Monday, November 16, 2015

THE SAN REMO CONFERENCE of April 1920 - The Arab-Israeli Conflict - Draiman



THE SAN REMO CONFERENCE of April 1920
in relation to
McMAHON, SYKES-PICOT, THE BALFOUR DECLARATION, AND THE BRITISH MANDATE



Article 6 of the Mandate, charged Britain with the duty to facilitate Jewish immigration and close settlement by Jews in the territory which then included Transjordan, as called for in the Balfour declaration, that had already been adopted by the other Allied Powers as international law. As a trustee, Britain had a fiduciary duty to act in good faith in carrying out the duties imposed by the Mandate.

Furthermore, as the San Remo resolution was an international law and treaty which has never been abrogated or modified, it was and continues to be legally binding between the several parties who signed it.

It is therefore obvious that the legitimacy of SyriaLebanonIraq and the Jewish state all derive from the same international agreement at San Remo in April 1920.




The 1915 McMahon-Hussein Agreement
In 1915 Sir Henry McMahon made promises on behalf of the British government, via Sherif Hussein of Mecca, about allocation of territory to the Arab people. Although Hussein understood from the promises that Palestine would be given to the Arabs, the British later claimed that land definitions were only approximate and that a map drawn at the time excluded Palestine from territory to be given to the Arab people. However in a subsequent change of policy in recognition of the McMahon correspondence, and in violation of its mandate and international law and treaties, Britain separated 78% of territory which was to be part of the Jewish National Home and reallocated all the territory east of the Jordan River to the Arabs, namely Transjordan (since renamed Jordan) from Palestine west of the Jordan.

In his book “State and economics in the Middle East: a society in transition” (Routledge, 2003), Alfred Bonné included a letter from Sir Henry McMahon to The Times of London dated July 23,1937 in which he wrote, "I feel it my duty to state, and I do so definitely and emphatically, that it was not intended by me in giving this pledge to King Hussein to include Palestine in the area in which Arab independence was promised. I also had every reason to believe at the time that the fact that Palestine was not included in my pledge was well understood by King Hussein."

Bonné considered the letter to be of such importance that he published it in full as copied below
mcmahon.jpg
The May 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement
This secret agreement between BritainFrance and Russia was concluded by British diplomat, Sir Mark Sykes and French diplomat Georges Picot. In seeking to divide the entire Middle East into areas of influence for each of the imperial powers but leaving the Holy Lands to be jointly administered by the three powers, it clashed materially with the McMahon Agreement. It was intended to hand SyriaMesopotamiaLebanon and Cilicia (in south-eastern Asia Minor) to the French and PalestineJordan and areas around the Persian Gulf and Baghdad including Arabia and the Jordan Valley to the British.

Although intended to be secret, the Arabs learned about the agreement from communists who found a copy in the Russian government’s archives.

During the 1919 Paris meeting; which was, The Supreme Allied Powers Conference; on January 3, 1919 King Faisal and Chaim Weizmann entered and signed an Agreement, whereby Faisal representing the Arabs agreed that Palestine would be the National Home of The Jewish people.

The 1917 Balfour Declaration
The Balfour Declaration is contained in the following letter from Lord Arthur Balfour, the British foreign secretary, to Lord Rothschild, president of the British Zionist Federation,

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours 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."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour

The declaration was accepted by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922 as part of international law and embodied in the mandate that gave Great Britain as trustee administrative control of Palestine as described in more detail below.

THE SAN REMO CONFERENCE  APRIL 1920
After ruling vast areas of Eastern Europe, South-western Asia, and North Africa for centuries, the Ottoman Empire lost all its Middle East territories during World War One. The Treaty of Sèvres of August 10, 1920 abolished the Ottoman Empire and obliged Turkey to renounce all rights over Arab Asia and North Africa. It was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

The status of the Ottoman Empire’s former possessions was determined at a conference in San RemoItaly on April 24-25, 1920 attended by Great BritainFranceItalyJapan and as an observer, the United StatesSyria and Lebanon were mandated to France while Mesopotamia (Iraq) and the southern portion of the territory (Palestine) were mandated to Britain, with the charge to implement the 1917 Balfour Declaration.

While the Balfour Declaration was in itself not a legally enforceable document, it did become legally enforceable by being entrenched in international law when it was incorporated in its entirety in a resolution passed by the Conference on April 25. Significantly, the only change made to the wording of the Balfour Declaration was to strengthen Britain’s obligation to implement the Balfour Declaration. Lord Curzon described the San Remo resolution as “the Magna Carta of the Zionists”.

Though borders were not yet precisely defined for the Arabs, the conference gave Palestine a legal identity as part of the Jewish National Home with its historical ties. Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister at the time used the expression "from Dan to Beersheba" that was often used in subsequent documents.

The conference's decisions signed by the Supreme Allied Powers; were confirmed unanimously by all fifty-one member countries of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922 and they were further endorsed by a joint resolution of the United States Congress in the same year,

The San Remo resolution received a further US endorsement in the Anglo-American Treaty on Palestine, signed by the US and Britain on December 3, 1924, that incorporated the text of the Mandate for Palestine. The treaty protected the rights of Americans living in Palestine under the Mandate and more significantly it also made those rights and provisions part of United States treaty law which are protected  under the US constitution. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on February 20, 1925 followed by President Calvin Coolidge on March 2, 1925 and by Great Britain on March 18, 1925.

Britain was specifically charged with giving effect to the establishment of the Jewish National Home in Palestine that was called for in the 1917 Balfour Declaration that had already been adopted by the other Allied Powers. It is therefore obvious that the legitimacy of SyriaLebanonIraq and a Jewish state in Palestine as defined before the creation of Transjordan, all derive from the same binding international agreement at San Remo in 1920, that has never been abrogated.

Commemoration of the San Remo conference  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijS8mFP4I1A

In April 2010, a ceremony attended by politicians and others from Europe, the U.S. and Canada was held in San Remo at the house where the signing of the San Remo declaration took place in April 1920. At the conclusion of the commemoration, the following statement was released:

"Reaffirming the importance of the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920 - which included the Balfour Declaration in its entirety - in shaping the map of the modern Middle East, as agreed upon by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers (Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and the United States acting as an observer), and later incorporated and approved unanimously by the League of Nations; the Resolution remains irrevocable, legally binding and valid to this day.

"Emphasizing that the San Remo Resolution of  April 1920 recognized the exclusive national Jewish rights to the Land of Israel under international law, on the strength of the historical connection of the Jewish people to the territory previously known as Palestine.

"Recalling that such a seminal event as the San Remo Conference of 1920 has been forgotten or ignored by the community of nations, and that the rights it conferred upon the Jewish people have been unlawfully dismissed, curtailed and denied.

"Asserting that a just and lasting peace, leading to the acceptance of secure and recognized borders between all States in the region, can only be achieved by recognizing the long established rights of the Jewish people under international law."

THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE
jordan.jpg
As stated above, the San Remo Conference decided to place Palestine under British Mandatory rule making Britain as trustee responsible for giving effect to the Balfour declaration that had been adopted by the other Allied Powers as international law. The resulting "Mandate for Palestine," was an historical League of Nations document that laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in Palestine and the 1920 San Remo Resolution together with Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations became the basic documents on which the Mandate for Palestine was established.

The Mandate’s declaration of July 24, 1922 states unambiguously that Britain became responsible as trustee for putting the Balfour Declaration, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, into effect and it confirmed that recognition had thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country. This was put into affect to provide the Jewish people to become a majority and subsequently assume control of its sovereignty.

It is highly relevant that at that time the West Bank also known as Judea and Samaria and substantial parts of what today is Jordan were included as a Jewish Homeland. However, on September 16, 1922, the British violated the treaty and divided the Mandate territory in Palestine, west of the Jordan River and Transjordan, east of the Jordan River, in accordance with the McMahon Correspondence of 1915 which was not approved by the British cabinet. Transjordan became exempt from the Mandate provisions concerning the Jewish National Home, forbidding Jews from residing there, effectively removing about 78% of the original territory of the area in which a Jewish National home was to be established in terms of the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the 1920 San Remo resolution as well as the British Mandate for Palestine.

This action violated not only Article 5 of the Mandate which required the Mandatory to be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall not be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power but also article 20 of the Covenant of the League of Nations in which the Members of the League solemnly undertook that they would not enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

Article 6 of the Mandate stated that the Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

Nevertheless in blatant violation of article 6, in a 1939 White Paper Britain changed its position so as to limit Jewish immigration from Europe, a move that was regarded by Zionists as betrayal of the terms of the mandate, especially in light of the increasing persecution of Jews in Europe; this caused the deaths of great amount of Jews. In response, 
Zionists organized Aliyah Bet, a program of illegal immigration into Palestine.

CONCLUSION

The frequently voiced complaint that the state being offered to the Palestinian Arabs comprises only 22 percent of Palestine is obviously invalid. The truth is exactly the reverse. From the above history it is obvious that the territory on both sides of the Jordan was legally designated for the Jewish homeland by the 1920 San Remo Conference, mandated to Britain as trustee, endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922, affirmed in the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine in 1925 and confirmed in 1945 by article 80 of the UN. Yet, approximately 80% of this territory was excised from the territory in May 1923 when, in violation of the mandate and the 1920 San Remo resolution,  Britain gave autonomy to the new Arab state of Transjordan (now known as Jordan) under as-Sharif Abdullah bin al-Husayn. Jordan received its independence in 1946.

Furthermore, as the 1920 San Remo resolution has never been abrogated, it was and continues to be legally binding between the several parties who signed it.
It is therefore obvious that the legitimacy of SyriaLebanonIraq and a Jewish state in Palestine all derive from the same international agreement at San Remo in 1920.

In essence, when Israel entered the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1967 it did not occupy territory to which any other party had title. While Jerusalem and the West Bank, (Judea and Samaria), were illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948 they remained in effect part of the Jewish National Home that had been created at San Remo in 1920 and in the 1967 6-Day War Israel, in effect, recovered territory that legally belonged to it. To quote Judge Schwebel, a former President of the ICJ, “As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem.

Commemoration of the San Remo conference  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijS8mFP4I1A

Chapter 23: The Settlements in Judea and Samaria - Israel - The Arab-Israeli Conflict - Draiman



Chapter 23: The Settlements


MYTH

“Israeli settlements are illegal.”

FACT

Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria—the West Bank—since ancient times. The only time Jews have been prohibited from living in the territories in recent decades was during Jordan’s rule from 1948 to 1967.
Numerous legal authorities dispute the charge that settlements are “illegal.” Stephen Schwebel, formerly President of the International Court of Justice, notes that a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Schwebel also observes that a state may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory. 1
According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank. The resolution, Rostow noted, “Israel is entitled to administer the territories” it won in 1967 until ‘‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’’ is achieved. 2 Though critical of Israeli policy, the United States does not consider settlements illegal.


MYTH

“Settlements are an obstacle to peace.”

FACT

Settlements have never been an obstacle to peace.
  • From 1949–67, when Jews were forbidden to live on the West Bank, the Arabs refused to make peace with Israel.
  • From 1967–77, the Labor Party established only a few strategic settlements in the territories, yet the Arabs were unwilling to negotiate peace with Israel.
  • In 1977, months after a Likud government committed to greater settlement activity took power, Egyptian President Sadat went to Jerusalem and later signed a peace treaty with Israel. Incidentally, Israeli settlements existed in the Sinai and those were removed as part of the agreement with Egypt.
  • One year later, Israel froze settlement building for three months, hoping the gesture would entice other Arabs to join the Camp David peace process, but none would.
  • In 1994, Jordan signed a peace agreement with Israel and settlements were not an issue; if anything, the number of Jews living in the territories was growing.
  • Between June 1992 and June 1996, under Labor-led governments, the Jewish population in the territories grew by approximately 50 percent. This rapid growth did not prevent the Palestinians from signing the Oslo accords in September 1993 or the Oslo 2 agreement in September 1995.
  • In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to dismantle dozens of settlements, but the Palestinians still would not agree to end the conflict.
  • In August 2005, Israel evacuated all of the settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in Northern Samaria, but terror attacks continued.
  • In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from approximately 94 percent of the West Bank, but the deal was rejected.
  • In 2010, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu froze settlement construction for 10 months and the Palestinians refused to engage in negotiations until the period was nearly over. After agreeing to talk, they walked out when Netanyahu refused to prolong the freeze.
Settlement activity may be a stimulus to peace because it forced the Palestinians and other Arabs to reconsider the view that time is on their side. References are frequently made in Arabic writings to how long it took to expel the Crusaders and how it might take a similar length of time to do the same to the Zionists. The growth in the Jewish population in the territories forced the Arabs to question this tenet. “The Palestinians now realize,” said Bethlehem Mayor Elias Freij, “that time is now on the side of Israel, which can build settlements and create facts, and that the only way out of this dilemma is face-to-face negotiations.” 3
Even though settlements are not an obstacle to peace, many Israelis still have concerns about the expansion of settlements. Some consider them provocative, others worry that the settlers are particularly vulnerable, and note they have been targets of repeated Palestinian terrorist attacks. To defend them, large numbers of soldiers are deployed who would otherwise be training and preparing for a possible future conflict with an Arab army. Some Israelis also object to the amount of money that goes to communities beyond the Green Line, and special subsidies that have been provided to make housing there more affordable. Still others feel the settlers are providing a first line of defense and developing land that rightfully belongs to Israel.
The disposition of settlements is a matter for the final status negotiations. The question of where the final border will be between Israel and a Palestinian entity will likely be influenced by the distribution of these Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria (the border with Gaza was unofficially defined following Israel’s withdrawal). Israel wants to incorporate as many settlers as possible within its borders while the Palestinians want to expel all Jews from the territory they control.
If Israel withdraws toward the 1949 armistice line unilaterally, or as part of a political settlement, many settlers will face one or more options: remain in the territories (the disengagement from Gaza suggests this may not be possible), expulsion from their homes, or voluntary resettlement in Israel (with financial compensation).
The impediment to peace is not the existence of Jewish communities in the disputed territories, it is the Palestinians’ unwillingness to accept a state next to Israel instead of one replacing Israel.


MYTH

“The Geneva Convention prohibits the construction of Jewish settlements in occupied territories.”

FACT

The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the forcible transfer of people of one state to the territory of another state that it has occupied as a result of a war. The intention was to insure that local populations who came under occupation would not be forced to move. This is in no way relevant to the settlement issue. Jews are not being forced to go to the West Bank; on the contrary, they are voluntarily moving back to places where they, or their ancestors, once lived before being expelled by others.
In addition, those territories never legally belonged to either Jordan or Egypt, and certainly not to the Palestinians, who were never the sovereign authority in any part of Palestine. “The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there,” according to Professor Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs. 4
As a matter of policy, moreover, Israel does not requisition private land for the establishment of settlements. Housing construction is allowed on private land only after determining that no private rights will be violated. The settlements also do not displace Arabs living in the territories. The media sometimes gives the impression that for every Jew who moves to the West Bank, several hundred Palestinians are forced to leave. The truth is that the vast majority of settlements have been built in uninhabited areas and even the handful established in or near Arab towns did not force any Palestinians to leave.


MYTH

“The size of the Jewish population in the West Bank precludes any territorial compromise.”

FACT

Altogether, built-up settlement area is less than two percent of the disputed territories. An estimated 70 percent of the settlers live in what are in effect suburbs of major Israeli cities such as Jerusalem. These are areas that virtually the entire Jewish population believes Israel must retain to ensure its security, and presidents Clinton and Bush anticipated would remain under permanent Israeli sovereignty. 5
Strategic concerns have led both Labor and Likud governments to establish settlements. The objective is to secure a Jewish majority in key strategic regions of the West Bank, such as the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor, the scene of heavy fighting in several Arab-Israeli wars. Still, when Arab-Israeli peace talks began in late 1991, more than 80 percent of the West Bank contained no settlements or only sparsely populated ones. 6
Today, approximately 300,000 Jews live in 122 communities in the West Bank. The overwhelming majority of these settlements have fewer than 1,000 citizens, 40 percent have fewer than 500 and several have only a few dozen residents. Contrary to Palestinian-inspired hysteria about settlement expansion, the truth is only five settlements have been built since 1990. 7 Analysts have noted that 70–80 percent of the Jews could be brought within Israel’s borders with minor modifications of the “Green Line.”
Ironically, while Palestinians complain about settlements, an estimated 35,000 work in them and support a population of more than 200,000. 8


MYTH

“At Camp David, Begin promised to halt the construction of settlements for five years.”

FACT

The five-year period agreed to at Camp David was the time allotted to Palestinian self-government in the territories. The Israeli moratorium on West Bank settlements agreed to by Prime Minister Menachem Beginwas only for three months.
Israel’s position on the matter received support from an unexpected source: Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who said: “We agreed to put a freeze on the establishment of settlements for the coming three months, the time necessary in our estimation for signing the peace treaty.” 9
The Palestinians rejected the Camp David Accords and therefore the provisions related to them were never implemented. Had they accepted the terms offered by Begin, it is very likely the self-governing authority would have developed long before now into an independent Palestinian state.
“If settlement-building is now concentrated in areas that the Palestinians themselves acknowledge will remain part of Israel in any future peace agreement, why the obsessive focus on settlements as an ‘obstacle to peace?’ ”
— Yossi Klein Halevi 10


MYTH

“Israel must dismantle all the settlements or peace is impossible.”

FACT

When serious negotiations begin over the final status of the West Bank, battle lines will be drawn over which settlements should be incorporated into Israel, and which must be evacuated. In August 2005, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon acknowledged that “not all the settlements that are today in Judea and Samaria will remain Israeli” while leaked Palestinian negotiating documents indicate the Palestinians are prepared to accept that some settlements will be incorporated into Israel. 11
In Gaza, Israel’s intent was to withdraw completely, and no settlements were viewed as vital to Israel for economic, security, or demographic reasons. The situation in the West Bank is completely different because Jews have strong historic and religious connections to the area stretching back centuries. Moreover, the West Bank is an area with strategic significance because of its proximity to Israel’s heartland and the fact that roughly one-quarter of Israel’s water resources are located there.
The disengagement from Gaza involved only 21 settlements and approximately 8,500 Jews; more than 100 settlements with a population of roughly 300,000 are located in Judea and Samaria. Any new evacuation from the West Bank will involve another gut-wrenching decision that most settlers and their supporters will oppose with even greater ferocity than the Gaza disengagement. Most Israelis, however, favor withdrawing from all but the largest communities.
Over two-thirds of the Jews in the West Bank live in five settlement “blocs” that are all near the 1967 border. Most Israelis believe these blocs should become part of Israel when final borders are drawn. The table below lists the “consensus” settlements:


Bloc

No. of
Communities

Population

Approximate. Area (sq. miles)

Ma’ale Adumim
6
40,210
28
Modiin Illit
4
51,773
2
Ariel
15
41,720
47
Gush Etzion
18
54,939
10
Givat Ze’ev
5
12,916
3
Total
48
201,558
90
 
As the table shows, these are large communities with thousands of residents. Evacuating them would be the equivalent of dismantling major American cities such as Annapolis, Maryland, Olympia, Washington, or Carson City, Nevada.
Ma’ale Adumim is a suburb of Israel’s capital, barely three miles outside Jerusalem’s city limits, a ten-minute drive away. Ma’ale Adumim is not a recently constructed outpost on a hilltop; it is a 35-year-old community that is popular because it is clean, safe, and close to where many residents work. It is also the third-largest Jewish city in the territories, with a population of 34,324. Approximately 6,000 people live in surrounding settlements that are included in the Ma’ale bloc. Israel has long planned to fill in the empty gap between Jerusalem and this bedroom community (referred to as the E1 project). The corridor is approximately 3,250 acres and does not have any inhabitants, so no Palestinians would be displaced. According to the Clinton plan, Ma’ale was to be part of Israel.
The Gush Etzion Bloc consists of 18 communities with a population of nearly 55,000 just 10 minutes from Jerusalem. Jews lived in this area prior to 1948, but the Jordanian Legion destroyed the settlements and killed 240 women and children during Israel’sWar of Independence. After Israel recaptured the area in 1967, descendants of those early settlers reestablished the community. The largest of the settlements is the city of Betar Illit with nearly 35,000 residents.
The Givat Ze’ev bloc includes five communities just northwest ofJerusalem. Givat Ze’ev, with a population of just under 11,000, is the largest.
Modiin Illit is a bloc with four communities. The city of Modiin Illit is the largest in all the disputed territories, with nearly 46,000 people situated just over the Green Line, about 23 miles northwest ofJerusalem and the same distance east of Tel Aviv.
Ariel is now the heart of the third most populous bloc of settlements. The city is located just 25 miles east ofTel Aviv and 31 miles north of Jerusalem. Ariel and the surrounding communities expand Israel’s narrow waist (which was just 9 miles wide prior to 1967) and ensure that Israel has a land route to the Jordan Valley in case Israel needs to fight a land war to the east. It is more controversial than the other consensus settlements because it is the furthest from the 1949 Armistice Line, extending approximately 12 miles into the West Bank. Nevertheless, Barak’s proposal at Camp David included Ariel among the settlement blocs to be annexed to Israel; the Clinton plan also envisioned incorporating Ariel within the new borders of Israel.
“Clearly, in the permanent agreement we will have to give up some of the Jewish settlements.”
— Prime Minister Ariel Sharon 12
Most peace plans, including Clinton’s, assumed that Israel would annex sufficient territory to incorporate 75–80% of the Jews currently living in the West Bank. Using the figures in the table above, however, it appears that Israel would fall short of that demographic goal even if these five blocs were annexed. The total population of these communities is approximately 202,000, which is roughly 66% of the estimated 304,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria. The expectation, however, is that roughly one-third of the Jews living in other settlements will move into these blocs, which would bring the total close to 80%, but still require Israel to evacuate more than 60,000 people.
At Camp David, Israel insisted that 80 percent of the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria would be in settlement blocs under Israeli sovereignty. President Clinton agreed and proposed that Israel annex 4–6 percent of the West Bank for three settlement blocs to accomplish this demographic objective and swap some territory within Israel in exchange.
 
Recognizing the demographics of the area, President Bushacknowledged the inevitability of some Israeli towns in theWest Bank being annexed to Israel in his 2004 letter to Prime Minister Sharon. In his meeting a year later withPalestinian Authority President Abbas, however, he seemed to hedge his support by saying that any such decision would have to be mutually agreed to by Israelis and Palestinians. Nevertheless, the future border is likely to approximate the route of the security fence, given the Israeli prerequisite (with U.S. approval) of incorporating most settlers within Israel.
Ultimately, Israel may decide to unilaterally disengage from the West Bank and determine which settlements it will incorporate within the borders it delineates. Israel would prefer, however, to negotiate a peace treaty with the Palestinians that would specify which Jewish communities will remain intact within the mutually agreed border of Israel, and which will need to be evacuated. Israel will undoubtedly insist that some or all of the “consensus” blocs become part of Israel.


MYTH

“If Israel annexes the settlement blocs, a Palestinian state will not be contiguous.” 

FACT

As the map to the right indicates, it is possible to create a contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank even if Israel incorporates the major settlement blocs. The total area of these communities is only about 1.5 percent of the West Bank. A kidney-shaped state linked to the Gaza Strip by a secure passage would be contiguous. Some argue that the E1 project linking Ma’ale Adumim to Jerusalem would cutoff east Jerusalem, but even that is not necessarily true as Israel has proposed constructing a four-lane underpass to guarantee free passage between the West Bank and the Arab sections of Jerusalem.

Sources:
1 American Journal of International Law, (April, 1970), pp. 345–46.
2 New Republic, (October 21, 1991), p. 14.
3 Washington Post, (November 1, 1991).
4 Eugene Rostow, “Bricks and Stones: Settling for Leverage,” The New Republic, (April 23, 1990).
5 Haaretz, (September 13, 2001); President George W. Bush’s Letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, (April 14, 2004).
6 Jerusalem Post, (October 22, 1991).
7 Tovah Lazaroff, “Frontlines: Is settlement growth booming?” Jerusalem Post, (December 30, 2010).
8 Avi Issacharoff, “PA lightens ban on working in settlements to ease Palestinian unemployment,” Haaretz, (December 28, 2010).
9 Middle East News Agency, (September 20, 1978).
10 Los Angeles Times, (June 20, 2001).
11 Greg Myre, “Middle East: Sharon Sees More West Bank Pullouts,” New York Times, (August 30, 2005).
12 Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Address to the Likud Central Committee, (January 5, 2004).

Friday, November 13, 2015

Israel's rights to the land is ingrained in history, archaeological findings, international law and possession YJ Draiman


Israel's rights to the land is ingrained in history, archaeological findings, international law and possession YJ Draiman



Israel's rights to the land is ingrained in history, archaeological findings, international law and possession. 

Just like the Arab States have not been required to defend their legitimacy, Israel should also not be required to defend its' legitimacy. The 21 Arab States and the State of Israel were set up by the Allied Powers after WWI, when the Ottoman Empire relinquished its title to the territories to the Allied Powers.
The British were assigned as trustee for the Jewish people to help reconstitute the Jewish State as Implemented by the San Remo Treaty of 1920. The San Remo Treaty adopted the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne. Of importance is the fact that treaty terms and documents prove there was no state allocation of land to any other people or nation other than the Jewish people in Israel. It should also be noted the League of Nations set up the Mandate for Palestine as a State for the Jewish people with exclusive political rights.
The Jewish people who lived in Israel for over 4,000 had additional Jewish immigration in the mid-1800s. The local Jewish people with the infusion of more Jewish immigration, resources, funding and with the explicit permission by the Ottoman government, started developing the land. Within a short time the Jewish people started turning the desert and desolation into green pastures, thus, building an economy, agriculture, housing and industry. Many Arabs from neighboring depressed states who viewed this development as an opportunity for work and an improved standard of living, came to work in Palestine.
It is of interest in this conflict to take into consideration. The Arab countries expelled over a million Jews and their children, confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and land 5-6 times the size of Israel (120,440 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles valued today in the trillions of dollars). Most of these expelled Jews from Arab countries were resettled in Greater Israel.
Over the past 68 years Israel has become a thriving nation with exemplary innovation in education, technology, high tech industry and medicine. Many nations admire Israel's outstanding development and innovation. Israel has always been extending a helping hand to any nation that wants to learn and advance in industry, technology and medicine.
The Arab-Palestinians saw an opportunity to get land and a country that was developed and flourished by the Jewish people. They decided that through intimidation, harassment and violence to usurp the Jewish habitants into capitulating to their scheme of an Arab-Palestinian State on Land allocated to the Jewish people . The Arab-Palestinians live on charity from the nations of the world. They are unwilling to help themselves. After the 1967 war when Israel defeated the 5 Arab armies who tried to destroy it, Israel started employing many of the Arabs in the liberated Jewish territory, educating them in agriculture and water resources. In the following years the standard of living of the Arabs jumped 5 fold and more, and their economy and housing blossomed. When the terrorist organization entered the picture and instigated the Arab population to start terror and violence against the Israelis, the economic advancement was slowed down if not halted. The dire predicament of the Arab-Palestinians is of their own making.
If you look at Arab land it is desolate and barren, with few exceptions. At the same time, the Jewish land is blooming and developing at an accelerated tempo. The Arabs, rather than follow the example set by Israel, tried to take the Jewish land by force and lost 4 wars in a span of 25 years.
The Arab-Palestinians current actions in the political and legal arena is a result of losing 4 wars and various battles with Israel. They not only could not win ground, but in fact have caused themselves a downward spiral toward economic desolation.
The Arab-Palestinians have switched tactics and have now gained more ground and concessions by playing the peace game. The Arab-Palestinians obfuscation and disinformation campaign along with various pleadings in front of the U.N. and other International bodies has gained them more inroads. The power of oil and the Arab Countries, who do not want the Arab-Palestinians to return to their countries, are helping them promote the false information, and utilizing their numerical control in the U.N. to pass any resolution that they deem necessary to advance their cause.
Money, power and greed promoted hate and anti-Semitism by the Arabs in order to force Israel into surrendering territory to the Arab-Palestinians. The Arabs are trying to initiate land piracy camouflaged as legal rights to the land of Israel.
Jewish resistance to persecution by the Arabs and the world at large: Any level headed individual would think that after WWII and the 6 million Jews exterminated in the Holocaust (plus another 5 million of other ethnic groups) would diminish, if not eliminate anti-Semitism and baseless hatred. It seems that no matter the amount of unwarranted persecution, and no matter the sacrifices the Jewish people have endured through the ages, Anti-Semitism continues to raise its ugly head.
The Media is guilty of escalating hostilities and violence in Israel and elsewhere. The Media has a responsibility to deliver fair and unbiased reporting. They influence the information that people rely on. It is an awesome responsibility and it must be handled with factual un-slanted reporting. Peoples lives depend on it; maybe yours or someone you love. Do we need a legal task force to discipline the Media when they intentionally distort the truth and or stage events for Media sensationalism? I would like your comments and input.
The affects on the world at large: Has humanity lost its values and fairness? The answer is no. In order to lose something, one must first possess it and the truth is, the world has never had total control of values and fairness. In today's world, where money and power is pursued at all costs (see Machiavelli), the core family unit is disintegrating and family values deteriorating. Honesty, integrity and fair-play seem to be a thing of the past. Where are we as human beings of the 21st century heading? Obviously downward.
Take some time to reflect on the truth of what is stated here. Do you really want this kind of world for your children? Senseless hate and destruction must not be tolerated. I urge you to wake up, take the bull by the horn and pursue a path of correction, or we are doomed as a civilized people.
YJ Draiman

P.S. How many holidays do the Arabs celebrate due to historical events in the land of ancient Israel. The Jewish people celebrate most of their holidays and fast days in memory of and the goal and aspiration to return to Israel and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem – where it was before it was destroyed and desecrated by the enemies of the Jews. Many of the Jewish prayers for thousands of years recite the love of Israel and the Jewish aspirations to return to their ancestral land and bring back its glory and holiness.

In Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles.
Ben Gurion

"Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its 'right to exist.' [As a Jewish State] Israel's right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel's legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement. . . .There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its 'right to exist' a favor, or a negotiable concession."
Abba Eban



United States is "occupied" territory - Not Jerusalem
Washington, D.C. is far more of an "occupied" capital than Jerusalem (Jerusalem has thousands of years of Jewish history and habitation). Europeans after creating new settlements, conquered an entire continent of North America, annihilated the natives, extracted its natural resources, kicked out the Mexicans and called it "America," claiming Washington as its capital. Over six hundred thousand people died in a war that prevented the South from seceding. As regards the rest of the world, Jerusalem is the oldest capital in the world, and it belongs to the Jewish people. The world does not recognize Jerusalem as the Jewish capital, because the world does not recognize the right of Jews to exist. Those liberal Jews in USA and Europe and elsewhere who pander to the non-Jews by endorsing views that deny or compromise the Jewish sovereignty over Greater Israel and hoping that they would be "acceptable" are deluding themselves. It did not help with Nazi Germany or in the past 2,500 years in the Diaspora and it will not help today.
YJ Draiman


Link to 1925 Waqf Temple Mount Guide noting that the First and Second Jewish Temples were located on the Temple Mount
For Jews, the Temple Mount is the holiest place in the world. The Jewish connection to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount originates in the biblical narrative, as it is said to be the location of the binding of Isaac.[2] The Talmud, Judaism's supreme canonical text, says that the foundation stone on the Temple Mount is the location from which the world was created.[3] In Samuel II 24:18-25, King David bought the bedrock for the Temple from Araunah the Jebusite. Subsequently, Solomon, David's son, used the bedrock to build the First Temple.[4] Solomon's Temple was eventually destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon in 586 BCE.
Link to 1925 Waqf Temple Mount Guide noting that the First and Second Jewish Temples were located on the Temple Mount
For Jews, the Temple Mount is the holiest place in the world.
Following the destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon's Temple, many Jews were sent into exile. However, under the Persian King Cyrus, the Jews were allowed to return and began to rebuild the Temple. The Second Temple was completed in 516 BCE and expanded by King Herod in 19 BCE. In 70 CE, the Roman Empire, led by Emperor Titus, laid siege to Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple. Jews have maintained an unbreakable connection to Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount since that time.
Today, Jews follow a number of different customs in remembrance of their fallen Temple. When Jews pray, they pray toward Jerusalem. Within the daily liturgy, there are numerous calls for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple. During the week, after meals, Jews recite a grace, which includes the recitation of Psalm 137 ("If I forget thee, O Jerusalem…").[5] At the end of a wedding ceremony, the groom breaks a glass, which signifies the Jewish people's continued mourning over the Temple's destruction. In addition, many have the custom of leaving a wall in their home unfinished in remembrance of the destruction. All of these customs play a significant part in the Jewish connection to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, which former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated "represents the purist expression of all that Jews prayed for, dreamed of, cried for, and died for in the two thousand years since the destruction of the Second Temple."[6] In addition to the customs and ideology, the Jewish connection to the Land of Israel and Jerusalem is internationally recognized.[7]
ISLAMIC LITERATURE AND THE TEMPLE MOUNT
Classic Islamic literature also recognizes the existence of a Jewish Temple and its importance to Judaism. This makes Palestinian Temple Denial all the more puzzling.
In Sura 17:1 of the Koran, the "Farthest Mosque" is called the al-masjid al-Aqsa. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn,[8] a well-respected Sunni exegesis of the Koran from the 15th and 16th centuries, notes that the "Farthest Mosque" is a reference to the Bayt al-Maqdis of Jerusalem.[9] In Hebrew, the Jewish Temple is often referred to as the Beyt Ha-Miqdash, nearly identical to the Arabic term. In the commentary of Abdullah Ibn Omar al-Baydawi, who authored several prominent theological works in the 13th century, the masjid is referred to as the Bayt al-Maqdis because during Muhammad's time no mosque existed in Jerusalem.[10] Koranic historian and commentator, Abu Jafar Muhammad al-Tabari, who chronicled the seventh century Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, wrote that one day when Umar finished praying, he went to the place where "the Romans buried the Temple [bayt al-maqdis] at the time of the sons of Israel."[11] In addition, eleventh century historian Muhammad Ibn Ahmad al-Maqdisi and fourteenth century Iranian religious scholar Hamdallah al-Mustawfi acknowledged that the al-Aqsa Mosque was built on top of Solomon's Temple.[12]
This is a small sample of the Islamic literature attesting to the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount. Innumerable other writings from other faiths attest to this fact, as well.
Link to 1925 Waqf Temple Mount Guide noting that the First and Second Jewish Temples were located on the Temple Mount
http://www.templeinstitute.org/1925-wakf-temple-mount-guide.pdf
For Jews, the Temple Mount is the holiest place in the world.
Following the destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon's Temple, many Jews were sent into exile. However, under the Persian King Cyrus, the Jews were allowed to return and began to rebuild the Temple. The Second Temple was completed in 516 BCE and expanded by King Herod in 19 BCE. In 70 CE, the Roman Empire, led by Emperor Titus, laid siege to Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple. Jews have maintained an unbreakable connection to Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount since that time.
Today, Jews follow a number of different customs in remembrance of their fallen Temple. When Jews pray, they pray toward Jerusalem. Within the daily liturgy, there are numerous calls for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple. During the week, after meals, Jews recite a grace, which includes the recitation of Psalm 137 ("If I forget thee, O Jerusalem…").[5] At the end of a wedding ceremony, the groom breaks a glass, which signifies the Jewish people's continued mourning over the Temple's destruction. In addition, many have the custom of leaving a wall in their home unfinished in remembrance of the destruction. All of these customs play a significant part in the Jewish connection to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, which former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated "represents the purist expression of all that Jews prayed for, dreamed of, cried for, and died for in the two thousand years since the destruction of the Second Temple."[6] In addition to the customs and ideology, the Jewish connection to the Land of Israel and Jerusalem is internationally recognized.[7]
ISLAMIC LITERATURE AND THE TEMPLE MOUNT
Classic Islamic literature also recognizes the existence of a Jewish Temple and its importance to Judaism. This makes Palestinian Temple Denial all the more puzzling.
In Sura 17:1 of the Koran, the "Farthest Mosque" is called the al-masjid al-Aqsa. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn,[8] a well-respected Sunni exegesis of the Koran from the 15th and 16th centuries, notes that the "Farthest Mosque" is a reference to the Bayt al-Maqdis of Jerusalem.[9] In Hebrew, the Jewish Temple is often referred to as the Beyt Ha-Miqdash, nearly identical to the Arabic term. In the commentary of Abdullah Ibn Omar al-Baydawi, who authored several prominent theological works in the 13th century, the masjid is referred to as the Bayt al-Maqdis because during Muhammad's time no mosque existed in Jerusalem.[10] Koranic historian and commentator, Abu Jafar Muhammad al-Tabari, who chronicled the seventh century Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, wrote that one day when Umar finished praying, he went to the place where "the Romans buried the Temple [bayt al-maqdis] at the time of the sons of Israel."[11] In addition, eleventh century historian Muhammad Ibn Ahmad al-Maqdisi and fourteenth century Iranian religious scholar Hamdallah al-Mustawfi acknowledged that the al-Aqsa Mosque was built on top of Solomon's Temple.[12]
This is a small sample of the Islamic literature attesting to the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount. Innumerable other writings from other faiths attest to this fact, as well.
Link to 1925 Waqf Temple Mount Guide noting that the First and Second Jewish Temples were located on the Temple Mount
http://www.templeinstitute.org/1925-wakf-temple-mount-guide.pdf
Over a million Jewish people and their children were expelled from Arab countries and their assets confiscated
It is interesting to note, that Jordan is a country that never existed in history before WWI and nobody is contesting its legitimacy or territorial sovereignty and control. The same powers that established 21 Arab States plus Jordan after WWI, established the State of Israel based on the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Treaty of 1920 which was confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne.
On the other hand, Israel and its Jewish people have over 4,000 years of history.
Many nations and people are questioning Israel's control of its liberated territory. No one is mentioning that the Arab countries had ejected about a million Jewish people and their children from their countries, confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and Real estate, over 650,00 Jewish people and their children of these expelled Jewish people were resettled in Greater Israel. The Land the Arab countries confiscated from the Jewish people 120,400 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles, which is over 5-6 times the size of Israel, and its value today is the trillions of dollars.
Transfer the Arab-Palestinians to the Jewish owned land in Arab countries is a good solution.
Let the 21 Arab countries resettle the Arab Palestinians in the land they confiscated from the Jews which is 5-6 times the size of Israel (120,440 sq. km.). Provide them with funds they confiscated from the million Jewish people they expelled and let them build an economy, This will benefit both the Arab-Palestinians and the hosting countries, The other alternative is relocate the Arab-Palestinians to Jordan, (originally land allocated for the Jewish people) which is already 80% Arab-Palestinians, and give them funds to relocate and build an economy. This will solve the Arab-Palestinians refugee problem once and for all. It will also reduce hostility and strife in the region.


Jerusalem Temple Mount Guide 1925
Click here for the 1925 Temple Mount Guide
http://www.raptureforums.com/IsraelMiddleEast/guide.pdf
One of the most disturbing end times propaganda being promoted today is the absurd notion that the Jews never had a presence on the famous Temple Mount area in Jerusalem. Anyone who is knowledgeable about history and aware of the recent archaeological discoveries on the Temple Mount area over the years knows that the propaganda being perpetuated by the Islamics, United Nations, and other ungodly organizations is simply a political ploy to deny the Jews their historical capital of Jerusalem and the sacred Temple Mount area. The Temple Mount area is the holiest place in Judaism and the remnants of the Second Temple area visible in the form of the "Wailing Wall" where religious Jews flock from around the world in order to pray near the site of the First and Second Temples.
Some of the outstanding quotes from the official Temple Mount Guide are as follows:
"The site is one of the oldest in the world. Its sanctity dates from the earliest times. Its identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings" (2 Samuel 24:25).


How many holidays do the Arabs celebrate due to historical events in the land of ancient Israel.
The Jewish people celebrate most of their holidays and fast days in memory of and the goal and aspiration to return to Israel and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - where it was before it was destroyed and desecrated by the enemies of the Jews. Many of the Jewish prayers for thousands of years recite the love of Israel and the Jewish aspirations to return to their ancestral land and bring back its glory and holiness. At Jewish wedding they break a glass in memory of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, with the prayer and aspiration to rebuild the Jewish temple.
YJ Draiman


Jerusalem the Eternal Capital of the Jewish People
The Jews have only Jerusalem, and only the Jews have made it their capital.
That is why it has so much deeper a meaning for them (the Jews) than for anybody else.
Jerusalem throughout its long and turbulent history, Jerusalem, more than any other city, has evoked the emotions, aspirations, yearnings and religious fervor of civilized Jewish mankind. Yet this homage of the world cannot overshadow the consuming and single-minded passion of one particular attachment: that of the Jewish people. For that people, as no other, Jerusalem is not just its one and only religious center and source of spiritual life; from time immemorial it has been and, still is, the very heart and core of the people - the tangible embodiment of its nationhood, the lodestar in its wanderings, the theme of its prayers each day, the fulfillment of its dreams for the Return unto Zion and indeed the cornerstone of its continuity.
Many thousand of years ago, it was in Jerusalem that the priests would offer up daily sacrifices in the Temple on Mount Moriah. It was there in the Temple that the Sanhedrin, the great court of 71 Jewish sages, would sit in judgement. And three times a year on the harvest holy-days of Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles, the entire Jewish nation would make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. It is in the direction of Jerusalem that Jews face when they pray three times daily.
The Jewish prayers themselves contain numerous references to Jerusalem and Zion. In the Amidah, the Silent Devotion, God is praised as the Builder of Jerusalem. In many other places the prayers echo the messianic belief that God will restore the Jewish people to His holy city. On Passover and the Day of Atonement Jews conclude services with the fervent hope: "Next year may we be in Jerusalem!"
The Jewish connection to Jerusalem harks back to Biblical times. Jacob, encountering the site where the Temple would stand centuries later said: "How awe-inspiring is this place! It is the House of God! It is the gate to heaven!" (Gen. 28:17). Jerusalem was "the site that the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes, as a place established in His name. It is there that you shall go to seek His presence" (Deut. 12:3).
Jerusalem began to fulfill the function of a spiritual and national capital when King David conquered the city in the 10th century BCE. He made it his seat of judgment and brought the Ark of the Covenant to rest there. It was also David who conceived the idea of building a permanent house of God, a Temple, a plan eventually fulfilled by his son Solomon. DESTRUCTION & REBIRTH The story of the Jewish people and Jerusalem has been one of exile, destruction and rebirth.
Jerusalem in its 3000 years of history the city was destroyed 17 times and 18 times reborn.
There always remained a Jewish presence in the city of Jerusalem, and the Jewish people as a whole always dream't of returning en mass to Jerusalem and rebuilding their city.
When the Babylonians destroyed the city in 586 BCE, the Jewish exiles pledged that they would never forget their beloved Jerusalem: "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, and we wept, when we remembered Zion. Upon the willows in its midst we hanged up our harps. For there they that led us captive asked of us words of song, and our tormentors asked of us in mirth: 'Sing us one of the songs of Zion.' How shall we sing the Lord's song in a foreign land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I remember thee not; if I set not Jerusalem above my chiefest joy" (Psalms 137:1-6).
The Jewish exiles did not forget their beloved city of Jerusalem. They were to return there and rebuild the Temple under the guidance of Ezra and Nehemiah. When the Seleucids took control over the Land of Israel and placed Greek idols in the Temple, the Jewish Maccabees revolted. They succeeded in recapturing Jerusalem and re-dedicating the Temple in 165 BCE. The Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 CE. When the Emperor Hadrian began planning to replace it with a shrine to Jupiter, a Jewish revolt known as the Bar Kochba Rebellion broke out.
For the last 2000 years, on the 9th day of the Hebrew month of Av, Jews everywhere have commemorated the destruction of their city and Temple with a 25-hour fast. They sit on low stools in their synagogues and recite Jeremiah's Lamentations. They recite elegies for the city which is "scorned without her glory".
During the periods of exile Jews throughout the world would be linked as they prayed together in their Hebrew tongue all facing in the same direction, maintaining their affinity with their eternal Jerusalem. Today Jerusalem flourishes once again as the heart and soul of Judaism. It boasts a full range of rebuilt and new synagogues, Talmudic academies and institutes of Jewish research. It is home to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel which administers the life cycle events of the nation's Jewish citizens. All varieties of Judaism are represented there. Nowhere else is the spiritual element of the Jewish people so visible as in this "place that the Lord has chosen".
Jerusalem the Jewish NATIONAL CAPITAL; Jerusalem was never the capital city of any of its conquerors.



Jerusalem: Israel's Eternal Capital
How many holidays do the Arabs celebrate due to historical events in the land of ancient Israel. The Jewish people celebrate most of their holidays and fast days in memory of and the goal and aspiration to return to Israel and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - where it was before it was destroyed and desecrated by the enemies of the Jews. Many of the Jewish prayers for thousands of years recite the love of Israel and the Jewish aspirations to return to their ancestral land and bring back its glory and holiness.
IF I FORGET THEE JERUSALEM
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem,
Let my right hand forget her cunning.
Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth,
If I remember thee not;
If I set not Jerusalem
above my chiefest joy.
(Against) who said:
'Raze it, raze it, even to its very foundation.'
Since 1004 BCE, when King David established Jerusalem as the capital of his kingdom, there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Jerusalem, the holiest city in Judaism.
Jerusalem, Judaism's holiest city, is mentioned hundreds of times in the Hebrew Bible. It was the capital city of ancient Jewish kingdoms and home to Judaism's holiest Temple (Beit HaMikdash). Jews from all over the ancient world would make pilgrimages to the Beit HaMikdash three times a year to participate in worship and festivities, as commanded in the Torah. Jerusalem and the Beit HaMikdash have remained the focus of Jewish longing, aspiration, and prayers. Daily prayers (said while facing Jerusalem and the Temple Mount) and grace after meals include multiple supplications for the restoration of Jerusalem and the Beit HaMikdash. Jews still maintain the 9th day of the Hebrew month of Av, the date on which both the First and Second Temples were destroyed, as a day of mourning. The Jewish wedding ceremony concludes with the chanting of the biblical phrase, "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning," and the breaking of a glass by the groom to commemorate the destruction of the Temples. And Yom Kippur services and the Passover Seder conclude each year with the phrase "Next Year in Jerusalem."
The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism. The Temple was built, according to Jewish tradition, on the Even Hashtiya, the foundation stone upon which the world was created. This is considered the epicenter of Judaism, where the Divine Presence (Shechina) rests, where the biblical Isaac was brought for sacrifice, where the Holy of Holies and Ark of the Covenant housing the Ten Commandments once stood, and where the Temple was again rebuilt in 515 BCE before being destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. The Temple Mount is also known as Mount Moriah (Har HaMoriah), mentioned frequently in the Bible.
The Western Wall (Kotel Hama'aravi, known simply as the Wall or Kotel) is the remnant of the outer retaining wall built by Herod to level the ground and expand the area housing the Second Jewish Temple. Its holiness derives from its proximity to the Temple site and specifically its proximity to the Western Wall of the Temple's Holy of Holies (Kodesh Hakodashim---the inner sanctuary that housed the Ark of the Covenant–the Aron HaBrit–and where the High Priest–Kohen Gadol--alone was permitted to enter on Yom Kippur). According to Midrashic sources, the Divine Presence never departed from the Western wall of the Temple's Holy of Holies. For the last several hundred years, Jews have prayed at Herod's Western Wall because it was the closest accessible place to Judaism's holiest site.
YJ Draiman


Defending Israel's Legal Rights to Jerusalem
The author of this chapter argues that while Israel has legal rights to retain a united Jerusalem as its capital, there is a sense that its claim is being challenged more than ever. He further argues that in addition to the historical rights of the Jewish people to Jerusalem that were voiced in the 19th century, there is a whole new layer of legal rights that Israel acquired in modern times that need to be fully elaborated upon.
Download:
Author:
Dore Gold
Publication:
Israel's Rights as a Nation-State in International Diplomacy
Schwebel wrote his article, which was entitled "What Weight to Conquest," in response to a statement by then Secretary of State William Rogers that Israel was only entitled to "insubstantial alterations" in the pre-1967 lines. The Nixon administration had also hardened U.S. policy on Jerusalem as reacted in its statements and voting patterns in the UN Security Council. Schwebel strongly disagreed with this approach: he wrote that the pre-war lines were not sacrosanct, for the 1967 lines were not an international border. Formally, they were only armistice lines from 1949. As he noted, the armistice agreement itself did not preclude the territorial claims of the parties beyond those lines. Significantly, he explained that when territories are captured in a war, the circumstances surrounding the outbreak of the conflict directly affect the legal rights of the two sides, upon its termination.
Two facts from 1967 stood out that influenced his thinking:
First, Israel had acted in the Six-Day War in the lawful exercise of its right of self-defense. Those familiar with the events that led to its outbreak recall that Egypt was the party responsible for the initiation of hostilities, through a series of steps that included the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and the proclamation of a blockade on Eilat, an act that Foreign Minister Abba Eban would characterize as the ring of the first shot of the war. Along Israel's eastern front, Jordan's artillery had opened fire and re-pounding civilian neighborhoods in Jerusalem, despite repeated warnings issued by Israel.
Given this background, Israel had not captured territory as a result of aggression, but rather because it had come under armed attack. In fact, the Soviet Union had tried to have Israel labeled as the aggressor in the UN Security Council on June 14, 1967, and then in the UN General Assembly on July 4, 1967. But Moscow completely failed. At the Security Council it was outvoted 11-4. Meanwhile at the General Assembly, 88 states voted against or abstained on the first vote of a proposed Soviet draft (only 32 states supported it). It was patently clear to the majority of UN members that Israel had waged a defensive war.6
A second element in Schwebel's thinking was the fact Jordan's claim to legal title over the territories it had lost to Israel in the Six-Day War was very problematic. The Jordanian invasion of the West Bank - and Jerusalem - nineteen years earlier in 1948 had been unlawful. As a result, Jordan did not gain legal rights in the years that followed, given the legal principle, that Schwebel stressed, according to which no right can be born of an unlawful act (ex injuria jus non oritur). It should not have come as a surprise that Jordan's claim to sovereignty over the West Bank was not recognized by anyone, except for Pakistan and Britain. Even the British would not recognize the Jordanian claim in Jerusalem itself.
Thus, by comparing Jordan's illegal invasion of the West Bank to Israel's legal exercise of its right of self-defense, Schwebel concluded that "Israel has better title" in the territory of what once was the Palestine Mandate than either of the Arab states with which it had been at war. He specifically stated that Israel had better legal title to "the whole of Jerusalem."

Schwebel makes reference to UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 22, 1967, which over the years would become the main source for all of Israel's peace e orts, from the 1979 Egyptian Israeli Treaty of Peace to the 1993 Oslo Accords. In its famous withdrawal clause, Resolution 242 did not call for a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the territories it captured in the Six-Day War. ere was no e ort to re-establish the status quo ante, which, as noted earlier, was the product of a previous act of aggression by Arab armies in 1948.
As the U.S. ambassador to the UN in 1967, Arthur Goldberg, pointed out in 1980, Resolution 242 did not even mention Jerusalem "and this omission was deliberate." Goldberg made the point, reacting the policy of the Johnson administration for whom he served, that he never described Jerusalem as "occupied territory," though this changed under President Nixon.7 What Goldberg wrote about Resolution 242 had added weight, given the fact that he previously had served as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Indeed, among the leading jurists in international law and diplomacy, Schwebel was clearly not alone. He was joined by Julius Stone, the great Australian legal scholar, who reached the same conclusions. He added that UN General Assembly Resolution 181 from 1947 (also known as the Partition Plan) did not undermine Israel's subsequent claims in Jerusalem. True, Resolution 181 envisioned that Jerusalem and its environs would become a corpus separatum, or a separate international entity. But Resolution 181 was only a recommendation of the General Assembly. It was rejected by the Arab states forcibly, who invaded the nascent State of Israel in 1948.
Ultimately, the UN's corpus separatum never came into being in any case. The UN did not protect the Jewish population of Jerusalem from invading Arab armies. Given this history, it was not surprising that Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, announced on December 3, 1949, that Revolution 181's references to Jerusalem were "null and void," thereby anticipating Stone's legal analysis years later.8
There was also Prof. Elihu Lauterpacht of Cambridge University, who for a time served as legal advisor of Australia and as a judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Lauterpacht argued that Israel's reunification of Jerusalem in 1967 was legally valid. 9 He explained that the last state which had sovereignty over Jerusalem was the Ottoman Empire, which ruled it from 1517 to 1917.
After the First World War, the Ottoman Empire formally renounced its sovereignty over Jerusalem as well as all its former territories south of what became modern Turkey in the Treaty of Sevres from 1920. is renunciation was confirmed by the Turkish Republic as well in the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923. According to Lauterpacht, the rights of sovereignty in Jerusalem were vested with the Principal Allied and Associated Powers,which transferred them to the League of Nations.
But with the dissolution of the League of Nations, the British withdrawal from Mandatory Palestine, and the failure of the UN to create a corpus separatum or a special international regime for Jerusalem, as had been intended according to the 1947 Partition Plan, Lauterpacht concluded that sovereignty had been put in suspense or in abeyance. In other words, by 1948 there was what he called "a vacancy of sovereignty" in Jerusalem.
It might be asked if the acceptance by the pre-state Jewish Agency of Resolution 181 constituted a conscious renunciation of Jewish claims to Jerusalem back in 1947. However, according to the resolution, the duration of the special international regime for Jerusalem would be "in the first instance for a period of ten years." The resolution envisioned a referendum of the residents of the city at that point in which they would express "their wishes as to possible modifications of the regime of the city."10 The Jewish leadership interpreted the corpus separatum as an interim arrangement that could be replaced. They believed that Jewish residents could opt for citizenship in the Jewish state in the meantime. Moreover, they hoped that the referendum would lead to the corpus seperatum being joined to the State of Israel after ten years. 11
Who then could acquire sovereign rights in Jerusalem given the "vacancy of sovereignty" that Lauterpacht described? Certainly, the UN could not assume a role, given what happened to Resolution 181. Lauterpacht's answer was that Israel filled "the vacancy in sovereignty" in areas where the Israel Defense Forces had to operate in order to save Jerusalem's Jewish population from destruction or ethnic cleansing. The same principle applied again in 1967, when Jordanian forces opened fire on Israeli neighborhoods and the Israel Defense Forces entered the eastern parts of Jerusalem, including its Old City, in self-defense.
A fourth legal authority to contribute to this debate over the legal rights of Israel was Prof. Eugene Rostow, the former dean of Yale Law School and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson administration. Rostow's point of departure for analyzing the issue of Israel's rights was that the Mandate for Palestine, which specifically referred to "the historic connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" providing "the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
These rights applied to Jerusalem as well, for the Mandate did not separate Jerusalem from the other territory that was to become part of the Jewish national home.
Rostow contrasts the other League of Nations mandates with the mandate for Palestine. Whereas the mandates for Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon served as trusts for the indigenous populations, the language of the Palestine Mandate was entirely different. It supported the national rights of the Jewish people while protecting only the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities in British Mandatory Palestine.12 It should be added that the Palestine Mandate was a legal instrument in the form of a binding international treaty between the League of Nations, on the one hand, and Britain as the mandatory power, on the other.
Rostow argued that the mandate was not terminated in 1947. He explained that Jewish legal rights to a national home in this territory, which were embedded in British Mandatory Palestine, survived the dissolution of the League of Nations and were preserved by the United Nations in Article 80 of the UN Charter.13 Clearly, after considering Rostow's arguments, Israel was well-positioned to assert its rights in Jerusalem and fill "the vacancy of sovereignty" that Lauterpacht had described.
Publisher:
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), Israel


The U.N. cannot create states, it can only recommend and so can other nations only recommend and not create a state that never existed before in history. If they want an Arab-Palestinian state, it already exists, it is Jordan which has taken 80% of Jewish allocated land.
The U.N. cannot create states, it can only recommend and so can other nations only recommend and not create a state that never existed before in history. If they want an Arab-Palestinian state, it already exists, it is Jordan which has taken 80% of Jewish allocated land.
In 1947, the UN Gen. Assembly passed Resolution 181 recommending the partition of Palestine. This did not create the State of Israel. The General Assembly does not create countries, make laws, or alter the Mandates (Mandates were a big brother system for setting up independent countries to be led by its native populations, with historic national connections to the territories). The Partition plan, was merely a recommendation.
The resolution also violated Article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine and therefore it also violated Article 80 of the UN Charter. It was therefore an illegal resolution.
What we call the State of Israel, along with her "legal" borders, was established in April 1920 with the San Remo Resolution of 1920 confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne. Palestine was created for the first time in history as a country. It was created as the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home. The Partition Plan in 1947 was the result of a 1/4 century of illegal British policy (The English were a trustee for the Jewish people, but they violated that trust. the British wanted to control the Oil in the Middle East, for that they betrayed the Jewish people) that ripped internationally protected Jewish rights from the Jewish People, as the British allowed hundreds of thousands of Arabs to pour across the border from Syria and Egypt into Palestine.
The Jewish State's reconstitution was a fact 25 years before the UN existed. The Mandate was there to protect its survival, and it was terminated, not because the terms were completed, but because the British fled with their tails between their legs, and there was no one there to administer the Mandate.

Does anyone think that after the Ottoman Empire surrendered and relinquished its rights title and ownership to Palestine and other territories to the Allied powers after WWI and the Allied powers set up and established 21 Arab States and one Jewish State. The 21 Arab State do not want to relinquish or redraw its boundaries and Israel does not want to concede any of its original boundaries set up in 1920 which included the Palestine Mandate. Non of the Palestinian Mandate was allocated to the Arabs in the 1920 San Remo Treaty.
The U.N. and the other countries must take into account and address the persecution and expulsion of over a million Jewish families from the Arab countries and the confiscation of homes and land owned by Jewish people in the Arab countries, totaling 120,000 sq. km. (6 times the size of Israel) valued in the trillions of dollars and other personal assets confiscated by the Arabs countries totaling over 990 billion dollars.
The Jewish people resettled the million Jewish refugees from the Arab countries. It is about time the Arab countries who persecuted and expelled the million Jewish families and confiscated their homes, land and assets, must settle the Arab-Palestinian refugees once and for all without compromising Israel and bring about peace and tranquility to the region.
Neither the U.N. nor any Country in the world has the authority to create a state or dissolve a state, (check the U.N. charter and international law.)


Israel must be steadfast in protecting its rights and its people
Many nations and people are questioning Israel's control of its liberated territory.
No one is mentioning that the Arab countries had ejected about a million Jewish people and their children from their countries, confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and Real estate. Many of the Jews ejected from Arab countries died while their forced departure from Arab countries, due to hardship, famine and starvation. 670,00 Jewish people and their children of these expelled Jewish people and their children were resettled in Greater Israel. The Land the Arab countries confiscated from the Jewish people 120,440 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles, which is over 5-6 times the size of Israel, and its value today is the trillions of dollars.
The Jewish people and their children during the over 2,400 years living in Arab countries have suffered Pogroms, Libel claims, beheading's, beatings, false imprisonment and extreme hardship as a second class citizens. They had their businesses and homes pillaged, their wives and daughters raped, sold them as slaves, their houses of worship pillaged and burned, forced conversion to Islam.
Today over half of Israel's population are the Jewish families expelled from Arab countries and their children and grandchildren.
The Audacity of the Arab countries in demanding territory from the Jewish people in Palestine after they ejected over a million Jewish people and their children who have lived in Arab land for over 2,400 years and after they confiscated all their assets and Real estate 5-6 times the size of Israel (120,440 sq. km. - 75,000 sq. mi.), valued in the trillions of dollars.
Now the Arab nations are demanding more land and more compensation.
The Arab countries have chased the million Jewish families and their children and now they want to chase them away again, from their own historical land.
Israel must respond with extreme force to any violent demonstration and terror. Israel's population must have peace and tranquility without intimidation by anyone.
The Jewish people have suffered enough in the Diaspora for the past 2,500 years. It is time for the Jewish people to live as free people in their own land without violence and terror.
It is time to consider that the only alternative is a population transfer of the Arab-Palestinians to the territories the Arab countries confiscated from the Jewish people and settle this dispute once and for all. Many Arab leaders had suggested these solutions over the years.
YJ Draiman