Israel stands in the way and is an obstacle to full Muslim domination of the Middle East - YJ Draiman

Israel stands in the way and is an obstacle to full Muslim domination of the Middle East

The West fears Islamic aggression (which has been going on since WW1), and is opting for appeasement. Propaganda is being used to try to convince people that Muslims in Israel, and in the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Golan Heights, are being mistreated. Islamist forces have conducted maneuvers at the borders of Israel, and have continuously lobbed missiles into Israel. Islam constantly threatens Israel, often using language that proclaims a desire for the complete destruction of Israel. The Arab-Palestinians have spoken to the world, proclaiming parts of Israel to belong to them.

Peace in the Middle East is desired at any cost by the Western Appeasers. The unrest is being blamed on Israel. Islam promises that the Arab-Palestinian claims are the last they will make in Israel. If land is traded for peace, they say, then the unrest in the Middle East will ease, which is a delusion and not reality.

The Western Leaders, fearful that if the Muslims are not appeased the world could plunge into terrorism (which it has already and increasing daily), have decided they need to negotiate with the Arab-Palestinians, grant them the Statehood they suddenly desire, and grant them their demands for the purpose of a delusional peace.

As The West prepares for appeasement, the forces of jihadism are on the rise in Egypt, Syria, Turkey and Iran and extends to Pakistan, Afghanistan and former Russian states. Egypt's peace with Israel has been guaranteed by U.S. involvement, and land for peace. The treaty with Egypt was based on the proposition of the Sinai in 1982 for peace. The Islamists moving into position to gain power in Egypt places the treaty at risk. They have no intention of abiding by its provisions.

The concept of land for peace has failed, as it failed prior to WW2. Islamism does not care about land. Islamism only cares about the destruction of Israel, the destruction of non-Islamic societies, and ultimately the worldwide domination of Islam through a Muslim caliphate.

Israel gives land because they want the Arabs to abide by peace agreements. Israel craves peace, but deep down knows that it is not possible. Islam has made it loud and clear that land for peace is a one way street. Israeli land giveaways are permanent, but Islamic commitments to peace are revoked at any time.

With the current presidential administration in the United States, and the liberal socialists in control of the U.N. and Europe, Israel stands alone. No one plans to stand up for Israel's right to exist, as history has proven, the Jewish people have ultimately been abandoned by the world nations. The Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist parties are working to take an absolute majority in Egypt and other Muslim countries, but The West has fallen for the propaganda that claims these parties are moderate and pragmatic. ISIS has proven that this approach is wrong and detrimental to peaceful coexistence.

The fact is, the rising Islamist control over the Muslim nations has no intention of respecting treaties, or Israel's right to exist. They are waiting for conflict, and then will blame it on Israel. Talks are doomed to failure. The Islamists want it that way or the highway.

Land for Peace fails. Liberalism fails. Only a strong and direct military posture with no-holds-barred that stands up against the rising threat will succeed. . . but the appeasers refuse to learn from history, and like Neville Chamberlain with Germany, Barack Obama and his fellow appeasers are positioning the world for a new world conflict that could turn the world to ashes.

A viable solution for the conflict is: Two States - Greater Israel for the Jewish people as guaranteed by International law and treaties after WW1 and Jordan that was originally part of the territory allocated to the Jewish people under 1920 international treaties, thus Jordan has 75% of its people are Arab-Palestinians and the 120,440 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. mi. (5-6 times the size of Israel) the Arab countries confiscated from the million plus Jewish families they persecuted and expelled from Arab countries and confiscated all their assets, businesses, homes and Real estate property valued in the trillions of dollars. That should settle the refugee problem once and for all. But the Arabs will not be satisfied until they get all of Israel without the Jews and they do not hide their intention.

YJ Draiman.

How did the Arab territory of Transjordan come into being?

The 1922 White Paper (also called the Churchill White Paper) was the first official manifesto interpreting the Balfour Declaration. It was issued on June 3, 1922, after investigation of the 1921 disturbances. Although the White Paper stated that the Balfour Declaration could not be amended and that the Jews were in Palestine by right, in violation of international treaties, it partitioned the area of the Mandate for Palestine by excluding the area east of the Jordan River from Jewish legally allocated historical land. That land, 78% of the original Palestine Mandate land, was renamed Transjordan and was given to the Emir Abdullah by the British.

The White Paper (In violation of international agreements) included the statement that the British Government: (Which is backstabbing the Jewish people) The British goal was to appease the Arabs in order to control Arab resources of oil.

• The British did an about face and it... does not want Palestine to become "as Jewish as England is English", rather should become "a center in which Jewish people as a whole may take, and on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride."

After the illegal partition, Transjordan remained part of the Palestine Mandate and its legal system applied to all residents, both East and West of the Jordan River, who all carried Palestine Mandate passports. Palestine Mandate currency was the legal tender in Transjordan as well as the area West of the river. This was the consistent situation until 1946, 24 years later, when Britain as trustee completed the illegal action by unilaterally granting Transjordan its independence. Thus the British subverted and violated the terms of the Mandate for Palestine, partitioned Palestine and created an independent Palestine-Arab state with no regard for the rights and international agreements delineating the territory for  the Jewish population. According to Sir Alec Kirkbride, the British representative in the area, Transjordan was:

• ... intended to serve as a reserve of land for use in the resettlement of Arabs once the National Home for the Jewish  people in Palestine was completed, which [Britain was] compelled to support under international treaties,  and became an accomplished fact. There was no intention at that stage of forming the territory east of the River Jordan into an independent Arab state.

In 1925, the British added 60,000 sq. km. of desert to eastern Transjordan forming an "arm" of land to connect Transjordan with Iraq and to cut Syria off from the Arabian Peninsula. The British continued to favor an apartheid rule with exclusive Arab development east of the Jordan River by enacting restrictive regulations against the Jews and prohibiting them from purchasing land or residing east of the Jordan river, even when Arab leaders sought Jewish involvement in the development of Transjordan. 

Comments:

Who gave the right to Muslims to invade the holy-landand occupy it? International treaties and agreements gave the right of return to the Jews including the Palestine Mandate laid out in the San Remo Conference in 1922 which incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration, Signed by 52 Nations under binding international law that is still binding today, recognizing the fact of over 3500 years of continuous historic Jewish connection with the land and even so the british government illegally partitioned and took away almost 80% of the designated area and gave it to the arab population as an additional Arab State to the existing 21 Arab States. Prior to this the Ottomans ruled and owned the land and it was taken from them during the 1st world war.

The arab connection goes back to about 690 AD and many other nations occupied Palestine-Israel over the centuries. Jews never opposed the presence of the Arabs but the arabs attitude was not mutual and has never been.
Also over 990,000 Jewish families were kicked out of Arab countries with just the clothes they wore (If they were lucky), Many were murdered and all their assets confiscated, including 120,440 square km. of real estate property, which is more than 6 times the size of Israel and valued in the trillions of dollars.

Jewish people never completely left Israel around 600 BC – that was the first diaspora when the first temple was destroyed. There wouldn’t have been anyone for the Romans to disperse if your statement were true. The Romans destroyed the second temple and also enslaved many Jewish people.

During the Diasporas, many Jews ended up in the surrounding Arab countries. These Arab countries proceeded to force out these Jewish people during the time leading up to and immediately following Israel becoming a state. Many of these people lost their property, homes, etc…. there were actually twice as many Jewish refugees from the Arab countries than there were “Palestinian” refugees.

As for the late 1800’s…. actually, very few people lived in the swamplands and sand dunes that comprised much of Israel during this time. In the early 1800’s Jewish people began purchasing a portion of the lands, improved them with modern agricultural techniques and established settlements. This land was purchased for a hefty price that exceeded the amount they would typically be sold for. The improvements to the lands actually attracted ARABS from neighboring lands. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs moved into Palestine after WWI.

“Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was bought.”—Peel Commission Report, 1937.

• 
  
  

  Israel Draiman • 17 days ago

  
  

  Terror
  There are severe and extreme consequences to the terrorist who plan to attack and or attacks to the terrorist his family and associates.
  Anyone who is assisting or withholding information about the terrorist proposed actions or action should be considered as an accomplice‎.
  Let them know that terror will not be tolerated.

  
  
  

  •  
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›  
  •  
• 

  
  
  

  Israel Draiman • a month ago

  
  

  THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE and its violations

  As stated above, the 1920 San Remo Conference decided to placePalestine under British Mandatory rule making Britain responsible for giving effect to the 1917 Balfour declaration that had been adopted by the other Allied Powers and ratified under International treaty as International law.. The resulting “Mandate for Palestine,” was an historical League of Nations document that laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in Palestine and the San Remo Resolution which was confirmed by the Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne, together with Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations became the basic documents on which the Mandate for Palestine was established. The Mandate’s declaration of July 24, 1922 states unambiguously that Britain became responsible for putting the Balfour Declaration, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, into effect and it confirmed that recognition had thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country. It is highly relevant that at that time the West Bank and parts of what today is Jordan were included as a Jewish Homeland. However, on September 16, 1922, the British in violation of the Treaty divided the Mandate territory of Palestine, west of the Jordan became Transjordan, east of the Jordan River was for the Jewish State, in accordance with the McMahon Correspondence of 1915 which was not approved by the British Parliament. Transjordan became exempt from the Mandate provisions concerning the Jewish National Home, effectively removing about 78% of the original territory of the area in which a Jewish National home was to be established in terms of the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo resolution as well as the British Mandate.

  This action violated not only Article 5 of the Mandate which required the Mandatory to be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power but also article 20 of the Covenant of the League of Nations in which the Members of the League solemnly undertook that they would not enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

  Article 6 of the Mandate stated that the Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. Political rights were exclusively granted only to the Jewish people.

  Nevertheless in blatant violation of article 6, in a 1939 White PaperBritain changed its position so as to limit Jewish immigration fromEurope, a move that was blatant violation by Zionists as betrayal of the terms of the mandate, especially in light of the increasing persecution of Jews in Europe. This caused the death of millions of Jews trying to escape Nazi extermination. In response, Zionists organized Aliyah Bet, a program of illegal immigration into Palestine.

  CONCLUSION

  The frequently voiced complaint that the state being offered to the Palestinians comprises only 22 percent of Palestine is obviously invalid. The truth is exactly the reverse. From the above history and international treaties, it is obvious that the territory on both sides of the Jordan was legally designated for the Jewish homeland by the 1920 San Remo Conference, mandated to Britain as trustee, endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922, affirmed in the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine in 1925 and confirmed in 1945 by article 80 of the UN. Yet, approximately 80% of this territory was excised from the territory in May 1923 when, in violation of the mandate and the San Remo resolution, Britain gave autonomy toTransjordan (now known as Jordan) under as-Sharif Abdullah bin al-Husayn. Further-more, as the San Remo resolution has never been abrogated, it was and continues to be legally binding between the several parties who signed it. It is therefore obvious that the legitimacy of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and a Jewish state in Palestine all derive from the same international agreement at San Remo.

  In essence, when Israel entered the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1967 it did not occupy territory to which any other party had title. While Jerusalem and the West Bank, (Judea and Samaria), were illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948 they remained in effect part of the Jewish National Home that had been created at 1920 San Remo and in the 1967 6-Day War Israel, in effect, recovered and liberated territory that legally belonged to Israel. To quote Judge Schwebel, a former President of the ICJ (International Court of Justice), “As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better absolute title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem.

  
  
  

  •  
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›  
  •  
• 

  
  
  

  Israel Draiman • a month ago

  
  

  Remember, when the Jews and minorities were forced out of - persecuted, killed and violated in the Arab and
  Islamic lands (over a million Jewish families and their children expelled),
  those countries never recovered from the loss. Differences in human composition and dedication are what make us stronger. It was what George Washington said (after appreciating Haym Solomon help in financing the American revolution) to the American people, that the cultural differences are what make us stronger. Israel is the thriving America of Jews worldwide.

  After over 2500 years of persecution in the Diaspora, Israel through hard work, stubbornness' to succeed and
  determination to survive plus control of its own destiny was reborn by the Jewish people against all odds. It took extreme faith, dedication, hardship and consistent toil to rebuild Israel by the Jewish people with limited resources, a hostile environment and Arab and British impediment to our independence. Nevertheless,
  we have succeeded in making the desert bloom and flowing with green valleys,
  and the Jewish innovations just keep coming on a weekly basis. And now,
  overcoming the treatment by the nations of the world as sheep to the slaughter,
  to the Nazi gas chambers. Israel has morphed into a military might.

  The Nation of Israel is alive and thriving! (“the nation of Israel lives”) Hate begets hate: If all the Jews
  were gone (not likely), those anti-Semitic promoters and behaviors would need to feed the hate and turn on each other, as seen historically.

  Try love and understanding and embrace and respect the differences, it will make living a celebration of
  life, it’s all very beautiful, and you will find true success. It will be hard to change the narrative, but go ahead, accept the challenge to heal instead of hate…tolerate instead of abhor...
  …you may finally see some success like the JEWS and forego your jealousy and intolerance!

  This will bring about a harmonious and thriving coexistence that will benefit society for generations to come.

  YJ Draiman

  
  
  

  •  
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›  
  •  
• 

  
  
  

  Israel Draiman • a month ago

  
  

  Wake-up world to the real Muslim mission of domination.

  Israel has no choice but to continue to fight for its survival with a unified people and a unified nation.

  I have long said, this is not about land, but extermination of a nation, religion and culture which is not accepted by another. I have actually asked the question, what if there was no 'holy land'. Say a natural disaster, dissolving the place into nothing, but not the people. Would the Arabs still fight? Well, the answer was chilling and emphatic, it saddened me greatly. The answer was over and over, "we have the right to kill all non believers".

  I have read and re-read everything, from both sides, also, many non-biased writings.

  I have come to the conclusion that Israel must protect herself in every way possible or face genocide. The Arab countries have expelled over a million Jewish families and their children, confiscated all their assets, businesses, homes and Real estate property totaling over 120,440 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles (which is 5-6 times the size of Israel) and valued in the trillions of dollars.

  Those in power in the Arab-Palestinian leadership have rejected again and again any and all attempts to recognize Israel's right to exist. They continue to teach their children and the masses hate and violence.

  Don't start with who was there first, even-though in actuality there has never been in history an Arab-Palestinian Nation, but there has been a Jewish Nation homeland in Palestine-Israel for the past 3,500 plus years, although sometimes occupied by various empires. Israel has won and liberated their ancestral land in a defensive war, it is known that possession is nine tenths of the law. Israel is the rightful liberator and successor, having won and liberated its ancestral homeland in war, numerous times. Sadly, it will continue, because when one Arab culture wants another's elimination, there is no talking.

  I hope Israel does not concede to any of the Arab demands, or give up any more land, because they will only make themselves more vulnerable and endanger the safety and security of its citizens, as past experience has proved. Israel must not capitulate to world pressure. Israel's foremost duty and obligation is the safety and security of its citizens at all costs. Any responsible democratic country will do no less. Israel as a responsible democratic country must do the same. Ignoring, minimizing and deluding yourself that the Arab violence will go away, it will only exacerbate the problem. Taking extreme action to protect its people is the only response. The end result will be that the world at large will respect a country that defends its people from terrorism and harm at all cost.

  The Muslim mission in the world is not only Israel but the rest of the infidel non-believers. Might I remind you, on 911, there were Arab terrorists who wished our extermination, right here in America. This will continue until education and humanity replaces a hatred, for no other reason, than to not accept that you exist.

  The Muslims have killed over 250 million people since its inception 1500 years ago, and they will continue to kill anyone who they consider is an infidel, they even kill their own people. They have colonized the Middle East over the years. Slowly but surely they are taking over Europe and other countries, and if we are not careful they will take over the United States and other countries. They will enforce their Sharia laws.

  P.S. The Jewish peoples war of survival was not won when Hitler lost. It continues to this day, against enemies with far more effective tools of mass murder at their disposal. Plus we are easy to find now.

  Fighting terrorism is not unlike fighting a deadly cancer. It can not be treated just where it is visible - every diseased cell in the body must be destroyed.

  YJ Draiman

  
  
  

  •  
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›  
  •  
• 

  
  
  

  Israel Draiman • a month ago

  
  

  The U.N. cannot create states, it can only recommend and so can other nations can only recommend and not create a state that never existed before in history. If they want an Arab-Palestinian state, it already exists, it is Jordan which has taken 80% of Jewish allocated land.

  In 1947, the UN Gen. Assembly passed Resolution 181 recommending the partition of Palestine. This did not create the State of Israel. The General Assembly does not create countries, make laws, or alter the Mandates (Mandates were a big brother system for setting up independent countries to be led by its native populations, with historic national connections to the territories). The Partition plan, was merely a recommendation.

  The resolution also violated Article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine and therefore it also violated Article 80 of the UN Charter. It was therefore an illegal resolution.

  What we call the State of Israel, along with her "legal" borders, was established in April 1920 with the San Remo Resolution of 1920 confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne, which terms are in affect in perpetuity. Only Israel can amend the terms if they sign a treaty with its Arab neighbors. Palestine was created for the first time in history as a country. It was created as the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home. The Partition Plan in 1947 was the result of a 1/4 century of illegal British policy (The English were a trustee for the Jewish people, but they violated that trust. the British wanted to control the Oil in the Middle East, for that they betrayed the Jewish people) that ripped internationally protected Jewish rights from the Jewish People, as the British allowed hundreds of thousands of Arabs to pour across the border from Syria and Egypt into Palestine.

  The Jewish State's reconstitution was a fact 25 years before the UN existed. The Mandate was there to protect its survival, and it was terminated, not because the terms were completed, but because the British fled with their tails between their legs, and there was no one there to administer the Mandate. But the terms of the San Remo Treaty have not been abrogated, it is applicable today and the future, only Israel has the right to modify the terms via a treaty with the Arabs.

  Does anyone think that after the Ottoman Empire surrendered and relinquished its rights title and ownership to Palestine and other territories to the Allied powers after WWI and the Allied powers set up and established 21 Arab States and one Jewish State in Palestine. The 21 Arab State do not want to relinquish or redraw its boundaries and Israel does not want to concede any of its original boundaries set up in 1920 by international Treaties, which included the Palestine Mandate. Non of the Palestinian Mandate was allocated to the Arabs in the 1920 San Remo Treaty.

  The U.N. and the other countries must take into account and address the expulsion of over a million Jewish families and their children from the Arab countries (who lived in those Arab countries over 2500 years) and the confiscation of personal assets, homes, businesses Real estate property owned by Jewish people in the Arab countries, totaling 120,440 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles (5-6 times the size of Israel) valued in the trillions of dollars.

  The Jewish people resettled the million Jewish families refugees and their children from the Arab countries with limited resources. Over half the population in Israel today is Jewish families from Arab countries. It is about time the Arab countries who expelled the million Jewish families and confiscated their land and assets, must stop the delusion that Israel will go away. The Arab states should be obliged to settle the Arab-Palestinian refugees in their countries and or Jordan once and for all without compromising Israel and bring about peace and tranquility to the region.

  Neither the U.N. nor any Country in the world has the authority to create a state or dissolve a state, (check the U.N. charter and international law.)

  YJ Draiman

  
  
  

  •  
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›  
  •  
• 

  
  
  

  Israel Draiman • a month ago

  
  

  MODERN SOURCES OF ISRAEL’S INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS IN JERUSALEM

  In 1970, three years after the 1967 Six-Day War, an article appearing in the most prestigious international legal periodical, The American Journal of International Law, touched directly on the question of Israel’s rights in Jerusalem.5 It became a critical reference point for Israeli ambassadors speaking at the UN in the immediate decades that followed and also found its way into their speeches. The article was written by an important, but not yet well-known, legal scholar named Stephen Schwebel. In the years that followed, Schwebel’s stature would grow immensely with his appointment as the legal advisor of the U.S. Department of State, and then finally when he became

  the President of the International Court of Justice in the Hague. In retrospect, his legal opinions mattered and were worth considering very carefully.

  Schwebel wrote his article, which was entitled “What Weight to Conquest,” in response to a statement by then Secretary of State William Rogers that Israel was only entitled to “insubstantial alterations” in the pre-1967 lines. The Nixon administration had also hardened U.S. policy on Jerusalem as reflected in its statements and voting patterns in the UN Security Council. Schwebel strongly disagreed with this approach: he wrote that the pre-war lines were not sacrosanct, for the 1967 lines were not an international border. Formally, they were only armistice lines from 1949. As he noted, the armistice agreement itself did not preclude the territorial claims of the parties beyond those lines. Significantly, he explained that when territories are captured in a war, the circumstances surrounding the outbreak of the conflict directly affect the legal rights of the two sides, upon its termination.

  Two facts from 1967 stood out that influenced his thinking:

  First, Israel had acted in the Six-Day War in the lawful exercise of its right of self-defense. Those familiar with the events that led to its outbreak recall that Egypt was the party responsible for the initiation of hostilities, through a series of steps that included the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and the proclamation of a blockade on Eilat, an act that Foreign Minister Abba Eban would characterize as the firing of the first shot of the war. Along Israel’s eastern front, Jordan’s artillery had opened pre-pounding civilian neighborhoods in Jerusalem, despite repeated warnings issued by Israel.

  Given this background, Israel had not captured territory as a result of aggression, but rather because it had come under armed attack. In fact, the Soviet Union had tried to have Israel labeled as the aggressor in the UN Security Council on June 14, 1967, and then in the UN General Assembly on July 4, 1967. But Moscow completely failed. At the Security Council it was outvoted 11-4. Meanwhile at the General Assembly, 88 states voted against or abstained on the first vote of a proposed Soviet draft (only 32 states supported it). It was patently clear to the majority of UN members that Israel had waged a defensive war. 6

  A second element in Schwebel’s thinking was the fact Jordan’s claim to legal title over the territories it had lost to Israel in the Six-Day War was very problematic. The Jordanian invasion of the West Bank – and Jerusalem – nineteen years earlier in 1948 had been unlawful. As a result, Jordan did not gain legal rights in the years that followed, given the legal principle, that Schwebel stressed, according to which no right can be born of an unlawful act (ex injuria jus non oritur) . It should not have come as a surprise that Jordan’s claim to sovereignty over the West Bank was not recognized by anyone, except for Pakistan and Britain. Even the British would not recognize the Jordanian claim in Jerusalem itself.

  Thus, by comparing Jordan’s illegal invasion of the West Bank to Israel’s legal exercise of its right of self-defense, Schwebel concluded that “Israel has better title” in the territory of what once was the Palestine Mandate than either of the Arab states with which it had been at war. He specifically stated that Israel had better legal title to “the whole of Jerusalem.”

  Schwebel makes reference to UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 22, 1967, which over the years would become the main source for all of Israel’s peace efforts, from the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Treaty of Peace to the 1993 Oslo Accords. In its famous withdrawal clause, Resolution 242 did not call for a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the territories it captured in the Six-Day War. There was no effort to re-establish the status quo ante, which, as noted earlier, was the product of a previous act of aggression by Arab armies in 1948.

  As the U.S. ambassador to the UN in 1967, Arthur Goldberg, pointed out in 1980, Resolution 242 did not even mention Jerusalem “and this omission was deliberate.” Goldberg made the point, reflecting the policy of the Johnson administration for whom he served, that he never described Jerusalem as “occupied territory,” though this changed under President Nixon.7 What Goldberg wrote about Resolution 242 had added weight, given the fact that he previously had served as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

  Indeed, among the leading jurists in international law and diplomacy, Schwebel was clearly not alone. He was joined by Julius Stone, the great Australian legal scholar, who reached the same conclusions. He added that UN General Assembly Resolution 181 from 1947 (also known as the Partition Plan) did not undermine Israel’s subsequent claims in Jerusalem. True, Resolution 181 envisioned that Jerusalem and its environs would become a corpus separatum, or a separate international entity. But Resolution 181 was only a recommendation of the General Assembly. It was rejected by the Arab states forcibly, who invaded the nascent State of Israel in 1948.

  Ultimately, the UN’s corpus separatum never came into being in any case. The UN did not protect the Jewish population of Jerusalem from invading Arab armies. Given this history, it was not surprising that Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, announced on December 3, 1949, that Revolution 181’s references to Jerusalem were “null and void,” thereby anticipating Stone’s legal analysis years later. 8

  There was also Prof. Elihu Lauterpacht of Cambridge University, who for a time served as legal advisor of Australia and as a judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice in the Hague. Lauterpacht argued that Israel’s reunification of Jerusalem in 1967 was legally valid. He explained 9 that the last state which had sovereignty over Jerusalem was the Ottoman Empire, which ruled it from 1517 to 1917.

  After the First World War, the Ottoman Empire formally renounced its sovereignty over Jerusalem as well as all its former territories south of what became modern Turkey in the Treaty of Sevres from 1920. This renunciation was confirmed by the Turkish Republic as well in the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923. According to Lauterpacht, the rights of sovereignty in Jerusalem were vested with the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, which transferred them to the League of Nations.

  But with the dissolution of the League of Nations, the British withdrawal from Mandatory Palestine, and the failure of the UN to create a corpus separatum or a special international regime for Jerusalem, as had been intended according to the 1947 Partition Plan, Lauterpacht concluded that sovereignty had been put in suspense or in abeyance. In other words, by 1948 there was what he called “a vacancy of sovereignty” in Jerusalem.

  It might be asked if the acceptance by the pre-state Jewish Agency of Resolution 181 constituted a conscious renunciation of Jewish claims to Jerusalem back in 1947. However, according to the resolution, the duration of the special international regime for Jerusalem would be “in the first instance for a period of ten years.” The resolution envisioned a referendum of the residents of the city at that point in which they would express “their wishes as to possible modifications of the regime of the city.”10 The Jewish leadership interpreted the corpus separatum as an interim arrangement that could be replaced. They believed that Jewish residents could opt for citizenship in the Jewish state in the meantime. Moreover, they hoped that the referendum would lead to the corpus seperatum being joined to the State of Israel after ten years.11

  Who then could acquire sovereign rights in Jerusalem given the “vacancy of sovereignty” that Lauterpacht described? Certainly, the UN could not assume a role, given what happened to Resolution 181. Lauterpacht’s answer was that Israel filled “the vacancy in sovereignty” in areas where the Israel Defense Forces had to operate in order to save Jerusalem’s Jewish population from destruction or ethnic cleansing. The same principle applied again in 1967, when Jordanian forces opened fire on Israeli neighborhoods and the Israel Defense Forces entered the eastern parts of Jerusalem, including its Old City, in self-defense.

  A fourth legal authority to contribute to this debate over the legal rights of Israel was Prof. Eugene Rostow, the former dean of Yale Law School and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson administration. Rostow’s point of departure for analyzing the issue of Israel’s rights was the Mandate for Palestine, which specifically referred to “the historic connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” providing “the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

  These rights applied to Jerusalem as well, for the Mandate did not separate Jerusalem from the other territory that was to become part of the Jewish national home.

  Rostow contrasts the other League of Nations mandates with the mandate for Palestine. Whereas the mandates for Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon served as trusts for the indigenous populations, the language of the Palestine Mandate was entirely different. It supported the national rights of the Jewish people while protecting only the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities in 12 British Mandatory Palestine. It should be added that the Palestine Mandate was a legal instrument in the form of a binding international treaty between the League of Nations, on the one hand, and Britain as the mandatory power, on the other.

  Rostow argued that the mandate was not terminated in 1947. He explained that Jewish legal rights to a national home in this territory, which were embedded in British Mandatory Palestine, survived the dissolution of the League of Nations and were preserved by the United Nations in Article 80 of the UN Charter.13 Clearly, after considering Rostow’s arguments, Israel was well-positioned to assert its rights in Jerusalem and fill “the vacancy of sovereignty” that Lauterpacht had described.

  
  
  

  •  
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›  
  •  
• 
  
• 
  
  

  
  
• 

  
  
  

  Israel Draiman • a month ago

  
  

  Israel's undisputed claim to Judea and Samaria etc. r1

  US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld shocked the world when he
  referred to Israel's "so-called occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza. By
  implying that he does not consider Israel's presence in these territories to be an illegal occupation, Rumsfeld defied one of the modern world's most widely accepted deceptive dogmas. Yet the very fact
  that his statement was received as little short of heretical begs an obvious
  question: How did a label with not a shred of basis in international law turn
  into such a universally accepted truth?

  The standard definition of an occupation under
  international law is found in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which applies
  explicitly to "partial or total occupation of the territory of a High
  Contracting Party" (Article 2, emphasis added). In other words,
  "occupation" for the purposes of the convention means the presence of
  one country's troops in territory that belongs to another sovereign state the
  only type of entity that can be a contracting party to the convention.

  But when territory that does not clearly belong
  to another sovereign state is captured by one of the possible legitimate
  claimants as, for instance, in Kashmir, which
  is claimed by India, Pakistan, and the Kashmiris the term generally used is "disputed," not "occupied."

  And that is precisely the situation in the West Bank aka Judea and Samaria and Gaza.

  Neither of these territories belonged to any sovereign state (historically it did belong to the Jewish people) when Israel re-captured and liberated them in 1967; they were essentially stateless territory. (Allied powers the
  assigned the borders of Israel in the 1920 San Remo treaty which was confirmed
  by the 1920 treaty of Sevres and Lausanne - The League of Nations or the U.N.
  cannot create of modify International Treaties, it can only recommend). Both had originally been part of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and, according to the UN partition plan of 1947, they
  should have become part of a new Arab state when Britain abandoned the Mandate in 1948.

  But since the Arabs themselves rejected this
  plan, not only did that state never come into being, it never even acquired
  theoretical legitimacy: The partition plan was no more than a non-binding
  "recommendation" (the resolution's own language) adopted by the
  General Assembly. Once rejected by one of the parties involved, it essentially became a dead letter.

  Therefore, since the Arabs rejected the partition and there was no signed treaty by both
  sides agreeing to such division, the real legal title falls back to the Jewish
  people under the San Remo Treaty of 1920, which assigned the Mandate for
  Palestine including both sides of the Jordan river and all of Jerusalem and
  designating the British as a trustee for the Jewish people.

  I must also state that if you are to question the borders of
  Israel than you must question the borders of the other 21 Arab states and
  Jordan which were assigned after WWI by the same Allied powers the assigned the
  borders of Israel in the 1920 San Remo treaty which was confirmed by the 1920
  treaty of Sevres and Lausanne.

  The West Bank and Gaza were therefore not owned
  by any Arabs when they were seized by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, in 1948;
  and since their annexation by these countries was never and could never
  internationally recognized since it belonged to the Jewish people (Jordan's
  annexation of the West Bank, for instance, was accepted illegally only by
  Britain and Pakistan), they were still a territory which was assigned to the
  Jewish people under the San Remo Treaty of 1920 of which terms are valid in
  perpetuity in 1967. In 1987 Jordan relinquished its annexation of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria which
  further confirms Israel's sovereignty over all its territory West of the Jordan
  river and no formal annexation is required.

  Moreover, Israel had a very strong claim to both
  territories. Even aside from the obvious historical claim the heart of the
  biblical kingdom of Israel was in what is now called the West
  Bank (Judea and Samaria) the terms of the original League of Nations Mandate quite clearly assigned the West
  Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza to the Jewish state.

  The preamble to the Mandate explicitly stated
  that its purpose was "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the
  Jewish people." Not the Arab people, they already received 21 states.

  DOES THIS mean that all of Mandatory Palestine which included not only modern-day Israel, the West
  Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza, but also the modern-day state of Jordan was supposed to be a Jewish
  state? See the San Remo Treaty of 1920 which was confirmed by the 1920 Treaty
  of Sevres and Lausanne and an additional answer (which should be contested by
  the Jewish people) can be found in Article 25, which reads: "In the
  territories lying between the Jordan [River] and the eastern boundary of
  Palestine... the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council
  of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such
  provisions of this mandate as they may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions."

  No such permission, however, was given west of the Jordan. In
  other words, while the Mandate arguably gave Britain and the council together the
  right to "withhold application" of the Mandate's stated purpose east
  of the Jordan, the land west of this river which includes the West
  Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza, as well as Israel was unequivocally earmarked for
  the Jewish national home. And the fact that both territories were captured in a
  defensive war from states that originally seized them from being Jewish land
  through armed aggression strengthens Israel's undisputed claim still further.

  How, then, did the myth of "occupation" i.e., the myth that these territories indisputably
  belong to someone other than Israel gain such universal credence?
  Sadly, the main culprit is Israel itself.

  When Israel captured and liberated the territories in 1967, the government did not assert its claim. Instead, it
  insisted that Israel did not want these lands and
  was merely "holding them in trust" to be "returned" to the
  Arabs in exchange for a peace treaty. And every subsequent government
  reiterated this line. But since no third party could be expected to press a
  claim that Israel refused to press for itself,
  the Arab claim, by default, became the only one on the international agenda.
  And since territories cannot be "disputed" if there is only one
  claimant, the only alternative was to view them as belonging to the sole
  remaining claimant leaving Israel as the "questionable
  occupier." Additionally in International Legal Law the land belongs
  to the Jewish people as stated in the San Remo agreement
  of 1920. It can only belong to another state if and when Israel relinquishes its ownership of
  the land in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and
  enters into a valid treaty with another State and accepted by both parties.

  Israel did, of course, lay specific claim to one section of these territories from the start: east Jerusalem. But
  legally speaking, Israel's claim to east Jerusalem is no different from its claim
  to the rest of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). By essentially not pursuing the latter claim, Israel badly undermined the former.

  After 67 years, it may well be hard but not impossible to rectify this enormous historical error. But Israel must make the effort and demand its territories. It must explain, at every opportunity, the sound legal basis
  for its own claim to the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza. To do
  otherwise is a dereliction of duty and it puts Israel at a disadvantage when it
  begins any serious future negotiations from the irremediably weaker position of a "questionable occupier."

  Judea and Samaria is Jewish territory - No annexation is required

  Let me pose an interesting scenario. If you had a country and it was conquered by foreign
  powers over a period of time. After many years you have taken back you country
  and land in various defensive wars. Do you have to officially annex those
  territories. It was always your territory and by retaking control and
  possession of your territory it is again your original property and there is no
  need to annex it. The title to your property is valid today as it was many years before.

  Annexation only applies when you are taking over territory that was never yours
  to begin with, just like some European countries annexed territories of other countries.

  Today over half of Israel's population are Jewish families forced and expelled from Arab countries and their children and grandchildren.

  The Audacity of the Arab-Palestinians and the Arab countries in demanding territory from the Jewish
  people in Palestine after they persecuted and expelled over a million Jewish
  families and their children who have lived in Arab land for over 2,400 years
  and after they confiscated all their assets and Real estate property 5-6 times
  the size of Israel (120,440 sq. km. - 75,000 sq. mi.), valued in the trillions
  of dollars. There was also Jewish property and land (totaling about 60,000 sq.
  km.) in Jordan, Gaza and across the Golan Heights under Syria's control.

  Now the Arab nations are demanding more land and more compensation.

  The Arab countries have forcefully chased the million Jewish families and their children and now
  they want to chase them away again, from their own historical land.

  YJ Draiman

  P.S.
  Ref: article “Jewish legal rights to Judea and Samaria” By prominent International Law specialist Ted Belman, Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel and
  Palestine under International Law by Howard Grief, and International law expert Julius Stone, and Eugene Rostow, Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the ICJ ... and agreed that Israel's
  rights would be reserved under Article 51 of the UN.and Cambridge Professor
  Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice. Wallace Edward Brand, JD