Israel's undisputed claim to Judea and Samaria etc.
August 2002
US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld shocked the world last week when he referred to Israel's "so-called occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza. By implying that he does not consider Israel's presence in these territories to be an illegal occupation, Rumsfeld defied one of the modern world's most widely accepted deceptive dogmas. Yet the very fact that his statement was received as little short of heretical begs an obvious question: How did a label with not a shred of basis in international law turn into such a universally accepted truth?
The standard definition of an occupation under international law is found in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which applies explicitly to "partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party" (Article 2, emphasis added). In other words, "occupation" for the purposes of the convention means the presence of one country's troops in territory that belongs to another sovereign state the only type of entity that can be a contracting party to the convention.
But when territory that does not clearly belong to another sovereign state is captured by one of the possible legitimate claimants as, for instance, in Kashmir, which is claimed by India, Pakistan, and the Kashmiris the term generally used is "disputed," not "occupied."
And that is precisely the situation in the West Bank and Gaza.
Neither of these territories belonged to any sovereign state when Israel re-captured them in 1967; they were essentially stateless territory. Both had originally been part of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and, according to the UN partition plan of 1947, they should have become part of a new Arab state when Britain abandoned the Mandate in 1948.
But since the Arabs themselves rejected this plan, not only did that state never come into being, it never even acquired theoretical legitimacy: The partition plan was no more than a non-binding "recommendation" (the resolution's own language) adopted by the General Assembly. Once rejected by one of the parties involved, it essentially became a dead letter.
Therefore, since the Arabs rejected the partition and there was no signed treaty by both sides agreeing to such division, the real legal title falls back to the Jewish people under the San Remo Treaty of 1920, which assigned the Mandate for Palestine including both sides of the Jordan river and all of Jerusalem and designating the British as a trustee for the Jewish people.
I must also state that if you are to question the borders of Israel than you must question the borders of the other 21 Arab states and Jordan which were assigned after WWI by the same Allied powers the assigned the borders of Israel in the San Remo treaty.
The West Bank and Gaza were therefore not owned by any Arabs when they were seized by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, in 1948; and since their annexation by these countries was never and could never internationally recognized since it belonged to the Jewish people (Jordan's annexation of the West Bank, for instance, was accepted illegally only by Britain and Pakistan), they were still a territory which was assigned to the Jewish people under the San Remo Treaty of 1920 of which terms are valid in perpetuity in 1967.
Moreover, Israel had a very strong claim to both territories. Even aside from the obvious historical claim the heart of the biblical kingdom of Israel was in what is now called the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) the terms of the original League of Nations Mandate quite clearly assigned the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza to the Jewish state.
The preamble to the Mandate explicitly stated that its purpose was "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." Not the Arab people, they already received 21 ststes.
DOES THIS mean that all of Mandatory Palestine which included not only modern-day Israel, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza, but also the modern-day state of Jordan was supposed to be a Jewish state? See the San Remo Treaty of 1920 and an additional answer (which should be contested by the Jewish people) can be found in Article 25, which reads: "In the territories lying between the Jordan [River] and the eastern boundary of Palestine... the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions."
No such permission, however, was given west of the Jordan. In other words, while the Mandate arguably gave Britain and the council together the right to "withhold application" of the Mandate's stated purpose east of the Jordan, the land west of this river which includes the West Bank and Gaza, as well as Israel was unequivocally earmarked for the Jewish national home. And the fact that both territories were captured in a defensive war from states that originally seized them from being Jewish land through armed aggression strengthens Israel's undisputed claim still further.
How, then, did the myth of "occupation" i.e., the myth that these territories indisputably belong to someone other than Israel gain such universal credence? Sadly, the main culprit is Israel itself.
When Israel captured the territories in 1967, the government did not assert its claim. Instead, it insisted that Israel did not want these lands and was merely "holding them in trust" to be "returned" to the Arabs in exchange for a peace treaty. And every subsequent government reiterated this line. But since no third party could be expected to press a claim that Israel refused to press for itself, the Arab claim, by default, became the only one on the international agenda. And since territories cannot be "disputed" if there is only one claimant, the only alternative was to view them as belonging to the sole remaining claimant leaving Israel as the "questionable occupier." Additionally in International Legal Law the land belongs to the Jewish people as stated in the San Remo agreement of 1920. It can only belong to another state if and when Israel relinquishes its ownership of the land in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and enters into a valid treaty with another State and accepted by both parties.
Israel did, of course, lay specific claim to one section of these territories from the start: east Jerusalem. But legally speaking, Israel's claim to east Jerusalem is no different from its claim to the rest of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). By essentially not pursuing the latter claim, Israel badly undermined the former.
After 47 years, it may well be hard but not impossible to rectify this enormous historical error. But Israel must make the effort and demand its territories. It must explain, at every opportunity, the sound legal basis for its own claim to the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza. To do otherwise is a dereliction of duty and it puts Israel at a disadvantage when it begins any serious future negotiations from the irremediably weaker position of a "questionable occupier."
Israel prevailed in the 1967 war, returning to places such as East Jerusalem, Hebron, Shilo and all of Judea and Samaria. For 2,000 uninterrupted years, Jews had lived in the ancient Jewish quarter of Hebron, near the Tomb of the Patriarchs where Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are buried. Only in 1929, when local Arabs massacred them, was the Jewish community forced to flee the city. What could be more historically just than to rebuild the Jewish presence there?
Jews have a moral, legal, historical and Biblical right to settle their ancestral land-territories. And despite the threat posed by Arab-Palestinian terrorism, that is precisely what they continue to do. The number of Jews living in Judea, Samaria has more than doubled in the past decade, with more than 500,000 people now living in some 250 communities. They work and play and hope and dream just like the rest of us.
Israel's rebuilding its settlements matter, then, because they are at the forefront of righting a historical wrong, one in which Jews were previously barred from living in their ancestral homeland due to Arab rejectionism and hatred. But as the American people so bravely demonstrated in the aftermath of Sept. 11, the best response to one's mortal foes is to go right on living. And building. And that is what the Jews of Israel will must continue to do as well.
Any terrorist act against Israel must have an additional response, the authorization to build another 50,000 housing units in the 1967 liberated territories.
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.
“IM ESHKACHECH YERUSHLAYIM TISHAKACH YEMINI”
One must convey Jewish feelings and passions about Jerusalem with un-minced words.
When it comes to JERUSALEM’S sovereignty there is a line drawn in the sand. For the Jews, Jerusalem is their heart, aspirations, their holy city, devotion, ideals, symbol of being a nation with history, a nation with prophets, justice, fairness, rich Jewish history and the Jewish soul. When a Jew conveys his feeling about Jerusalem, he must not worry about offending anybody, or hurt feelings. We cannot make an omelet without cracking eggs, and a Jew cannot and must not be apologetic about Jewish’ feelings concerning Jerusalem. it is clear to me even if I were not a Jew, just from a pragmatic consideration of running a city, that any division of Jerusalem will lead eventually to immense unbearable friction and sooner-or-later to another war. We must present and make the analogy, that dividing Jerusalem is like dividing the baby in King Solomon’s verdict. Jews do not divide babies, only those who do not feel and care for the baby are prepared to take half. This is what every Jew must say.
I hope that we all have the opportunity to say these tough words for Jerusalem and the Jewish people.
I must also state that if you are to question the borders of Israel than you must question the borders of the other 21 Arab states and Jordan which were assigned after WWI by the same Allied powers the assigned the borders of Israel in the San Remo treaty.
The West Bank and Gaza were therefore not owned by any Arabs when they were seized by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, in 1948; and since their annexation by these countries was never and could never internationally recognized since it belonged to the Jewish people (Jordan's annexation of the West Bank, for instance, was accepted illegally only by Britain and Pakistan), they were still a territory which was assigned to the Jewish people under the San Remo Treaty of 1920 of which terms are valid in perpetuity in 1967.
Moreover, Israel had a very strong claim to both territories. Even aside from the obvious historical claim the heart of the biblical kingdom of Israel was in what is now called the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) the terms of the original League of Nations Mandate quite clearly assigned the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza to the Jewish state.
The preamble to the Mandate explicitly stated that its purpose was "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." Not the Arab people, they already received 21 states.
DOES THIS mean that all of Mandatory Palestine which included not only modern-day Israel, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza, but also the modern-day state of Jordan was supposed to be a Jewish state? See the San Remo Treaty of 1920 and an additional answer (which should be contested by the Jewish people) can be found in Article 25, which reads: "In the territories lying between the Jordan [River] and the eastern boundary of Palestine... the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions."
No such permission, however, was given west of the Jordan. In other words, while the Mandate arguably gave Britain and the council together the right to "withhold application" of the Mandate's stated purpose east of the Jordan, the land west of this river which includes the West Bank and Gaza, as well as Israel was unequivocally earmarked for the Jewish national home. And the fact that both territories were captured in a defensive war from states that originally seized them from being Jewish land through armed aggression strengthens Israel's undisputed claim still further.
It was a mistake giving the Arabs control of Temple Mount in 1967 - The holiest site in Judaism.
It is time to correct that mistake. Any Jewish holy sites must be controlled by the Jewish people. The Arabs intentionally damage Jewish holy sites.
Any person, no matter of what religion or nationality must be permitted to go to Temple Mount visit and pray.
If the Arabs do not like it, they should be ejected. They have taken advantage of Israel concession giving them control of Temple Mount.
If the Police chief cannot control the mobs, get someone who can.
Prohibiting any Jewish person including government officials is a cop-out. It must be encouraged for any Jewish people to go to Temple Mount and not capitulate to Arab terror and intimidation.
They are in Israel at the Jewish discretion, provided they adhere to Israel's laws and do not commit any violence or disturbances.
Obama’s relations with Israel and other Nations
Obama has no respect from many of the International community. Obama has no credibility, he has the least experience in real politics, he is the worst president the U.S. has ever had. Obama has alienated many nations and has caused foreign policy damage that is costing the American taxpayer trillions. Obama has abused his executive powers and should be prosecuted for his violations. Obama is ignoring the true sovereignty of the Jewish people in Israel and the various treaties and international agreements entered into after WWI. Obama’s blatant disrespect of Netanyahu and Israel’s International legitimate rights shows his naivety in International matters and foreign policy. Obama’s lack of etiquette is an outright embarrassment to the United States.
Natanyahu is trying his best, but he will not compromise the security of Israel and that is the way a leader should perform. 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 after WWI, Established the State of Israel based on the Balfur Declaration. On the other hand, Israel and its Jewish people have over 3500 year 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 from their countries, confiscated their homes and assets to the tune of over 500 billion dollars and over 600,00 of these Jewish people were resettled in Greater Israel.
If this is not discrimination against Israel, I do not know what is.
It seems like nobody cares about land violations in other countries in the world, but when it comes to Israel, everyone has a say. Israel’s rights in the treaty of San Remo of 1920 are in affect in perpetuity, clearly states that the Jewish people are the only ones with political rights in the British Mandate of Palestine and that the Jewish people can live anywhere in the British Mandate.
If the U.S., Europe and other countries will stop meddling, and stop its criticism and involvement in the politics of Israel and the Arabs, than there will be a chance for peace.
We know the great powers are only interested in the OIL and nothing else, that is the bottom line.
A true and lasting peace in Israel will bring mammoth economic prosperity to The Israelis and The Arabs alike.
An approach to peace starts by teaching your children and the people not to hate and condemn any acts violence that hurts civilian population and stop celebrating and rewarding the death and destruction of each other.
http://www.cbn.com/…/20…/july/san-remo-resolution-revisited/
YJ Draiman
“No Jew is entitled to give up the right of establishing [i.e. settling] the Jewish Nation in all of the Land of Israel. No Jewish body has such power. Not even all the Jews alive today [i.e. the entire Jewish People] have the power to cede any part of the country or homeland whatsoever. This is a right vouchsafed or reserved for the Jewish Nation throughout all generations. This right cannot be lost or expropriated under any condition or circumstance. Even if at some particular time, there are those who declare that they are relinquishing this right, they have no power nor competence to deprive coming generations of this right. The Jewish nation is neither bound nor governed by such a waiver or renunciation. Our right to the whole of this country is valid, in force and endures forever. And until the Final Redemption has come, we will not budge from this historic right.”
BEN-GURION’S DECLARATION ON THE EXCLUSIVE AND
INALIENABLE JEWISH RIGHT TO THE WHOLE OF
THE LAND OF ISRAEL:
at the Basle Session of the 20th Zionist Congress at Zurich (1937)
Media Bias – is promoting terrorism – Lives are at stake
It is interesting to note that all the major TV and media show the damage in Gaza and interview Arab-Palestinians who are part of Hamas a terrorist organization affiliated with those terrorists that hijacked 4 Airliners that blew up the Twin Towers World Trade Center in 9.11 2001 and killed 3000 Americans. One Airliner Crashed into the Pentagon in Virginia and one Airliner was forced to crash in Pennsylvania by the pass...engers, avoiding a crash on the White House in Washington D.C. How many more American lives and other innocents must be sacrificed before you wake up to the increasing danger to world peace.
They are not telling that it is Hamas-Gaza a terrorist organization that is bombarding Israel with 100’s of missiles daily.
It is only Israel responding and defending itself and protecting its population from the bullies Hamas in Gaza.
The atrocities committed by Hamas and other terrorist organization must not be condoned or placated by anybody.
If the Media is looking for sensationalism let them look elsewhere – their favorable reports on the terrorists only breeds more terror and endanger the whole world. This is exactly what the terrorists want is your coverage, they lie, they cheat, they display to the world false pictures from other conflicts in order to buy the worlds sympathy.
I assure you it will not work. There are powers in the world who fight terrorism with every breath and resource that is available to them. – NEVER AGAIN – Americans and the world must not tolerate terrorism at all costs or we are doomed. I would like to see if the reporter and his family were being attacked daily by missiles, how would they react. I can assure you, they would yell and scream, how come our government is not protecting us.
This is a very irresponsible Media which must be strongly reprimanded if not fired and sanctioned.
I think the advertisers should be notified and advised to cut off advertising and revenues to such Media.
I urge you to start practicing responsible accurate and unbiased-balanced Journalism. Lives are at stake.
YJ Draiman
