A short synopsis of Jewish History and the Arab Israeli conflict r5 - YJ Draiman

A short synopsis of Jewish History and the Arab Israeli conflict r5

Jews have the absolute right for their homeland. Zionism the movement itself was created during the second half the 1800′s. Jews purchased a substantial amount of territories in Palestine-Israel (see testimony of the Mufti of Jerusalem in front of the British Peel Commission - 1937) from local sheikhs and lords and built settlements there. This dates as early as 1860, that is 79 years before WWII.

During all of this time Jews kept migrating back to their historic homeland which comprised of two kingdoms: the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah.  They were driven out of the Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians in 720, B.C.E.  The Babylonians in 586, B.C.E., drove the Jews out of the Kingdom of Judah, Including Jerusalem. Then followed the Persians in 536, and the Hellenistic Syrian Seleucid Rulers in 332 BCE.  Jews - The Maccabees re-conquered Israel in 166 BCE.

Romans conquered Israel in 63 C.E., and in 70 A.D. destroyed the Jewish second Temple.

Which was followed by these conquests:

Byzantines in 313; Persian in 614; Arabs Muslims 636 CE; Crusaders 1099; and the Mamluks in 1291.

Then came the Ottoman Empire in 1517.  In 1564 the Ottoman Empire encouraged and stimulated Jewish immigration which added over 10,000 new Jewish returnees to Palestine-Israel (The Ottoman land records for Palestine showed that the government owned over 90% of the land) and the British Rule 1918-1948.

During the time of the Roman rule of Israel, the Jews in the kingdom called Judea revolted against the Roman rule. The Romans crushed the rebellion, exiled many Jews out of the country, seized many others and turned them into slaves deporting them to Rome and other places. Not only that, they changed the name of the land from Provincia Judea to Palestine to humiliate the Jews.

For 600 years or so, Arab Muslims imperialism spread throughout the Middle East from Arabia. Among other conquests, the Arabs conquered Judea-Palestine, killing many of the local Jewish population, and converting many into Islam. The story of how the Arabs got to Palestine is the story of conquest, imperialism, violence and occupation.

During the 19th and 20th century, when Arabs had little to no interest in the land of Israel, Jews bought massive amounts of land and resettled there. After WWI the Allied Powers, the international community and the League of Nations under the San Remo Treaty of 1920 assigned the British "The Mandate for Palestine" as trustee over the land so that a Jewish state would be created in that land, confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausane. The British had their own agenda in mind and violated the Treaties.

The original Mandate territory included what is today Israel; Gaza, Parts of Sinai, West Bank (Judea and Samaria), Jordan and the Golan Heights. The British had their own agenda and divided the country up. They gave to the Arabs the allocated land which had been Mandated to the Jewish people in violation of the San Remo Treaty: everything East of the Jordan river.  This land which was intentionally given to the Arabs constituted 80% of the land allocated to the Jewish people.  The British gave the land to the Hashemite Kingdom for the Arab population in order to create a new State: Trans-Jordan.  The British also traded the Golan Heights to the French who ruled Syria for oil in Iraq. Thus, after already separating the country into one Arab state Trans-Jordan (a new state in history), which is present day Jordan, they intended to break up the remaining Jewish land West of the Jordan River, present day  Israel and wrongfully give it to the Arabs.

In the meanwhile a conflict emerged over territorial boundaries between the Jewish inhabitants and the Arabs. The U.N. proposed a deal to split the remaining land of the British Mandate for Palestine (yes, split yet again) into an Arab state and a Jewish state. The Jewish leadership accepted the proposal, provided the Arabs also accept it. The Arabs declined. Thus the 1948 war began. A war in which the Arabs with 6 armies from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and local militias of Arabs, and help on a smaller scale from the armies of Algeria and Libya attacked the new Jewish entity. The Arab coalition had the weapons, a large army and were confident on victory, to the extent, that they asked the local Arab inhabitants to vacate the land while they decimated the Jews. But fate had other plans. Through divine intervention, the Arabs lost that war. Many Arab civilians fled their homes because their Arab leadership told them to. Some were panicked by rumors. There were only a few incidents with civilians. (It is an important fact to note that during the war of 1948, Jewish settlements that were seized by Arab forces were razed  to the ground – Kfar Etzion for example and the remaining population there killed).

The true and detailed facts and history is much more voluminous and complex. The problems Israel faces is that it is not as quick to explain the 4000+ years of Jewish history in Israel to counter the Arab lies, obfuscation and propaganda. Lies are easier to spread.  However, upon close examination of the historical facts, the lies are exposed as baseless propaganda and should be dismissed as such. 

It should be understood that only a small segment of history is being presented here. I did not enumerate anything about how Arabs used terror and violence since the beginning of the conflict.  I did not mention that before Arab nationalism and Muslim radicalism took over. The small Arab community was glad that the Jews were coming back to their ancestral homeland, providing an economic boost and jobs to the region, (even king Faisal was delighted.) I did not enumerate or discuss in detail the Arab-Palestinian refugees without telling how and why they became refugees.

I might also mention that the Arab countries expelled over a million Jewish people and their children, confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and Real estate property (120,440 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles, which is five-six times the size of Israel and valued in the trillions of dollars). About 650,000 of those Jewish refugees from Arab countries and their children were resettled in Greater Israel. It is time for the Arab countries who expelled the million Jewish people and their children to resettle the Arab-Palestinian refugees in their own countries, and or Jordan, and put an end to this conflict and end the misery and displacement of the Arab Palestinians. This will bring about peace and coexistence which the people so rightfully desire and deserve. It will bring economic prosperity and an increase in the standard of living for all the people. 

YJ Draiman

Operation Magic Carpet - Saving the Jews of Yemen

Operation Magic Carpet - Saving the Jews of Yemen

The story of the modern exodus of “Beta Israel,” the Jews of Ethiopia during Operations Moses and Solomon, which together airlifted some 22,000 Ethiopian Jews to Israel, is well known. Less well known is the dramatic exodus of over 48,000 Jews from Yemen. Almost unknown is the role played by Alaska Airlines. 

No one knows for certain when the first Jews came to Yemen. Local legend has them being sent as traders by King Solomon. In any event, Jews have lived in Yemen for many centuries. In that backward and poverty-stricken country, the Jews were the poorest and lowest of citizens living in contempt and on sufferance as dhimmis. However, in their synagogues and schools, they taught their   male children to learn and write Hebrew. They never forgot their faith, protected the traditions, observed the Sabbath and passed the Torah and Talmud to each succeeding generation. Following World War I, when Yemen became independent, life in that Muslim country for the Jews became intolerable. Anti-Semitic laws were revived; Jews were not permitted to walk on pavements; in court a Jew’s evidence was not accepted against a Muslim’s; Jewish orphans had to be converted to Islam. Some Jews were able to escape to Palestine but most were trapped. 

In 1947, following the United Nations vote to partition Palestine, the situation of the Jews in Yemen turned from despair to physical danger. Arab rioters in the adjacent port of Aden, then a British Crown colony and now part of Yemen, killed 82 Jews and torched the Jewish quarter. The establishment of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948 and Israel’s War of Independence increasingly endangered the Yemeni Jews as it did in all Arab countries. It was not, however, until May 1949, when the Imam of Yemen unexpectedly agreed to permit all Jews to leave his country that they were able to flee. They longed to return to Zion if only they had the means. At that time, slightly over 49,000 Jews lived in Yemen. 

As the War of Independence ended in early 1949, Israel was devastated and virtually bankrupt. Notwithstanding, David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, defying logic and the advise of his economic advisors, ordered the immediate and rapid “Ingathering of the Exiles”. Where would Israel get the money? “Go to the Jews in the Diaspora and ask them for the money”, Ben-Gurion answered the skeptics. 

For the Jews of Yemen, Egypt had closed the Suez Canal to them and therefore they would have to be transported by air to Israel. The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC), the international Jewish humanitarian aid organization, agreed to fund the Yemenite exodus and organize the airlift, but they needed aircraft. 

Alaska Airlines was founded in 1932, when Mac McGee purchased a used three passenger Stinson and started an air charter business in Alaska. With the arrival of James Wooten as president in 1947, the airline began to purchase surplus planes from the U.S. Government and within a year became the world’s largest charter airline. 

The JDC approached Wooten and asked if Alaska Airlines would agree to accept the Yemen airlift. Wooten wanted Alaska Air to take on the mission of mercy but Ray Marshall, Chairman of the Board, was cool. Marshall felt the deal was a waste of the Airline’s time and money. It would take at least $50,000 to set up the charter, cash that the Airline did not have. Marshall insisted that Wooten front the funds himself. Wooten raised the $50,000 by borrowing it from a travel agency associated with the JDC. The contract was signed and Operation On Wings of Eagles, more popularly known by its nickname, Operation Magic Carpet commenced.

As Yemen would not permit the Jewish refugees to be flown out of their country, Britain had agreed to the establishment of a transit camp in the adjoining Crown Colony of Aden from which the airlift could commence. Alaska Airlines set up its base in Asmara, Eritrea with their ground crew, pilots and aircraft– DC-4s and C-46s. The arrangement was to fly from their base in Asmara to Aden each morning, pick up their passengers in Aden and refuel. Thence fly up the Red Sea and Gulf of Aqaba to the airport in Tel Aviv, unload the refugees, fly to the safety of Cyprus for the night and return to their base in Asmara at dawn, before starting all over again. The round trip would take about 20 hours. 

The aircraft as configured could not carry enough passengers or sufficient fuel. So, the planes were modified by replacing the regular airline seats with rows of benches and fitting extra fuel tanks down the length of the fuselages between the benches. Aircraft intended to carry 50 passengers could now carry 120 and fuel would last a skinny extra one hour. 

Meanwhile the transit camp in Aden, called “Camp Geula” (Redemption) was organized by the JDC and staffed by Israeli doctors and social workers under the directorship of Max Lapides, an American Jew. Also headquartered at the camp were emissaries responsible for paying various Yemeni tribal chiefs a “head tax” which would permit the Jewish refugees to pass through their territory 

As news of the evacuation reached the Jews of Yemen, they left their few possessions behind (except their prayer books and Torahs) and like the biblical exodus began to walk out of slavery into freedom. They traveled in family groups, some hundreds of miles, through wind and sandstorm, vulnerable to robbers and a hostile local population, until half-starved and destitute they reached the border with Aden where Israeli aid workers met them and transported them to the transit camp. There they encountered electricity, medicines, running water, toilets and personal hygiene for the first time. During the entire operation, the Jews of Yemen arrived at Camp Geula in a steady stream, newer ones arriving as an earlier group was airlifted out.

Getting the Yemenite Jews to Aden was one problem, getting them on the aircraft was another. Nomads who had never seen an airplane before and never lived anywhere but in a tent, many of the immigrants were frightened and refused to board. Once reminded that their deliverance to Israel by air was prophesized in the Book of Isaiah, “They shall mount up with wings like eagles,” reinforced by the painting of an eagle with outstretched wings over the door of each aircraft, induced them to board the planes. Once inside many preferred sitting on the floor to unaccustomed soft seats. Keeping them from lighting fires to cook their food was a task. During the flight, about half would get sick vomiting over the extra inside fuel tanks. Notwithstanding, the Yemenites upon landing in Israel chanted blessings and burst into song. 

To start up Operation Magic Carpet, Alaska Airlines sent Portland native Bob Maguire, a pilot with management experience, to the Middle East. Maguire flew between 270 and 300 hours a month. Had he been in the U.S., the limit under its aviation rules was 90 hours. Ben-Gurion called Maguire the “Irish Moses”. The work cost Maguire his career. He contracted a parasite that affected his heart and as a result lost his commercial pilot’s license in the early 1950’s. Another pilot was Warren Metzger, born in Lethbridge who found time between flights to marry his flight attendant. At least one pilot, Stanley Epstein, was Jewish. 

The airlift that began in June 1948 was hard on the pilots who were flying 16-hour days and hard on the planes that flew well beyond their scheduled service intervals. Fuel was difficult to come by, the desert sand wreaked havoc on the engines and flying was seat-of-the-pants with navigation by dead reckoning and eyesight. 

The work was dangerous. Many airplanes were shot at. One pilot, getting a little close to Arab territory while approaching Israel, watched tracer bullets arching up towards his airplane. Another plane had a tire blown out during a bombing raid in Tel Aviv. On one occasion, Maguire was forced to land his aircraft in Egypt when it ran out of gas. The Israelis had warned all pilots that if they had to land in Arab territory, the Jewish refugees and perhaps even the crew would likely be shot. The quick-witted Maguire told airport officials he needed ambulances to take his passengers to hospital. When they asked why, he replied that his passengers had smallpox. The frightened Egyptians wanted him out of there right away. Maguire received his fuel and flew on to Tel Aviv. 

Part way through the operation, the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board forced Alaska Airlines to shut down its international charter business and a company called Near East Air Transport, whose president was James Wooten and whose pilots, and aircraft were all Alaska Air’s, completed the Operation Magic Carpet airlift. Near East Air Transport was just Alaska Airlines operating under another name.

By the time Operation Magic Carpet ended in September 1950, 28 Alaska Airlines pilots had made some 380 flights and airlifted 48,818 refugees, almost Yemen’s entire Jewish population, to Israel. Miraculously not one death or injury occurred. 

Operation Magic Carpet was kept secret for reasons of security and to prevent sabotage. It would be many months later before the public or the press would become aware of the remarkable operation. 

Later, Israel would once again call upon Alaska Airlines to aid in the rescue of Jews, this time from Iraq. El Al and Alaska Air, in a secret partnership, formed a new airline, again using the name Near East Air Transport for that purpose. Israeli ownership was hidden so that the airline appeared to be strictly an Alaska Airlines venture. 

Today, Alaska Airlines is an international carrier serving 60 cities and 3 countries. Passengers flying Alaska Airlines do not realize that they are flying with the airline that saved the Jews of Yemen. 

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