What might be some reasons that some people, including some Israelis agree to the Quartet’s Roadmap? Maybe some Israelis are under the impression that some territory of Israel does not completely belong to Israel, such as Gaza or Judea-Samaria. Maybe some Israelis are also under the impression that the Jews who lived in Gaza (up to 2005) and who currently live in Judea-Samaria, don’t legally belong there. Some Israelis are even under the false impression that Israel’s agreement to the Roadmap will bring peace and end terrorism.
There is nothing wrong about wanting peace, in fact Israel has only wanted peace. Peace is an integral part of Israel’s foundation as permanently evident in her Proclamation of Independence: ‘’We extend our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.’’ Striving for peace has never been a question for Israel. The question Israel does need to ask, is: will her neighbors ever want peace with Israel? Very sadly, the answer is: no. ‘’No’’ is a negative answer, but it is the reality; it is the true reality. It is important to remember that Western Palestine could have been partitioned into an Arab and a Jewish state if it were not for the Arab League’s complete rejection of any Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East. Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East, regardless of boundaries-defies the very principals of the Arab League’s Arab-Nationalism aspiration over the entire region. The whole region of the Middle East is seen as one territory for one Arab-Muslim nation without division or boundaries. In 1921, a memorandum to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the Palestinian Arab Congress wrote: ‘’[T]he Arabs are convinced that this unnatural partitioning of their lands must one day disappear…Palestine should not be separated from her sister States.’’ This memorandum was written during the British and French mandates over the Middle East, when new boundaries were being drawn over the region after the Ottoman empire’s defeat. (The National Interest). For the Arab leaders of the Middle East to ‘make peace’ with their Jewish neighbor, Israel would have to relinquish ALL of its sovereignty over ALL of its territory to the Arab League. As Israel cannot commit state suicide in relinquishing all of its sovereignty, Israel hopes that relinquishing Gaza, Judea and Samaria, will be just enough to receive peace from its Arab neighbors- at least on paper. But Gaza, Judea and Samaria, won’t satisfy the Arab League’s aspiration of Pan-Arabism over every part of the Middle East. This is ominously evident in the following declarations made by Israel’s neighbors at a time when Israel did not have any sovereignty or control over Gaza, Judea and Samaria:
- ‘’We intend to open a general assault against Israel. This will be total war. Our basic aim will be to destroy Israel.’’ (Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, 26, May 1967).
- ‘’The sole method we shall apply against israsel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.’’ (Egyptian Radio, ‘’Voice of the Arabs’’, 18 May 1967).
- ‘’I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.’’ (Syrian Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad, 20 May 1967).
- ‘’The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified…Our goal is clear- to wipe Israel off the map.’’ (Iraqi President Abdur Rahman Aref, 31, May 1967) (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
In addition to these declarations, Egyptian President Nasser said on 30 May 1967: ‘’The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel…to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation…’’ (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
It must feel very intimidating for Israelis to know that every army surrounding them, both near and far in their region, wants to destroy their small country. After all, Israel is only one-tenth of 1% of the Middle East land mass and the Arab countries cover six million square miles, which is over 10% of the land surface of earth. (WND). Yet these numbers are still not good enough for the Arab League member states, with all their land, they still want to take Israel’s one-tenth of 1%. For this reason, it must be understood as it is written in Israel’s Proclamation of Independence: ‘’loving peace but knowing how to defend itself’’. This phrase can also be used in the ‘peace talks’ with Israel’s neighbors. The Arab League has said it will ‘make peace’ with Israel if Israel makes land concessions. But as ‘’partners’’ in peace, what concessions is the Arab League willing to make- not wiping Israel off the map? It is not a ‘’partnership’’, when one party is conceding under intimidation or fear of danger to the other party. A partnership describes the parties involved as equals, but here, Israel and the Arab League are not equal partners. Israel is conceding land under fear and threats to the Arab League and in return for the League’s ‘promises’ of ‘’not attempting to wipe Israel off the map’’ as it has done several times in recent history. Essentially, the ‘Roadmap’ is not a ‘’peace’’ process, but a process in which Israel is caving in to intimidation and threats. Obviously, the Arab League’s tactic of intimidating and threatening Israel in to a corner, is not a prelude to peace.
Again, there is nothing wrong with wanting peace, there is however, a wrong that needs correcting. This wrong is the belief that the State of Israel is illegally occupying land that doesn’t belong to it. Israel has been publicly accused by the Arab League as well as the Quartet, of ‘’illegally occupying Gaza, Judea and Samaria. The Arab League describes Israel as ‘’imperialist’’ and ‘’colonialist’’, while ignoring the fact that its goal of Pan-Arabism over the Middle East is both imperialist and colonialist. For example, Jordan, now an Arab-Muslim country, barred from Jewish immigration, was historically home to Jews. When Jordan illegally occupied Judea-Samaria, from its invasion in 1948-1967, it changed the name to ‘’West Bank’’ as a way of erasing the Jewish connection to the region. ‘’Judea’’ stems form the name ‘’Judah’’, one of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel. Jordan also ethnically cleansed Judea-Samaria of its Jewish residents and destroyed 58 synagogues. As a truth, the Arab League armies have brutally colonized the Middle East. With Israel being their remaining unfulfilled conquest, the League armies are willing to utilize any means possible, including lying- lying, lying, lying until it becomes a truth; lying that Israel doesn’t belong to the Jews. In their minds, it is a truth, the entire Middle East is for the Arabs only. This is a racist-fictional mentality, but this mentality has spread through out the world in the lie of ‘’Israel’s illegal occupation’’. To say Israel is ‘’illegal occupying’’ the land; is to say that Israel has no legal right to the land. As the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs states: ‘’Jewish settlement in [the] West Bank [Judea-Samaria] and Gaza Strip territory has existed from time immemorial and was expressly recognized as legitimate in the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations.’’
The Mandate for Palestine is a legally binding document and one of many Mandates that were made in the Middle East after the British and French forces defeated Turkey’s Ottoman empire in 1917. Conveniently for the Arab League, Britain’s role, even Turkey’s role and those who came before them, are not mentioned anymore, yet their absence can’t hide their importance in the matter of Israel’s legal right to the land. At the time of Israel’s proclamation of statehood, it was under a British mandate, the Mandate for Palestine.
‘’Palestine’’, did not belong to the ‘Palestinians’ as Palestine was not a state, but rather a geographical area which included modern-day Jordan.
This area had many occupiers before the modern state of Israel was re-established. One of these occupiers, was the British [as already mentioned]. Before the British, there was the Turkish Ottoman empire (1917-15-16), then Muslim-Christian conquests (1516-400). During the years 400-141 BCE, the Roman empire occupied the land of Israel. As the Jews were so defiant to Roman rule and pagan worship, Roman emperor Hadrian, changed the Judea name {or as it was also called, Iudaea] to Syria-Palaestina. Eventually, the whole region between the Mediteranian sea to the Jordan Valley. Hadrian saw the name change as a strategic move to disassociate the Jewish claim and connection to the land. Apparently, it worked. H. H. Ben-Sasson, author of ‘’A History of the Jewish People’’, wrote that after the name change, Syria-Palestina, ‘’became common in non-Jewish literature.’’ The new name ‘’Syria-Palaestina’’ was referenced after Syria, as Rome also occupied Syria at the time. Hadrian also changed the name of Jerusalem, the capital of the former State of Israel (586 BCE-11th Century BCE), to Aelia Capitolina. Hadrian did this also to disassociate Jews and Judaism from the land, [similar to Jordan during its illegal occupation from 1948-1967]. Before Roman occupation (400-141 BCE), there was: Seleucids (141 BCE-198 BCE), Ptolemaics (198 bce- 305 BCE), Macedonian Empire of Alexander the Great (305 BCE-332 BCE), Persian Empire (332 BCE-539 BCE), Babylonian Empire (539 BCE-586 BCE). The Babylonians were the first occupiers of Judea.
At the time the Babylonians occupation of Judea, the State of Israel had been divided into two Jewish kingdoms. The kingdom who reigned over Judea, was known Kingdom of Judah and the northern territory of Israel was ruled by the Kingdom of Israel. The Kingdom of Israel became occupied by the Assyrian Empire in 720 BCE. Before the Jews established the land of Israel as their own sovereign state, the land was formerly known as the land of Canaan. The Canaanites were tribal people with no one distinct ruler or formal state. Before the Jewish conquest in 1004BCE, the Canaanite period dates back to the 18th Century BCE (Wikipedia).
Through out history, there never existed a distinct ethnic ‘Palestinian people’ or ‘Palestinian State’. The name given or term ‘’Palestine’’, was a very simple, yet extremely deceptive name change done by the Romans, not Arabs. In fact, the Jews or Israelites, were the only people to establish their own distinct sovereign state over the land formerly known as Canaan. The Israelites were also, the only people to establish Jerusalem as their state capital.
Now back to the modern era- after the Ottoman empire’s defeat in WWI, many mandates were being created all over the Middle East by the British and French [with permission of the League of Nations]. There was a: Mandate for Lebanon, Mandate for Syria, Mandate for Mesopotamia [became Iraq], and a Mandate for Palestine [became Israel and Jordan]. Aside from Mandates, the British also acted as ‘’Protectorate’’ over a large portion of the Middle East. For example: Egypt, Hedjaz, Yemen, Nejd, were all under British Protectorate. These were all either given official recognition of independence from Britain or had boundaries redrawn and then were given official recognition of their new state. Most of the Middle East that had been previously under the non-Arab Turkish rule became Arab states under the British government. Furthermore, had it not been for the British-French conquest over the Ottoman empire (1914-1918) many of Today’s Arab states would not exist. In fact, none of today’s Arab states in the Middle East are scrutinized by the international community regarding their statehood, not even Jordan.
Jordan, an Arab state, was not included in the original Mandate for Palestine. Originally, the Mandate for Palestine’s preamble (second clause), stated the Balfour Declaration word for word.
The Balfour Declaration, was an official letter authorized by Britain’s Foreign Minister, Arthur James Balfour, expressing Britain’s policy for Palestine and of which formed the foundation of the Mandate for Palestine. The Balfour Declaration reads: ‘’ His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.’’ When Balfour wrote ‘’in Palestine’’, he did not impose any limitation to the territory, but plainly wrote ‘’Palestine’’- this is the first point the Declaration makes. At the time Balfour authored the Declaration on November 2, 1917, Palestine’s territory included modern day Israel, Gaza, Judea-Samaria and all of Jordan. The 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica gave this explanation of Palestine’s territory: ‘’The limit of this territory cannot be laid down on the map as a definite line.’’ It added: ‘’The River Jordan, it is true, marks a line of delimitation between Western and Eastern Palestine; but it is practically impossible to say where [Eastern Palestine] ends and the Arabian Desert begins.’’ (The National Interest).
The terms ‘’Western’’ and ‘’Eastern’’ Palestine were used informally, but together completed Palestine’s territory. Clearly, the Declaration made no mention of ‘’Western’’ or ‘’Eastern’’ Palestine, but simply Palestine, meaning the whole of Palestine.
The second point the Declaration makes is the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in Palestine. In his article, ‘’A Mandate for Israel’’ in The National Interest, Douglas J. Feith, an attorney in Washington, DC, who served in the Reagan administration as deputy assistant secretary of defense and a Middle East specialist on the White House National Security Council staff, explained that ‘’The vision underlying the Declaration was that Palestine would be the land in which the Jewish people could exercise self-determination, while the Arab people, who had at the time no independent states of their own, would be given generous opportunities to exercise self-determination in the vast territories that Britain and her Allies were liberating from the Ottoman Empire in Syria, Lebanon, Mesopotamia, and Arabia. This explains the distinction, reflected in the Declaration, between civil and religious rights on the one hand and political rights on th other. While protecting everyone’s civil and religious rights, the Declaration made no reference to any collective political rights for Palestine’s non-Jewish communities.’’
To reiterate, for four hundred years, the Ottoman Empire dominated the Middle East, including the region of Palestine. At its height, the Ottoman Empire even dominated North Africa and Eastern Europe by 1683. The Arabs of the Middle East, who had no independence of their own, were given massive territories, including Hedjaz, which in 1916 joined Nejd, which together became Saudi Arabia in 1932. Hedjaz was given by Britain, to the Arab Hashemite family, the descendants of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed and guardians of the Moslem Holy Cities, Mecca and Medina. Today, Arabs in Saudi Arabia, enjoy tremendous prestige and prosperity from the country’s oil wealth. However, if the Ottoman Empire had not been defeated, then it would be the non-Arab Turks enjoying the prestige and prosperity instead of the Arab princes. The transformation from Turkish rule to Arab rule over the Middle East has only occurred within the last century. From Britain, the Arabs received land, wealth [oil], prestige and power, that today would have belonged to the non-Arab Turks.
The reason why the Hashimites received Hedjaz is that when the British were fighting the Turkish forces, the Hashemite family allied with the British and fought against the Turks. The Jews of Palestine also allied with the British forces and fought against the Turks, the Arabs of Palestine did not (The National Interest). Evidently, the Arabs of Palestine did not want independence from Turkey, as they fought with Turkey, against the British.
As the British were already being so generous in giving the Arabs Mesopotamia [now Iraq], and already gave the Arabs power of Hedjaz and Arabia, and as the Jews fought with the British, the British saw it fit to reinstate the region of Palestine as the Jewish national home. This was not the only reason why the British made this decision. The main and true reason, was that historically, the Jewish national homeland is the region of Palestine. Just as the British gave independence to the Hashemite family of Hedjaz, as they were the historic guardians of Mecca and Medina, the British also wanted to restore the Jews to Palestine and their holy places.
The Mandate for Palestine, was then centralized on the Balfour Declaration and the Jews’ historic connection to the land. The second clause of the Mandate for Palestine’s preamble reads the Declaration word for word: ‘’[T]he Principal Allied Powers (Britain and her Allies) have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the Government of his Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers (Britain and her Allies), in favour of 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 non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by the Jews in any other country…’’ The third clause of the Mandate for Palestine’s preamble reads: ‘’[R]ecognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country…’’ Douglas J. Feith, who was referenced earlier for writing ‘’A Mandate for Israel’’ in The National Interest magazine’s Fall 1993 edition, explains the wording of this third clause: ‘’Here the drafters highlight, as the grounds or source of the Jewish people’s rights in Palestine, ‘’the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine.’’ The Mandate conations no granting clause by which the Allies or the League [League of Nations] say they are giving the Jews a right to a state or homeland in Palestine. Instead the Mandate recognizes pre-existing Jewish rights, rights that flow from Jewish history. The drafters pointedly used the word ‘’reconstituting’’ to describe the building of the Jewish national home in Palestine…Moreover, British officials believed that the practical success of the Jewish national home policy hinged on the Jews’ confidence that their rights in Palestine were not a gift from anyone. The British government’s 1922 White Paper on Palestine made this point: [I]n order that [Palestine’s Jewish] community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.’’ The Jews’ right to Palestine ‘’rests upon ancient historic connection’’. The White Paper also emphasizes that the Jews’ historic right in Palestine is in fact a right, and not derived from any kind of sufferance. In other words, without the historical connection, the Jews have no right to the land.
Law Professor Talia Einhorn, a senior member of the research faculty at Tel Aviv University and a Law professor at the Shaarei Mishpat College in Hod HaSharon stated at a ‘’U.S.-Israel Relations’’ Conference in Jerusalem, ‘’Our enemies understand much better than we do, that the second we give into the lie that parts of Israel belong to others, that we will e left with Zionism without Zion.’’ ‘’If you take away the Temple mount, Jerusalem, Hevron [all parts of land in dispute today] -then we will actually turn into colonialists - because what [ancient] historical connection do we have to Tel Aviv?’’ (IsraelNN.com).
What is this timeless historical connection that forms the basis of the Jews’ right to the region of Palestine? Professor Einhorn referenced: Jerusalem, Zion, the Temple Mount and Hevron. These names, these places, form the foundation of Jewish civilization; the Jewish race, its ethnicity, culture and religion, were all founded and centered on the land of Israel, that became a state, both in ancient times ad in modern day. Aside from the archeological facts, both the Torah and the Bible, as historical documents prove the Jews’ connection to the land. Whether or not one believes in the Torah or the Bible, the fact remains the same, that these documents are keepsakes and are historical documents. For instance, Jerusalem is mentioned 700 times in the Torah and 856 times in the Bible altogether. Judaism, with its teachings and traditions are solely based on the land of Israel, and no other land. One does not have to fervently practice Judaism or even practice it at all to see the clear connection between Judaism and the land of Israel or State of Israel. For instance, the patriarchs and matriarchs of the Jewish people: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah; all lived and were buried in the land of Israel. They are buried in Hebron with Rachel being the exception. Rachel is buried near Bethlehem. These are the fathers and mothers of the Jewish people and the Jewish faith- Judaism. Not only did they live in the land, but they traveled all through out the land, and their footsteps can be traced and re-lived. In the first pages of Genesis [the first book of the Torah and Bible], Abraham and Sarah, travel to Shechem [recently named Nablus by PA Arabs], Hebron, Beersheba, and Moriah, to name a few. Also in Genesis, the unbreakable connection between Judaism and the land of Israel is established. The God of Abraham, makes one of many irreversible statements to Abraham, repeating the covenant between the Land of Israel, the people of Israel (Jewish people) and Himself, the God of Israel: ‘’And I will give to you, and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojourning, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God’’ (Genesis 17:8). The God of Israel then clarifies again and again, ''the covenant which he made with Abraham, his sworn promise to Issac, which he confirmed as a statute to Jacob, as an everlasting covenant to Israel [emphasis added], saying, to you I will give the land of Canaan as your portion for an inheritance.’’(1 Chronicles 16: 16-18). Again, ''He is mindful of his covenant for ever,...the covenant which he made with Abraham, his sworn promise to Issac, which he confirmed to Jacob as a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant, saying, ''To you I will give the land of Canaan as your portion for an inheritance.'' (Psalm 105: 8-11).
It should be understood, that quoting Torah and Biblical scripture is not a means to impose religious beliefs, but to emphasize the undeniable connection between the people of Israel, the land of Israel and the God of Israel. These three bonds are one in the same.
To further show this connection, the scriptural text in the Torah and Bible even allocates the land with specific proportions to each of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.
The tribes of Reuben, Gad and the half tribe of Manas’She were allotted ‘’…their inheritance beyond the Jordan [River] at Jericho eastward, toward the sunrise.’’ (Numbers 34:15). The remaining nine tribes and a half were given an allotment west of the Jordan River in the land of Canaan [roughly the modern State of Israel]. The tribes of Judah’s allotment ‘’…goes out by the Brook of Egypt, and comes to its end at the sea. This shall be your south boundary. And the east boundary is the Salt Sea, to the mouth of the Jordan [River]. And the boundary on the north side runs from the bay of the sea at the mouth of the Jordan [River and then goes up to Jerusalem] . And the west boundary was the Great Sea [Mediterranean Sea] with its coast-line.’’ (Joshua 15:4, 5, 8, 12).
Even very specifically, the cities were also allotted. The cities of Judah’s inheritance included, but were not limited to: ‘’Beersheba,…Ashdod, its towns and its villages; Gaza, its towns and its villages; to the Brook of Egypt, and the Great Sea (Mediterranean Sea) with its coast-line. And in the hill country…Kir’iath-ar’ba (that is Hebron),…Jerusalem.’’ (Joshua 15:28, 47, 48, 54, 63).
Joseph, one of the sons of Jacob [Israel], had his tribe divided between his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. ‘’The allotment of the descendants of Joseph went from the Jordan [River] by Jericho, east of the waters of Jericho, into the wilderness, going up from Jericho into the hill country to Bethel….The territory of the Ephramites (includes) the brook of Kanah.’’ (Joshua 16:1, 5, 8).
The allotment of Manas’She included Bashan and Shechem. (Joshua 17:1, 2).
The allotment of the tribe of Benjamin ‘’…fell between the tribe of Judah and he tribe of Joseph.’’ (Joshua 18:11). Benjamin’s cities included Jericho and Jerusalem. (Joshua 18:21, 28),
The tribe of Simean’s allotment ‘’…was in the midst of the inheritance of the tribe of Judah (and it included Beer-sheba and the Negeb). (Joshua 19:1, 2, 8).
The tribe of Zebulun’s allotment included Bethlehem. (Joshua 19:15).
The tribe of Issachar’s allotment included Jezreel. (Joshua 19:18).
The tribe of Asher’s allotment included Kanah and its boundary reached to the city of Tyre. (Joshua 19:28, 29).
The tribe of Naphtali’s allotted boundaries included the Jordan [River] with ‘’…Zebulun at the south, and Asher on the west, and Judah on the east at the Jordan [River]. (Joshua 19:33, 34).
The tribe of Dan’s allotment included Joppa (Yaffa) and Bene-be’rak. (Joshua 19:45, 46).
Together, the twelve tribes crossed the Jordan River on dry ground as it is recorded in the Torah and Bible. When they reached the land of Canaan [on the west side of the Jordan River], they placed twelve stones on the east border of Jericho to represent their journey across the Jordan River. (Joshua 4:19, 20). The land on both sides of the Jordan River has a deeply rooted historical connection to the Jewish people. Two and a half tribes of Israel lived and received their inheritance on the east side of the Jordan, while nine and a half tribes lived and received their inheritance on the west side. The united kingdom of Israel encompassed the land on both sides of the Jordan River. This is the reason why the Balfour Declaration included both sides of the Jordan for the Jewish National Home. Even when the land became occupied under several occupiers after the reign of the Israelites. Jews continued to live there throughout history. It is a recent occurrence that the Jewish population has ceased to exist on the east side of the Jordan River.
When, in 1921, 4 years after the Balfour Declaration, Winston Churchill, then Prime Minister of Britain, decided to give more of the Middle East to the Arab Hashemite family. As Churchill was giving Mesopotamia [Iraq] to Feisal of the Hashemites to rule as Emir there, Feisal’s brother, Abdullah, was then given Eastern Palestine to rule. In, the article ‘’A Mandate for Israel’’ in The National Interest, Douglas J. Feith, explained: ‘’Churchill took pains to clarify that his government was ‘’constituting Trans’Jordania Arab province of Palestine’’. In return, Abdullah pledged to keep his hands off French Syria [a territory that the Hashemites coveted] and to support the Mandate [of Palestine for the Jewish National Home]…’’ This agreement between Churchill and Abdullah was done secretly, without the World Zionist Organization (WZO) representing the Jews of Palestine. Churchill, in one private meeting, barred the Jews from 80% of their national homeland on the east side of the Jordan and gave them virtually no say in the matter.
Upon hearing that the Jews would lose 80% of their national homeland, Chaim Weizmann, a representative of the WZO, wrote to Churchill: ‘’…the taking from Palestine of a few thousand square miles, scarcely inhabited and long derelict would be scant satisfaction to Arab Nationalism while it would go far to frustrate the entire policy of His Majesty’s Government regarding the Jewish National Home.’’ Wizmann’s words were disregarded and Churchill went on to officially amend the Mandate of Palestine. The Mandate’s first clauses of the preamble included the Balfour Declaration’s wording which states the Jewish National Home is in Palestine, leaving out any territorial limitations. To amend this, Churchill added ‘’Article 25’’ to the Mandate, which stated: ‘’In the territories lying between the Jordan [River] and the eastern boundary of Palestine…the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions…’’ This amendment, along with the British White Paper, officially barred Jews from Eastern Palestine (Trans-Jordan).
For it’s part, the new Jordanian government legislation in 1954, illegalizing citizenship to Jews and declaring that only non-Jews coming from the former British Mandate of Palestine were entitled to Jordanian citizenship. (Middle East Forum, www.Meforum.org,).
The Jews are now permanently separated and barred from their ancient and historical home across the Jordan River. Even Balfour, in 1922, spoke before the Council of the League of Nations in response to the injustice committed against the Jewish people: ‘’[T]hat we should be charged…with having taken a mean advantage of the course of international negotiations [with the Arabs], seems to me not only unjust to the policy of this country, but almost fantastic in its extravagance.’’(The National Interest). Not only did the Jordanian government permanently bar Jews from their land, it also barred and ethnically cleansed the long-standing historic Jewish population of Judea-Samaria during its illegal invasion in 1948-1967. This was the first time in 1,000 years that the Jews were barred from living in Judea-Samaria. (Israel Min. of Foreign Affs.). Jordan destroyed 58 synagogues in Judea-Samaria. It wasn’t until Jordan’s defeat that Jews of Judea-Samaria were allowed back home after the 1967 Six Day War. This 19-year separation (1948-1967) from their homes, bring sup the controversial topic of ‘Israel’s illegal occupation’. It is said that Israel is illegally occupying Judea and Samaria. What crime have these Israeli Jews committed who returned to their homes after being pushed out of their synagogues and off their land at gunpoint by the Jordanian army? Who is the criminal? Who is the illegal occupier? In 1948, it was the Jordanian troops who marched off their state border into Judea-Samaria. It was the Jordanian troops who ethnically cleansed the Jews from their home, land and synagogue at gunpoint. It was also the Jordanian troops who remained in Judea-Samaria, illegally for 19 years until 1967. Jordan’s occupation of Judea-Samaria was illegal and its presence there was only recognized by Pakistan and partially by Britain only in regards to East Jerusalem.
One must wonder: why isn’t there an internationally respected plea for the Jews who were ethnically cleansed from Judea-Samaria to receive compensation for their loss? The Quartet (U.S., E.U., Russia, and U.N.), with the Arab League and various organizations, are asking for Israel to compensate the Palestinian Arabs for losses during the 1948 war. It would only be a fair argument in a fair trial, for the Jews to receive compensation for their loss as well.
On the argument of ’’illegal occupation’’, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), who represents the Palestinian Arab people, makes two points in it’s Charter of 1968 as documented by the Avalon Project at Yale Law. The first point, Article 19: ‘’The Partition of Palestine in 1947 (to make a Arab and a Jewish state in Western Palestine) and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations; particularly the right to self-determination.’’ As can be seen, this Article includes several sub-points.
Firstly, it states that the establishment of the State of Israel is entirely illegal. The establishment of Israel was naturally in agreement to the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate of Palestine. Douglas J. Feith, quoted in ‘’A Mandate for Israel’’ in The National Interest’’, the minutes of the War Cabinet meeting that considered the [Balfour] Declaration: ‘’As to the meaning of the words national home, to which the Zionists attach so much importance, [Balfour] understood it to mean some form of British, American, or other protectorate, under which full facilities would be given to the Jews to work out their own salvation and to build up, by means of education, agriculture, and industry, a real centre of national culture and focus of national life. It did not necessarily involve the early establishment of an independent Jewish State, which was a matter for gradual development in accordance with the ordinary laws of political evolution [emphasis added]. This is exactly what happened, the Jewish national home evolved into a self-sufficient state. On the day that the mandate was to expire, Israel declared its statehood and independence, which was internationally recognized.
Secondly, Article 19 of the PLO Charter, states that the establishment of Israel was contrary to the will of the Palestinian people. Everyone who lived in the region of Palestine was called a Palestinian. Thus, there were Jewish Palestinians, Arab Palestinians and the like. The Jews of Palestine wanted independence from Turkish rule and chose to fight with the British. The Arabs of Palestine on the other hand, did not want independence from Turkish rule and fought against the British. This caused Lloyd George to write in his Memoirs of the Peace Conference: No race has done better out of the fidelity with which the Allies redeemed thir promises to the oppressed races than the Arabs. Owing to the tremendous sacrifices of the Allied Nations, and more particularly of Britain and her Empire, the Arabs have already won independence in Iraq, Arabia, Syria, and Trans-Jordania, although most of the Arab races fought…The Palestinian Arabs fought for Turkish rule. (The National Interest).
Lastly, Article 19 of the PLO Charter, states that the establishment of Israel is inconsistent with the UN principles on self-determination. Douglas J. Feith, in ‘’A Mandate for Israel’’ in The National Interest, explains that ‘’Article 22 [the article that includes the principles of self-determination in the League of Nations Covenant] states however, that each mandate ‘’must differ’’ according to the circumstances of the beneficiary people and that the terms of certain mandates may be defined on a case by case basis. The promulgators of Article 22 applied these provisions to Palestine by effectively designating the Jewish people as a whole as a principal beneficiary of the trust and focusing that mandate on the establishment of a Jewish national home. The same powers that drew up Article 22 drew up the Palestine Mandate, the general outlines of which were developed before Article 22. The Balfour Declaration, after all, antedated the League Covenant. Given the sequence of events, it is not credible to argue that the Mandate’s drafters unlawfully transgressed the concepts, plans, and flexible authority that these very same parties built into Article 22 a few months before. The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), created in 1947 to propose a solution to the Palestine problem, addressed the Arabs’ self-determination argument. It highlighted that self-determination, though a principal of international law, is not necessarily a right: With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition, was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories [I.e., Syria and Mesopotamia], at the time of the creation of the [Middle East] Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there…’’
Followed by Article 19, the PLO Charter states in Article 20: ‘’The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical and religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood…’’ The second sentence claims that the Jews do not have neither historical or religious ties to Palestine. As discussed earlier, Judaism was founded in the exact location of what the Romans named ‘’Syria Paleastina’’ or ‘’Palestine’’. It is also necessary to repeat that Jerusalem, the holiest city in Judaism, is mentioned 700 times in the Torah and 856 times in the Bible altogether. What is of similar importance in this matter is that Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Islamic religious book, the Quran. The Quran’s Prophet Mohammad, never stepped foot in Israel. Respectively, at the time of Mohammad’s death, there was not a single mosque in Israel. Israel is not the center of Islam. Islam was not founded in Israel. The center of Islam is Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia. When Muslims pray, they pray towards Mecca, with their backs to Jerusalem. It is a fair argument to allow Muslims to guard Mecca and Medina as those cities are the center of Islam. The same fairness should be shown for the Jews and Jerusalem with the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the center of Judaism. As for the Jews’ historic ties to the land, artifacts of the sovereign Kingdom of Israel are found continuously by the Israel Antiquities Authority. Remains of the First and Second Jewish Temples [center of Judaism] are clearly evident; so evident that the Palestinian Authority is working non-stop to destroy the remains to erase the Jews’ historic ties to Jerusalem. For further historic evidence of the Jews’ ties to the land, the exact location of the modern State of Israel, is where the ancient Israel of the 11th century BCE was located. There has never been an Arab state of Palestine. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab state. The only inconsistency of historic and religious ties to Palestine, lies with the Arabs. Sure, there are mosques in Israel and in Jerusalem, just as there are in every other city in the world.
Plain and simple, Islam was not founded in Israel or specifically Jerusalem.
In Judaism, Jerusalem is the one holiest place in the entire world, even holier than any place in Israel.
Before discussing the first sentence in Article 20 of the PLO Charter, ''The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.''- it is necessary to mention that this article and its PLO Charter, have not been made null and void. Furthermore, the current representatives of the PLO Charter, being the Palestine National Council (PNC), and PA Pres. Mahmoud Abbas, [Israel’s false 'peace partner’ at present]- are all in allegiance to the PLO Charter.
Now, of the Balfour Declaration, Douglas J. Feith, in ‘’A Mandate for Israel’’, The National Interest, explained: ‘’of what relevance is the Balfour Declaration today? It is not, after all, a legal instrument. When issued, it was merely a statement of British government policy. But it achieved the status of international law through the Palestine Mandate.’’ To better understand the ‘’mandate system’’, Feith has given an excellent, but simple definition: ‘’The Mandate system was a legal innovation of the Versailles Peace Conference. It’s proponents, led by President Wilson, intended to do away with the ancient practice of victors asserting ownership over conquered foreign lands. The victorious Allies of World War 1 agreed, at Wilson’s insistence, to limit their own authority with respect to such lands. This limitation was embodied in Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, which says that territorial conquests should be administered by states acting not as owners, but as trustees under mandates, supervised by the League, which would form ‘’sacred trust(s) of civilization.’’ On this basis, Syria and Lebanon came under French Mandates and Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Palestine came under British Mandates. When presenting the Palestine Mandate to the League of Nations, Balfour stated: ‘’Remember that a mandate is a self-imposed limitation by the conquerors on the sovereignty which they obtained over conquered territories. It is imposed by the Allied and Associated powers on themselves in the interests of what they conceived to be the general welfare of mankind….[T]he League of Nations is not the author of the policy, but its instrument….Now, it is clear from this statement, that both those who hope and those who fear that what, I believe, has been called the Balfour Declaration is going to suffer substantial modifications, are in error. The fears are not justified; the hopes are not justified….The general lines of policy stand and must stand.’’ The establishment of the State of Israel, was the result of the Palestine Mandate. Just as the establishment of the Hashemite Kingdom of Iraq was the result of the Mesopotamia Mandate. To question the legality or the validity of the Palestine Mandate for a Jewish national home, is to question the Mandate for Syria, the Mandate for Lebanon, and the Mandate for Mesopotamia. Without these mandates, the Middle East would today, still be under French and British control. The mandates were put in place from what the Allies ‘’conceived to be the general welfare of mankind’’. These mandates, legally hold the structure of the Middle East. For this reason, as Balfour declared: the ‘’policy stand[s] and must stand’’. ’’Must’’ is the emphasis in his statement.
The Council of the League of Nations, then confirmed the Mandate for Palestine in July 1922, which stands and must stand by law. The law must stand or there will be anarchy in the Middle East. As Douglas J. Feith put it: ‘’To devalue international law- to treat it non-rigorously or not at all. To reject the relevance of old laws, mandates, agreements, and the like- is to foreshadow the lack of respect that will be shown to the treaties now under negotiation, if they materialize at all.’’
Finally, no such argument from the Arab League or any other group, can negate longstanding international law- that is the Palestine Mandate for a Jewish national home. More specifically, no such argument can negate the fact that by international law, all Jews have the right to settle in Gaza, Judea, Samaria, or anywhere in Western Palestine. This right was recognized by the League of Nations and is recognized by the United Nations.
The League of Nations approved the Palestine Mandate on July 24, 1922. The United Nations, the League’s predecessor, recognized the League’s approval of the Palestine Mandate. Article 80 of the UN, Charter expressly preserves such ‘’rights of peoples’’ as existed under League mandates. (The National Interest). Such ‘’rights of peoples’’ include the Jewish peoples’ right to settle in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Article 2 of the Mandate states: ‘’ The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble…’’ Article 3 states: ‘’The Mandatory shall…encourage local autonomy’’. Article 4 states: ‘’…to secure the co-operation of all Jews (emphasis added) who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.’’ Article 6 states: ‘’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 (such as Gaza) not required for public purposes.’’ From this mandate, it is clear that Jews, as a duty, were to settle the land. The only territorial limitation to settling the land, was on the east side of the Jordan River as stated in Article 25 of the Mandate: ‘’In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine’’. As Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, are all on the ‘’Westside’’ of the Jordan, the Jews’ duties were to settle there.
There are those, such as opponents of Jewish sovereignty, who say that the Israeli Jews living in Judea-Samaria are criminals. How could they be criminals for simply obeying the law of the mandate? Should the Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, and Jordanians, also be called ‘’criminals’’ for obeying their mandates?
Its very strange, completely absurd even, that the only mandate under scrutiny today is the Palestine Mandate. It seems to be a racist and discriminatory act, to only question the ‘’Jewish’’ recipient of a mandate, but ignore the other several mandates that have ‘’Arab’’ recipients.
After all, the Arabs were even given 80% of what was to be the Jewish national home and its still not enough for the opponents of Jewish sovereignty. Furthermore, the Jews aren’t even allowed to live in their ancient homeland of what is now Jordan, yet millions of Arabs are allowed to live in Israel.
There is such an extreme imbalance of the treatment of Jews as opposed to the generous treatment of Arabs in this matter, which is impossible not to see, yet it is ignored just the same. If one is a Jew, should he/she also quietly ignore this extreme imbalance and shrug one’s shoulders? Should a Jew just ‘accept’ the fact that he/she is blatantly discriminated against and not speak up for fear of more discrimination? Sadly, the one Jew representing Israel on the world stage, did put his head down and accepted the discrimination. His name is Ariel Sharon, the former Prime Minister of Israel. His predecessor, Ehud Olmert is also doing the same. But one person doesn’t have to speak for the whole nation of Israel. Every Jew can speak up for themselves. If they don’t, no one will do it for them.
PM Sharon surrendered Gaza at the cost of the nation and currently, PM Olmert is planning on doing the same to Judea-Samaria. Even Eugene V. Rostow, undersecretary of state during the Johnson administration and former dean of Yale Law School, stated that: ‘’since Britain’s resignation as Mandatory, no event ahs legally terminated or superseded the right of Jews to settle there (Judea, Samaria, and Gaza) as derived from the ‘’historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine.’’ (The National Interest). The Jewish people have every right to live in Judea-Samaria. This right does not come from Israel’s defeat of the Jordanian army in the 1967 Six Day War. The Jews, under Jordan’s control, were prevented from living there for 19 years, but their legal right did not expire. As mentioned earlier, Jordan’s occupation in Judea-Samaria was illegal and was not recognized internationally. There was the partition plan known as UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 1947, like many resolutions, was not legalized or approved by the Security Council. Again, Resolution 181, was not legalized. The position of the U.S. State Department on the legal status of Resolution 181 appears in a Near East Bureau memorandum dated January 27, 1948: ‘’The growing tendency to refer to the recommendation of the General Assembly as a decision which must be carried out must not be allowed to divert our attention from the fact that the action of the General Assembly was only a recommendation.’’ (The National Interest). After the 1967 Six Day War, another resolution was recommended and unlike Resolution 181, 242 says of Israel to withdrawal ‘’from territories’’, but purposely fell short of defining these territories to withdrawal from. U.S. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg would explain in 1973, these notable omissions ‘’were not accidental…the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of the withdrawal.’’ (Israel MFA). At the same time, Resolution 242, is not one sided in its requests; there must be ‘’a just and lasting peace’’ in order for the withdrawal to take place. Simply put: If Israel’s neighbors are terrorizing Israel, then Israel is not required to withdrawal. Resolution 338 was also adopted with similar obligations after the 1873 Yom Kippur War. Again, as Israel’s neighbors are terrorizing Israel, Israel is not required to withdrawal. Israel’s legal right to settle in the land still stands. Moreover, one cannot argue that Israel’s military presence does not have any right in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.
Israel’s military secures the well being of the Israeli population who live their mandated right in Judea-Samaria. The internationally recognized right to secure their well being is the right to self-defense as enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations’ Charter. There is no validity to the claim that both Israeli Jewish residents in Judea-Samaria and the Israeli military presence there is illegal. This invalid claim is ’’politically motivated’’- as worded by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Ministry further states: ‘’Repeated charges regarding the illegality of Israeli settlements must therefore be regarded as politically motivated, without foundation in international law. Similarly, as Israeli settlements cannot be considered illegal, they cannot constitute a ‘’grave violation’’ of the Geneva Convention, and hence any claim that they constitute a ‘’war crime’’ is without any legal basis.’’ The 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention that the Ministry referenced states in Article 49, that an occupying power ‘’shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territories it occupies.’’
Firstly, the most important fact that nobody should forget in this matter, is that ‘’Judea, Samaria and Gaza are not ‘’occupied territories’’ according to international law due to the fact that they were not taken from any foreign sovereign.’’ This quote was taken from Tel Aviv’s own Law Professor, Talia Einhorn, at a Jerusalem Conference. Prof. Einhorn added: ‘’It is important to remember and mention [this fact] daily.
Egypt did not claim sovereignty over Gaza during its illegal occupation from 1948-1967 and Jordan’s claim to Judea-Samaria during its illegal occupation from 1948-1967 was only recognized by Pakistan and partially by Britain.
Secondly, the Jewish population in Gaza, Judea and Samaria, were not ‘’deported’’ or ‘’transferred’’ there by the Israeli government, but simply and purely returned home voluntarily.