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

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

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 However, in order to clarify the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law, we only need to examine HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS which many have chosen to forget or ignore. Upon examination of said HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS the only factual conclusion to arrive at is the critics (whether Arab, American, European, or the Israeli Extreme-Left) who accuse Israel of “occupation” are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

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

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

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

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

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

Mi'kmaq of the British Empire:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Jewish and Arab Refugee resolution

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

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

Historical Approach to the Issue of Legality of Jewish Settlement Activity by the Late Eugene W. Rostow

Historical Approach to the Issue of Legality of Jewish Settlement Activity

by the Late Eugene W. Rostow US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969.  This article appeared in The New Republic on April 23, 1990

The Jewish right of settlement in the West Bank is conferred by the same provisions of the Mandate under which Jews settled in Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem before the State of Israel was created. The Mandate for Palestine differs in one important respect from the other League of Nations mandates, which were trusts for the benefit of the indigenous population. The Palestine Mandate, recognizing "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country," is dedicated to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing nonjewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." The Mandate qualifies the Jewish right of settlement and political development in Palestine in only one respect. Article 25 gave Great Britain and the League Council discretion to "postpone" or "withhold" the Jewish people's right of settlement in the TransJordanian province of Palestine-now the Kingdom of Jordan-if they decided that local conditions made such action desirable. With the divided support of the council, the British took that step in 1922. The Mandate does not, however, permit even a temporary suspension of the Jewish right of settlement in the parts of the Mandate west of the Jordan River. The Armistice Lines of 1949, which are part of the West Bank boundary, represent nothing but the position of the contending armies when the final cease-fire was achieved in the War of Independence. And the Armistice Agreements specifically provide, except in the case of Lebanon, that the demarcation lines can be changed by agreement when the parties move from armistice to peace. Resolution 242 is based on that provision of the Armistice Agreements and states certain criteria that would justify changes in the demarcation lines when the parties make peace. Many believe that the Palestine Mandate was somehow terminated in 1947, when the British government resigned as the mandatory power. This is incorrect. A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose. Thus in the case of the Mandate for German South West Africa, the International Court of justice found the South African government to be derelict in its duties as the mandatory power, and it was deemed to have resigned. Decades of struggle and diplomacy then resulted in the creation of the new state of Namibia, which has just come into being. In Palestine the British Mandate ceased to be operative as to the territories of Israel and Jordan when those states were created and recognized by the international community. But its rules apply still to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which have not yet been allocated either to Israel or to Jordan or become an independent state. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank in 1951, but that annexation was never generally recognized, even by the Arab states, and now Jordan has abandoned all its claims to the territory. The State Department has never denied that under the Mandate "the Jewish people" have the right to settle in the area. Instead, it said that Jewish settlements in the West Bank violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which deals with the protection of civilians in wartime. Where the territory of one contracting party is occupied by another contracting party, the Convention prohibits many of the inhumane practices of the Nazis and the Soviets before and during the Second World War-the mass transfer of people into or out of occupied territories for purposes of extermination, slave labor, or colonization, for example. Article 49 provides that the occupying power "shall not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." But the Jewish settlers in the West Bank are volunteers. They have not been "deported" or "transferred" by the government of Israel, and their movement involves none of the atrocious purposes or harmful effects on the existing population the Geneva Convention was designed to prevent. Furthermore, the Convention applies only to acts by one signatory "carried out on the territory of another." The West Bank is not the territory of a signatory power, but an unallocated part of the British Mandate. It is hard, therefore, to see how even the most literal-minded reading of the Convention could make it apply to Jewish settlement in territories of the British Mandate west of the Jordan River. Even if the Convention could be construed to prevent settlements during the period of occupation, however, it could do no more than suspend, not terminate, the rights conferred by the Mandate. Those rights can be ended only by the establishment and recognition of a new state or the incorporation of the territories into an old one. As claimants to the territory, the Israelis have denied that they are required to comply with the Geneva Convention but announced that they will do so as a matter of grace. The Israeli courts apply the Convention routinely, sometimes deciding against the Israeli government. Assuming for the moment the general applicability of the Convention, it could well be considered a violation if the Israelis deported convicts to the area or encouraged the settlement of people who had no right to live there (Americans, for example). But how can the Convention be deemed to apply to Jews who have a right to settle in the territories under international law: a legal right assured by treaty and specifically protected by Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, which provides that nothing in the Charter shall be construed "to alter in any manner" rights conferred by existing international instruments" like the Mandate? The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the existing Palestinian population to live there. Another principle of international law may affect the problem of the Jewish settlements. Under international law, an occupying power is supposed to apply the prevailing law of the occupied territory at the municipal level unless it interferes with the necessities of security or administration or is "repugnant to elementary conceptions of justice." From 1949 to 1967, when Jordan was the military occupant of the West Bank, it applied its own laws to prevent any Jews from living in the territory. To suggest that Israel as occupant is required to enforce such Jordanian laws-a necessary implication of applying the Convention-is simply absurd. When the Allies occupied Germany after the Second World War, the abrogation of the Nuremberg Laws was among their first acts. The general expectation of international law is that military occupations last a short time, and are succeeded by a state of peace established by treaty or otherwise. In the case of the West Bank, the territory was occupied by Jordan between 1949 and 1967, and has been occupied by Israel since 1967. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 rule that the Arab states and Israel must make peace, and that when "a just and lasting peace" is reached in the Middle East, Israel should withdraw from some but not all of the territory it occupied in the course of the 1967 war. The Resolutions leave it to the parties to agree on the terms of peace. The controversy about Jewish settlements in the West Bank is not, therefore, about legal rights but about the political will to override legal rights. Is the United States prepared to use all its influence in Israel to award the whole of the West Bank to Jordan or to a new Arab state, and force Israel back to its 1967 borders? Throughout Israel's occupation, the Arab countries, helped by the United States, have pushed to keep Jews out of the territories, so that at a convenient moment, or in a peace negotiation, the claim that the West Bank is "Arab" territory could be made more plausible. Some in Israel favor the settlements for the obverse reason: to reinforce Israel's claim for the fulfillment of the Mandate and of Resolution 242 in a peace treaty that would at least divide the territory. For the international community, the issue is much deeper and more difficult: whether the purposes of the Mandate can be considered satisfied if the Jews finally receive only the parts of Palestine behind the Armistice Lines-less than 17.5 percent of the land promised them after the First World War. The extraordinary recent changes in the international environment have brought with them new diplomatic opportunities for the United States and its allies, not least in the Middle East. Soviet military aid apparently is no longer available to the Arabs for the purpose of making another war against Israel. The intifada has failed, and the Arabs' bargaining position is weakening. It now may be possible to take long steps toward peace. But to do so, the participants in the Middle East negotiations- the United States, Israel, Egypt, and the PLO- will have to look beyond the territories

Revenant is relevant - Israel - by Yisrael Medad

Revenant is relevant - Israel - 

by Yisrael Medad

September 29, 2002

The American writer Carolyn Wells, who died 60 years ago, asserted "actions lie louder than words." Be that as it may, words still play an important part in the craft of fooling people. This is especially so in the Arab-Israel conflict.

To take one example, the proper nomenclature for the Jewish civilian residential areas in the disputed territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, as New York Times columnist William Safire has indicated, should be communities rather than the pejorative "settlements." Jews live in communities or, for that matter, in cities, towns and villages. They do not live in "settlements."

In his August 5, 2001 column, On Language, Safire wrote: "Words have connotations. In the disputed territory known as the West Bank, an Israeli village is called a settlement, implying fresh intrusion; a small Palestinian town, even one recently settled, is called a village, implying permanence." Of course, his use of "disputed" rather than "occupied," or for that matter, "liberated," in another example of the importance of the terminology one uses.

This phenomenon, of harnessing language to political ideology, is not exceptional nor is it new. In a volume discussing political geography, Richard Muir deals with an "image system" whereby a subjective perception of reality is promoted via language so as to achieve superiority either at negotiations or other actions that will help establishing borders to territories.

The use of "occupied" and of "settlements" and "settlers" is a projection of a desired reality. That Israel's official state institutions such as the Foreign Ministry's information services and their employees continue to use these very terms is unfortunate, to say the least.

But what should we term the Jews who live in the territories? A substitute for the word "settlers" has been hard to come by. I once introduced myself to a British Foreign Office official as a "Jewish resident of a community in Samaria." Puzzled momentarily, he quickly interjected "but I thought I was to converse with a settler." Clearly, a more accurate noun is needed, one that is more relevant to the reality.
It is revenant.

THE DICTIONARY defines a revenant is one who returns after a lengthy absence. A revenant can be any person who shows up after a long absence such as those who come back to their ancestral home after years of political exile. This is the classic definition although Sir Walter Scott used it in his novel The Fair Maid, to denote a ghost. It stems from the French "revenir," which means simply "to return."

Jews lived in the hills of Judea and Samaria for over 3500 years, as nomads, as tribal chieftains and as kings, priests and prophets. They were dispersed once and returned. They were exiled and returned.

Despite foreign conquerors, they persisted in returning under the most difficult of political, religious and economic conditions. Their civilization was created in the area as was their literature. Their three most important cities are there.
The Torah and the New Testament use the terms Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The Quran records God's command that the Jews should live in the Promised Land. Eighty years ago, the world recognized unabashedly and with no disagreement the right of Jews to reestablish their historic homeland as a political entity. And following a brief 19 year long hiatus, Jews are once again living there.

Revenant, then, may be the word we need to employ.

If one is referred to as a settler, immediately the audience is disposed to consider the object as a near-monster, an oppressor, one who doesn't belong and so forth. The person described as a "settler' loses his humanity. He is a stereotype.

Those who contend that Jews possess no rights in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, have an easier task if they talk about a "settler." A revenant, on the other hand, belongs. He has rights to the land, both his personal location and the collective geography.

Good linguistic advice is that to own a word, one should use it ten times. I have employed it four times in this article. Perhaps you will join with me in multiplying its use?


The writer resides in Shiloh and comments on political, media, and cultural affairs.

There is No "Occupation" by Morton A. Klein

There is No "Occupation"

by Morton A. Klein

National President, Zionist Organization of America


Arab spokesmen regularly complain about what they call "the Israeli occupation" of the Judea-Samaria-Gaza territories. But the truth is that there is no such "Israeli occupation."

To begin with, nearly all Palestinian Arabs currently live under Yasir Arafat's rule, not Israel's. Following the signing of the Oslo accords, the Israelis withdrew from nearly half of the territories, including the cities where 98.5% of Palestinian Arabs reside. The notion that the Palestinian Arabs are living under "Israeli occupation" is simply false. The areas from which Israel has not withdrawn are virtually uninhabited, except for the 2% where Israelis reside.

The term "occupation" is also used to indicate that Israel has no right to any presence in Judea-Samaria-Gaza or the Old City section of Jerusalem, and that the Israeli presence in any of those areas constitutes illegal "occupation" of someone else's land. In fact, Israel has the strongest religious, historical, and legal claim to this land, The territories of Judea-Samaria-Gaza and the Old City of Jerusalem were integral parts of the Jewish kingdoms throughout the biblical eras, and are explicitly mandated by the Hebrew Bible as part of the Land of Israel.

These lands were Jewish thousands years ago, under King David, King Solomon, and other Jewish rulers; can anybody name a Palestinian Arab king who ever ruled over "Palestine"? No--because there never were any.

All of the most important Jewish religious sites are situated in those territories. The very name "Judea" --a term which was commonly used by the international community throughout all the centuries until the Jordanian occupation in 1949-- is derived from the same root as the word "Jew," testifying to the deep Jewish connection to the land. The reason Jews are called "Jews" is because we come from Judea. This historical-religious right was the basis for the League of Nations decision, in 1922, to endorse the Jewish people's right to all of the Holy Land, on both sides of the Jordan River.

From the standpoint of international law, it is important to note that prior to 1967, there was no other recognized sovereign power in the territories. Israel's capture of Judea-Samaria-Gaza and the Old City of Jerusalem in 1967 did not constitute an illegal "occupation" of someone else's land, because prior to 1967, there was no legal or recognized sovereign power there. The Jordanian occupation Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem during 1949-1967 was illegal, having been carried out in defiance of the United Nations Security Council. The only countries in the world to recognize it were Pakistan and (in part) England.

Furthermore, Israel captured the territories in self-defense. Israel took over Judea-Samaria-Gaza and the Old City of Jerusalem in self-defense, in response to aggression by Jordan and Egypt in June 1967. Had Jordan not invaded Israel --ignoring pleas by Israel to stay out of the war-- Israel would not control Judea and Samaria today. As former State Department Legal Adviser and former head of the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Stephen Schwebel, has written: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defence has, against that prior holder, better title."

It is also significant that U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 does not require complete Israeli withdrawal from the territories. Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw "from territories" captured in 1967, but the authors of the resolution deliberately left out the word 'the' before 'territories' because it was their conviction --as articulated by then-British foreign secretary George Brown-- "that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories." The Soviets tried to insert 'the', but that effort was specifically rejected so as not to suggest that Israel is obliged to surrender all of the territories.

Finally, it should also be noted that the Oslo Accords recognize Israel's right to remain in the territories, at least until a final settlement is reached. The Oslo accords accept Israel's presence in the territories at least until an Israel-PA agreement on the final status of those areas. Chapter 2, Article X, Clause 4, specifically recognize that in the disputed territories, "Israel shall continue to carry the responsibility for external security, as well as the responsibility for overall security of Israelis for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order" until a final accord is reached. Furthermore, the Oslo accords do not require Israel to dismantle any of the Israeli communities in Judea-Samaria-Gaza--in effect, an acknowledgment of Israel's right to maintain those communities, at least until a final-status agreement is reached.

In short, the notion that there is an illegal Israeli "occupation" is a myth.

Source: www.zoa.org/pressrel/20020510b.htm 

On the Question of the Legality of the Jewish Civilian Communities in the Disputed Areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza

Within the context of international law, we draw attention to the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The text of the Declaration, as noted by the Palestine Royal Commission Report of 1937, p. 22, had been approved by U.S. President W. Wilson prior to its publication. Indeed, the Inquiry Commission established by President Wilson affirmed "that Palestine should become a Jewish State" and that "Palestine...was the cradle and home of their vital race", a succinct statement of the essence of the principle of self-determination.

That document, issued by the British Government and later to serve as the basis for the League of Nations Mandate approved in 1922, refers on the one hand to "a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine" while on the other, refers to "non-Jewish communities in Palestine".

The distinction is not coincidental. National and historical rights are recognized clearly in the context of the Jewish people whereas the opposing parallel, that the land in question ‘belonged to an Arab people' as it were, was not mentioned and purposefully ignored. What was included in the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate were the "civil and religious rights" of non-specified "non-Jewish communities", without reference to Arabs at all.

Furthermore, the aforementioned Mandate text acknowledges that "recognition has 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". In Article 6, the administration apparatus of the Mandate, a temporary form of government, was charged with facilitating and encouraging "close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and wastelands not required for public purposes".

It is worthy to note that the United States House of Representatives and the Senate adopted resolutions supporting the Mandate, on June 30, 1922 and May 3, 1922 respectively. President W. Harding signed a proclamation on September 21, 1922 that stated that "the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People...and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected". These acts reinforced the position fully understood that the rights accruing a national grouping belonged solely to the Jewish people and that non-Jewish elements could claim but protection for singular and individual buildings and sites.

What cannot be ignored is the historical connection of the Jewish people to this Land. The continuous presence of Jews in their homeland over many centuries under Jewish independent rule (tribal federation and monarchy) and centuries of foreign rule is itself a proof of right and legality. This presence included, indeed primarily so, the areas known as Judea, Samaria and Gaza. This presence was maintained despite destruction of political sovereignty, conditions of exile, oppression and persecution by the Babylonian, Greek-Syrian, Roman, Persian, Arab and Ottoman Empires. Despite the early favorable attitude of the British Empire, the pursuance of the internationally recognized goals of the Mandate necessitated acts of national liberation akin to those of the American Colonies in 1777, as well as other countries such as India, Ireland and African nations. This struggle for freedom forced Great Britain to turn to the United Nations in 1947.

The resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 29, 1947 and accepted by the governing institutions of the Jewish People is to be seen as the fountainhead of the recognition of Israel as an Independent State possessing sovereignty. In rejecting that resolution and in declaring war on the nascent state of Israel, the Arab communities and neighboring states severed all legal connection to claims they did or would, in the future, make. In a sense, that rejection of the compromise proposal of partition revived the full and inalienable rights of Jews to all the territories included in the Mandate. These territories include Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

As a result of armed acts of aggressions, the Jordanian entity subsequently conquered portions of the Palestine Mandate and Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip district. The non-Jewish communities of the areas of Judea and Samaria, never having expressed themselves in criteria of nationhood and geo-political sovereignty previously, never established a state on this territory following the 1947 Resolution and, in fact, requested, at the Second Palestine Arab Conference convened in Jericho on December 1, 1948, that these territories be enjoined to the Hashemite Kingdom. Indeed, a resolution of unification was signed into Jordanian law on April 24, 1950, which purported to transfer to the Hashemite Monarchy sovereign rights to those areas of Western Palestine not under Israeli control following the 1948-49 War of Independence. That law negated the terms of international law, and, in any case, was only recognized by Great Britain and Pakistan.

In the matter of General Assembly Resolution 242, we refer you to the testimony of Eugene V. Rostow who participated in the negotiations of that Resolution. For example, in The New Republic issue of October 21, 1991, page 14, Mr. Rostow treats the issue of illegality. He makes it plain that Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria is indeed legal, and that the Jewish right of settlement west of the Jordan River is "unassailable".

We now briefly address another point. The status of the areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (YESHA) can in no way be conceived as being governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention for the simple reason that they are not occupied territories as defined in this document. Paragraph (6) of Article 49 of the said Fourth Geneva Convention is irrelevant to the question at hand in that Article 2 stipulates that the territory under issue must belong to a High Contracting Party. This is not the case, as the territory under discussion did not belong to any such Party. Furthermore, the drafting history of Article 49 was directed against the practices of the Nazi regime in forcibly transporting populations. It would border on the ridiculous to claim that Article 49 (6) which was fixed so as to prevent a return of heinous Nazi practices of Judenrein should now be understood as meaning that Judea, Samaria and Gaza (YESHA) must become empty of Jews.

Moreover, the Convention does not and could not prohibit the establishment of communities, towns or other civilian centers. Even government economic incentives cannot be considered as "mass deportation" or "transfer". Over 90 percent of the communities populated by Jews are located on state land, not land privately owned by Arabs. Indeed, some of the communities are built on land that was either owned by Jews prior to 1967 or purchased afterwards.

One last point. The basis for an Arab claim to Palestine, formulated by the PLO which represents itself as the legal vehicle for that claim, is the Palestinian National Covenant. This document can only be described as racist and invalid on humanitarian grounds and unacceptable in international law. In fact, a Palestinian identity has always been a tactical move by Arabs who always viewed themselves as belonging to a greater Arab nation as in the case of the request of the General Syrian Congress on July 2, 1919 "that there should be no separation of the southern part of Lebanon [that is, the Palestine territory] from the Syrian country", a position repeated ever since as, for example, by Yasser Arafat when he declared over the Voice of Palestine on November 18, 1978 that "Palestine is southern Syria and Syria is northern Palestine".

In an interview with Matt Lauer on NBC's The Today Show on October 1, 1997, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright related to building in Yesha and said: "I wasn't happy...I felt that going forward with those kinds of buildings was not helpful. Mr. Lauer pressed her and stated: " It's legal. "

And Albright admitted: "It's legal." 

The need for this legal commentary stems from the fact that Arabs aligned with the PLO have announced that Jewish communities established in the territories of YESHA are a priori "terrorist" in nature and are a form of "aggression". Having thus defined Jewish civilian in this way, Arabs make the claim that they are defending themselves and are justified in using all means at their disposal including shooting, bombing and stabbing such as has been used in this latest wave of violence. We reject such an approach as immoral, illegal and reminiscent of war crimes of the recent past.

The Land of Israel and Palestine and the 4th Geneva Convention

"Claims of their illegality are based on the final paragraph (6) of Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention, Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of August 12, 1949. This states: 
'The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.' 
However, Article 2 states that the Convention applies 'to cases of ... occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party' by another such Party. The West Bank was illegally occupied by Jordan after it rejected the UN partition resolution and attacked the nascent State of Israel in 1948. (According to the principle of 'ex injuria non oriturius' no legal claim to territory can arise out of an illegal aggression.) 
"In contrast, Israel's presence in this area is entirely lawful, since Israel entered it lawfully in self-defense, and she is entitled to negotiate the extent and the terms of her withdrawal. 
"As the West Bank does not belong to any other state (there has never been a nation-state of Palestine, and Jordan has since renounced its illegitimate territorial claims), the Convention can not apply to it at all. "

(NB. It is universally recognized that the UN General Assembly has no power to create binding rules of law by simple resolution.) 

"Further, when Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention was drafted, it was directed against the Nazis' practice of forcibly transporting unwanted populations into or out of occupied territories for the purpose of 'liquidating' them, or to provide slave labor, or for other inhumane purposes. 

"These genocidal objectives were, of course, directed in large part against the Jews. " Thus, even if one assumed that Israel's position in the West Bank was one of merely an occupying power, Article 49 would forbid deportation or transfer of its own population onto the West Bank whenever this action (a) impaired the economic situation or racial integrity of the native population of the occupied territory, or (b) resulted in inhuman treatment of its own population. "
Re point (a), the prominence of the question of legality of Jewish settlements on the West Bank reflects the tensions of the peace process, rather than the magnitude of any demographic movement. 

The reality is clear that there has been no serious dilution (and certainly no eradication) of the 'separate racial existence' of the native population - nor is such a scenario likely. Also, the standard of living of the large Arab population in the West Bank is significantly higher than that of Arab populations in neighboring states. 

"Re point (b), the terms of Article 49(6) are totally irrelevant. Were one to make them relevant, the effect of Article 49(6) would impose an obligation on the State of Israel to ensure (by force if necessary) that these areas, despite their millennial association with Jewish life, shall be forever judenrein (free of Jews). Thus, a legal instrument designed to prevent a repetition of Nazi genocidal policies of making areas judenrein would come to mean that the West Bank must be made judenrein and must be maintained in such a state, if necessary by the use of force by the government of Israel against its own inhabitants. 

"To argue this legal point I have quoted freely from "Israel and Palestine - Assault on the Law of Nations" by the late Julius Stone, the Challis Professor of International Law and Jurisprudence at the University of Sydney. 

(Among his many accolades, Professor Stone received the award of the American Society of International Law in 1956, and was made an honorary life member of the Society in 1962. In 1965, he received the World Law Research Award of the Washington Conference on World Peace Through Law. He was also Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law at Hastings College of Law, University of California.) 

Israel has every right to expand settlements by Michael Freund

Israel has every right to expand settlements

by Michael Freund

Don't tell this to Secretary of State Colin Powell, but a friend of mine in a West Bank Jewish settlement is thinking of adding an extra bathroom to his home.

Normally, the lavatory layout in a private Jewish household outside of Jerusalem would hardly be a matter of international diplomatic concern. With the war on terror in its early stages and America gearing up for battle against Saddam Hussein, one would assume that the U.S. foreign policy establishment has more important things to worry about than how many flush options will be available to my friend and his family.

That assumption, however, has proven to be wrong. In a series of recent statements, Powell has repeatedly insisted that Israel should halt all construction in Jewish settlements throughout the West Bank and Gaza. Speaking on NBC's ''Meet the Press'' on May 5, Powell said, ''Something has to be done about the problem of the settlements, the settlements continue to grow and continue to expand.''

To which I cannot help but respond: What is wrong with that?

Down the road from my friend's community lies an Arab village, where building proceeds apace, unrestricted and unhindered. No one has gone on the Sunday talk shows to denounce such activity, for the simple reason that it isn't anyone's business what a person decides to do in his own home. Why, then, does construction become an international issue simply because the person involved is a Jew?

Indeed, there is something very troubling about the fact that a U.S. secretary of state would object to the erection of a house based on the religious or ethnic identity of its owner. In the olden days, we had a word for such views: racism. And segregation.

To deny people the right to live in a certain area because they are Jews is no different from denying African Americans or Hispanics or any other ethnic group the right to live where they please. And to suggest that the exercise of that right is somehow an ''obstacle to peace'' and must be halted is to capitulate to the haters and allow them to dictate who may live where. We cannot allow that to happen.

The fact is that Jews choosing to live in the West Bank and Gaza are pioneers. They are returning to live in the heartland of Israel, the place that served as the cradle of Western civilization and religion.

These areas--which we in Israel refer to by their original names of Judea, Samaria and Gaza--were the scene of much of the drama described in the Bible. It is the place where King David walked and where the prophets of Israel gave the world a vision of peace and brotherhood.

Ancient synagogues and archeological sites attest to the long-standing Jewish presence in the region, a presence that is once again flourishing despite Arab opposition. Moreover, Israel did not ''occupy'' these territories, as the Palestinians and others would have you believe. In the 1967 Six Day War, Arab armies massed on Israel's narrow borders, vowing to destroy the Jewish state.

In a war of self-defense, Israel succeeded in overcoming its enemies, in the process taking control over Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Under international law, territories are considered ''occupied'' only when they are taken in an act of aggression--which clearly does not apply to Israel's case.

It was 35 years ago this month that Israel prevailed in the 1967 war, returning to places such as Hebron and Shilo. 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 the territories. And despite the threat posed by Palestinian terrorism, that is precisely what they continue to do. The number of Jews living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza has more than doubled in the past decade, with more than 200,000 people now living in some 150 communities. They work and play and hope and dream just like the rest of us.

Israel's 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 undoubtedly continue to do as well.

(Michael Freund is an editorial writer and syndicated columnist for the Jerusalem Post.)

Source: www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref15.html

Staking our claim to Jewish Israel

by Evelyn Gordon
August 12, 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 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 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. 

The West Bank and Gaza were therefore not owned by anyone when they were seized by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, in 1948; and since their annexation by these countries was never internationally recognized (Jordan's annexation of the West Bank, for instance, was accepted only by Britain and Pakistan), they were still stateless territory 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 the terms of the original League of Nations Mandate quite clearly assigned the West Bank 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." 

DOES THIS mean that all of Mandatory Palestine which included not only modern-day Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, but also the modern-day state of Jordan was supposed to be a Jewish state? An answer 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 through armed aggression strengthens Israel's 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 "occupier." 

Israel did, of course, lay 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. By essentially denying the latter claim, Israel badly undermined the former.
After 35 years, it may well be impossible to rectify this enormous historical error. But Israel cannot afford not to make the effort. It must explain, at every opportunity, the sound legal basis for its own claim to the West Bank and Gaza. To do otherwise is to guarantee that it begins any future negotiations from the irremediably inferior position of an "occupier." 

A quote from the Arab mayor of Jerusalem, 1899 (updated)

A quote from the Arab mayor of Jerusalem, 1899 (updated)

I came across this partial quote by Yusuf Diya al-Khalidi, the mayor of Jerusalem, in 1899: "Who can challenge the rights of the Jews in Palestine? Good Lord, historically it is really your country."

 By doing a little research, and playing some games with Google Books snippet view, I was able to find the full quote:

The idea itself is natural, fine and just. Who can challenge the rights of the Jews in Palestine? Good Lord, historically it is really your country. What a wonderful spectacle that will be when a people as resourceful as the Jews will once again be an independent nation, honored and complacent, able to make its contribution to needy humanity in the field of morals, as in the past.

He wrote this in a letter to Zadok Kahn, the chief rabbi of France.

When Benny Morris quotes it in One state, two states: resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict, he distinguishes this quote as an exception to the Palestinian Arab denial of Jewish claims that rose concurrently with the idea of Palestinian Arab nationalism. It is not an exception, however, since the quote pre-dates popular Palestinian Arab nationalism by at least a couple of decades.

But Morris does make a good point:

An apt indication of this denial was provided by the Jerusalem Christian Arab educator Khabil al-Sakakini, when he fulminated in 1936 that the British Mandate's new radio station referred to the country in Hebrew as "eretz yisrael" (the Land of Israel), "If Palestine [falastin] is eretz yisrael, then we, the Arabs, are but passing strangers, and there is nothing for or to do but to emigrate," al-Sakakini jotted down in his diary.

In other words, denial of history is an integral part of Palestinian Arab nationalism. The movement is, to a great extent, predicated on a very basic lie.

Arabs like Khalidi knew Jewish history in the Land of Israel very well, but it became virtually forbidden to acknowledge this history a mere three decades later, because that very fact helps to undermine the entire Palestinian Arab national enterprise.

Yet the British did not have that sensitivity, as the initials for Eretz Yisrael could be seen in Mandate-era coins and stamps in Hebrew even before Sakakini noticed it:

UPDATE: Elder of Lobby tracked a more complete version of the Khalidi quote, from Morris' "Righteous Victims," showing that the mayor was hardly happy about the prospect of Zionism:

"It is necessary, therefore, for the peace of the Jews in [the Ottoman Empire] that the Zionist Movement ... stop.... Good Lord, the world is vast enough, there are still uninhabited countries where one could settle millions of poor Jews who may perhaps become happy there and one day constitute a nation.... In the name of God, let Palestine be left in peace."

Comments:

 The full quote apparently goes further: "It is necessary, therefore, for the peace of the Jews in [the Ottoman Empire] that the Zionist Movement ... stop.... Good Lord, the world is vast enough, there are still uninhabited countries where one could settle millions of poor Jews who may perhaps become happy there and one day constitute a nation.... In the name of God, let Palestine be left in peace."

Morris "Righteous Victims"
It is by and large used as pro-Pal propaganda, to show the early consciousness of trouble to come.

And the Rabbi's name is spelled Zadok Kahn.

Obama's terrorist buddies have roots to the past. Rashid Khalidi, the former PLO spokesperson in Beirut (1982), whose origins go back to Jerusalem before the British mandate, later migrated to Chicago where he was helped to write his radioactive books in the mid 90's, using the home of Bill Ayre, his talent and knowledge, where he got to bond with the useless Obama, who had a book contract, which he could not deliver, handing all the notes to Bill Ayre, to sort out for him. the man behind Obama's books (for more on the subject see : http://www.cashill.com/article..., takes going back to 2008). Obama, terrorism and hot Muslims, all fit together.

It was not only Mayer of Jerusalem that believed that land belong to Jews, but regarding to Koran and Islamic history that mentioned that there is a land on west of Jordan river that land belong to nation of Yahud , things have changed since the British Empire have captured the Meddle east ,the conflict in M,E has been created by British Empire (Divided and role on them )if the British were not involved in M,E Jordan plus entire Israel and Golan heights could be State of Israel with living in peace in all over that area .

karl Marx on Jews in Jerusalem in 1854 [ majority] see last paragraphs

http://www.marxists.org/archiv...

Jerusalem and the Holy Places are inhabited by nations professing religions: the Latins, the Greeks, Armenians, Copts, Abyssinians, and Syrians. There are 2,000 Greeks, 1,000 Latins, 350 Armenians, 100 Copts, 20 Syrians, and 20 Abyssinians = 3,490. In the Ottoman Empire we find 13,730,000 Greeks, 2,400,000 Armenians, and 900,000 Latins. Each of these is again subdivided. The Greek Church, of which I treated above, the one acknowledging the Patriarch of Constantinople, essentially differs from the Greco-Russian, whose chief spiritual authority is the Czar; and from the Hellens, of whom the King and the Synod of Athens are the chief authorities. Similarly, the Latins are subdivided into the Roman Catholics, United Greeks, and Maronites; and the Armenians into Gregorian and Latin Armenians – the same distinctions holding good with the Copts and Abyssinians. The three prevailing religious nationalities at the Holy Places are the Greeks, the Latins, and the Armenians. The Latin Church may be said to represent principally Latin races, the Greek Church, Slav, Turko-Slav, and Hellenic races; and the other churches, Asiatic and African races.

Imagine all these conflicting peoples beleaguering the Holy Sepulcher, the battle conducted by the monks, and the ostensible object of their rivalry being a star from the grotto of Bethlehem, a tapestry, a key of a sanctuary, an altar, a shrine, a chair, a cushion – any ridiculous precedence!

In order to understand such a monastical crusade it is indispensable to consider firstly the manner of their living, and secondly, the mode of their habitation.

“All the religious rubbish of the different nations,” says a recent traveler, “live at Jerusalem separated from each other, hostile and jealous, a nomade population, incessantly recruited by pilgrimage or decimated by the plague and oppressions. The European dies or returns to Europe after some years; the pashas and their guards go to Damascus or Constantinople; and the Arabs fly to the desert. Jerusalem is but a place where every one arrives to pitch his tent and where nobody remains. Everybody in the holy city gets his livelihood from his religion – the Greeks or Armenians from the 12,000 or 13,000 pilgrims who yearly visit Jerusalem, and the Latins from the subsidies and aims of their co-religionists of France, Italy, etc.”

Besides their monasteries and sanctuaries, the Christian nations possess at Jerusalem small habitations or cells, annexed to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and occupied by the monks, who have to watch day and night that holy abode. At certain periods these monks are relieved in their duty by their brethren. These cells have but one door, opening into the interior of the Temple, while the monk guardians receive their food from without, through some wicket. The doors of the Church are closed, and guarded by Turks, who don’t open them except for money, and close it according to their caprice or cupidity.

The quarrels between churchmen are the most venomous, said Mazarin. Now fancy these churchmen, who not only have to live upon, but live in, these sanctuaries together!

To finish the picture, be it remembered that the fathers of the Latin Church, almost exclusively composed of Romans, Sardinians, Neapolitans, Spaniards and Austrians, are all of them jealous of the French protectorate, and would like to substitute that of Austria, Sardinia or Naples, the Kings of the two latter countries both assuming the title of King of Jerusalem; and that the sedentary population of Jerusalem numbers about 15,500 souls, of whom 4,000 are Mussulmans and 8,000 Jews. The Mussulmans, forming about a fourth part of the whole, and consisting of Turks, Arabs and Moors, are, of course, the masters in every respect, as they are in no way affected with the weakness of their Government at Constantinople. Nothing equals the misery and the sufferings of the Jews at Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called hareth-el-yahoud, the quarter of dirt, between the Zion and the Moriah, where their synagogues are situated – the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance, insulted by the Greeks, persecuted by the Latins, and living only upon the scanty alms transmitted by their European brethren. The Jews, however, are not natives, but from different and distant countries, and are only attracted to Jerusalem by the desire of inhabiting the Valley of Jehosaphat, and to die in the very places where the redemptor is to be expected.

“Attending their death,” says a French author, “they suffer and pray. Their regards turned to that mountain of Moriah, where once rose the temple of Solomon, and which they dare not approach, they shed tears on the misfortunes of Zion, and their dispersion over the world.”

To make these Jews more miserable, England and Prussia appointed, in 1840, an Anglican bishop at Jerusalem, whose avowed object is their conversion. He was dreadfully thrashed in 1845, and sneered at alike by Jews, Christians and Turks. He may, in fact, be stated to have been the first and only cause of a union between all the religions at Jerusalem.

It will now be understood why the common worship of the Christians at the Holy Places resolves itself into a continuance of desperate Irish rows between the diverse sections of the faithful; but that, on the other hand, these sacred rows merely conceal a profane battle, not only of nations but of races; and that the Protectorate of the Holy Places which appears ridiculous to the Occident but all important to the Orientals is one of the phases of the Oriental question incessantly reproduced, constantly stifled, but never solved.