the end of the longest colonization period in history. After 1,850 years of foreign occupation, oppression and banishment by a succession of foreign powers (Romans, Byzantines, Sassanid Persians, Arabs, Crusaders, Mameluks and Ottoman Turks), the Nation of Israel was reborn in April 1920, thus paving the way for the proclamation of the State of Israel 28 years later.  This liberation from foreign rule should normally be celebrated by all the progressive elites who have traditionally supported every national freedom movement.  But it isn’t so, for reasons that defy reason.

The true basis for a lasting peace in The Middle East - YJ Draiman

The true basis for a lasting peace in The Middle East - YJ Draiman

The true basis for a lasting peace in The Middle East

jerusalem by yjd

A far-sighted Arab-Jewish agreement was arrived at 85 years ago but was never fully implemented. This still-legal agreement provides the basis for a solution today and should become widely publicized and supported.

In 1919, following the end of World War I, an international Paris Peace Conference was convened by the victorious Allies to settle international questions. Delegations attended from around the world including an official Arab and Zionist delegation. The Arab delegation was led by Emir Feisal I, who agreed that the entire Palestine territory of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 would become the Jewish national home and expressed that position in separate letters to Zionist leaders Dr. Chaim Weizmann and Felix Frankfurter. In return for Arab support the Zionists promised economic and technical assistance to the local Arabs and the Allied powers agreed to grant eventual sovereignty to many of the Arab peoples in the region that were previously under control of the former Turkish Ottoman Empire.

This conference, and a subsequent one at San Remo Italy, amicably settled the issues among the parties with voluntary, legally binding, international agreements. In 1922 the League of Nations assigned Britain as the Mandatory to faithfully carry out these agreements. It was British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill who unilaterally divided Mandatory Palestine into an exclusively Arab sector (Trans Jordan) and a Jewish sector. The Arabs received 76% of the original territory, comprising 35,000 square miles, located east of the Jordan River. That left the Jewish sector with only 10,000 square miles out of their original 45,000 square miles, which was still less than 1% of the combined Arab areas of 5 million square miles. That remaining Jewish sector is today contested with the 'Palestinians' claiming the 'West Bank' and Gaza to create, in effect, a second Palestinian state. (Jordan is mostly Palestinian.) It was the British, in 1919, who began to undermine their own Mandate and to instigate the Arabs against Jews.

"Under this settlement, the whole of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan was reserved exclusively for the Jewish People as the Jewish National Home, in recognition of their historical connection with that country, dating from the Patriarchal Period. ... The Palestine aspect of the global settlement was recorded in three basic documents that led to the founding of the modern State of Israel: ... The British Government repudiated the solemn obligation it undertook to develop Palestine gradually into an independent Jewish state. ... The US aided and abetted the British betrayal of the Jewish People by its abject failure to act decisively against the 1939 White Paper despite its own legal obligation to do so under the 1924 treaty. The UN Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947 illegally recommended the restriction of Jewish legal rights to a truncated part of Palestine. ... Despite all the subversive actions to smother and destroy Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty to the entire Land of Israel, they still remain in full force by virtue of the Principle of Acquired Rights and the doctrine of Estoppel that apply in all legal systems of the democratic world."It has been argued, by scholars of international law, that the agreements of the international Paris Peace Conference of 1919, and their formal assignment to Britain as the Mandatory by the League of Nations, continue to be legally binding on all parties under international law. In addition to Jewish legal claims based on the 1922 law a case can be made that it is also morally binding and that England is guilty of bad faith and for having engaged in deliberate sabotage of that agreement. A most promising beginning for Arab-Jewish relations in the Middle East was deliberately undermined by England and this part of history must be brought to bear upon the present conflict. Israel has a right to make full land claims under that 1922 Mandate by the League of Nations. The Arabs should also be made aware that it was England that instigated them against the Jews in pursuit of British imperial interests and to the disadvantage of both Arabs and Jews.

Significantly, Arab support for a Jewish state was clearly manifested at the Paris Peace conference of 1919. This should also be part of the legally binding Arab obligations to acceptance of a Jewish state with full rights. Emir Feisal I, son of Hussein, Sheriff of Mecca led the Arab delegation to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Excerpts of two letters from Emir Feisal to Zionist leaders Dr. Chaim Weizmann and to Felix Frankfurter indicate their friendly relations and high hopes for Jewish - Arab cooperation. Also note in the following text the term 'Palestine' clearly refers to the Jewish national home and not to any Arab entity or people.

From Emir Feisal to Dr. Weizmann:

"His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish People, and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following Articles:" ... Article IV: "All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlements and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development."

From Emir Feisal to Felix Frankfurter:

"... We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in race, having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of the powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together." "We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home." .... "People less informed and less responsible than our leaders and yours, ignoring the need for cooperation of the Arabs and the Zionists have been trying to exploit the local difficulties that must necessarily arise in Palestine in the early stages of our movements. Some of them have, I am afraid, misrepresented your aims to the Arab peasantry, and our aims to the Jewish peasantry, with the result that interested parties have been able to make capital our of what they call our differences. ..." (To read full text go tohttp://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/feisal1.html and http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/feisal2.html)

What remains now is for all parties to courageously and boldly cast off the mindless schemes of Oslo and the Road Map and return to the sanity and statesmanship of the 1919 agreement. Those Arabs who have an acquired identity as 'Palestinian' should be given a far better alternative option than to be buried alive inside a non-viable illegal micro-state carved out of the Israeli heartland.

The Win-Win solution

Contrary to popular belief, the Arab-Israeli conflict has a reasonable solution. An orderly resettlement elsewhere of the so-called Palestinian Arabs would solve this long-standing 'intractable' problem. To propose this solution today elicits automatic rejection by almost everyone and perhaps even anger and hostility at its very mention (although attitudes may finally be changing). This is because the minds of many have been so thoroughly conditioned, with layer upon layer of repeated falsehoods, such that open-minded reconsideration is almost impossible. But resettlement could become the basis of a win-win solution for both sides.

For example Saudi Arabia comprises some 750,000 square miles. It has a very low population density of only 33 per square mile vs. 1,000 for Israel including the territories. A modest 4% of Saudi Arabia, some 30,000 square miles, should be set aside for a new Palestinian state. That state would be 13 times the size of the present Palestinian area proposed under the Road Map and would now have ample space for natural growth. All of the intractable problems facing both Jews and Arabs, arising under the present schemes, would be eliminated. The Palestinians could now construct their own state with full political independence, self-rule and full dignity. The sources of friction between them and Israel would now be removed along with all the immense human and material costs associated with the current conflict.

Palestinians could begin using their legitimate 'right of return' to exit the territories, and the refugee camps, and migrate back to their ancestral home in Arabia and thereby also be closer to Mecca and Medina. A fraction of the countless billions spent on weapons by the Arab governments could fund the cost of establishing new settlements for the Palestinians. Israel would be free of Arabs, and the Palestinians would be free of Israel. The deep wounds of both peoples would now have a chance to heal.

In early 2004 a poll by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion shows 37% willing to emigrate in return for a home, a job and $250,000. And this is before a far better deal has been offered, including true self-rule, peace and security, plus their own ample territory. What if 'Palestinians' were offered a homeland territory, drawn from lands donated by one of the more spacious Arab countries, one expressing continuous concern, love for, and outrage at the treatment of these very same folk?

Israeli Arabs could play a constructive role in this because of their higher level of education and their experience living as full citizens in democratic Israel. They would become the managerial and entrepreneurial class and provide valuable assistance and leadership for fellow Palestinians who were stagnating in refugee camps inside other Arab countries. This crime was committed by their own brother Arabs, who refused to allow them to settle.

Once the migration starts toward a far better future the movement could well accelerate voluntarily because the first ones to relocate would receive the best 'ground floor' opportunities and the last ones to move would get what remains. Today there are tens of millions of people on the move around the world in search of better living conditions, so relocation is a long established and viable option for everyone.

Another important advantage is that Israeli-Palestinian interaction would be limited to the selling of Arab homes in the territories and an orderly exit. No more frustratingly complex agreements as with Oslo where Israel honors all commitments and Arabs violate all commitments, and even U.S. assurances often prove worthless. The less need for Israel to depend on agreements with Arabs, Europeans and even Americans the better.

Part of the problem are those Arab governments who deliberately keep the Israel-Palestinian conflict alive to divert attention from their own corrupt regimes. Also, western governments still pander to their corrupt Arab clients for purely expedient reasons. But new progressive voices are emerging among Arab intellectuals and even among some Moslem clerics that call for Arab societal reform, and who also recognize Jewish rights in the land of Israel. These voices need to be encouraged and enlisted in this quest for sanity.

Another option is to set the Palestinians in Sinai. This proposal was made after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. It should be reconsidered.

What is also needed is Saudi cooperation and active support. The Saudis have long been responsible for promoting anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, and anti-American hatred along with funding terror and the teaching of a hateful form of Islam. With their 'royal' family of thousands of princes living lavishly, off of oil income and the labor of foreign workers, they are a cesspool of corruption that even Osama bin Laden finds offensive.

It is time to demand that the Saudis make a major contribution to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. They caused much of the problem and they must now assist with the solution. It is time for the Bush administration to make the Saudis 'an offer they can't refuse' and have them realize they have a direct interest in providing 'land for peace'.

For too long many people have labored under a collective mindset resembling a bad dream where big lies become entrenched wisdom and truth is constantly strangled. Unless we change direction there will be dire consequences extending well beyond the peoples of the region. Those who still have minds and morals intact now have an obligation to think clearly and with sanity and support this approach to finally resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.

See:

The mandates for Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine were assigned by the Supreme Court of the League of Nations at its San Remo meeting in April 1920. Negotiations between Great Britain and the United States with regard to the Palestine mandate were successfully concluded in May 1922, and approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922. The mandates for Palestine and Syria came into force simultaneously on September 29, 1922. In this document, the League of Nations recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

The Jerusalem Covenant

As of this day, Jerusalem Day, the twenty-eight day of the month of Iyar in the year five thousand seven hundred fifty-two; one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two years after the destruction of the Second Temple; forty-four years since the founding of the State of Israel; twenty-five years since the Six Day War during which the Israel Defense Forces, in defense of our very existence, broke through the walls of the city and restored the Temple Mount and the unity of Jerusalem; twelve years since the Knesset of Israel reestablished the 'Jerusalem, unified and whole, is the Capital of Israel'; the State of Israel is the State of the 'Jewish People' and the Capital of Israel is the Capital of the People of Israel. We have gathered together in Zion, national leaders and heads, of our communities everywhere, to enter into a covenant with Jerusalem, as was done by the leaders of our nation and all the people of Israel upon Israel's return to its Land from the "Babylonian exile; and the people and their leaders will dwell in Jerusalem, the Holy City.

Once again, 'our feet stand within your gates, O Jerusalem - Jerusalem built as a city joined together' which 'unites the people of Israel to one another', and 'links heavenly Jerusalem with earthly Jerusalem.'

We have returned to the place that the Lord vowed to bestow upon the descendants of Abraham, Father of our Nation; to the City of David, King of Israel; where Solomon, son of David, built a Holy Temple; a Capital City which became the Mother of all Israel; a metropolis for justice and righteousness and for the wisdom and insights of the ancient world; where a Second Temple was erected in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. In this city the prophets of the Lord prophesied; in the City the Sages taught Torah; in this City the Sanhedrin convened in session in its stone chamber. 'For there were the seats of Justice, the Throne of the House of David', 'for out of Zion shall go forth Torah, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem.'

Today, as of old, we hold fast to the truth of the words of the Prophets of Israel, that all the inhabitants of the world shall enter within the gates of Jerusalem: 'And it shall come to pass at the end of days, the mountain of the House of the Lord will be well established at the peak of the mountains and will tower above the hills, and all the nation shall stream towards it.' Each and every nation will live in it by its own faith: 'For all the nation will go forward, each with its own Divine Name; we shall go in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever.' And in this spirit the Knesset of the State of Israel has enacted a law: The places holy to the peoples of all religions shall be protected from any desecration and from any restriction of free access to them.

Jerusalem - peace and tranquility shall reign in the city: 'Pray for the peace of Jerusalem; may those who love you be tranquil. May there by peace within your walls, and tranquility within your palaces.' Out of Jerusalem, a message of peace went forth and shall yet go forth again to all the inhabitants of the earth: 'And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation will not lift up sword against nation, nor shall they learn war any more.' Our sages, peace be upon them, said. In the future, The Holy One, the Blessed, will comfort Jerusalem only with peace.

From this place, we once again take this vow: "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand lose its strength; may my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not remember you, if I do not raise up Jerusalem at the very height of my rejoicing.'

And with all these understandings, we enter into this Covenant and write: We shall bind you to us forever; we shall bind you to us with faithfulness, with righteousness and justice, with steadfast love and compassion. We love you, O Jerusalem, with eternal love, with unbounded love, under siege and when liberated from the yoke of oppressors. We have been martyred for you; we have yearned for you, we have clung to you. Our faithfulness to you we shall bequeath to our children after us. Forevermore our home shall be within you.

YJ Draiman