Chapter 11: At the Peace Conference: National Home, Jewish RightsStanding alone amid the events of that period was the issuance, in 1922, by the League of Nations, of the Mandate for Palestine incorporating the substance of the Balfour Declaration, previously proclaimed by the wartime British government, pledging the establishment in the Holy Land of a "national" home for the Jewish people." This vista of fulfillment of a nineteen-centuries-long dream, albeit reduced to the political definitions of the modem age, fired the hearts of Jews everywhere. Notably, active opposition to issuance of the Declaration and Mandate came less from the Arab world than from assimilation-bent elements mobilized by the Reform Judaism movement. Unable, despite their bitter efforts, to block issuance, this source had contrived through influential connections to engineer a contraction of its terms, with eventual costly results.
The acclaim of the Jewish-minded of all outlooks, voiced for its own American tradition-loyal constituency by the Orthodox Union, was recognized universally as the true manifestation of the Jewish people's position.
At this focal point in history, the thousands of North America's Torahloyal congregations and their congregant families spoke as one through the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.
The Orthodox Union, too, shared in mobilizing American Jewish efforts for securing Jewish rights in the postwar reconstruction of the states of eastern and central Europe. These efforts were channeled within a context of rivalry between the American Jewish Committee and the original American Jewish Congress (not to be confused with the present organization bearing the same name). 'The American Jewish Committee, composed of the wealthiest and most politically influential of the country's Jews and dominated by the assimilation-minded, was opposed to any national consciousness expression. Counter to this, the original American Jewish Congress had been brought together as a roof grouping of established organizations and local communities to work in support of the Jewish commonwealth-in-the-making and for Jewish rights as a national minority in the restored lands of Europe. The Orthodox Union participated in this coalition, and when the American Jewish Committee in its turn sought counter-interorganizational capacity, the Orthodox Union was courted by this entity, also. The relationship with both groups enabled the Union to contribute to the forging between them of a unified approach to Jewish rights issues at the postwar Peace Conference.
Attempts in subsequent years by the UOJCA to exercise meaningful influence on the policies of both the new organization that adopted the name American Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee proved futile. Orthodox Union representation in both thus was terminated. In time other 'organizations also withdrew, leaving the two AJCs as individual membership organizations able to speak only for their own members.
CURRENTS OF NEW MOMENTUM
The ongoing overseas relief work of the traditional community continued to function through UOJCA channels. Emissaries of the 'great European yeshivoth, coming to garner funds for their institutions, invariably turned to the central organization and found a ready response. 'The benefits were by no means one-sided. The more personalized tie with the vital centers of the Torah world brought new impetus to American Orthodox Jewry.
These contacts, and the spur of world-shaking events to the sense of historic responsibility, found expression in more broadly conceived developments in elementary education. Bold steps were now made in secondary and advanced Torah learning, as well as in synagogal progress. The current was quickened, too, by the resumption of immigration for a brief few postwar years. In the period from 1920 to 1924, over 250,000 Jews arrived in the United States. Then, a series of discriminatory immigration laws an but dosed America's doors to immigration from eastern and southern Europe. Not for many years-not even in the terrible Holocaust days to come-were the doors to be reopened.
Reflecting modem-age effects, the post-World War I influx brought a greater proportion than before of those who had already gravitated away from traditional adherence. Other newcomers, however, had remained steadfast, bringing new strength to American Torah ranks. The influx included an unprecedented number of eminent rabbis and Torah scholars. Their presence was much felt in both congregational and educational realms.
The picture of the pioneer Orthodox Union decades that now, in near-century-long perspective, comes into view is one of a diversity of Innovative, path-breaking moves consistent in aim, though not emerging from a planned program of organizational function. Like the makeshift melange of Judaic requisites whose deficiencies the Union was instituted to repair, the Union itself was flung into its work along rather makeshift lines. The activities were integrated only in common relation to the Mendes motive power, which persisted long beyond his presidential tenure. Improvisation spurred by the pressures of given areas of urgent need from the first had become the mode. This nurtured the tendency that in later years, with of activity, led to the many-faceted, but loosely the multiplication of fields 0 integrated, directional and operational structure of the present day.
A well-thought-out formulation of organizational mission, structure, and functional program in application to a carefully studied assessment of objective circumstances was hardly to be expected of the busy up-and-at'em thrust of the early period. When, long after, approaches to broad planning were made, they were crowded out by the pressures of daily demand. A comprehensive blueprint of the why, what, where, when, and how of American Jewish Orthodoxy's central force has yet to be promulgated.
Yet, what emerges in the picture of the Orthodox Jewish Union's beginnings is more than an aggregation of spontaneous actions. Beyond this is to be seen a brave new direction for the Jew of Torah commitment in the New World. We see him in new stance, with a new sense of his place in America and the new-age world.
Not always, in the years and decades to follow, was the purpose to be as dearly grasped, as pointedly directed. That which had been engendered by the founder and his colleagues, however, remained a moving force, bearing the Mendes vision of the American Torah community forward through momentous years to the yet newer age and its yet newer challenges now unfolding.
POINTING THE WAY
For the Orthodox Union, the years were to bring ups and downs rather than continuous progress, spirals of upsurge and decline. But, from the midcentury point on, the course was to remain on the ascendant. Hyperbole is unnecessary to underscore the strength and scope attained by the Orthodox Union as it now reaches the century mark, a status that must only have been dreamed of before.
Although some of the problems that plagued Jewish religious fife in the United States in earlier years have been allayed rather than definitively resolved, others have been more thoroughly excised. Certainly the worst of the evils rampant in the mass immigration years have been uprooted. The atmosphere engendered by the emergence of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, together with practical moves, made possible developments unattainable under prior conditions. In the perspective of the Orthodox Union's present-day capacities, it can be seen that the fife force channeled by continuing flow bore the nutrients of Torah-cause progress.
The rise of the UOJCA to its present status is a gauge of the phenomenal upsurge of American Orthodox Jewry in recent decades. The revolutionary change is not only a matter of multiplication of the numbers of the traditionally observant, of elevation of observance standards and facilities, of the numbers and enrollments of yeshivoth and other educational institutions. Beyond all this is the less tangible, but no less real and significant, revolution in presence-in the way Torah-loyal Jewry views itself and is viewed by others; in the way it speaks and is heard; in the way it acts in Jewish and public affairs, exercises its role in the world, and pursues its function in the life of humankind.
Diverse forces have taken effect in the resurgence of Orthodox Jewry. Among them, the role and work of the Orthodox Union have obviously been crucial. Less obviously now, but in the opinion of this writer not less truly, the purpose of Henry Pereira Mendes has been pivotal throughout.
It is the premise here that not only the birth of the Union and its initial duration, but its continuity throughout and the effect of that continuity in the rise of the American Torah community, are to be attributed to the spirit and purpose and personal qualities of Henry Pereira Mendes. It is troubling to find that today so few, even among the more informed, know of the crucial role Dr. Mendes played. It is not to the credit of America's Orthodox Jewish community that awareness of a figure so focal in its development has been permitted to fade.
To strike a personal note, the writer was not privileged to have known Henry Pereira Mendes. He died in 1937, several years before the beginning of my own engagement with the organization he had fathered. In the earlier years of this association, glimpses of Dr. Mendes came to me in the way some of those who had known him spoke of him.' Study of the written record, insofar as fragments have survived, and of the works of historical researchers, have given substance to gleaned impressions. But the sense of his moving presence was something imbibed from the beginning, something distilled from the process of absorption into the work that he had instituted, something felt rather than synthetically formulated. The feeling ripened rather than faded amid the demands of daily realities through the long years when the Union and I were so closely identified with each other. It pervades my thinking in the more detached reflection of these later years.
The same experience that nurtured the sense of a moving presence also brought the realization that none other than a personality of unique qualities could have given life to a vision so seemingly belied by an American Jewish, scene that, troubled enough as it was to be perceived in the advancing twentieth-century decades, must have been an altogether hope-defying mess in the late nineteenth-century years. One wondered: Were the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America not to have come into being in 1898, could it, or some equivalent, have been brought Into existence at any time since? Any answer other than "no" would have been idle fancy, and would still be so today. "No," that is, unless another Mendes were to appear. In searching the annals of American Torah Jewry, no such new-day Mendes has been detectable.
It is not a matter of level of greatness, as the believing Jew measures greatness. Orthodox Jewry, in America as in Israel and elsewhere, is blessed with the current or recent presences of figures of exceptional distinction, even of greatness-Torah teachers and leaders of our time, Jews whose contributions are of inestimable worth. But to have the capacity to win people to the standard of Torah-community cohesion, to bring that heaped-up.. atomized community a confident sense of itself, to give the Jew of Torah loyalty a coherent identity and an instrument of effectiveness for that, you need certain very unusual qualities; you need a Henry Pereira Mendes.
Footnotes:
1. Among these was Morris Engelman, then the last survivor of the founding group of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. He was an officer of the Union from its inception until the 1930s, and served on the Executive Board until his death in 1948. Others were Benjamin Koenigsberg and Albert Wald, long-time Executive Board members and officeholders.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Jerusalem has emerged as a major point of contention
Jerusalem has emerged as a major point of contention in Israel's negotiations with its Arab neighbors, particularly the Palestinians. Claims of historic, religious and legal rights to the city have been asserted by the various parties to the conflict and, accordingly, these three aspects should be reviewed:
In discussing Jerusalem, history matters. In weighing ostensibly competing claims to the city, it must be recalled that the Jewish people bases its claim to Jerusalem on a link which dates back millennia. Indeed, Jerusalem has served as the capital of independent Jewish states several times over the past 3,000 years, including since 1948; it has never served any Arab state -- at anytime in history -- in such a capacity, and a Palestinian claim to Jerusalem was not articulated prior to 1967.The observation that, "Jerusalem is holy to three religions," tends to mislead, since Jerusalem is holy to Jews, Muslims and Christians in fundamentally different ways. Jerusalem contains sites holy to Muslims and Christians, and is one of many locations of religious significance to them. To Jews, however, it is the city itself which is uniquely holy; only Jews have a religious prescription to live there, to make pilgrimages there and to pray in its direction.
Israel has advanced a coherent case, based upon the precepts of international law, for sovereignty over Jerusalem. The Palestinians, for their part, have failed to offer any legal grounds in support of their claim to the city. Their claim seems to be based solely on their desire to possess it.
HISTORY
Jewish Continuity in Jerusalem
Throughout history, the Jewish People has maintained a presence in Jerusalem, ever since King David established the city as his capital nearly 3,000 years ago. Except for a very few periods, when they were forcibly barred from living in the city by foreign conquerors, Jews have always lived in Jerusalem. It is for this reason that Jews regard the city as their national center. Indeed, it is the centrality of the connection with Jerusalem -- Zion -- which led the modern Jewish movement for national liberation to be called Zionism. Throughout millennia, and in the face of conquest, forced exile, violence and discrimination, Jews have maintained their direct link to Jerusalem, returning to live in their city again and again.
The Jewish national and religious tie to Jerusalem was first established by King David and Solomon, his son, who built the first Temple there. This First Commonwealth lasted over 400 years, until the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem and exiled the Jewish inhabitants of the city. Immediately following the Persian defeat of the Babylonians, the Jews returned to Jerusalem less than 100 years later, rebuilt their Temple and reestablished the Jewish character of the city.
For the next 500 years, the Jews further strengthened their presence in Jerusalem, surviving various attempts by foreign empires to destroy their national and religious identity. Greeks, Seleucids and Romans took turns in conquering the city, forbidding Jewish religious practices and encouraging the Jews to assimilate into the dominant culture. Several times, the Jews were forced to take up arms in order to preserve their liberty and heritage.
Only after the Second Temple was destroyed by Rome in 70 AD, and a subsequent Jewish revolt was crushed in 135 AD, was the Jewish presence in the city temporarily suspended, following the killing or enslavement of the Jewish population by the Romans.
By the 4th century, some Jews had managed to make their way back to the city. In the 5th century, under early Christian rule, Jews were, at various times, either more or less free to practice their religion. At this time, few non-Christian communities remained in the country, apart from the Jews. Theodosius II (408-450) deprived the Jews of their relative autonomy and their right to hold public positions. Jewish courts were forbidden to sit on mixed Jewish-Christian cases and the construction of new synagogues was prohibited. Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem except on one day a year, to mourn the destruction of the Temple.
At the beginning of the 7th century, the Jews looked to the Persians for salvation. Hoping to be permitted to worship freely once the Byzantine oppression had been removed, the Jews encouraged the Persians' conquest of Acre and Jerusalem, and a Jewish community was subsequently allowed to settle and worship in Jerusalem (614-17), though it was later expelled. Under early Arab rule, a Jewish community was reestablished in Jerusalem and flourished in the 8th century. Jews were even among those who guarded the walls of the Dome of the Rock. In return, they were absolved from paying the poll-tax imposed on all non-Muslims. In the 10th and 11th centuries, however, harsh measures were imposed against the Jews by the Fatimids, who seized power in 969. Though the Jewish academy (Yeshiva) of Jerusalem was compelled by Caliph Al-Hakim to reestablish itself in Ramle, entry to Jerusalem was revived by the "Mourners of Zion", Diaspora Jews who did not cease to lament the destruction of the Temple. This movement, which held that "aliyah" -- ascent to the Land -- would hasten the resurrection of Israel, was at its peak in the 9th-11th centuries. Many Jews came from Byzantium and Iraq and established communities.
The Crusader period in the 12th century brought terrible massacres of Jews by Christians, and the prohibition against living in Jerusalem. After the conquest of the country by Saladin late in the century, the Jewish community in Jerusalem again grew considerably.
In 1211, three hundred rabbis from France and England immigrated as a group, many settling in Jerusalem. After the Mamluks took power in 1250, the famous Rabbi Moshe ben Nahman (Nahmanides), traveled from Spain and settled in Jerusalem.
Jewish communities existed in Jerusalem throughout the Middle Ages, though under economic stress, and religious and social discrimination. During this period, the Jews in the city were supported in large measure by the tourist trade, commerce and contributions from Jews abroad (Europe, the Mediterranean countries and North Africa), who did what they could to help maintain the center of the Jewish People. The Expulsion from Spain and Portugal, in the late 15th century, led to an influx of Jews into the Land, including Jerusalem.
The 16th and 17th centuries were times of economic hardship for the Jews, during which the population of Jerusalem was somewhat reduced. By the end of the 17th century, however, Jerusalem again emerged as the largest central community of the Jews in the Land. Large numbers of Jews immigrated in the 18th century as a result of the messianic-Shabbatean movement, many coming from Eastern and Central Europe, Italy, and other places. Even so, the majority of Jews in the Land in the 17th and 18th centuries were Sephardic Jews, descendants of those expelled from Spain, and immigrants from Turkey and the Balkan countries.
During the 19th century, immigration increased and the establishment of the modern Zionist movement revitalized the Jewish community throughout Israel. Jerusalem, which in 1800 numbered about 2,000 Jews (out of a total population of 8,750), grew to 11,000 by 1870 (out of 22,000), and 40,000 (out of 60,000) by 1905. It is the political, cultural and religious center of the State of Israel and of the Jewish People around the world.
The Biblical Era
While various origins have been proposed for its Semitic name, Yerushalem -- often translated as "the city of Shalem" -- the Bible recounts in Genesis that Abraham visited King Malchizedek of Shalem, which the commentators equate with Jerusalem. Interestingly, "shalem" is also related grammatically to "shalom," or peace; thus the city's appellation: "City of Peace." The Hebrew root "shalem" also means "wholeness." The first archeological evidence of Jerusalem's history dates back to the Early Bronze Age (c. 3000 BC).
When David was anointed King of Israel (c. 1000 BC), and subsequently united the tribes of Israel, he captured the city -- which he perceived as an ideal site for the capital of his new kingdom. Then, with the King and the Ark of the Covenant in residence in the city, Jerusalem was transformed into both the political capital and the religious center of Israel. King David's son and successor, Solomon, consolidated Jerusalem's eternal religious significance for all Jews by building the First Temple.
Later, in the early 6th century BC, Judah's rulers fought and were defeated by the Babylonians. In 586 BC, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon occupied the city, destroyed the Temple and exiled Jerusalem's population to Babylon. Then, when the Persians defeated Babylon in 536 BC, Cyrus the Great allowed the Jewish exiles to return home. The Second Temple was dedicated soon after and, under Nehemiah, who was appointed governor by the Persians in 445 BC, the Jews rebuilt the walls of the Temple and strengthened its fortifications. At the same time, reforms initiated by Ezra restored the authority of Jerusalem as the spiritual capital of Judaism.
Hellenistic Rule and the Maccabees
Alexander the Great's conquest of Jerusalem in 333 BC led to the establishment of the Hellenistic monarchies, and the first new rulers -- the Ptolemies of Egypt -- retained the existing Jewish religious and political leadership. Under their reign, Jerusalem prospered. This continued even after 198 BC, when the Seleucid king of Syria, Antiochus III, captured Jerusalem from the Egyptians. His son, Antiochus IV, however, sought to intensify the influence of Hellenism. It was his intention to transform Jerusalem into a Greek metropolis and his desecration of the Temple that provoked a Jewish insurrection; the ensuing revolt, headed by the Hasmonaeans and led by Judah Maccabee, succeeded in liberating Jerusalem. In 165 BC, Chanukah ("dedication") was first celebrated, with Jews again being permitted to worship at the Temple.
Roman Rule
The later years of the Hasmonaean dynasty witnessed the emergence of an internal Jewish dispute between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, culminating in civil war and foreign intervention. In 63 BC, Pompey imposed Roman rule in Jerusalem -- and, in 37 BC, Roman hegemony was firmly established with the appointment of Herod as King of Judea. Ironically, a combination of factors brought Herodian Jerusalem to the pinnacle of its prosperity, marked by extensive and lavish construction projects. King Herod's fortification projects also included the construction of the still standing Western Wall (of the Temple). It is estimated that the population of Jerusalem reached 120,000-200,000 under Herod's rule.
The Second Fall of Jerusalem
After Herod's death, Judea became a Roman province (6 AD). Jerusalem was governed by Roman procurators residing in Caesarea, and ceased to function as the capital of Judea -- although the municipal government remained in the hands of the Jewish high priest and Sanhedrin (rabbinical council), which fulfilled the functions of a municipal council.
The next few decades were marked by the eruption of sporadic riots in Jerusalem, usually resulting in clashes with Roman troops. By the middle of the 1st century AD, the Jews of Israel had again fought to liberate their country and capital -- but their war against the Romans ended in 70 AD, when the armies of Titus conquered the city and destroyed the Temple. Most residents of Jerusalem had either been killed or had perished from hunger during the Roman siege, and the survivors were sold into slavery or executed. Virtually the entire city was destroyed.
Subsequently, in 130, Emperor Hadrian decided to rebuild Jerusalem as a city -- thus provoking the Second Jewish Revolt against the Romans. Under the leadership of Rabbi Akiva and Bar Kokhba, Jerusalem was once again liberated, although only for two years. Ultimately, Rome crushed the revolt and renamed the city Aelia Capitolina. Later, in the 4th century, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire. It was then that Queen Helena and her son, Emperor Constantine, transformed Jerusalem into a Christian center.
Arab and Crusader Eras
In 638, the Muslim army of Caliph Omar conquered Jerusalem. Initially, Muslim rule was tolerant and brought prosperity. In 691, Caliph Abd al- Malik of the Umayyad dynasty constructed the Dome of the Rock on the site of the Jewish Temple. The Dome was intended to compete with the shrines in Arabia, which were under the rule of his political opponents. Significantly, Jerusalem ranked only third in the hierarchy of Muslim religious sanctity, subordinate to Mecca and Medina.
Afterward, the First Crusade (1099) conquered Jerusalem, massacring tens of thousands of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants. Jerusalem was established as the capital of the Latin Kingdom in the Holy Land. This Kingdom, however, collapsed some decades later. In 1187, Sultan Salah a-Din arrived from Egypt and besieged Jerusalem, ultimately gaining control of the city. Jews began to return to Jerusalem in 1210, ending the short and temporary exile from the city, which had been imposed by the Crusaders. In fact, the Jewish community in Jerusalem continued to expand as Jews immigrated from Europe and the Maghreb.
The Mamluk and Ottoman Periods
By the 13th century, Jerusalem had become a marginal part of a large kingdom ruled from Aleppo and Damascus -- and, by the end of the century, the Mamluks of Egypt had taken control. Mamluk rule lasted for the next 200 years. During their rule, Jerusalem first belonged to the province of Damascus, then became a separate province. The Sultan appointed the provincial head directly, often selling the post to the highest bidder. Jerusalem's economy was devastated, owing to the imposition of excessive taxes by the Mamluks, who also engaged in frequent Muslim civil wars.
In 1517, Jerusalem fell to the Turks, whose rule was to last for exactly four centuries. Initially, Ottoman rule was energetic and beneficent. Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent rebuilt the walls and gates of the Old City. However, the death of Suleiman was almost immediately followed by pervasive internal decay which beset the empire, and during the 17th and 18th centuries, Jerusalem experienced the least impressive period of its illustrious past.
Jerusalem "Rediscovered"
In the 19th century, Jerusalem blossomed into an urban center. Demographic, political and technological factors contributed to the gradual process of urbanization -- largely reflecting the competition raging between European states and the declining Ottoman Empire. Moreover, world politics and economics were intermingled with religion in Jerusalem; France backed the Catholics, Prussia and England founded Protestant Bishoprics, and the Czar of Russia extended his aegis to the Greek Orthodox.
Jerusalem entered the 19th century with about 9,000 inhabitants. In 1840, Jews became the largest single community in the city -- accounting for a majority of Jerusalem's residents by 1880. In 1860, Anglo-Jewish philanthropist Sir Moses Montefiore established the Mishkenot Sha'ananim neighborhood, the first quarter outside the Old City walls. Eventually, this project was followed by many others. In 1900, the city's population reached 55,000; 60% of whom were Jews.
Under British Rule
In the Balfour Declaration of 2 November 1917, Britain declared that:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall 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."
Following the World War I victory of the Allies in the Middle East, Britain occupied Mandatory Palestine -- including what is now Jordan, which was separated from the rest of Mandatory Palestine by Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill and given to the Hashemite family of Arabia in 1921 -- assuming military and administrative control for the area.
This situation was endorsed by the international community, and in 1922 Britain was awarded the Mandate for Palestine by the League of Nations -- which entailed, among other things, the fostering of a Jewish National Home in the territory, as proposed by the Balfour Declaration.
During their Mandatory administration of Jerusalem, the British did demonstrate considerable concern for the special character and atmosphere of Jerusalem. The British did, however, pursue policies which promoted conflict between the various populations of Jerusalem -- such as always appointing Arab mayors, although the Jews had long constituted the city's majority.
Between 1920 and 1940, Arab hostility to Jewish immigration and toward the majority Jewish presence in Jerusalem was expressed in increasingly violent attacks against Jewish residents. In 1929, a mob of 2,000 Arabs attacked Jews at the Western Wall and throughout the city, killing six. Continual Arab rioting, mostly violent, led the British government to issue its White Paper of May 1939, which severely restricted Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine. Meanwhile, the Arabs continued to reject all attempts to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states.
All attempts to internationalize Jerusalem were also flatly rejected by the Arabs. This approach was best personified by Haj Amin al-Husseini, the British-appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who directed the violent suppression of Jewish religious and political rights. His views found their ultimate expression during World War II, in his active support for the Nazis and their genocide against the Jews.
The British ultimately forfeited the Mandate, and departed on 15 May 1948. United Nations Approves Partition On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted to partition Mandatory Palestine into Jewish and Arab states -- and to make Jerusalem a "separate body" (corpus separatum) under a special international regime, with "suitable guarantees for the protection of Holy Places."
The Jews accepted the resolution, but the Arabs -- both those living inside and beyond the territory of the Mandate -- rejected the partition resolution and the plan to internationalize Jerusalem, thereby nullifying the proposal.
Between November 1947 and April 1948, Arab bands attacked Jews in Jerusalem itself and on all roads into the city, killing 296. The Arabs also imposed a blockade on the city -- denying food, water and medical supplies to its Jewish population.
Jerusalem Divided
In 1948, following the United Nations decision, the British Mandate ended and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Arab armies attacked the fledgling state, starting the first Arab-Israeli war. Three Arab armies -- those of Egypt, Iraq and the Arab Legion from Jordan -- together with Syrian troops, surrounded Jerusalem, bombarded the city and tried to occupy it. In four weeks, 170 Jewish civilians were killed by Arab shellfire; another 1,000 were wounded. In the ten months of fighting, many Jews and Arabs fled Jerusalem, and all Jewish residents of the Old City were driven from their homes by Jordanian forces.
Following an armistice signed in April 1949 between Israel and Jordan, Jerusalem was divided for the first time in its millennia-old history. The city was split along the cease-fire lines of the Israeli and Jordanian forces, with several "no-man's land" areas and two demilitarized zones separating the two sides. Still, in breach of the cease-fire agreements, which called for Jewish access to the Jordanian-held areas, the armistice lines ultimately functioned as a frontier dividing the two previously intermingled communities. Mount Scopus was cut off from Israel and, despite the commitments undertaken in the armistice agreement, only minimal Israeli access was allowed. Jordan would not permit the Hebrew University, the library or Hadassah Hospital to operate.
What had been intended as an interim period prior to the reunification of Jerusalem became, for the next 19 years, a border of minefields and barbed wire traversing the city. The Jordanians systematically destroyed the synagogues in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, desecrated the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives and denied Jews the right to worship at Judaism's holiest site, the Western Wall. While concentrating its efforts in the expansion of its capital, Amman, Jordan implemented policies which led to the stagnation of east Jerusalem. Its historical and holy sites became inaccessible to all Jews, as well as to Israeli Christians and Muslims. Meanwhile, west Jerusalem -- the declared capital of Israel -- thrived and developed.
Jerusalem Reunited
In June 1967, King Hussein of Jordan ignored Israel's pleas (communicated through the UN) to maintain the cease-fire, and Jordan joined other Arab countries in initiating a war against Israel. The Arabs heavily shelled Jewish neighborhoods and their ground forces occupied strategic positions in "no-man's land" areas -- in preparation for further attacks.
In defending itself, Israel gained control of the eastern part of Jerusalem by 7 June; Jerusalem was reunited and Jews were once again able to pray at the Western Wall. The current municipal borders were defined that June, and contemporary Jerusalem began to evolve. The city was opened to all worshippers. Unprecedented development was achieved in the spheres of economics, health, education, art and culture, and the general welfare of its inhabitants. In 1967, the total population of Jerusalem stood at 267,800 -- 196,500 Jews, 60,500 Muslims and 10,800 Christians. In December 1993, there were 567,700 residents of the city -- 406,800 Jews and 160,900 non-Jews.
Religion
The world's three great monotheistic faiths -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- all consider Jerusalem a holy city, with major events in each of their histories being linked to the city. For Judaism, uniquely, it is the city itself that is holy, representing the hope and meaning of Jewish existence and continuity. For Christians and Muslims, by contrast, Jerusalem is a city that contains holy sites, hallowed by sacred events.
Judaism
Jerusalem, whose name was invoked by the Hebrew prophets, runs as a common thread throughout Jewish history. Jeremiah called Jerusalem the "Throne of the Lord." Jerusalem is enshrined in daily prayers, as voiced in the great central prayer of the Jewish service recited in the morning, at midday and at night: "And to Jerusalem Thy city return in mercy...rebuild it soon in our days." Jews around the world pray facing Mount Moriah, where the Temple stood. The city has also been immortalized in the poetry of Jews such as Yehuda Halevi who, in 12th century Spain, woefully lamented the great distance separating him from Jerusalem.
It is this city which reflects Jewish self-understanding and historic consciousness. The Talmud -- versions of which were composed in both Babylon and Israel, with the latter being known as the Jerusalem Talmud -- a compilation of rabbinic commentary on the Bible, contains countless references to Jerusalem, using many of its more than forty different names. Jewish tradition says that of the ten measures of beauty in the world, Jerusalem possesses nine of them.
For the Jews, Jerusalem and Zion are synonymous, and have come to symbolize the Jewish nation as a whole. Judaism, in fact, recognizes both the Earthly Jerusalem -- a symbol of the ingathering of the exiles to their promised land -- and its Heavenly counterpart. It is written in the Talmud: "And God said: I will not enter the Heavenly Jerusalem until I can enter the Earthly Jerusalem".
The modern movement which emerged in late-19th century Europe, termed practical Zionism, secularized the religious belief that only when Jews came and inhabited Jerusalem would the Day of Redemption arrive. Isaiah's reference to a Heavenly Jerusalem is another source of the Jewish longing to return to Zion, something which has also influenced today's political Zionism, with Jews from around the world coming to live in Jerusalem. Jews fleeing Arab persecution also came to Jerusalem, realizing the commandment of a spiritual Zionism, as part of a parallel national liberation movement among Jews born in Arab lands who, for two thousand years, have also longed to return to Zion.
No other city has played such a predominant role in the history, culture, religion, and consciousness of a people as Jerusalem has in the life of the Jews. Throughout centuries of exile, Jerusalem has remained alive in the hearts of Jews everywhere as the spiritual center of their lives.
They never ceased to mourn the ancient destruction of the city. Fast days marking the destruction of the first and second temples, and of the city itself, are an integral part of the Jewish calendar.
Jerusalem is even remembered at all Jewish weddings. At the conclusion of the wedding ceremony, the groom breaks a glass to commemorate the destruction of the Temple -- even at this most joyous of occasions. It was also customary for the groom to put ashes on his head, the jewelry of the bride to be incomplete, and an empty space to be left at the feast to remind the guests of mourning Jerusalem. Indeed, the restoration of Jerusalem as the national and religious capital of the Jews is an oft- repeated theme. "Next year in Jerusalem" is a Jewish motif that permeates all religious observances. This sentiment found its most succinct expression in the words of the Psalmist: "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning," (Psalms 137:5).
Christianity
For Christians, Jerusalem is the witness of their faith. Some of the central events in the life of Jesus, culminating in the crucifixion and the resurrection, occurred here. In an effort to achieve control over these sites, the Christian powers entered Jerusalem in the 4th century. They remained until the Arab conquest three centuries later, and again returned at the end of the 11th century with the advent of the Crusades.
Today, the Christian community in Jerusalem may be divided into four basic categories: Orthodox, Monophysite, Catholic, and Protestant. In total, some 15 ancient churches (and another 20 denominational groups) are active in the city.
In Christianity -- in contrast to Judaism -- there is no precept to live in Jerusalem. Further, Christians en masse were never enjoined to establish a residence (even temporarily) in Jerusalem, apart from the clergy who were dispatched by their Churches. In Christian tradition, it is the Heavenly Jerusalem that is emphasized.
Islam
The Koran relates that, one night, the prophet Muhammad was miraculously transported from Mecca to Jerusalem -- from where he made his ascent to heaven. The events of this nocturnal journey have been further embellished by legends, including those concerning Muhammad's winged mount Al-Buraq. Accordingly, Islam is linked to the pre-existing tradition of holiness ascribed to Jerusalem by Judaism and Christianity, having integrated this legacy into its own religious constellation.
But for Islam, Jerusalem has never been regarded as sacred as Mecca and Medina. The Temple Mount, with the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque -- built in the 7th century, soon after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem and referred to as the center of the universe -- is only considered by Muslims to be the third most important site in Islam after the Ka'aba in Mecca (in whose direction all Muslims - even those in Jerusalem - pray) and the Mosque of Muhammad in Medina.
Legal Status
From a legal perspective, the departure of the British in May 1948 left Jerusalem's status undetermined. The end of the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war found the western part of the city in Israeli hands, and the eastern part (including the Old City) controlled by Jordan. In 1949, Israel and Jordan signed an armistice, dividing Jerusalem into two demarcated zones. These lines, however, were seen by both sides to be temporary -- until a peace treaty could be concluded; neither party viewed the cease-fire lines as permanent borders.
As late as 31 May 1967, Ambassador Al-Farrah of Jordan told the United Nations Security Council:
"There is an Armistice Agreement. The Agreement did not fix boundaries; it fixed the demarcation line. The Agreement did not pass judgment on rights -- political, military or otherwise. Thus, I know of no boundary; I know of a situation frozen by an Armistice Agreement."
Under the armistice agreement, Jordan promised to allow "free access to the Holy Places... and use of the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives." It further guaranteed Israel free access to Hadassah Hospital and the Hebrew University on Mount Scopus. These rights, however, were denied.
Despite the commitments under the armistice agreement, no Jew, from any country, was allowed to pray at the Western Wall. In fact, no Israelis -- of any religious persuasion -- were allowed to pray at the sites sacred to them. The Jewish Quarter of the Old City was systematically destroyed. The Jewish cemetery was desecrated and its tombstones were used to pave a path to the latrine of a Jordanian military installation. Christian education was restricted in the part of the city controlled by Jordan; Christian schools were forced to close on Friday, the Muslim day of rest. Christians were also forbidden to acquire land in or near Jerusalem. The economy of eastern Jerusalem was devastated and political expression was severely limited; no Palestinian Arab newspaper was allowed to publish. The Absence of Jordanian Legal Title to Jerusalem The annexation of territory by a belligerent occupant, pending the conclusion of a peace treaty, is not permitted by international law. Thus, the invasion of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem by Jordan in 1948 did not bring with it the right to annex the conquered areas -- and, in the absence of a peace treaty, the Jordanian annexation of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem was a violation of both international law and the Israel- Jordan Armistice Agreement of 1949. Indeed, only two countries, Britain and Pakistan, ever recognized Jordan's annexation of Judea and Samaria; even then, Britain withheld recognition of the annexation of Jerusalem by Amman.
In contrast, Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem came under the control of the Israel Defense Forces in June 1967, following Israel's exercise of its right of self-defense in the face of Jordanian attacks along the then existing Israel-Jordan armistice demarcation lines.
Not only did Israel not view the Israel-Jordan armistice demarcation lines as full-fledged borders, but it explicitly upheld the contrary view when Jordan sought to unilaterally alter the status of Judea and Samaria (including eastern Jerusalem) in 1950. The provisions of the Armistice Agreement remained in force so long as the agreement was in effect. The Jordanian aggression of June 1967, however, constituted a material breach of that agreement, entitling Israel to regard it as no longer in force.
The overall extension of Israeli law to eastern Jerusalem, and the governmental functions Israel performs there, do not constitute a violation of international law. Israel's position in eastern Jerusalem cannot be considered that of "occupant" or "annexing state," given the meaning of these terms under international law.
The Palestinian Claim to Jerusalem
Similarly, the claim to make Jerusalem (or at least its eastern part) capital of a Palestinian state is unfounded. Palestinian leaders often call for Jerusalem (or "Arab Jerusalem") to be "restored" to the Palestinian people, but there is no legal basis for this claim.
First, not only has Jerusalem never been the capital of an Arab state, but there has never been any state of Palestine. When the Arabs first controlled the region in the Middle Ages, they established their capital in Ramle. Subsequent Arab and Mamluk empires chose to rule from Baghdad and Damascus. The Ottoman sultan resided in Constantinople, now Istanbul. More recently, the Jordanians -- who held the eastern part of the city from 1948 to 1967 -- designated Amman as their capital city.
Second, prior to 1948, Palestinian Arabs refused to accept any of the proposed solutions to the Arab-Jewish conflict. They would not consent to anything short of establishing Arab rule in all of the Palestine Mandate -- and expelling, or killing, all Jews living in that area. In an effort to achieve that objective, the Palestinian Arabs (and the surrounding Arab states) initiated a war against the newly proclaimed State of Israel, hoping to destroy the new country before it could establish itself.
Third, between 1948 and 1967, there were only isolated calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the "territories," with Jerusalem as its capital. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was established in 1964, three years before the outbreak of the Six-Day War, with the avowed aim of "liberating" that area of Mandatory Palestine which had become the State of Israel, as well as that which had become Jordan. At that time, the Arabs living in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem were Jordanian citizens -- and remain so today.
Fourth, only in 1967 -- once Israel had successfully defended itself against Arab aggression and reunited Jerusalem -- did the Palestinian Arabs begin to lay claim to Jerusalem as their political capital. What motivated them was primarily an inability to accept the fact that Israel had emerged victorious from a war which was intended to destroy it, and that Israel had also succeeded in establishing its rule over all of Jerusalem.
Thus, there is no legal basis for the "historical" Palestinian claim that Jerusalem was their capital. Moreover, although the Palestinians may have a strong emotional attachment to Jerusalem, it does not necessarily follow that Jerusalem -- over 70% of whose population is Jewish, and where the majority of the population in the eastern part of the city is also Jewish, should become the capital of any Palestinian political entity.
Israel's Record of Openness and Tolerance
The reunification of Jerusalem under Israeli rule brought with it the Protection of the Holy Places Law, adopted by the Knesset in June 1967. The law protects freedom of access to all holy sites -- and prescribes punishment for all those whose actions are "likely to violate" this freedom and/or even the "feelings" of observant people vis-a-vis these sacred shrines. The desecration of such a Holy Place also bears a penalty of incarceration. In July 1980, the Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel reiterated both the duty of the State to protect the Holy Places and the right to freedom of access by religious adherents.
The reality of Jerusalem is clear testimony to Israel's success in meeting these commitments. Israel allows the various religious communities to administer and maintain their own holy places and institutions, and to celebrate their holidays.
Free access to Jerusalem's holy sites is ensured to foreign pilgrims as well. In fact, 150,000 of the over 1 million tourists who visit Jerusalem each year are Muslim pilgrims from countries which have not yet established diplomatic relations with Israel -- such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The sites of religious and historical significance to Jews, Muslims and Christians have been explored and restored; equal concern is afforded to all.
Israel's Record in Jerusalem
Toward the end of 1948, when fighting between Jordan and Israel ceased, the Israeli-held sector began to function as the capital. The Knesset held its first session, from 14-17 February 1949, in Jerusalem, where its members took the oath of office and Chaim Weizmann was elected President of the State.
Despite the division of the city, western Jerusalem -- the capital of Israel -- flourished. Its population doubled between 1948 and 1967. During those years, Israel took steps to strengthen the status of Jerusalem as capital. The new Knesset building and Government Center were constructed. A new Hadassah Medical Center and Hebrew University were erected, since the original institutions on Mount Scopus became inaccessible. A national convention center (Binyanei Ha'uma) was built and the Israel Museum was created. The seat of the Chief Rabbinate and the official residence of the President were built.
All foreign ambassadors present their credentials in Jerusalem, and visiting heads of state are officially received there by the President, Prime Minister and the Knesset. Diplomatic contact with government officials takes place in Jerusalem.
On 30 July 1980, the Knesset adopted the Basic Law: Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel, which states, among other things, that:
- Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.
- Jerusalem is the seat of the President of the State, the Knesset, the Government, and the Supreme Court.
- The holy places shall be protected from desecration and any other violation, and from anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings with regard to those places.
Under Knesset legislation, Israel amended the 1967 Municipalities Ordinance to recognize the enlarged area of Jerusalem (in the wake of the Six-Day War) as part of the Municipality of Jerusalem. Accordingly, it is clear that Israel sought to emphasize both that it did not consider itself an occupying power in Jerusalem, and that the status of Jerusalem was different from that of Judea and Samaria -- which are administered under a different legal system.
Moreover, immediately following Israel's reunification of Jerusalem in 1967, Arab residents of Jerusalem were offered full Israeli citizenship. The majority of the Arabs living in Jerusalem chose not to accept Israeli citizenship, but nevertheless, as residents of the city, they were given -- and still retain -- the right to participate in municipal elections and enjoy all economic, cultural and social benefits afforded to Israeli citizens (e.g. membership in Israel's labor federation and national insurance system). Furthermore, Israel's democratic legal system grants equal protection of property, civil and human rights to all residents of Jerusalem.
Thus, the application of Israeli law to eastern Jerusalem is no different in substance from its application in the other parts of Israel that lie beyond the boundaries recommended by the United Nations in 1947.
Possible Solutions to the Issue of Jerusalem's Status Following Jerusalem's reunification, four approaches to resolving the issue of the city's status evolved. The first approach is to redivide the city. The second proposes dividing the city into cantons, according to which population constitutes a majority. The third entails international control over Jerusalem. The fourth proposes recognizing the sovereignty of one nation, while guaranteeing open access and the internal administration of religious places by their adherents.
Redividing the city today is not a viable option. The 19 years between 1948 and 1967, when the city was scarred by barbed wire, walls, and armed troops dividing the population, were unbearable for its residents, limited Jerusalem's natural development, and contrasts with the openness, tolerance and neighborliness of the city since 1967. Any division of the city, even a solely administrative one, is likely to exacerbate tensions among the population and undercut the progress that has been made in so many spheres. Likewise, cantonization would unnaturally divide Jerusalem into enclaves spread throughout the city. The reality is that neighborhoods are not uniformly linked to form exclusively "Jewish" and "Arab" areas. Attempting to combine separate neighborhoods into different municipal units would unravel the social fabric which has been woven in Jerusalem, not to mention lower the quality of municipal services provided to city residents. Similarly, the infrastructure simply does not exist to enable multiple governments to serve residents adequately, in a patchwork of separate cantons located in different sections of the city.
The internationalization proposal appears to be in eclipse. In the late 1960s however, the Arab states (with the exception of Jordan) indicated their preference for that solution -- since it seemed most likely to put an end to Israeli control.
The Vatican, which initially also professed to support the concept, subsequently changed its views in favor of "international guarantees" for the holy places. The practical problems of internationalization would be too numerous to make it feasible -- nothing would be more likely to disrupt the life of a city and its population, than imposing upon it a system of divided, external government, with each factor seeking to further its own, rather than the city's, interests.
In discussing the fourth solution -- recognizing the sovereignty of one nation -- the question of the parties' primary objectives in Jerusalem must be addressed. Israel believes that Jerusalem must function as an increasingly tolerant, peaceful and prosperous city, where a diverse, multi-cultural population may live and work. Israel is committed to ensuring that Jerusalem remains safe and attractive, and that the atmosphere of the city facilitates tourism and worship. The Government of Israel has stated that it is ready to sign international commitments enshrining these principles.
Maps of Palestine under the Mandate for Palestine
Map of the borders of the Jewish National Home in Palestine as demarcated in the December 1920 Franco-British Boundary Convention. (map courtesy of Eli Hertz, http://www.mythsandfacts.org/ )
San Remo - Maps of Palestine under the Mandate for Palestine
Maps of Palestine under the Mandate for Palestine
Map of the borders of the Jewish National Home in Palestine after the British cut off the eastern 77% of the demarcated borders(Trans-Jordan). The truncating of the borders of Palestine violated article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine, which prohibited the ceding of any "Palestine territory." (map courtesy of Eli Hertz, http://www.mythsandfacts.org/ )
The Franco-British Boundary Convention
The San Remo Resolution (April 24-25, 1920) stipulated that the borders of the Jewish National Home in Palestine should be determined by the Principal Allied Powers. On December 6, 1920 Britain and France signed a treaty delineating the borders of the territory that would be placed under the Mandates System.
The territory included in the 1920 convention included most of the land that had been under Jewish rule during Biblical times. However, there were some modifications. It was realized that much of the territory north of the Golan Heights was supposed to be part of the Syrian Mandate (see the Adam Smith map of the Kingdoms of David and Solomon). As a result, the Jewish National Home was given extra land in what today is eastern Jordan.
The Convention involved bitter negotiations. The French were opposed to giving up control of the Roman Catholic sites in Palestine. The Turks who ruled in Palestine for the four-hundred years prior to World War I did limited access to the sites. In the end, the British had guaranteed they would protect access of Catholics to their religious sites.
Additionally, the British gave the French administered mandates large amounts of land that were supposed to be included in the Jewish National Home. The land in the Upper Galilee, from what today is the Israel/Lebanon border extending north to the Litani River bend as well as the central Golan Heights was removed from the demarcated borders of Palestine.
…to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate
According to Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine, the Mandatory (His Britannic Majesty) had the right to separate the administration of the Mandate in Trans-Jordan from the rest of the Palestine territory. This had to be done with the approval of the League of Nations:
"In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, 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, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18."
The wording, "postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions is by the nature of the wording a temporary action. That action was only valid until there was a change in the conditions leading to that decision. It did not authorize the British to permanently cut off portions of the land and turn it over to a foreign people.
Furthermore, according to Article 25, the postponement or withholding of the application of the Mandate in Trans-Jordan could not be inconsistent with Article 15 of the Mandate for Palestine which states:
"No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief."
The British "White Papers policies, which prohibited Jewish settlement East of the Jordan, while allowing a foreign group of Arabs (the Hashemites) to settle and eventually be given all of Trans-Jordan, was in clear violation of Article 15, as well as Article 5 of the Mandate which stated 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.
The full text of Articles 5, 15, and 25:
ARTICLE 5. The Mandatory shall 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.
ARTICLE 15. The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.
ARTICLE 25. In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, 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, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
Map of the borders of the Jewish National Home in Palestine after the British cut off the eastern 77% of the demarcated borders(Trans-Jordan). The truncating of the borders of Palestine violated article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine, which prohibited the ceding of any "Palestine territory." (map courtesy of Eli Hertz, http://www.mythsandfacts.org/ )
The Franco-British Boundary Convention
The San Remo Resolution (April 24-25, 1920) stipulated that the borders of the Jewish National Home in Palestine should be determined by the Principal Allied Powers. On December 6, 1920 Britain and France signed a treaty delineating the borders of the territory that would be placed under the Mandates System.
The territory included in the 1920 convention included most of the land that had been under Jewish rule during Biblical times. However, there were some modifications. It was realized that much of the territory north of the Golan Heights was supposed to be part of the Syrian Mandate (see the Adam Smith map of the Kingdoms of David and Solomon). As a result, the Jewish National Home was given extra land in what today is eastern Jordan.
The Convention involved bitter negotiations. The French were opposed to giving up control of the Roman Catholic sites in Palestine. The Turks who ruled in Palestine for the four-hundred years prior to World War I did limited access to the sites. In the end, the British had guaranteed they would protect access of Catholics to their religious sites.
Additionally, the British gave the French administered mandates large amounts of land that were supposed to be included in the Jewish National Home. The land in the Upper Galilee, from what today is the Israel/Lebanon border extending north to the Litani River bend as well as the central Golan Heights was removed from the demarcated borders of Palestine.
…to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate
According to Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine, the Mandatory (His Britannic Majesty) had the right to separate the administration of the Mandate in Trans-Jordan from the rest of the Palestine territory. This had to be done with the approval of the League of Nations:
"In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, 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, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18."
The wording, "postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions is by the nature of the wording a temporary action. That action was only valid until there was a change in the conditions leading to that decision. It did not authorize the British to permanently cut off portions of the land and turn it over to a foreign people.
Furthermore, according to Article 25, the postponement or withholding of the application of the Mandate in Trans-Jordan could not be inconsistent with Article 15 of the Mandate for Palestine which states:
"No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief."
The British "White Papers policies, which prohibited Jewish settlement East of the Jordan, while allowing a foreign group of Arabs (the Hashemites) to settle and eventually be given all of Trans-Jordan, was in clear violation of Article 15, as well as Article 5 of the Mandate which stated 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.
The full text of Articles 5, 15, and 25:
ARTICLE 5. The Mandatory shall 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.
ARTICLE 15. The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.
ARTICLE 25. In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, 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, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
Maps of Palestine under the Mandate for Palestine
Maps of Palestine under the Mandate for Palestine
Map of the borders of the Jewish National Home in Palestine after the British cut off the eastern 77% of the demarcated borders(Trans-Jordan). The truncating of the borders of Palestine violated article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine, which prohibited the ceding of any "Palestine territory." (map courtesy of Eli Hertz, http://www.mythsandfacts.org/ )
The Franco-British Boundary Convention
The San Remo Resolution (April 24-25, 1920) stipulated that the borders of the Jewish National Home in Palestine should be determined by the Principal Allied Powers. On December 6, 1920 Britain and France signed a treaty delineating the borders of the territory that would be placed under the Mandates System.
The territory included in the 1920 convention included most of the land that had been under Jewish rule during Biblical times. However, there were some modifications. It was realized that much of the territory north of the Golan Heights was supposed to be part of the Syrian Mandate (see the Adam Smith map of the Kingdoms of David and Solomon). As a result, the Jewish National Home was given extra land in what today is eastern Jordan.
The Convention involved bitter negotiations. The French were opposed to giving up control of the Roman Catholic sites in Palestine. The Turks who ruled in Palestine for the four-hundred years prior to World War I did limited access to the sites. In the end, the British had guaranteed they would protect access of Catholics to their religious sites.
Additionally, the British gave the French administered mandates large amounts of land that were supposed to be included in the Jewish National Home. The land in the Upper Galilee, from what today is the Israel/Lebanon border extending north to the Litani River bend as well as the central Golan Heights was removed from the demarcated borders of Palestine.
The territory included in the 1920 convention included most of the land that had been under Jewish rule during Biblical times. However, there were some modifications. It was realized that much of the territory north of the Golan Heights was supposed to be part of the Syrian Mandate (see the Adam Smith map of the Kingdoms of David and Solomon). As a result, the Jewish National Home was given extra land in what today is eastern Jordan.
The Convention involved bitter negotiations. The French were opposed to giving up control of the Roman Catholic sites in Palestine. The Turks who ruled in Palestine for the four-hundred years prior to World War I did limited access to the sites. In the end, the British had guaranteed they would protect access of Catholics to their religious sites.
Additionally, the British gave the French administered mandates large amounts of land that were supposed to be included in the Jewish National Home. The land in the Upper Galilee, from what today is the Israel/Lebanon border extending north to the Litani River bend as well as the central Golan Heights was removed from the demarcated borders of Palestine.
…to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate
According to Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine, the Mandatory (His Britannic Majesty) had the right to separate the administration of the Mandate in Trans-Jordan from the rest of the Palestine territory. This had to be done with the approval of the League of Nations:
"In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, 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, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18."
The wording, "postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions is by the nature of the wording a temporary action. That action was only valid until there was a change in the conditions leading to that decision. It did not authorize the British to permanently cut off portions of the land and turn it over to a foreign people.
Furthermore, according to Article 25, the postponement or withholding of the application of the Mandate in Trans-Jordan could not be inconsistent with Article 15 of the Mandate for Palestine which states:
"No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief."
The British "White Papers policies, which prohibited Jewish settlement East of the Jordan, while allowing a foreign group of Arabs (the Hashemites) to settle and eventually be given all of Trans-Jordan, was in clear violation of Article 15, as well as Article 5 of the Mandate which stated 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.
The full text of Articles 5, 15, and 25:ARTICLE 5. The Mandatory shall 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.
ARTICLE 15. The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.
ARTICLE 25. In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, 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, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
"In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, 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, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18."
The wording, "postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions is by the nature of the wording a temporary action. That action was only valid until there was a change in the conditions leading to that decision. It did not authorize the British to permanently cut off portions of the land and turn it over to a foreign people.
Furthermore, according to Article 25, the postponement or withholding of the application of the Mandate in Trans-Jordan could not be inconsistent with Article 15 of the Mandate for Palestine which states:
"No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief."
The British "White Papers policies, which prohibited Jewish settlement East of the Jordan, while allowing a foreign group of Arabs (the Hashemites) to settle and eventually be given all of Trans-Jordan, was in clear violation of Article 15, as well as Article 5 of the Mandate which stated 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.
The full text of Articles 5, 15, and 25:ARTICLE 5. The Mandatory shall 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.
ARTICLE 15. The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.
ARTICLE 25. In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, 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, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
Map of the borders of the Jewish National Home in Palestine after the British cut off the eastern 77% of the demarcated borders(Trans-Jordan). The truncating of the borders of Palestine violated article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine, which prohibited the ceding of any "Palestine territory." (map courtesy of Eli Hertz, http://www.mythsandfacts.org/ )
ISRAEL - FAQs: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
FAQs: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Q: The UN does not agree that Israel has a right to be in the West Bank. How can you say Israel does have that right which is in defiance of the United Nations?
A: Israel's borders under international law were determined more than twenty years prior to the establishment of the United Nations. The UN adopted the Mandate for Palestine in 1945. These borders remain the legal borders, and they include all of Judea and Samaria (the land the Jordanians called the West Bank in 1948) as well as all of Jerusalem.
Despite the many UN resolutions against Israel, no legal action has or can revoke Israel's legal title to the land.
Q: What exactly are Israel's legal borders under International law?
A: Israel's legal borders are based on land that was controlled by the Jewish people during the First and Second Temple. The language used at San Remo and in the border convention is "From Dan to Beersheba," the description used for the National borders many times throughout the Bible. By the time the borders were delineated in the December 1920 Franco-British Boundary Convention, the British and French managed to cut significant amounts of land from the borders, in violation of previous agreements of the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers who were the disposing agents of the land under international law.
However, the borders administered by the Mandate clearly set all of Judea and Samaria (the WEst Bank), Jerusalem, Gaza, and Trans-Jordan as part of the Jewish National Home of Palestine, with all the rights of close settlement.
Q: The UN has never recognized Israel's annexation of Jerusalem. Isn't this proof that Israel has no right to be on this Palestinian land?
The Mandate is clearly international law. It has never been challenged. Jerusalem is within the borders (and the heart) of the Mandate. Whether Israel annexes Jerusalem does not change the law. Legal title to Jerusalem belongs to Israel. Any UN resolutions subsequently passed does not change the border. That is not within the authority or jurisdiction of the United Nations.
Q: Your organization states that one of its goals is to stop the Obama administration from pressuring Israel to freeze settlement construction and give up land. Do you think the President of the United States will actually change his foreign policy because of the demands of an Israeli grass roots organization?
The US signed a treaty with Great Britain in 1924. The 1924 Anglo-American Treaty listed the rights of American citizens living in Palestine under the Mandate. Included in that treaty was the text of the Mandate, including the prohibition against ceding Jewish National land and stating the rights of Jewish settlement anywhere in Palestine.
Though the treaty itself expired with the Mandate midnight, May 15, 1948, the rights granted by the treaty are still in force. These rights are guaranteed through the treaty. The US Constitution (Article VI Clause 2) calls a treaty the "Supreme Law of the Land." The Constitution authorizes the courts to force the executive officers and legislators to abide by the country's treaties. The President cannot ignore a court ruling. If he would do so, he would be held in contempt of court. He could no longer serve as president.
The President does not have the authority to adopt a foreign policy that violates existing treaties.
Q: In 1947, the UN partitioned Palestine into two States. Israel accepted resolution 181. Shouldn't the UN defined borders be accepted as international law?
The Partition Plan (General Assembly Resolution 181) is a plan, not a law. It was a bilateral agreement. The Jews agreed, but the Arabs did not. Unilateral acceptance of a bilateral deal invalidates the deal. With the deal being invalid, the land would stay in the hands of whomever holds the title-the Jewish National Home.
The Zionists accepted the Partition Plan under duress. Hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors were in displaced persons camps in Europe, and Jewish leaders were desperate to bring them home without delay. Accepting the Partition seemed to be the only way to get the British with their illegal White Paper immigration restrictions out of the Holy Land. Once the duress was off, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion disavowed any obligation to the Partition Plan.
Q: How can you claim the entire Cis-Jordan (the land west of the Jordan River)belongs to Israel? The Palestine Mandate never designated the whole mandated territory, nor its whole Cis-Jordan part to become the Jewish homeland. Doing so would have contradicted its own reservations regarding the rights of the non-Jewish population, in making them subservient to the minority Jewish population.
A: Actually, the Mandate does grant to the Jewish National Home all of Cis-Jordan (the land west of the Jordan River) and Trans-Jordan (today the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). There is no mention whatsoever in the Mandate about establishing an Arab state in Palestine. The Mandate, however, does protect the civil and religious rights of non-Jews living in Palestine. Those rights are individual;not collective. In other words, it grants them the rights of any minority living in a democratic state, but not the right to have their own autonomous country. There are regions in the United States that have an Hispanic majority. This does not entitle the Hispanic community to have their own independent Hispanic state.
It was realized from the start that the Mandate for Palestine was different. In order to end the Mandate, Jews were to become the majority in Palestine. This was expected to take around a decade to achieve. The British as administrators of the Mandate, were obligated to assist with Jewish immigration. Unfortunately, the British did not carry out their obligation with due diligence, they violated their obligations by passing illegal laws limiting Jewish immigration, while ignoring illegal Arab immigration.
The Mandate system created three Arab states (Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria). The Mandate for Palestine was solely to establish the Jewish state of Palestine, which was renamed the State of Israel in 1948.
The Arab delegation at the 1919 Paris Conference, under the leadership of Emir Feisal I, fully supported the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, and said the Arabs had no claims for Palestine as part of the Arab Nation.
Q: The mandate does not grant the Jews a state-it only grants them a homeland, a place where they can immigrate and settle under the governance of the Mandatory Great Britain. How can you say the Mandate is for the express purpose of establishing a Jewish country in Palestine?
A: Actually, the Mandate does grant the Jews a state. The terminology "Jewish National Home" was borrowed from wording from a declaration at the first Zionist Congress. The French also tried to make the argument that "Jewish National Home" did not mean a country. They were afraid that a Bolshevik state would arise in the Middle East, and they wanted to control the Roman Catholic sites in Palestine. The British reminded the French that a state was indeed the intent of the Supreme Council of the Principle Allied Powers.
You use the description, "...under the governance of the Mandatory Great Britain." you are forgetting, the British were only authorized to govern Palestine for the purpose of fulfilling the obligations of the Mandate. The end goal of the Mandate was the reconstitution of an independent Jewish state called Palestine. Once the Jewish State was established, the British could not legally govern the Jewish National Home.
Furthermore, the Mandate for Palestine was part of the Mandate System. The only purpose of the Mandate system was to set up governments. The only beneficiary named in the Mandate is the Jewish National Home. There is no one else who could be the recipient of Palestine according to the Mandate. It cannot mean a Jewish cultural center. There is no reason to set an act of international law to establish a "cultural center." Indeed, if the intent was to set up a country club instead of a country, why would the Mandate list borders, rights of settlement, assistance for immigration and citizenship, and all the systems needed for governing?
Q: Didn't the United Nations, the successor organization of the League of Nations overturn the Mandate?
A: No. The United Nations never overturned the Mandate. You may hear propaganda that claims otherwise, but the Mandate itself was fulfilled and expired as of midnight, May 14/15, 1948. What allowed the Mandate to expire was the establishment of the Jewish State and the British receiving the UN's authority to turn over its authority in Palestine. The rights of the Mandate are still law. Though the Mandate itself ended, the UN never canceled nor has the authority to cancel the mandated rights.
Q: How do you explain why the alleged objectives of the Mandate are
still applicable, but the newer objectives of the UN are void?
A: The rights granted by the Mandate are international law and are permanent. They were granted by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers. The British (who were members of the Principal Allied Powers) captured Palestine from the Turks. Until the 1919 Geneva Conventions, right of conquest was international law.
So, the Supreme Council agreed that they would not keep the lands captured from the Turkish and German empires for themselves, but rather set up rightful governments in these lands.
Neither the League of Nations nor the United Nations has the right to make countries or change the law. Even though the United Nations Security Council's resolutions are considered international law, the Security Council must base their resolutions on existing law. If the resolutions violate existing law, the resolutions cannot be legally binding.
Q: If Justice Now! brings legal action to force the United Nations to recognize existing international law, as you claim, can't the UN nullify the San Remo Resolution and the borders from the Mandate?
A: Two No's to this question: First, No, the UN Treaty Manual will not let them do this. Secondly, No, the doctrine of estoppel keeps the United Nations from doing this legally. That is not to say that they cannot do it politically, as they have done in the past. The Law is unique.... The UN could do anything (legally or not) and then the State of Israel could do nothing about this issue, and it would
go unresolved.
Q: Israel signed the Road Map to Peace with the Palestinian Autority. How can you expect the world to respect Israel's treaty rights when Israel is not honoring the rights of the Palestinians via the Road Map?
A: The first question that needs to be asked is what is the Road Map to Peace? The Second question that needs to be asked, is what exactly is a treaty? This is a long complex question. Click here for the detailed
answer.
Q: The UN does not agree that Israel has a right to be in the West Bank. How can you say Israel does have that right which is in defiance of the United Nations?
A: Israel's borders under international law were determined more than twenty years prior to the establishment of the United Nations. The UN adopted the Mandate for Palestine in 1945. These borders remain the legal borders, and they include all of Judea and Samaria (the land the Jordanians called the West Bank in 1948) as well as all of Jerusalem.
Despite the many UN resolutions against Israel, no legal action has or can revoke Israel's legal title to the land.
Q: What exactly are Israel's legal borders under International law?
A: Israel's legal borders are based on land that was controlled by the Jewish people during the First and Second Temple. The language used at San Remo and in the border convention is "From Dan to Beersheba," the description used for the National borders many times throughout the Bible. By the time the borders were delineated in the December 1920 Franco-British Boundary Convention, the British and French managed to cut significant amounts of land from the borders, in violation of previous agreements of the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers who were the disposing agents of the land under international law.
However, the borders administered by the Mandate clearly set all of Judea and Samaria (the WEst Bank), Jerusalem, Gaza, and Trans-Jordan as part of the Jewish National Home of Palestine, with all the rights of close settlement.
Q: The UN has never recognized Israel's annexation of Jerusalem. Isn't this proof that Israel has no right to be on this Palestinian land?
The Mandate is clearly international law. It has never been challenged. Jerusalem is within the borders (and the heart) of the Mandate. Whether Israel annexes Jerusalem does not change the law. Legal title to Jerusalem belongs to Israel. Any UN resolutions subsequently passed does not change the border. That is not within the authority or jurisdiction of the United Nations.
Q: Your organization states that one of its goals is to stop the Obama administration from pressuring Israel to freeze settlement construction and give up land. Do you think the President of the United States will actually change his foreign policy because of the demands of an Israeli grass roots organization?
The US signed a treaty with Great Britain in 1924. The 1924 Anglo-American Treaty listed the rights of American citizens living in Palestine under the Mandate. Included in that treaty was the text of the Mandate, including the prohibition against ceding Jewish National land and stating the rights of Jewish settlement anywhere in Palestine.
Though the treaty itself expired with the Mandate midnight, May 15, 1948, the rights granted by the treaty are still in force. These rights are guaranteed through the treaty. The US Constitution (Article VI Clause 2) calls a treaty the "Supreme Law of the Land." The Constitution authorizes the courts to force the executive officers and legislators to abide by the country's treaties. The President cannot ignore a court ruling. If he would do so, he would be held in contempt of court. He could no longer serve as president.
The President does not have the authority to adopt a foreign policy that violates existing treaties.
Q: In 1947, the UN partitioned Palestine into two States. Israel accepted resolution 181. Shouldn't the UN defined borders be accepted as international law?
The Partition Plan (General Assembly Resolution 181) is a plan, not a law. It was a bilateral agreement. The Jews agreed, but the Arabs did not. Unilateral acceptance of a bilateral deal invalidates the deal. With the deal being invalid, the land would stay in the hands of whomever holds the title-the Jewish National Home.
The Zionists accepted the Partition Plan under duress. Hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors were in displaced persons camps in Europe, and Jewish leaders were desperate to bring them home without delay. Accepting the Partition seemed to be the only way to get the British with their illegal White Paper immigration restrictions out of the Holy Land. Once the duress was off, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion disavowed any obligation to the Partition Plan.
Q: How can you claim the entire Cis-Jordan (the land west of the Jordan River)belongs to Israel? The Palestine Mandate never designated the whole mandated territory, nor its whole Cis-Jordan part to become the Jewish homeland. Doing so would have contradicted its own reservations regarding the rights of the non-Jewish population, in making them subservient to the minority Jewish population.
A: Actually, the Mandate does grant to the Jewish National Home all of Cis-Jordan (the land west of the Jordan River) and Trans-Jordan (today the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). There is no mention whatsoever in the Mandate about establishing an Arab state in Palestine. The Mandate, however, does protect the civil and religious rights of non-Jews living in Palestine. Those rights are individual;not collective. In other words, it grants them the rights of any minority living in a democratic state, but not the right to have their own autonomous country. There are regions in the United States that have an Hispanic majority. This does not entitle the Hispanic community to have their own independent Hispanic state.
It was realized from the start that the Mandate for Palestine was different. In order to end the Mandate, Jews were to become the majority in Palestine. This was expected to take around a decade to achieve. The British as administrators of the Mandate, were obligated to assist with Jewish immigration. Unfortunately, the British did not carry out their obligation with due diligence, they violated their obligations by passing illegal laws limiting Jewish immigration, while ignoring illegal Arab immigration.
The Mandate system created three Arab states (Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria). The Mandate for Palestine was solely to establish the Jewish state of Palestine, which was renamed the State of Israel in 1948.
The Arab delegation at the 1919 Paris Conference, under the leadership of Emir Feisal I, fully supported the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, and said the Arabs had no claims for Palestine as part of the Arab Nation.
Q: The mandate does not grant the Jews a state-it only grants them a homeland, a place where they can immigrate and settle under the governance of the Mandatory Great Britain. How can you say the Mandate is for the express purpose of establishing a Jewish country in Palestine?
A: Actually, the Mandate does grant the Jews a state. The terminology "Jewish National Home" was borrowed from wording from a declaration at the first Zionist Congress. The French also tried to make the argument that "Jewish National Home" did not mean a country. They were afraid that a Bolshevik state would arise in the Middle East, and they wanted to control the Roman Catholic sites in Palestine. The British reminded the French that a state was indeed the intent of the Supreme Council of the Principle Allied Powers.
You use the description, "...under the governance of the Mandatory Great Britain." you are forgetting, the British were only authorized to govern Palestine for the purpose of fulfilling the obligations of the Mandate. The end goal of the Mandate was the reconstitution of an independent Jewish state called Palestine. Once the Jewish State was established, the British could not legally govern the Jewish National Home.
Furthermore, the Mandate for Palestine was part of the Mandate System. The only purpose of the Mandate system was to set up governments. The only beneficiary named in the Mandate is the Jewish National Home. There is no one else who could be the recipient of Palestine according to the Mandate. It cannot mean a Jewish cultural center. There is no reason to set an act of international law to establish a "cultural center." Indeed, if the intent was to set up a country club instead of a country, why would the Mandate list borders, rights of settlement, assistance for immigration and citizenship, and all the systems needed for governing?
Q: Didn't the United Nations, the successor organization of the League of Nations overturn the Mandate?
A: No. The United Nations never overturned the Mandate. You may hear propaganda that claims otherwise, but the Mandate itself was fulfilled and expired as of midnight, May 14/15, 1948. What allowed the Mandate to expire was the establishment of the Jewish State and the British receiving the UN's authority to turn over its authority in Palestine. The rights of the Mandate are still law. Though the Mandate itself ended, the UN never canceled nor has the authority to cancel the mandated rights.
Q: How do you explain why the alleged objectives of the Mandate are
still applicable, but the newer objectives of the UN are void?
A: The rights granted by the Mandate are international law and are permanent. They were granted by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers. The British (who were members of the Principal Allied Powers) captured Palestine from the Turks. Until the 1919 Geneva Conventions, right of conquest was international law.
So, the Supreme Council agreed that they would not keep the lands captured from the Turkish and German empires for themselves, but rather set up rightful governments in these lands.
Neither the League of Nations nor the United Nations has the right to make countries or change the law. Even though the United Nations Security Council's resolutions are considered international law, the Security Council must base their resolutions on existing law. If the resolutions violate existing law, the resolutions cannot be legally binding.
Q: If Justice Now! brings legal action to force the United Nations to recognize existing international law, as you claim, can't the UN nullify the San Remo Resolution and the borders from the Mandate?
A: Two No's to this question: First, No, the UN Treaty Manual will not let them do this. Secondly, No, the doctrine of estoppel keeps the United Nations from doing this legally. That is not to say that they cannot do it politically, as they have done in the past. The Law is unique.... The UN could do anything (legally or not) and then the State of Israel could do nothing about this issue, and it would
go unresolved.
Q: Israel signed the Road Map to Peace with the Palestinian Autority. How can you expect the world to respect Israel's treaty rights when Israel is not honoring the rights of the Palestinians via the Road Map?
A: The first question that needs to be asked is what is the Road Map to Peace? The Second question that needs to be asked, is what exactly is a treaty? This is a long complex question. Click here for the detailed
answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)