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 in"
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 that Israel liberated and
captured the Jewish Palestinian territories, resettled 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 and false
Arab propaganda. This understanding is a misconception and false.
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 that Israel liberated and
captured the Jewish Palestinian territories, resettled 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 and false
Arab propaganda. This understanding is a misconception and false.
It is time to clarify and illustrate the Jewish 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 real
truth and facts as supported by documents and history.
the Media has without a doubt, immersed itself in hearsay and untruths,
twisting facts and ignoring the truth. It is time to examine the real
truth and facts 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about it, yet, when looking at historical documents on the legal status of Judea and Samaria, one finds powerful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 of the territories.
It must be noted it doesn't matter if these critics are Arabs, Americans,
Europeans or even members of the Israeli extreme left.
about it, yet, when looking at historical documents on the legal status of Judea and Samaria, one finds powerful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 of the territories.
It must be noted it doesn't matter if these critics are Arabs, Americans,
Europeans or even members of the Israeli extreme left.
The San Remo
Treaty of 1920, written almost
a century ago, 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 that prove clearly that Israel is far from the colonial power it is
being accused of being since 1967.
Treaty of 1920, written almost
a century ago, 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 that prove clearly that Israel is far from the colonial power it is
being accused of being since 1967.
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 ''worried'' then today. Until
1993, Israel gave the impression of not requiring
justification for rebuilding Jewish settlements beyond the Green Line. Until
that time, Israel did not seem to plead for the
international community and the Arab world in particular to give It the acquiescence
of keeping the famous "settlement blocs."
archives that preceded the Oslo Accords, we realize that the official Israeli
narrative concerning the Israeli presence in the West Bank was much less ''worried'' then today. Until
1993, Israel gave the impression of not requiring
justification for rebuilding Jewish settlements beyond the Green Line. Until
that time, Israel did not seem to plead for the
international community and the Arab world in particular to give It the acquiescence
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 plead 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 that the head of government has not availed
itself: "When I heard of two states for two peoples, I understood
why."
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 plead 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 that the head of government has not availed
itself: "When I heard of two states for two peoples, I understood
why."
To understand this issue, we
must examine Balfour Declaration and San Remo Treaty, 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 Weitzman, 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 as trustee for the
Jewish people.
must examine Balfour Declaration and San Remo Treaty, 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 Weitzman, 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 as trustee for the
Jewish people.
Three years after the Balfour
Declaration in 1920, the conference was held in San Remo, Italy during which the great powers decided how
to split the territories conquered during the war. At this conference, it was
decided to incorporate 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 reconstitute a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine" (Balfour Declaration). It
must be noted, the San Remo Treaty did not grant any other nation or people
land in any part of Palestine, only the Jewish
people. Including the
incorporation of the Balfour Declaration into the Palestine Mandate by 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 would become a member of the
international organization a few years later.
Declaration in 1920, the conference was held in San Remo, Italy during which the great powers decided how
to split the territories conquered during the war. At this conference, it was
decided to incorporate 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 reconstitute a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine" (Balfour Declaration). It
must be noted, the San Remo Treaty did not grant any other nation or people
land in any part of Palestine, only the Jewish
people. Including the
incorporation of the Balfour Declaration into the Palestine Mandate by 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 would become a member of the
international organization a few years later.
The San Remo
Treaty of 1920 - some relevant terms
Treaty of 1920 - some relevant terms
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. "
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
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
It is time to implement population transfer for all the Arabs
ReplyDeletewho create violence, riot and attack Jews and anyone else. They could be
relocated to the home and land of the million Jewish people, expelled from Arab
countries.
A Jewish person and any other person in Jerusalem
and the rest of Greater Israel has the right to live and walk in his own
country in peace and tranquility without fear or intimidation.
I suggest a massive demonstration by Israelis, demanding the government to
restore peace without fear or intimidation at all costs. Israel
must ignore world opinion and the Media, they will criticize and defame Israel
no matter what.
Eventually the world at large respects a government that protects its people.
According to International Law All Jews have the right to live in any area of
the original San Remo Treaty of 1920 and the Mandate for Palestine
adoption in perpetuity by the League of Nations.
It is interesting to note that the World at large is not
questioning the State of Jordan and its territory, which was taken from the
allocation to Jewish land. Jordan
a State that has never existed in history prior to WW1. But Israel
that has existed on its land for over 4,000 years which included The land Jordan
occupies, they are questioning Israel’s
land. They do not mention that The Arabs ejected a million Jewish people and
confiscated their homes and assets and that about 650,000 of them were settled
in Israel’s
LIBERATED TERRITORY.
Arabs are the occupiers, they have 21 Arab States that were
granted to them after WW1 by the same powers that granted the State of Israel.
The Arabs countries also expelled over a million Jewish people (who have lived
there for at least 1,800 years) from their countries and confiscated their
assets, businesses, homes and land (5 times the size of Israel)
valued in the trillions of dollars.
There is no other term for Jewish villages and towns in Judea
and Samaria and East
Jerusalem than Liberated Jewish Territories.
To negate any claim of Arab ownership of the land, Read and
study the Ottoman empire land title. It states that
approximately 98% of the land was owned by the government, some of it was
leased to the Arab population as sharecroppers, not owners.
The balance 2% was owned by Arab land barons who sold the land at premium
prices to the Jews.
Here is the incredible testimony of The Mufti of Jerusalem
on January 12, 1937 when he documents in testimony for the British Peel
Commission that the Jews did not steal land from the Arab Palestinians but by
the year of 1920, the time of the “Occupation” meaning the British Palestine
Mandate, the Jewish people had already purchased 1,500,000 dunams of land in
the Land of Israel which is 375,000 acres.
The Mufti also testified that the land was not bought by “forcibly
acquired-compulsory acquisition of land”. That kind of ruling behavior was the
action of the Ottoman rulers and not the Jews. Also the Mufti admitted that any
evictions done were by absentee landlords who chose to sell “land over the
heads of their tenants, who then were forcibly evicted”, and that the majority
of these tenants were not Palestinians but Lebanese.
It is a common practice by the Muslims to obfuscate,
distort, outright fabrication and misrepresent facts to their benefit, it is
even permitted under their religion, in order to accomplish their goals.
YJ Draiman
I am not in the Israeli government. But I think, Israel
ReplyDeleteshould have taken action against Iran years ago.
The longer they wait the harder it gets,
Menachem Begin as PM made the decision to
bomb the nuclear dev. in Iraq.
It was the right decision under tough circumstances.
The world most times will not agree with Israel's
defensive actions. It seems as time passes they realize that Israel
saved their butts.
As history shows. The Jews and Israel
have always been criticized, no matter what.
You might as well do the right thing and
defend Israel
and its people. Dam the world opinion.
The world did nothing when 6 million Jews
were exterminated during WW2 and they did nothing when the Arab countries
expelled a million Jewish people and confiscated all their assets.
There is a famous Jewish saying "If I
am not for myself who is for me".
YJ Draiman