It is time to factually clarify the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law - YJ Draiman
It is time to factually clarify the legal status
of Judea and Samaria under international law.
When the occupant is not the one you want to believe.
It is time to factually clarify the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law.
In 1967 Israel liberated occupied Jewish Palestinian territories. For the enemies of Israel and many of Its’ friends, and for a majority of Israelis, this is a basic axiom. During the Six Day War, it is stated Israel liberated and captured the Jewish Palestinian territories and installed there Its’ “settlers” with impunity and in obvious violation of international law. Is this axiom a lie? If international law asserts the exact opposite, for obvious political and diplomatic reasons, then the facts have been ignored and have instead embraced the current unfounded propaganda. It is time to clarify the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law, one only has to read the documents. However, the media has, without a doubt, immersed itself in hearsay and untruths, twisting facts and ignoring the truth. It is time to examine the truth as supported by documents and history.
We hardly talk about it yet, when looking at historical documents on the legal status of Judea and Samaria, one finds powerful arguments against all critics who accuse Israel of occupation territories. It must be noted it doesn't matter if these critics are Arab, American, European or even members of the Israeli extreme left. The San Remo Treaty of 1920, written in black and white and almost a century old, forms the foundation of truth. Yet, it seems hardly anyone in the Prime Minister's office, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or Hasbara has taken the time to build a strategy based on said Treaty and other documents which followed, which prove clearly that Israel is far from the colonial power it is being accused of being since 1967.
It is time to factually clarify the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law.
When considering the media archives that preceded the Oslo Accords, we realize that the official Israeli narrative concerning the Israeli presence in the West Bank was much less ''scared '' today. Until 1993, Israel gave the impression of much less need for 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 give It the ultimate favor of keeping the famous "settlement blocs."
According to Prof. Eliav Cho'hatman, lawyer and lecturer at the Graduate Institute of Law "Shaare Mishpat," there is no doubt that the Oslo Accords marked the starting point of this attitude it deems "catastrophic": "Until then, our leaders did not hesitate to brag 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 has sent to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during his first term (1996-1999), his work on the above, but regrets that the head of government has not availed itself: "When I heard of two states for two peoples, I understood why."
When considering the media archives that preceded the Oslo Accords, we realize that the official Israeli narrative concerning the Israeli presence in the West Bank was much less ''scared '' today. Until 1993, Israel gave the impression of much less need for 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 give It the ultimate favor of keeping the famous "settlement blocs."
According to Prof. Eliav Cho'hatman, lawyer and lecturer at the Graduate Institute of Law "Shaare Mishpat," there is no doubt that the Oslo Accords marked the starting point of this attitude it deems "catastrophic": "Until then, our leaders did not hesitate to brag 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 has sent to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during his first term (1996-1999), his work on the above, but regrets that the head of government has not availed itself: "When I heard of two states for two peoples, I understood why."
It is time to factually clarify the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law.
To understand this issue, we must examine Balfour and San Remo, a little less than a century ago, November 2, 1917, to be precise. At that time, Lord Balfour, Foreign Minister of Great Britain, in writing, and in agreement with Chaim Weizmann, then president of the World Zionist Organization, wrote in an official letter to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, honorary president of the Zionist Organization of England, the following. In this letter, the UK is in favor of the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. This is the famous "Balfour Declaration" which raises unbridled hope in the Jewish world. In the aftermath of World War I, the League of Nations entrusted to Britain a mandate over Palestine.
Three years after the Balfour Declaration in 1920, the conference is held in San Remo, during which the great powers decide how to split the territories conquered during the war. At this conference, it was decided to incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration into 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 and the mandate for Britain to "work towards the realization of this statement to found a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine" (Balfour note). It must be noted, the San Remo Treaty did not grant any other nation or people, only the Jewish people, any part of Palestine. Including the incorporation of the Balfour Declaration into the Palestine Mandate of the United Kingdom, this text is the same international resolution supported by the 52 member countries of the League of Nations, and later by the United States, which will become 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." Or: "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. "
Finally, the Palestine Mandate states: "the Administration of Palestine is responsible for the adoption of a law on nationality. Included in this law must be 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. Rather, it also includes, most importantly the majority (approx. 70%) of the territory which is the east bank of the Jordan River, where today is located the new State of Jordan. 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. Thus Britain, having clearly supported the conclusions of the San Remo Conference of 1920, changes its mind and weaves very tenuous diplomatic ties with the Arab countries surrounding the area of Palestine and with several Arab leaders (to control natural resources, such as oil).
To understand this issue, we must examine Balfour and San Remo, a little less than a century ago, November 2, 1917, to be precise. At that time, Lord Balfour, Foreign Minister of Great Britain, in writing, and in agreement with Chaim Weizmann, then president of the World Zionist Organization, wrote in an official letter to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, honorary president of the Zionist Organization of England, the following. In this letter, the UK is in favor of the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. This is the famous "Balfour Declaration" which raises unbridled hope in the Jewish world. In the aftermath of World War I, the League of Nations entrusted to Britain a mandate over Palestine.
Three years after the Balfour Declaration in 1920, the conference is held in San Remo, during which the great powers decide how to split the territories conquered during the war. At this conference, it was decided to incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration into 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 and the mandate for Britain to "work towards the realization of this statement to found a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine" (Balfour note). It must be noted, the San Remo Treaty did not grant any other nation or people, only the Jewish people, any part of Palestine. Including the incorporation of the Balfour Declaration into the Palestine Mandate of the United Kingdom, this text is the same international resolution supported by the 52 member countries of the League of Nations, and later by the United States, which will become 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." Or: "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. "
Finally, the Palestine Mandate states: "the Administration of Palestine is responsible for the adoption of a law on nationality. Included in this law must be 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. Rather, it also includes, most importantly the majority (approx. 70%) of the territory which is the east bank of the Jordan River, where today is located the new State of Jordan. 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. Thus Britain, having clearly supported the conclusions of the San Remo Conference of 1920, changes its mind and weaves very tenuous diplomatic ties with the Arab countries surrounding the area of Palestine and with several Arab leaders (to control natural resources, such as oil).
It is time to factually clarify the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law.
It was after this diplomatic rapprochement that Transjordan is created in 1921. Transjordan is a semi-autonomous state like Britain led by Abdullah Hussein, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca Ibn Ali, and great-grandfather Abdullah, the current king of Jordan. However, in regard to the West bank of the Jordan river, and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) nothing has changed. Per San Remo Treaty and all subsequent agreed to documents, these regions are still part of the territories over which should be established the Jewish national home.
It was after this diplomatic rapprochement that Transjordan is created in 1921. Transjordan is a semi-autonomous state like Britain led by Abdullah Hussein, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca Ibn Ali, and great-grandfather Abdullah, the current king of Jordan. However, in regard to the West bank of the Jordan river, and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) nothing has changed. Per San Remo Treaty and all subsequent agreed to documents, these regions are still part of the territories over which should be established the Jewish national home.
No comments:
Post a Comment