Jordan - Transjordan a theft of Jewish territory Israel Arab Conflict History
Aboriginal and Indigenous Rights of the Jewish People to their Historical Land of Israel
"The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic ancestral homeland," said U.S. President Barack Obama in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly on September 21, 2011. This theme of "people" and "historic homeland" has for centuries resonated with most Jews round the world. However, the president's words were even more welcome, because our own time witnesses an increasingly bitter controversy over the Jewish people's right to political self-determination in a part of its aboriginal ancestral homeland as the only remaining indigenous people of Palestine, aka Greater Israel.
That fierce debate inevitably revolves around the political and legal doctrine of the self-determination of peoples. There is also the companion doctrine of aboriginal indigenous rights, because the Jewish people is a small indigenous minority in the Arab Middle East; which in turn is an important part of the greater Muslim world that also includes key countries like Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and Indonesia.
Aboriginal indigenous rights suggest that there is significant moral and legal weight to the historical facts of the Jews. Though Jews have been periodically persecuted and have been perennial victims of discrimination for more than twenty-five centuries since the destruction of the Jewish Temples in Jerusalem by the Romans, there has always been a Jewish population in Greater Israel. Furthermore, most Jews throughout the world kept some demographic and cultural ties to their aboriginal indigenous homeland, including the aspiration to return and rebuild recited in their daily prayers and holidays. Moreover, there is added moral and legal weight supporting the Jews aboriginal indigenous rights as a result of said rights having already been explicitly recognized in relevant international treaties, which are the highest source of international law.
The concept of aboriginal indigenous rights has been well understood by other peoples: e.g., by the Greeks in the early 19th century when they fought for independence from the Ottoman Empire. More recently speaking articulately about their aboriginal and treaty rights, the Indian tribes of Canada astutely perceive that law is akin to an ongoing discussion about rights, in which it is essential to offer meaningful arguments. Such “meaningful arguments” must include discussion where the indigenous people get to tell their own story, which can also become a compelling narrative that engages the conscience of others who are more powerful.
How are Arab-Palestinians "a people", but Jews are not?
Denying or minimizing Jewish rights is an integral part of the ongoing war against the Jewish people and Israel. For example, Arab-Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad deny that the Jews are a people, within the context of the modern political and legal doctrines of aboriginal indigenous rights and the self-determination of peoples. However, there is an enormous body of archaeological and other historical evidence demonstrating that the Jewish people, like the Greek people or the Han Chinese people, is among the oldest of the world's peoples. The early modern European peoples probably derived their understanding of what it means to be a people in history principally from the example of the Jewish people as set out in the Bible.
What is a people?
Linguists theorize about a proto-Semitic language which perhaps suggests kinship among the ancient Semitic populations, long before the birth of Hebrew and then Arabic. But "people-hood" is about much more than genetics. It is also a complex sociological phenomenon -- an abstraction, yet nonetheless one of the principal motors of world history. Opting to self-identify consistently as a specific people, a human population takes a name and shares a variable range of relatively distinct civilizational features -- e.g., ancestors, history, homeland, territory, language, literature, religion, culture, economy, and institutions. Moreover, in addition to its subjective identity, a people also normally attracts objective identity in the eyes of its friends and enemies, who frequently provide valuable historical evidence about its existence and characteristics.
Such reference to historical evidence is critical, because the political and legal doctrines of aboriginal indigenous rights and the self-determination of peoples cannot apply retroactively. This means that a people, without a continuous identity stretching back to the relevant historical time, cannot today make an aboriginal indigenous or other claim with respect to that earlier period before its ethno-genesis -- i.e., when it did not yet self-identify as that particular people. And to be sure, new peoples are always emerging while older peoples may disappear; though genes and cultural characteristics may to some extent persist in populations of one or more other peoples.
Names and extent of the aboriginal indigenous home
Generally and locally, most Muslims and Arabs stubbornly reject the legitimacy and permanence of Israel as "the" Jewish State; i.e., as the political expression of the self-determination of the Jewish people in a part of its larger aboriginal indigenous territory. Said historical ancestral homeland stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to lands east of the Jordan River. For example, the Bible tells us that the Twelve Tribes straddled the Jordan River, as did the realm of Kings David and Solomon and their successors. Since antiquity, this homeland was known to Jews as "the land of Israel" -- in Hebrew, Eretz Israel (ץרא לארשי). "The Holy Land" as later understood by Christians (Latin, terra sancta) and by Muslims (Ottoman Turkish, arz-i mukaddes) was for theological reasons geographically identical to the earlier concept of Eretz Israel.
For Christians everywhere, the Holy Land was also "Palestine." This designation was a historical reference honoring the memory of a religiously significant province of the Roman-Byzantine Empire, where Christianity was the official faith. Maps prepared in Europe and the Americas, from the 17th century to the beginning of the First World War (1914-1918), regularly imagined a then nonexistent Palestine, which was portrayed as also including lands east of the Jordan River. From the late 4th century CE until 1946, "historic" Palestine, aka the Land of Israel, has always included part or all of the territory that is now the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Thus, the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica says that the Jordan River divides Western from Eastern Palestine, which ends where the Arabian Desert begins.
The Jewish people habitation in the Holy Land
Though classical demography is a guessing game, Jews may have numbered several million in the early Roman Empire. For more than a century before the 70 AD destruction of the Second Temple, some Jews were living in various places around the Mediterranean basin due to previous expulsion by previous conquerors and made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem on Jewish holidays when possible, while many lived in their aboriginal indigenous homeland. Nonetheless, Jews remained the majority in the Holy Land, aka Greater Israel, perhaps until the late 6th century CE. Though many Jews always preferred to stay in their homeland, others were moving in and out -- a migratory pattern that endures to this day.
The Jewish Bible, the Christian Gospels, and the Muslim Koran all refer to the Jewish people and its strong connection to the Holy Land - The historical land of Israel. Since antiquity, over 4000 years, there has never been a time when Jews were absent from the Holy Land. Even when Jewish numbers dropped to a low point, the Holy Land was still home to rabbis famous throughout the Jewish world. With at least 2,600 years of continuous history since the destruction of the second Jewish temple by the Romans in 70 AD, the Jewish people kept a subjective-objective identity that always included demographic and cultural links to its native land with holidays, fast days and daily prayers for Jerusalem.
In the first four centuries CE, the Jews of the Holy Land played a key role in Jewish civilization, including completion of the Jerusalem Talmud. Documents from the Cairo Geniza reveal much about Jewish life in the Holy Land from the Muslim conquest in the early 7th century CE to the Crusader victory in 1099. During the Crusader period, Acre was an important center for Jews, about whom we learn from a variety of sources, including the 12th-century Jewish travelers Benjamin of Tudela and Rabbi Petachia of Ratisbon. During the Mamluk period (1250-1516), Jerusalem was seat for a deputy to the Egypt-based Nagid who headed all the Jewish communities of the sultanate.
Fifteenth-century Holy Land Jews also feature in the letters of Rabbi Obadiah ben Abraham Bertinoro and the travelogues of Christian pilgrims like Arnold van Harff, Felix Fabri, and Martin Kabatnik. Richer are sources from the four Ottoman centuries ending in 1917. For example, 16th-century Ottoman registers (defter-i mufassal) record the names of Jewish taxpayers. Evidence also comes from documents like some late 18th-century account books of the Jerusalem Jewish community. With the 19th century, travel books and consular reports join a flood of other sources about local Jews who also told their own stories. Though the number of Jews grew absolutely, they remained a small number of the total population which, including the Muslims and the Christians, remained low -- in fact, somewhat lower than in the early Roman Empire.
Aboriginal rights of the Greek people
The modern Jewish people are aboriginal and indigenous to their ancestral homeland in the same way that the Greek people are aboriginal to Greece. In the early 19th century, some prominent personalities like the English poet Lord Byron enthusiastically championed the aboriginal rights of the Greek people. For this reason in part, some of the European powers intervened to help the Greeks win their independence from the Ottoman Empire. In 1821, when the Greeks began their revolt against the sultan, they were a minority of the population in the territory that is now modern Greece. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Modern Greek history has been partly about the hundreds of thousands of Diaspora Greeks who gradually returned to their ancestral homeland. Also, after the First World War, U.K. Prime Minister David Lloyd George unsuccessfully backed the aboriginal rights of the Greek people to the Anatolian littoral. There, large Greek communities had persisted from antiquity until 1922, when they were finally destroyed by the Turks, who are not aboriginal to Anatolia.
Aboriginal Indigenous rights of the "First Nations"
The modern Jewish people claims both aboriginal and treaty rights to its historical ancestral homeland as the only remaining indigenous people. Aboriginal and treaty rights are also claimed by the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including the "First Nations" or Indian tribes. The First Nations strongly believe that their sovereign rights to their tribal lands extend back to the beginning of time, long before the origins of Canadian, European, and international law.
In the same way, the Jewish people's claim to its historical ancestral homeland reaches back to antiquity and thus antedates the post-classical birth of both Europe and the Islamic civilization. Conceptually, the Jewish people are the remaining aboriginal indigenous people to its historical ancestral homeland in the same way that the First Nations are aboriginal to their ancestral lands in the Americas.
Common Law courts began recognizing aboriginal rights in the 19th century. From 1982, the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada have explicitly featured in Canada's Constitution Act. The Supreme Court of Canada has decided that, where a First Nation maintains demographic and cultural connections with the land, aboriginal title (including self-government rights) can survive both sovereignty changes and the influx of a new majority population resulting from foreign conquest. Dealing with claims of right on all sides, the Court seeks to reconcile the subsequent rights of newcomers with the aboriginal rights of a First Nation. The concept of aboriginal rights is also an important legal topic in Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S., and is now receiving more attention internationally.
Spot-on is the comparison between the aboriginal rights of the Jewish people and those of the First Nations of the Americas. Between the sea and the Jordan River, "the Jewish people" is the aboriginal tribe and "the Arab people" is the interloping settler population, including newer waves of Arab immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is important to note whether a thousand years ago or today, Jews returning to join other Jews in the Holy Land are not to be compared with the 17th-century Pilgrim Fathers who had neither antecedents nor kin in the New World.
Aboriginal Indigenous ancestral rights of the Jewish people
Like the Greek people or the First Nations, the Jewish people has for more than two millennia continuously affirmed its connection to its historical ancestral homeland. Of all extant peoples, the Jewish people has the strongest claim to be aboriginal to the Holy Land, where Judaism, the Hebrew language, and the Jewish people were born (ethno genesis) around 2,600 years ago (Israel is the only country in the world, that bears the same name, speaks the same language, upholds the same faith and inhabits the same land as it did over 3200 years ago). Before then, the Holy Land was home, inter alia, to the immediate ancestors of the Jewish people, including personalities like Kings David and Solomon, famous from the Jewish Bible. At that time and still earlier, the Holy Land was also home to other peoples -- like the Phoenicians, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Jebusites and Philistines -- which have long since vanished from the world, a similar fate has been recorded with the Aztecs, the Mayans and the Incans in Peru which is only about 600 years ago, with nobody today entitled to make new claims on their behalf by reason of recently alleged genetic descent.
What, then, of that dramatis persona of world history known as "the Arab people"? As such, the great Arab people are aboriginal to Arabia, not the Holy Land. Judaism, the Hebrew language, and the Jewish people were already established in the Holy Land for about a thousand years before the 6th-7th-century CE ethno-genesis in Arabia of the great Arab people, the birth of which was approximately coeval with the emergence of Islam and classical Arabic.
Though local Jews suffered persistent discrimination and periodic persecution, neither the Arab people -- from the first Muslim conquest in the 7th century CE -- nor subsequent invaders succeeded in eradicating the Jewish population or ending the links between the Jewish people and the Holy Land. Jews are today no longer a minority between the sea and the Jordan River. This means that the Jewish people can now draw greater benefit from the doctrine of the self-determination of peoples, which normally allocates territory by the national character of the current local population. At the same time, the Jewish people also continue to affirm aboriginal indigenous rights to its historical ancestral homeland. Furthermore, it will be seen that these Jewish aboriginal indigenous rights still have some political and legal significance in the ongoing dispute over the refusal of most Muslims and Arabs to recognize the legitimacy and permanence of Israel as the Jewish State.
The Restored Jewish State of Israel
Most Jews around the world see Israel as "the" Reinstated Jewish State”, i.e. as the political expression of the self-determination of the Jewish people in a part of its larger historical indigenous ancestral homeland. Like other peoples, the Jewish people have a right to self-determination. Though the self-determination of the great Arab people is expressed via twenty-one Arab countries, Israel is the sole expression of the self-determination of the great Jewish people.
Some Western thinkers are now uncomfortable with the idea of a nation-state as the homeland of a particular people. If so, there is no special reason to target Israel, because other countries are also nation-states. For example, also nation-states are Japan, Italy, Greece, and the countries of the Arab League. In theory and practice, the nation-state model does not have to conflict with fundamental civil and human rights for aliens or for citizens who do not ethnically self-identify as members of the majority people. Moreover, the nation-state can also accommodate collective rights for one or more minority peoples. It must be noted, with regard to such individual and collective rights, Israel's domestic law is comparable to what is provided by other legal systems, and far more superior to what is offered in other Middle Eastern states.
Israel reborn of the Ottoman Empire
Until the end of the First World War, the Holy Land was part of the Ottoman Empire. Thus, Israel and two dozen other modern countries are successor-states of the Ottoman caliphate, which for four hundred years (1516-1920) was the principal occupying power in the Near and Middle East. Apart from the ruling Turks, the Ottoman Empire was home to other peoples including Albanians, Greeks, Slavs, Copts, Armenians, Kurds, Arabs, and Jews. For centuries, these Jews lived in a variety of Ottoman venues, including Constantinople, Salonika, Cairo, Alexandria, Damascus, Aleppo, Mosul, Baghdad, Basra, Tiberias, Hebron, Safed, Jaffa, Gaza and Jerusalem, etc.
In October 1914, the Ottoman Empire opted to enter the First World War to fight against the U.K. and its Allies. As the fortunes of war began to favor the British Army, the U.K. government addressed the question of what to do with the multi-national Ottoman lands both in the light of current British interests and the 19th-century liberal doctrine of the self-determination of peoples as demanded by the US government. In this regard, the father of modern political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, in his 1896 manifesto, The Jewish State, had already proclaimed that Jews, though living in many different places around the globe, constitute one people for the purpose of self-determination. There was also the previous promise in 1799 by Napoleon Bonaparte to reconstitute the Jewish State in the Jewish Historical Land of Palestine.
Why the 1917 Balfour Declaration?
In October 1917, the U.K. Cabinet decided to favor plans to restore and create "a national home for the Jewish people." The venue was said to be "Palestine," a then-nonexistent country of uncertain extent that was ultimately described by the League of Nations in 1922 as "the Palestine Mandate", which also included the Trans-Jordan Emirate first formed in 1921. The U.K. government's promise of "best endeavors" to restore and create "a national home for the Jewish people" was motivated by a desire to help realize the Jewish people's long-standing claim to self-determination and reconstitute it in its historic indigenous ancestral homeland; to shore up support for the Allied war effort among Jews in revolutionary Russia and the U.S.; and to help cover the eastern flank of the Suez Canal, which was then the crucial gateway to British India. The intention to reinstate and create this "national home for the Jewish people" was announced in the November 1917 Balfour Declaration.
No "Arab-Palestinian people" in 1919
As the U.K. worked to defeat the Ottoman Turks, the world also began to learn about the national claims of the great Arab people. Here we recall the wartime exploits of Lawrence of Arabia and the Hashemite Prince Feisal ibn Hussein, both of whom were present at the 1919-1920 Paris Peace Conference and the Faisal Weizmann Agreement. There, a powerful searchlight was trained on the doctrine of the self-determination of peoples, including the claims of the great Arab people. But nobody in Paris knew about a distinct "Arab-Palestinian" people. Had there then been such an Arab- Palestinian people, its existence would have been known to Prince Feisal, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, France's Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, U.K. Prime Minister David Lloyd George, and to the other leaders who came to work on the international peace treaties. This factual assessment is confirmed by extensive local testimony and petitions collected in 1919, by the U.S. King-Crane Commission. Its report to President Wilson indicated that, whether Muslim or Christian, the Arabs of the Holy Land specifically rejected any plan to restore and create a new country called "Palestine," for the Jews, which they perceived to be part of the detested Zionist project.
There Never was a Muslim state or entity called "Palestine"
In 1919-1920, most local Arabs backed then-current plans to create a new Arab state of Greater Syria, which they expected would cover what is today Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, the West Bank aka Judea and Samaria, Gaza, and Israel. For Muslims in the Holy Land, this broader geographic focus of political self-identification was natural, because a large province of Damascus (Ottoman Turkish, Şam) had at various times featured prominently in Muslim and Ottoman history. By contrast, the Ottoman Empire never had a province or sub-provincial unit called, or co-extensive with, "Palestine," no matter how conceived. Nor had Muslim history ever known a state or province called "Palestine." Since the Name Palestine replacing the name Israel was implemented by the Romans to demoralize embarrass the Jews.
After the 7th-century-CE Arab conquest, the caliphate for a time kept the old Roman and Byzantine homonym Palaestina, arabicized as Filastin (فلسطين), for one small district or jund (جند) of the province of Damascus. Straddling the Jordan River, this jund Filastin was just a fraction the size of the larger Palestine that was a province of the Roman-Byzantine Empire formerly called the Kingdom of Israel. Which for centuries was rememberedby Christians everywhere, and finally realized again in 1922 as ”the Palestine Mandate” with the British as trustee for the Jewish people that included both the Trans-Jordan Emirate, and the restoration of the “national home for the Jewish people” from the sea to the Jordan River. There was also the Faisal Weizmann agreement signed in London on January 3, 1919.
Global self-determination exercise
The 1918-1919 Paris Peace Conference and the 1920 San Remo Conference was concerned with the task of accommodating the political interests of the victorious Allied and Associated Powers with the claims to self-determination of well-known peoples with long histories of self-affirmation and bitter suffering under foreign oppression. Thus, considered were difficult and entangled issues touching the self-determination of such famous peoples as the Chinese, French, Germans, Poles, Finns, Letts, Latvians, Estonians, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Arabs, and the Jews. In this larger context, just one decision among many was the restoration and recreation of "a national home for the Jewish people." It is noteworthy that "national home for the Jewish people" was reiterated from 1917 to 1922, in a series of consistent declarations, resolutions, and international treaties that were ex post facto blessed by the Treaty of Sevres and the 1923 Lausanne Treaty with the Turkish Republic, as successor to the Ottoman Empire and were also supported by an agreement signed by King Faisal and Chaim Weizmann in 1919.
Why restore a national home for the Jewish people?
The decision to realize the self-determination of the Jewish people and restore its State in a part of its aboriginal indigenous territory was the rationale for the 1922 re-creation of "a national home for the Jewish people" from the sea to the Jordan River. With a legal status akin to a multilateral international agreement or treaty, the Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations which incorporated and adopted international treaties guaranteeing the reconstituting of the Jewish national home in Palestine (July 24, 1922) entrusted the U.K. government with a new jurisdiction and obligation that included both Trans-Jordan and the national home for the Jewish people. In 1946, Trans-Jordan was severed from the Jewish Palestine Mandate to become the independent Arab state called "the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan", it consisted 78% of the land originally allocated to the Jews. In 1948, the restored national home for the Jewish people became the independent Jewish state called "Israel." On only a fraction of its original territory guaranteed by international law and treaties.
Decision-makers at the Paris Peace Conference knew the Holy Land to be significantly and severely under-developed and under-populated. They also understood that the new restored national home for the Jewish people would initially lack a Jewish majority population. However, there was a conscious choice to refer not just too circa 95,000 Jews then living locally, but also to the past, present, and future of the great Jewish people. In this context, the restored national home for the Jewish people was understood to also pertain to the 14 million plus Jews worldwide, including the over one million Jewish families then living in the Near and Middle East for over 2000 years.
The international decision to reinstate and create a national home for the Jewish people was made not so much on the basis of local demographics, but explicitly due to "the historical ancestral connection of the Jewish people with Palestine". This was a clear recognition of the Jewish people's long-affirmed and continuing links to its aboriginal indigenous homeland. The Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations also contained detailed stipulations requiring the development of the restored national home for the Jewish people. For example, specific provisions called for "close settlement by Jews on the land" from the sea to the Jordan River with the explicit right to settle anywhere in Palestine.
Did Arabs deserve all the Middle East?
Failure to restore and create a national home for the Jewish people would have meant denying the great Jewish people a share in the partition of the multi-national Ottoman Empire, where Jews had lived for over 25 centuries, including in the historical Jewish Holy Land and Jerusalem. Failure to reinstate and create a national home for the Jewish people would also have meant that the great Arab people would have received almost the whole of the Ottoman inheritance over 5 million square miles. That result would have been unacceptable to David Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson, and their peers, because they significantly understood that the claim to self-determination of the great Jewish people to their ancestral land in Palestine was as undeniable and compelling as that of the great Arab people.
The Paris decision-makers strongly insisted that they had also done justice to the claims of the great Arab people, which they believed they had freed from 400 years of Turkish rule and helped on the road to independence via creation and/or recognition of several new Arab states on lands that had formerly been subject to the Ottoman sultan. For example, 78% of the territory of the Palestine Mandate originally allocated to the Jews under international treaties, was reallocated as a new ArabState that was Trans-Jordan, which finally became an independent Arab state in 1946.
The international decision to restore and create a national home for the Jewish people, from the sea to the Jordan River, did not result in the displacement of local Arabs. To the contrary, from 1922 until 1948, the Arab population of the national home for the Jewish people almost tripled via immigration from neighboring Arab states, while the Jewish population there multiplied eight times. The later problem of Arab refugees (about 526,000) from the national home for the Jewish people, and Jewish refugees (about 980,000 families) from Arab countries only emerged from May 1948, when local Arabs allied with several neighboring Arab states launched a war to destroy the newly independent state of Israel. Their declared intention was to exterminate the Jews living between the sea and the Jordan River, just as the Turks in 1922 had spectacularly succeeded in liquidating the aboriginal Greek communities of the Anatolian littoral and the Armenian genocide.
Who self-identified as Arab-Palestinian before 1948?
The Jewish people have kept the same name, language, faith and subjective-objective identity in each century since ancient times. By contrast, among local Muslim Arabs, the formation of a distinct, subjective-objective "Arab-Palestinian" identity did not generally occur before the second half of the 20th century. This is understandable because the fifty years from the Ottoman collapse to the 1967 Six-Day War was a short time for the birth of a new people. Moreover, relatively few Muslim Arabs would have wanted to self-identify as "Palestinian" until three preconditions had been satisfied.
First precondition was political resurrection of the ancient region "Palestine" via the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Treaty and the 1922 creation of the Palestine Mandate, which consisted of Trans-Jordan and the restored national home for the Jewish people, from the sea to the Jordan River.
Second precondition was the 1946 separation from the Palestine Mandate of an independent Arab state called Jordan (which consisted of 78% of originally Jewish allocated territory). This is significant because the new Palestinian identity was directly focused on the territory of the restored national home for the Jewish people. This was notably that smaller (22% of the original territorial allocation to the Jewish national home) Palestine-Israel, from the sea to the Jordan River, that existed for less than two years, i.e. from May 25, 1946 (the birth of Jordan) until May 14, 1948 (the birth of Israel). Before 1946, that precise territorial focus was largely absent because as a border the Jordan River then had relatively little meaning for the self-identification of most of the Muslim Arabs living on either bank. This factor was implicitly recognized by the U.K. Peel Commission in violation of international treaties, which in 1937 recommended the creation of a new Arab state to consist of both Trans-Jordan and the Arab-inhabited parts of the restored national home for the Jewish people. And more than a decade later, this factor was again implicitly recognized by King Abdullah I, who in 1950 annexed to the Kingdom of Jordan the West Bank and East Jerusalem that his Arab Legion had conquered in the 1948-1949 war.
Third precondition was the abrupt jettisoning in May 1948 of the appellation "Palestine" the name the Romans names Israel, in favor of the original name "Israel" as the name for the newly independent Jewish state. Before 1948, the adjective "Palestinian" had too often been used as synonym for "Jewish". And to be sure, the name "Palestine" and many other specific features of the 1922 Palestine Mandate were very closely associated with Jews and Zionism to have offered much of a focus for Muslim Arabs. Therefore, they generally did not identify as "Arab-Palestinian" until the "Palestine" trademark had been definitely abandoned by the Jews (Israel was named Palestine by the Romans to insult the Jews).
The Arab-Palestinian people in the 1960's
Arab leaders had themselves been slow to recognize the existence of a distinct Arab-Palestinian people with a right to self-determination. For example, as principal Arab leader at the 1918-19 Paris Peace Conference, Prince Feisal had specifically accepted the plan to restore and re-create "a national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine and even signed an agreement with Chaim Weizmann in London on January 3, 1919. Also his father, the Hashemite King of the Hedjaz (later part of Saudi Arabia) was party to the 1920 Sevres Treaty (signed and executed by all the Supreme Allied Powers) that explicitly stipulated that there would be reinstated "a national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine.
Around three decades later, the governments of Egypt and Jordan showed how little regard they had for the self-determination of an Arab-Palestinian people. First, they outright rejected the 1947 U.N. General Assembly resolution recommending the partition of the territory of the restored national home for the Jewish people into two new independent states, the one Jewish and the other Arab. Second, no Arab-Palestinian state was created between 1948 and 1967 (going back at least 10 centuries, during Muslim occupation, there was no thought of creating an independent Arab State in Palestine), when Egypt held the Gaza Strip and Jordan had East Jerusalem and the West Bank aka Judea and Samaria.
The loss of those lands by Egypt and Jordan in the Six-Day War strongly encouraged the tendency of local Arabs to see themselves as distinct from the Arabs of Egypt and Jordan (Arab-Palestinians carry Jordanian passports). Now more clearly spearheading their own irrational struggle, local Arabs had added incentive to self-identify as "Arab-Palestinian." All the more so, since the new identification effectively expressed their stubborn determination to eventually master all the territory that in 1922 had been internationally recognized as the restored "national home for the Jewish people". Moreover, history knows of other instances in which new national identities have been forged in the fire of territorial dispute and ethno-religious hatred.
Peaceful rights reconciliation
This analysis neither denies the current existence of a distinct Arab-Palestinian people nor suggests that this newborn Arab-Palestinian people is today without rights, including claims to self-determination, independence, and territory like Jordan. Rather, there are now "claims of right" on all sides. Urgently required is a peaceful process that respects the dignity of both peoples and effects a reconciliation of the subsequent rights of the newly emerged Arab-Palestinian people with the prior rights of the ancient indigenous Jewish people. A peaceful process is mandatory, inter alia, because the Jewish people's aboriginal indigenous rights include "the right to life". Namely, Jews have a right to live in security and safely in their ancestral native land -- and even more so, in the part of their aboriginal indigenous homeland that was explicitly recognized as the restored "national home for the Jewish people" in a series of declarations, resolutions, and international law and treaties from 1917 to 1923. This significantly means that the Arab-Palestinian people who received the bulk of the territory east of the Jordan river, lack the right to wage a "war of national liberation" against the Jewish people, which is legitimately under international law and treaties, sited between the Sea and the Jordan River. There, the Jewish people live "as of right and not on sufferance", as said by Winston Churchill in 1922.
Sketching a principled peace
One people lack a right to rule over another people. Thus, a peaceful process for the reconciliation of rights would probably have to respect the doctrine of the self-determination of peoples. For example, a full and final peace treaty concluded today would likely have to waive most Jewish aboriginal and treaty rights with respect to land now mostly inhabited by Arab-Palestinians wishing to live in a new Palestinian state of Jordan. By the same doctrine, the treaty would probably have to include within Israel land now mostly inhabited by Jews. If so, there would probably be no legal requirement to compensate a new Arab-Palestinian state for Israel's retention of its liberated territory west of the Jordan river -- i.e. the armistice demarcation lines (ADL) would be void. First, the 1949 armistice agreements with Egypt and Jordan say that the ADL are without prejudice to a final settlement. Second, no Arab government has ever recognized the ADL as the legitimate and permanent borders of the Jewish State. Third, the peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) explicitly indicate as Israel's international borders not the ADL, but rather to the west the old Sinai boundary with Egypt, and to the east the Jordan River as the absolute Jewish sovereignty. Fourth, the Jewish people's aboriginal, international treaties, and self-determination rights rest on principles so fundamental that they outweigh and over-ride any arguments favoring the ADL.
A full and final peace treaty could probably also rely on the aboriginal indigenous rights to ensure that Jews retain ownership and access to all Jewish and other religious sites, sacred to Judaism for more than two millennia.
Finally, Jewish aboriginal and self-determination rights together argue for safeguards to ensure that creating a new Arab-Palestinian state east of the Jordan river cannot be a stepping stone toward the eventual destruction of Israel. Because Jews remain a vulnerable minority in the Muslim and Arab Middle East, a full and final peace treaty would need to have a number of effective stipulations for Jewish safety and security. Furthermore, such safety measures should embrace both military provisions and an article unequivocally recognizing the legitimacy and permanence of Israel as the Jewish State, i.e. as the political expression of the self-determination of the Jewish people in a part of its historical aboriginal indigenous homeland.
Israel stands in the way and is an obstacle to full Muslim domination of the Middle East
The West fears Islamic aggression (which has been going on since WW1), and is opting for appeasement. Propaganda is being used to try to convince people that Muslims in Israel, and in the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Golan Heights, are being mistreated. Islamist forces have conducted maneuvers at the borders of Israel, and have continuously lobbed missiles into Israel. Islam constantly threatens Israel, often using language that proclaims a desire for the complete destruction of Israel. The Arab-Palestinians have spoken to the world, proclaiming parts of Israel to belong to them.
Peace in the Middle East is desired at any cost by the Western Appeasers. The unrest is being blamed on Israel. Islam promises that the Arab-Palestinian claims are the last they will make in Israel. If land is traded for peace, they say, then the unrest in the Middle East will ease, which is a delusion and not reality.
The Western Leaders, fearful that if the Muslims are not appeased the world could plunge into terrorism (which it has already and increasing daily), have decided they need to negotiate with the Arab-Palestinians, grant them the Statehood they suddenly desire, and grant them their demands for the purpose of a delusional peace.
As The West prepares for appeasement, the forces of jihadism are on the rise in Egypt, Syria, Turkey and Iran and extends to Pakistan, Afghanistan and former Russian states. Egypt's peace with Israel has been guaranteed by U.S. involvement, and land for peace. The treaty with Egypt was based on the proposition of the Sinai in 1982 for peace. The Islamists moving into position to gain power in Egypt places the treaty at risk. They have no intention of abiding by its provisions.
The concept of land for peace has failed, as it failed prior to WW2. Islamism does not care about land. Islamism only cares about the destruction of Israel, the destruction of non-Islamic societies, and ultimately the worldwide domination of Islam through a Muslim caliphate.
Israel gives land because they want the Arabs to abide by peace agreements. Israel craves peace, but deep down knows that it is not possible. Islam has made it loud and clear that land for peace is a one way street. Israeli land giveaways are permanent, but Islamic commitments to peace are revoked at any time.
With the current presidential administration in the United States, and the liberal socialists in control of the U.N. and Europe, Israel stands alone. No one plans to stand up for Israel's right to exist, as history has proven, the Jewish people have ultimately been abandoned by the world nations. The Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist parties are working to take an absolute majority in Egypt and other Muslim countries, but The West has fallen for the propaganda that claims these parties are moderate and pragmatic. ISIS has proven that this approach is wrong and detrimental to peaceful coexistence.
The fact is, the rising Islamist control over the Muslim nations has no intention of respecting treaties, or Israel's right to exist. They are waiting for conflict, and then will blame it on Israel. Talks are doomed to failure. The Islamists want it that way or the highway.
Land for Peace fails. Liberalism fails. Only a strong and direct military posture with no-holds-barred that stands up against the rising threat will succeed. . . but the appeasers refuse to learn from history, and like Neville Chamberlain with Germany, Barack Obama and his fellow appeasers are positioning the world for a new world conflict that could turn the world to ashes.
A viable solution for the conflict is: Two States - Greater Israel for the Jewish people as guaranteed by International law and treaties after WW1 and Jordan that was originally part of the territory allocated to the Jewish people under 1920 international treaties, thus Jordan has 75% of its people are Arab-Palestinians and the 120,440 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. mi. (5-6 times the size of Israel) the Arab countries confiscated from the million plus Jewish families they persecuted and expelled from Arab countries and confiscated all their assets, businesses, homes and Real estate property valued in the trillions of dollars. That should settle the refugee problem once and for all. But the Arabs will not be satisfied until they get all of Israel without the Jews and they do not hide their intention.
How did the Arab territory of Transjordan come into being?
The 1922 White Paper (also called the Churchill White Paper) was the first official manifesto interpreting the Balfour Declaration. It was issued on June 3, 1922, after investigation of the 1921 disturbances. Although the White Paper stated that the Balfour Declaration could not be amended and that the Jews were in Palestine by right, in violation of international treaties, it partitioned the area of the Mandate for Palestine by excluding the area east of the Jordan River from Jewish legally allocated historical land. That land, 78% of the original Palestine Mandate land, was renamed Transjordan and was given to the Emir Abdullah by the British.
The White Paper (In violation of international agreements) included the statement that the British Government: (Which is backstabbing the Jewish people) The British goal was to appease the Arabs in order to control Arab resources of oil.
The British did an about face and it... does not want Palestine to become "as Jewish as England is English", rather should become "a center in which Jewish people as a whole may take, and on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride."
After the illegal partition, Transjordan remained part of the Palestine Mandate and its legal system applied to all residents, both East and West of the Jordan River, who all carried Palestine Mandate passports. Palestine Mandate currency was the legal tender in Transjordan as well as the area West of the river. This was the consistent situation until 1946, 24 years later, when Britain as trustee completed the illegal action by unilaterally granting Transjordan its independence. Thus the British subverted and violated the terms of the Mandate for Palestine, partitioned Palestine and created an independent Palestine-Arab state with no regard for the rights and international agreements delineating the territory for the Jewish population. According to Sir Alec Kirkbride, the British representative in the area, Transjordan was:
... intended to serve as a reserve of land for use in the resettlement of Arabs once the National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine was completed, which [Britain was] compelled to support under international treaties, and became an accomplished fact. There was no intention at that stage of forming the territory east of the River Jordan into an independent Arab state.
In 1925, the British added 60,000 sq. km. of desert to eastern Transjordan forming an "arm" of land to connect Transjordan with Iraq and to cut Syria off from the Arabian Peninsula. The British continued to favor an apartheid rule with exclusive Arab development east of the Jordan River by enacting restrictive regulations against the Jews and prohibiting them from purchasing land or residing east of the Jordan river, even when Arab leaders sought Jewish involvement in the development of Transjordan.
Who gave the right to Muslims to invade the holy-landand occupy it? International treaties and agreements gave the right of return to the Jews including the Palestine Mandate laid out in the San Remo Conference in 1922 which incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration, Signed by 52 Nations under binding international law that is still binding today, recognizing the fact of over 3500 years of continuous historic Jewish connection with the land and even so the british government illegally partitioned and took away almost 80% of the designated area and gave it to the arab population as an additional Arab State to the existing 21 Arab States. Prior to this the Ottomans ruled and owned the land and it was taken from them during the 1st world war.
The arab connection goes back to about 690 AD and many other nations occupied Palestine-Israel over the centuries. Jews never opposed the presence of the Arabs but the arabs attitude was not mutual and has never been. Also over 990,000 Jewish families were kicked out of Arab countries with just the clothes they wore (If they were lucky), Many were murdered and all their assets confiscated, including 120,440 square km. of real estate property, which is more than 6 times the size of Israel and valued in the trillions of dollars.
Jewish people never completely left Israel around 600 BC – that was the first diaspora when the first temple was destroyed. There wouldn’t have been anyone for the Romans to disperse if your statement were true. The Romans destroyed the second temple and also enslaved many Jewish people.
During the Diasporas, many Jews ended up in the surrounding Arab countries. These Arab countries proceeded to force out these Jewish people during the time leading up to and immediately following Israel becoming a state. Many of these people lost their property, homes, etc…. there were actually twice as many Jewish refugees from the Arab countries than there were “Palestinian” refugees.
As for the late 1800’s…. actually, very few people lived in the swamplands and sand dunes that comprised much of Israel during this time. In the early 1800’s Jewish people began purchasing a portion of the lands, improved them with modern agricultural techniques and established settlements. This land was purchased for a hefty price that exceeded the amount they would typically be sold for. The improvements to the lands actually attracted ARABS from neighboring lands. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs moved into Palestine after WWI.
“Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was bought.”—Peel Commission Report, 1937.
There are severe and extreme consequences to the terrorist who plan to attack and or attacks to the terrorist his family and associates.
Anyone who is assisting or withholding information about the terrorist proposed actions or action should be considered as an accomplice.
Let them know that terror will not be tolerated.
THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE and its violations
As stated above, the 1920 San Remo Conference decided to placePalestine under British Mandatory rule making Britain responsible for giving effect to the 1917 Balfour declaration that had been adopted by the other Allied Powers and ratified under International treaty 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 San Remo Resolution which was confirmed by the Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne, 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 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. It is highly relevant that at that time the West Bank and parts of what today is Jordan were included as a Jewish Homeland. However, on September 16, 1922, the British in violation of the Treaty divided the Mandate territory of Palestine, west of the Jordan became Transjordan, east of the Jordan River was for the Jewish State, in accordance with the McMahon Correspondence of 1915 which was not approved by the British Parliament. Transjordan became exempt from the Mandate provisions concerning the Jewish National Home, 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 Balfour Declaration and the San Remo resolution as well as the British Mandate.
This action violated not only Article 5 of the Mandate which required the Mandatory to be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall 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. Political rights were exclusively granted only to the Jewish people.
Nevertheless in blatant violation of article 6, in a 1939 White PaperBritain changed its position so as to limit Jewish immigration fromEurope, a move that was blatant violation by Zionists as betrayal of the terms of the mandate, especially in light of the increasing persecution of Jews in Europe. This caused the death of millions of Jews trying to escape Nazi extermination. In response, Zionists organized Aliyah Bet, a program of illegal immigration into Palestine.
The frequently voiced complaint that the state being offered to the Palestinians comprises only 22 percent of Palestine is obviously invalid. The truth is exactly the reverse. From the above history and international treaties, 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 San Remo resolution, Britain gave autonomy toTransjordan (now known as Jordan) under as-Sharif Abdullah bin al-Husayn. Further-more, as the 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 Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and a Jewish state in Palestine all derive from the same international agreement at San Remo.
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 1920 San Remo and in the 1967 6-Day War Israel, in effect, recovered and liberated territory that legally belonged to Israel. To quote Judge Schwebel, a former President of the ICJ (International Court of Justice), “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 absolute title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem.
Remember, when the Jews and minorities were forced out of - persecuted, killed and violated in the Arab and
Islamic lands (over a million Jewish families and their children expelled),
those countries never recovered from the loss. Differences in human composition and dedication are what make us stronger. It was what George Washington said (after appreciating Haym Solomon help in financing the American revolution) to the American people, that the cultural differences are what make us stronger. Israel is the thriving America of Jews worldwide.
After over 2500 years of persecution in the Diaspora, Israel through hard work, stubbornness' to succeed and
determination to survive plus control of its own destiny was reborn by the Jewish people against all odds. It took extreme faith, dedication, hardship and consistent toil to rebuild Israel by the Jewish people with limited resources, a hostile environment and Arab and British impediment to our independence. Nevertheless,
we have succeeded in making the desert bloom and flowing with green valleys,
and the Jewish innovations just keep coming on a weekly basis. And now,
overcoming the treatment by the nations of the world as sheep to the slaughter,
to the Nazi gas chambers. Israel has morphed into a military might.
The Nation of Israel is alive and thriving! (“the nation of Israel lives”) Hate begets hate: If all the Jews
were gone (not likely), those anti-Semitic promoters and behaviors would need to feed the hate and turn on each other, as seen historically.
Try love and understanding and embrace and respect the differences, it will make living a celebration of
life, it’s all very beautiful, and you will find true success. It will be hard to change the narrative, but go ahead, accept the challenge to heal instead of hate…tolerate instead of abhor...
…you may finally see some success like the JEWS and forego your jealousy and intolerance!
This will bring about a harmonious and thriving coexistence that will benefit society for generations to come.
Wake-up world to the real Muslim mission of domination.
Israel has no choice but to continue to fight for its survival with a unified people and a unified nation.
I have long said, this is not about land, but extermination of a nation, religion and culture which is not accepted by another. I have actually asked the question, what if there was no 'holy land'. Say a natural disaster, dissolving the place into nothing, but not the people. Would the Arabs still fight? Well, the answer was chilling and emphatic, it saddened me greatly. The answer was over and over, "we have the right to kill all non believers".
I have read and re-read everything, from both sides, also, many non-biased writings.
I have come to the conclusion that Israel must protect herself in every way possible or face genocide. The Arab countries have expelled over a million Jewish families and their children, confiscated all their assets, businesses, homes and Real estate property totaling over 120,440 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles (which is 5-6 times the size of Israel) and valued in the trillions of dollars.
Those in power in the Arab-Palestinian leadership have rejected again and again any and all attempts to recognize Israel's right to exist. They continue to teach their children and the masses hate and violence.
Don't start with who was there first, even-though in actuality there has never been in history an Arab-Palestinian Nation, but there has been a Jewish Nation homeland in Palestine-Israel for the past 3,500 plus years, although sometimes occupied by various empires. Israel has won and liberated their ancestral land in a defensive war, it is known that possession is nine tenths of the law. Israel is the rightful liberator and successor, having won and liberated its ancestral homeland in war, numerous times. Sadly, it will continue, because when one Arab culture wants another's elimination, there is no talking.
I hope Israel does not concede to any of the Arab demands, or give up any more land, because they will only make themselves more vulnerable and endanger the safety and security of its citizens, as past experience has proved. Israel must not capitulate to world pressure. Israel's foremost duty and obligation is the safety and security of its citizens at all costs. Any responsible democratic country will do no less. Israel as a responsible democratic country must do the same. Ignoring, minimizing and deluding yourself that the Arab violence will go away, it will only exacerbate the problem. Taking extreme action to protect its people is the only response. The end result will be that the world at large will respect a country that defends its people from terrorism and harm at all cost.
The Muslim mission in the world is not only Israel but the rest of the infidel non-believers. Might I remind you, on 911, there were Arab terrorists who wished our extermination, right here in America. This will continue until education and humanity replaces a hatred, for no other reason, than to not accept that you exist.
The Muslims have killed over 250 million people since its inception 1500 years ago, and they will continue to kill anyone who they consider is an infidel, they even kill their own people. They have colonized the Middle East over the years. Slowly but surely they are taking over Europe and other countries, and if we are not careful they will take over the United States and other countries. They will enforce their Sharia laws.
P.S. The Jewish peoples war of survival was not won when Hitler lost. It continues to this day, against enemies with far more effective tools of mass murder at their disposal. Plus we are easy to find now.
Fighting terrorism is not unlike fighting a deadly cancer. It can not be treated just where it is visible - every diseased cell in the body must be destroyed.
The U.N. cannot create states, it can only recommend and so can other nations can 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, which terms are in affect in perpetuity. Only Israel can amend the terms if they sign a treaty with its Arab neighbors. 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. But the terms of the San Remo Treaty have not been abrogated, it is applicable today and the future, only Israel has the right to modify the terms via a treaty with the Arabs.
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 in Palestine. 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 by international Treaties, 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 expulsion of over a million Jewish families and their children from the Arab countries (who lived in those Arab countries over 2500 years) and the confiscation of personal assets, homes, businesses Real estate property owned by Jewish people in the Arab countries, totaling 120,440 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles (5-6 times the size of Israel) valued in the trillions of dollars.
The Jewish people resettled the million Jewish families refugees and their children from the Arab countries with limited resources. Over half the population in Israel today is Jewish families from Arab countries. It is about time the Arab countries who expelled the million Jewish families and confiscated their land and assets, must stop the delusion that Israel will go away. The Arab states should be obliged to settle the Arab-Palestinian refugees in their countries and or Jordan 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.)
MODERN SOURCES OF ISRAEL’S INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS IN JERUSALEM
In 1970, three years after the 1967 Six-Day War, an article appearing in the most prestigious international legal periodical, The American Journal of International Law, touched directly on the question of Israel’s rights in Jerusalem.5 It became a critical reference point for Israeli ambassadors speaking at the UN in the immediate decades that followed and also found its way into their speeches. The article was written by an important, but not yet well-known, legal scholar named Stephen Schwebel. In the years that followed, Schwebel’s stature would grow immensely with his appointment as the legal advisor of the U.S. Department of State, and then finally when he became
the President of the International Court of Justice in the Hague. In retrospect, his legal opinions mattered and were worth considering very carefully.
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 reflected 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 firing of the first shot of the war. Along Israel’s eastern front, Jordan’s artillery had opened pre-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 efforts, 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. There was no effort 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, reflecting 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. He explained 9 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. This 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 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 12 British Mandatory Palestine. 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.
The only friend's Israel has are those Christians who believe the Bible to be the Word of God. They are few in number and have no authoritative voice in the nations in which they live. A large number of them are elderly but all of them await the return of Jesus of Nazareth (remember I said 'those who believe the Bible to be the Word of God'). It is also clear to those who believe the Bible that even these few friends of Israel will be removed and she (Israel) will be left friendless. When there is no longer any voices raised in support of Israel those who are true Israelites will be forced to unite and a united Israel will be a force to be reckoned with. Israelis, get your act together.
Israel's undisputed claim to Judea and Samaria etc. r1
US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld shocked the world 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 aka Judea and Samaria and Gaza.
Neither of these territories belonged to any sovereign state (historically it did belong to the Jewish people) when Israel re-captured and liberated them in 1967; they were essentially stateless territory. (Allied powers the
assigned the borders of Israel in the 1920 San Remo treaty which was confirmed
by the 1920 treaty of Sevres and Lausanne - The League of Nations or the U.N.
cannot create of modify International Treaties, it can only recommend). 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 1920 San Remo treaty which was confirmed by the 1920
treaty of Sevres and Lausanne.
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. In 1987 Jordan relinquished its annexation of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria which
further confirms Israel's sovereignty over all its territory West of the Jordan
river and no formal annexation is required.
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 which was confirmed by the 1920 Treaty
of Sevres and Lausanne 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 they 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 (Judea and Samaria) 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 and liberated 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 67 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."
Judea and Samaria is Jewish territory - No annexation is required
Let me pose an interesting scenario. If you had a country and it was conquered by foreign
powers over a period of time. After many years you have taken back you country
and land in various defensive wars. Do you have to officially annex those
territories. It was always your territory and by retaking control and
possession of your territory it is again your original property and there is no
need to annex it. The title to your property is valid today as it was many years before.
Annexation only applies when you are taking over territory that was never yours
to begin with, just like some European countries annexed territories of other countries.
Today over half of Israel's population are Jewish families forced and expelled from Arab countries and their children and grandchildren.
The Audacity of the Arab-Palestinians and the Arab countries in demanding territory from the Jewish
people in Palestine after they persecuted and expelled over a million Jewish
families and their children who have lived in Arab land for over 2,400 years
and after they confiscated all their assets and Real estate property 5-6 times
the size of Israel (120,440 sq. km. - 75,000 sq. mi.), valued in the trillions
of dollars. There was also Jewish property and land (totaling about 60,000 sq.
km.) in Jordan, Gaza and across the Golan Heights under Syria's control.
Now the Arab nations are demanding more land and more compensation.
The Arab countries have forcefully chased the million Jewish families and their children and now
they want to chase them away again, from their own historical land.
Ref: article “Jewish legal rights to Judea and Samaria” By prominent International Law specialist Ted Belman, Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel and
Palestine under International Law by Howard Grief, and International law expert Julius Stone, and Eugene Rostow, Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the ICJ ... and agreed that Israel's
rights would be reserved under Article 51 of the UN.and Cambridge Professor
Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice. Wallace Edward Brand, JD
Worldwide alert: the real mission.
Israel has no choice but to continue to fight for its survival. Thus, it is time for a Clarion Call unifying all Israelis on a national scale, as well as all Jews worldwide.
I have long stated the real Arab mission in Israel is NOT about alleged “occupied” land. Rather, the real Arab mission is the extermination of Israel as a nation; the extermination of Judaism as a religion; and the genocide of Israelis and their culture. The reason for such an Arab mission has been repeatedly stated by their leaders: their belief they “have the right to kill all non believers”.
Posit the following, what if there was no “Holy Land” as part of modern day Israel? Would the Arab s still demand land which they have no legal right to claim? Would they still use terroristic tactics to kill innocent Israeli Jews wishing for a peaceful co-existence? The irrefutable answer, as proven by their unfounded rhetoric and actions is an emphatic YES. The reality is; the Arab s use of “contested land rights” is a thinly disguised façade to hide their true mission: the genocide of Jews and extermination of Israel at any cost.
History proves the Arab countries terrorized and expelled over a million Jewish families and their children. In so doing the Arab countries confiscated all Jewish assets, businesses, homes and real estate totaling over 120,000 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles, (which is 6 times the size of Israel), and valued in the trillions of dollars. The reason they were expelled, hatred and greed. Those expelled Jewish families were resettled in Israel and account for over half the population of Israel today.
Those in power in the Arab-Palestinian leadership have rejected again and again any and all attempts to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Although sometimes occupied, there has been a Jewish Nation in the land of Israel for the past 4000 years. In fact, the Jews are the ONLY surviving indigenous people to Israel. Yet, even though history proves there has never been an Arab-Palestinian Nation, the Arab s falsely claim they have a right to Israel. Said false claim exposes the true mission of the Arab s: extermination of Israel and the genocide of Jews.
An examination of what Arabs teach their children further exposes their true mission. They continue to teach their children to hate, enslave, terrorize and kill Jews, and all non-believers by any means possible. Ironically, the world idly sits by allowing such hatred and violence to exist and expand thinking it is only an Israeli problem (Déjà vu Hitler and Nazism).
The mission in the world is not only Israel but the rest of the world, and all “infidel non-believers”. Though there are constant instances of terroristic acts throughout the world which support the above statement, we need not consider any other than September 11, 2001. On 9/11 Arab terrorists killed close to 3,000 innocent people, including children in America. It is time for the world to accept the fact the Arab mission of worldwide genocide of ALL non-s, and even some s, will continue until education and humanity replaces such hatred, or eliminates it altogether.
History proves Arab s have killed over 500 million people since its inception 1500 years ago. Moreover, the number of deaths by Arab s continues to grow every day. They have colonized the Middle East over the years. Now they are slowly but surely taking over Europe. Rest assured if we are not careful to protect ourselves, they will attempt to take over the United States and all other countries. Then we the non-believers and our children will be forced to kneel before a sword wielding Arab, having committed no other crime than having a different religious belief.
It is time for the world to wake up and face stark reality: wherever there are Arabs there is hatred fueled conflict and terrorism in an ongoing mission of genocide.
I hope Israel understands it cannot concede to any of the Arab demands; or give up any more land. To do so will only weaken Israel, making it more vulnerable and endangering the safety and security of its citizens. Israel must retract all previous concessions since the Arab s have not abided by any of the agreements. It is time to expose the real mission of the Arab s: worldwide genocide.
The U.N. a useless organization – Non-binding
In a Democratic legal system if you have decision that you think is erroneous or unjust you can appeal that decision and many times it is reversed.
U.N. opinions and or resolutions are biased, unjust, arbitrary and capricious (the same apply to the ICJ – International Court of Justice).
The U.N. has issued numerous opinions and resolutions that are biased, unsubstantiated and contrary to historical and factual evidence. This U.N. collusion with corrupt and biased countries and the issuance of egregious opinions and resolution has eroded the credibility of the U.N. beyond repair.
This has raised the ire and an outcry by many nations, politicians and institutions to de-fund the U.N. and dismantle it.
It is well known that the U.N. and the ICJ can only offer and issue a non-binding advisory recommended opinions and resolutions which carry no legal standing or affect. They can only issue a non-binding recommendation and resolution and if it is accepted by all parties, then their recommended opinion and resolution is applicable. Otherwise it has no meaning, validity, and no legal standing.
Therefore, my suggestion is stop panicking and aggrandizing these biased criminal organizations. Their recommended opinion has no meaningful value.
By reacting to and citing the recommendations of this criminal organization as having any validity, you are misleading the public that the recommended opinions by these criminal organizations might have some validity.
It is time to expose the fraud and deception by these unethical, corrupt and unjust organizations and dismantle them completely.
It will also save a substantial amount of money and resources that could be put to a better use.
P.S. The League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations, since the league did not accomplish its purpose. The U.N. has not accomplished its purpose for what it was created to performethically and honestly.
In today's society the Nations of the world can function without an organization such as the U.N.
If the Nations of the world desire to establish a new International Peace organization, it must put some very specific Charter, with a caveat, that if it is not performing unbiased, ethically, honestly and justly, with respect to each member country, it will be dismantled.
A citizens committee might be set to monitor its functions to perform ethically, justly and unbiased, un-falsified, verified and substantiated factual unbiased opinions.