It is time to factually clarify the legal status
of Judea and Samaria under international law.
When the occupant is not the one you want to believe.
It is time to factually clarify the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law.
In 1967 Israel liberated occupied Jewish Palestinian territories. For the enemies of Israel and many of Its’ friends, and for a majority of Israelis, this is a basic axiom. During the Six Day War, it is stated Israel liberated and captured the Jewish Palestinian territories and installed there Its’ “settlers” with impunity and in obvious violation of international law. Is this axiom a lie? If international law asserts the exact opposite, for obvious political and diplomatic reasons, then the facts have been ignored and have instead embraced the current unfounded propaganda. It is time to clarify the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law, one only has to read the documents. However, the media has, without a doubt, immersed itself in hearsay and untruths, twisting facts and ignoring the truth. It is time to examine the truth as supported by documents and history.
We hardly talk about it yet, when looking at historical documents on the legal status of Judea and Samaria, one finds powerful arguments against all critics who accuse Israel of occupation territories. It must be noted it doesn't matter if these critics are Arab, American, European or even members of the Israeli extreme left. The San Remo Treaty of 1920, written in black and white and almost a century old, forms the foundation of truth. Yet, it seems hardly anyone in the Prime Minister's office, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or Hasbara has taken the time to build a strategy based on said Treaty and other documents which followed, which prove clearly that Israel is far from the colonial power it is being accused of being since 1967.
It is time to factually clarify the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law.
When considering the media archives that preceded the Oslo Accords, we realize that the official Israeli narrative concerning the Israeli presence in the West Bank was much less ''scared '' today. Until 1993, Israel gave the impression of much less need for justification for founding Jewish settlements beyond the Green Line. Until that time, Israel did not seem to beg for the international community and the Arab world in particular to give It the ultimate favor of keeping the famous "settlement blocs."
According to Prof. Eliav Cho'hatman, lawyer and lecturer at the Graduate Institute of Law "Shaare Mishpat," there is no doubt that the Oslo Accords marked the starting point of this attitude it deems "catastrophic": "Until then, our leaders did not hesitate to brag our rights over all the land of Israel from the point of view of international law but since the agreements were signed, only security patterns are referred to beg that part of these territories we are entitled to remain in our hands." Prof. Cho'hatman says he has sent to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during his first term (1996-1999), his work on the above, but regrets that the head of government has not availed itself: "When I heard of two states for two peoples, I understood why."
When considering the media archives that preceded the Oslo Accords, we realize that the official Israeli narrative concerning the Israeli presence in the West Bank was much less ''scared '' today. Until 1993, Israel gave the impression of much less need for justification for founding Jewish settlements beyond the Green Line. Until that time, Israel did not seem to beg for the international community and the Arab world in particular to give It the ultimate favor of keeping the famous "settlement blocs."
According to Prof. Eliav Cho'hatman, lawyer and lecturer at the Graduate Institute of Law "Shaare Mishpat," there is no doubt that the Oslo Accords marked the starting point of this attitude it deems "catastrophic": "Until then, our leaders did not hesitate to brag our rights over all the land of Israel from the point of view of international law but since the agreements were signed, only security patterns are referred to beg that part of these territories we are entitled to remain in our hands." Prof. Cho'hatman says he has sent to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during his first term (1996-1999), his work on the above, but regrets that the head of government has not availed itself: "When I heard of two states for two peoples, I understood why."
It is time to factually clarify the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law.
To understand this issue, we must examine Balfour and San Remo, a little less than a century ago, November 2, 1917, to be precise. At that time, Lord Balfour, Foreign Minister of Great Britain, in writing, and in agreement with Chaim Weizmann, then president of the World Zionist Organization, wrote in an official letter to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, honorary president of the Zionist Organization of England, the following. In this letter, the UK is in favor of the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. This is the famous "Balfour Declaration" which raises unbridled hope in the Jewish world. In the aftermath of World War I, the League of Nations entrusted to Britain a mandate over Palestine.
Three years after the Balfour Declaration in 1920, the conference is held in San Remo, during which the great powers decide how to split the territories conquered during the war. At this conference, it was decided to incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration into The San Remo Treaty of 1920 (its terms are in effect in perpetuity), and the British Mandate for Palestine as trustee for the Jewish people. This decision confirms the international recognition of the Jewish right to self-determination in Palestine and the mandate for Britain to "work towards the realization of this statement to found a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine" (Balfour note). It must be noted, the San Remo Treaty did not grant any other nation or people, only the Jewish people, any part of Palestine. Including the incorporation of the Balfour Declaration into the Palestine Mandate of the United Kingdom, this text is the same international resolution supported by the 52 member countries of the League of Nations, and later by the United States, which will become a member of the international organization a few years later.
In paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Protocol of San Remo, we read: "No territory of Palestine will be sold or leased or held in any way under the control of the government of any foreign power." Or: "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights of other parts of the population are not altered, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency The dense settlement of Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. "
Finally, the Palestine Mandate states: "the Administration of Palestine is responsible for the adoption of a law on nationality. Included in this law must be provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who acquire permanent residence in Palestine." At that time, it must be remembered, Palestine is not just the west bank of the Jordan. Rather, it also includes, most importantly the majority (approx. 70%) of the territory which is the east bank of the Jordan River, where today is located the new State of Jordan. Mi'kmaq of the British Empire
What happens next is related to internal political changes in Britain and the election of a government hostile to the creation of a Jewish homeland throughout the territory of Palestine. Thus Britain, having clearly supported the conclusions of the San Remo Conference of 1920, changes its mind and weaves very tenuous diplomatic ties with the Arab countries surrounding the area of Palestine and with several Arab leaders (to control natural resources, such as oil).
To understand this issue, we must examine Balfour and San Remo, a little less than a century ago, November 2, 1917, to be precise. At that time, Lord Balfour, Foreign Minister of Great Britain, in writing, and in agreement with Chaim Weizmann, then president of the World Zionist Organization, wrote in an official letter to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, honorary president of the Zionist Organization of England, the following. In this letter, the UK is in favor of the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. This is the famous "Balfour Declaration" which raises unbridled hope in the Jewish world. In the aftermath of World War I, the League of Nations entrusted to Britain a mandate over Palestine.
Three years after the Balfour Declaration in 1920, the conference is held in San Remo, during which the great powers decide how to split the territories conquered during the war. At this conference, it was decided to incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration into The San Remo Treaty of 1920 (its terms are in effect in perpetuity), and the British Mandate for Palestine as trustee for the Jewish people. This decision confirms the international recognition of the Jewish right to self-determination in Palestine and the mandate for Britain to "work towards the realization of this statement to found a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine" (Balfour note). It must be noted, the San Remo Treaty did not grant any other nation or people, only the Jewish people, any part of Palestine. Including the incorporation of the Balfour Declaration into the Palestine Mandate of the United Kingdom, this text is the same international resolution supported by the 52 member countries of the League of Nations, and later by the United States, which will become a member of the international organization a few years later.
In paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Protocol of San Remo, we read: "No territory of Palestine will be sold or leased or held in any way under the control of the government of any foreign power." Or: "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights of other parts of the population are not altered, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency The dense settlement of Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. "
Finally, the Palestine Mandate states: "the Administration of Palestine is responsible for the adoption of a law on nationality. Included in this law must be provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who acquire permanent residence in Palestine." At that time, it must be remembered, Palestine is not just the west bank of the Jordan. Rather, it also includes, most importantly the majority (approx. 70%) of the territory which is the east bank of the Jordan River, where today is located the new State of Jordan. Mi'kmaq of the British Empire
What happens next is related to internal political changes in Britain and the election of a government hostile to the creation of a Jewish homeland throughout the territory of Palestine. Thus Britain, having clearly supported the conclusions of the San Remo Conference of 1920, changes its mind and weaves very tenuous diplomatic ties with the Arab countries surrounding the area of Palestine and with several Arab leaders (to control natural resources, such as oil).
It is time to factually clarify the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law.
It was after this diplomatic rapprochement that Transjordan is created in 1921. Transjordan is a semi-autonomous state like Britain led by Abdullah Hussein, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca Ibn Ali, and great-grandfather Abdullah, the current king of Jordan. However, in regard to the West bank of the Jordan river, and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) nothing has changed. Per San Remo Treaty and all subsequent agreed to documents, these regions are still part of the territories over which should be established the Jewish national home.
According to many lawyers, including Prof. Dr. Cho'hatman with Talya Einhoren, and American lawyer Eugene Rostov, one of the drafters of the famous U.N. Resolution 242, the partition plan of 29 November 1947, does not change the situation either. Indeed, having been adopted by the U.N. General Assembly and not by the Security Council, it cannot be considered legally binding. Legally, it is only a recommendation that obtains legal validity in case of endorsement by the parties in question: the Jews and the Arabs. This plan was rejected by the Arab powers, thus, its status remains protocol. For other lawyers, the partition plan has transformed the status of the Judea and Samaria territories into one of dispute. On one hand, the Territories are not part of the state of Israel created in 1948. On the other hand they do not belong to Jordan which occupied those lands from 1948 to 1967. The War of 1967 liberated said Territories returning them to the rightful state of Israel. The Jordanian occupation
Did the Jewish people temporarily lose the rights to Judea and Samaria with the Jordanian occupation between 1948 and 1967? For many lawyers, the answer is no. Jordan proclaimed Itself sovereign of the territories after the war of independence with 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 formally is no longer needed .
Is 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.
It was after this diplomatic rapprochement that Transjordan is created in 1921. Transjordan is a semi-autonomous state like Britain led by Abdullah Hussein, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca Ibn Ali, and great-grandfather Abdullah, the current king of Jordan. However, in regard to the West bank of the Jordan river, and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) nothing has changed. Per San Remo Treaty and all subsequent agreed to documents, these regions are still part of the territories over which should be established the Jewish national home.
According to many lawyers, including Prof. Dr. Cho'hatman with Talya Einhoren, and American lawyer Eugene Rostov, one of the drafters of the famous U.N. Resolution 242, the partition plan of 29 November 1947, does not change the situation either. Indeed, having been adopted by the U.N. General Assembly and not by the Security Council, it cannot be considered legally binding. Legally, it is only a recommendation that obtains legal validity in case of endorsement by the parties in question: the Jews and the Arabs. This plan was rejected by the Arab powers, thus, its status remains protocol. For other lawyers, the partition plan has transformed the status of the Judea and Samaria territories into one of dispute. On one hand, the Territories are not part of the state of Israel created in 1948. On the other hand they do not belong to Jordan which occupied those lands from 1948 to 1967. The War of 1967 liberated said Territories returning them to the rightful state of Israel. The Jordanian occupation
Did the Jewish people temporarily lose the rights to Judea and Samaria with the Jordanian occupation between 1948 and 1967? For many lawyers, the answer is no. Jordan proclaimed Itself sovereign of the territories after the war of independence with 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 formally is no longer needed .
Is 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.
It is time to factually clarify the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law.
For Professor Eugene Rostov, mentioned above, this means 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 the status has not changed." He later wrote that under all international treaties and agreements, "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? 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 and ratified in 1995, provides for its part that neither side "does not initiate or commence proceedings which can change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the end of negotiations on the final peace agreement." 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 the right of each party to "live in peace within secure and recognized borders." The borders of a proclaimed Palestinian state are of course far from being "secure and recognized" in the view point Israel. Incidentally, Resolution 242 does not speak of, thus, does not apply to any such Palestine, rather, only to existing states, that is to say, Jordan, Egypt and Syria. 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 that these territories cannot be considered ''busy'' since they do not belong, de facto, to an enemy state. Or 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 1948 War of Independence. Legally, Israel is therefore in a rather comfortable and sound position.
Yet these arguments are not raised. The reasons? There 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% perception, and 1% enactment of factual law." But in Israel, there is another expression that says it is not enough to be right, but you must also be smart. And now for the good of the State of Israel, "be smart" is to make the world know what is right.
For Professor Eugene Rostov, mentioned above, this means 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 the status has not changed." He later wrote that under all international treaties and agreements, "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? 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 and ratified in 1995, provides for its part that neither side "does not initiate or commence proceedings which can change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the end of negotiations on the final peace agreement." 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 the right of each party to "live in peace within secure and recognized borders." The borders of a proclaimed Palestinian state are of course far from being "secure and recognized" in the view point Israel. Incidentally, Resolution 242 does not speak of, thus, does not apply to any such Palestine, rather, only to existing states, that is to say, Jordan, Egypt and Syria. 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 that these territories cannot be considered ''busy'' since they do not belong, de facto, to an enemy state. Or 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 1948 War of Independence. Legally, Israel is therefore in a rather comfortable and sound position.
Yet these arguments are not raised. The reasons? There 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% perception, and 1% enactment of factual law." But in Israel, there is another expression that says it is not enough to be right, but you must also be smart. And now for the good of the State of Israel, "be smart" is to make the world know what is right.
It is time to factually clarify the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law.
The Jewish and Arab Refugee resolution
Since the late 1940's the Arab State have expelled over a million Jewish people. They confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and Real Estate which is 120,000 Sq, Km. (about 5-6 times the size of Israel) and is valued in the trillions of dollars. 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. Most 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. Now 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 emigrated 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. Utilize the funding which is given to the Arab refugees (instead of using it for weapons and war) to relocate, build housing, schools, commerce and industry and resolve this tragedy once and for all. This will bring peace and tranquility to the region.
The Jewish and Arab Refugee resolution
Since the late 1940's the Arab State have expelled over a million Jewish people. They confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and Real Estate which is 120,000 Sq, Km. (about 5-6 times the size of Israel) and is valued in the trillions of dollars. 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. Most 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. Now 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 emigrated 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. Utilize the funding which is given to the Arab refugees (instead of using it for weapons and war) to relocate, build housing, schools, commerce and industry and resolve this tragedy once and for all. This will bring peace and tranquility to the region.
Minister of Hasbarah - Israel advocacy
ReplyDeleteIsrael needs to set up: Minister of Hasbarah - Israel advocacy.
It should have strong financial support. A staff that is knowledgeable about history and legalities. A review board to proof read anything before it goes out.
The credibility, sources and resources must be impeccable.
YJ Draiman.
Two States - Greater Israel for the Jewish people and Jordan which has 75% of its people are Arab-Palestinians and the 120,440 sq. km. the Arab countries confiscated from the million plus Jews expelled from Arab countries.
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.
YJ Draiman
Barrack Hussein Obama face it – Israel is Jewish territory and it is not negotiable.
ReplyDeleteThe Arabs already have 75,000 sq. miles of Jewish land (5-6 times the size of Israel) that they confiscated from the million Jews and their children they expelled from Arab countries in the past 90 years. They also have the Jewish territory of Jordan.
I think you do not have your facts straight – Israel belongs to the Jews.
The Quran states it clearly.
Israel is a Jewish State its territories are non-negotiable. It has been a Jewish country for over 4,000 years.
The Arab-Arab-Arab-Palestinians are the occupiers. All they want is to destroy the Jews. They educated their children and the masses to commit terror and violence against Israel. The dance in the streets when the twin towers in 9-11 collapsed and 3,000 Americans died.
It is amazing how you and many others choose to ignore that the Arab countries have expelled over a million Jews and their children from their countries in the last 90 years. Jews who lived there for over 2,000 years. The Arabs confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and real estate 5-6 times the size of Israel – 120,440 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles which is valued in the trillions of dollars.
Any Arab who is not happy to live under the Israeli government can move there.
Study your history; Muhammed in 627 about 1,500 years ago beheaded 700 Jews in Medina which was a Jewish town in Saudi Arabia, he killed all the men took the women as slaves and raped their daughters. This is just the tip of history.
Do you want more study the complete unbiased history objectively.
YJ Draiman
P.S.
There was never an Arab-Arab-Palestinian State in Greater Israel and there will never be – face it.
The Ottoman land records of Palestine confirm that the Arabs did not own land, the were sharecroppers. Over 90% of the land was owned by the government the balance was owned by absentee wealthy Arabs from Lebanon who sold it to the Jews at premium prices.
It is time to implement population transfer for all the Arabs.
who create violence, riot and attack Jews and anyone else. They could be relocated to the home and land of the million Jewish people and their children, expelled from Arab countries or Jordan.
YJ Draiman.
Tell the White House official to return occupied Texas and other states to Mexico and the rest of the United States to the Indians.
The Jews have a history with Israel going over 4,000 years. The Americans have only a few hundred years of occupation and deliberate destruction of the Indians.
YJ Draiman.
Barrack Hussein Obama face it – Israel is Jewish territory and it is not negotiable.
ReplyDeleteThe Arabs already have 75,000 sq. miles of Jewish land (5-6 times the size of Israel) that they confiscated from the million Jews and their children they expelled from Arab countries in the past 90 years. They also have the Jewish territory of Jordan.
I think you do not have your facts straight – Israel belongs to the Jews.
The Quran states it clearly.
Israel is a Jewish State its territories are non-negotiable. It has been a Jewish country for over 4,000 years.
The Arab-Arab-Arab-Palestinians are the occupiers. All they want is to destroy the Jews. They educated their children and the masses to commit terror and violence against Israel. The dance in the streets when the twin towers in 9-11 collapsed and 3,000 Americans died.
It is amazing how you and many others choose to ignore that the Arab countries have expelled over a million Jews and their children from their countries in the last 90 years. Jews who lived there for over 2,000 years. The Arabs confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and real estate 5-6 times the size of Israel – 120,440 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles which is valued in the trillions of dollars.
Any Arab who is not happy to live under the Israeli government can move there.
Study your history; Muhammed in 627 about 1,500 years ago beheaded 700 Jews in Medina which was a Jewish town in Saudi Arabia, he killed all the men took the women as slaves and raped their daughters. This is just the tip of history.
Do you want more study the complete unbiased history objectively.
YJ Draiman
P.S.
There was never an Arab-Arab-Palestinian State in Greater Israel and there will never be – face it.
The Ottoman land records of Palestine confirm that the Arabs did not own land, the were sharecroppers. Over 90% of the land was owned by the government the balance was owned by absentee wealthy Arabs from Lebanon who sold it to the Jews at premium prices.
It is time to implement population transfer for all the Arabs.
who create violence, riot and attack Jews and anyone else. They could be relocated to the home and land of the million Jewish people and their children, expelled from Arab countries or Jordan.
YJ Draiman.
Tell the White House official to return occupied Texas and other states to Mexico and the rest of the United States to the Indians.
The Jews have a history with Israel going over 4,000 years. The Americans have only a few hundred years of occupation and deliberate destruction of the Indians.
YJ Draiman.
Minister of Hasbarah - Israel advocacy
ReplyDeleteIsrael needs to set up: Minister of Hasbarah - Israel advocacy.
It should have strong financial support. A staff that is knowledgeable about history and legalities. A review board to proof read anything before it goes out.
The credibility, sources and resources must be impeccable.
YJ Draiman.
Two States - Greater Israel for the Jewish people and Jordan which has 75% of its people are Arab-Palestinians and the 120,440 sq. km. the Arab countries confiscated from the million plus Jews expelled from Arab countries.
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.
YJ Draiman
1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,”
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Congress in 1922
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:
“Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.” [italics in the original]
On September 21, 1922, the then President Warren G. Harding signed the joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine.
Here is how members of congress expressed their support for the creation of a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine – Eretz-Israel (Selective text read from the floor of the U.S. Congress by the Congressman from New York on June 30, 1922). All quotes included in this document are taken verbatim from the given source.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
1922 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NATIONAL HOME FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE
JUNE 30, 1922
HOUSE RESOLUTION 360
(Rept. NO. 1172)
Representative Walter M. Chandler from New York – I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:
(1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration.
(2) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, they shall be required to sell their lands at a just valuation and retire into the Arab territory which has been assigned to them by the League of Nations in the general reconstruction of the countries of the east.
(3) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, under conditions of right and justice, or to sell their lands at a just valuation and to retire into their own countries, they shall be driven from Palestine by force.