San Remo According To Christians For Zion

Below i’m going to post up quotes from the CfZ [Christians for Zion] website regarding San Remo. But before i do that let me my position on Israel-Palestine.

I firmly believe in a two state solution, an Israeli Jewish State and an Arab Palestinian state where both peoples in both states can live side by side in peace and security. Just to be clear. When i say two state solution i do not mean the Zionist vision of a two state solution where Jews have all of Palestine and the Arabs all leave and go live in Jordan. I mean two states for the two peoples in Palestine.

San Remo must be the most mentioned treaty [sic] on the CfZ website. By the amount of times Mike Fryer and Chris Proudlove mention it you’d think they would be clued up to at least give details of the treaty[sic] as they see it, but, as we’re about to find out, this is not the case.

Here’s a small sample from Fryer And Proudlove’s ramblings,

“I know that the UK Foreign Office has been told about the San Remo Treaty which gives the right for Jews to settle on vacant land between the Jordan border and the Mediterranean.  So, the current Israel-Palestinian Arab situation is not a case of unforgiveable ignorance by the FO it is plain wickedness for them, and other countries, to pretend that San Remo is no longer applicable.”

http://www.christiansforzion.com/comment-chris-proudlove/2012/12/3/wickedness-of-foreign-office-stance-over-israels-homes-plan.html

“The glaring omission in Burt’s letter was the irrevocable San Remo Treaty agreed by the League of Nations and later by the United Nations. This treaty gave the future state of Israel the right to settle Jews on vacant land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea.”

http://www.christiansforzion.com/comment-chris-proudlove/2012/11/15/nations-double-cross-jews-and-cheat-israel-out-of-their-land.html

“Yet their belief about illegal settlements is wrong, according to the San Remo Treaty of 1922. This agreement, still valid under international law, allows Jews to settle anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. It was ratified by the United Nations (UN) after World War Two when it succeeded the League of Nations.”

http://www.christiansforzion.com/comment-chris-proudlove/2012/5/1/anti-israel-critics-con-co-op-into-banning-jewish-imports.html

“Does this mean that he accepts the San Remo Treaty which gives Jews the right to settle Jews between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan, including Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip? No, he is like the United Nations et al who scandalously ignore this irrevocable treaty.”

http://www.christiansforzion.com/comment-chris-proudlove/2012/11/23/new-book-fails-to-tell-real-truth-about-rev-dr-sizer-and-isr.html

“Two years ago the European Coalition for Israel (ECI) announced that, under the irrevocable San Remo Treaty, Israel had the right to settle Jews anywhere between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea provided existing Palestinian Arab were not affected.”

http://www.christiansforzion.com/comment-chris-proudlove/2012/10/17/israel-to-implement-parts-of-levy-report.html

“The United Nations and most of its members, dominated by the cabal of Islamic nations and their non-aligned fellow travellers, have jettisoned the 1922 San Remo Treaty which gave the future state of Israel the right to settle Jews on uninhabited land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.”

http://www.christiansforzion.com/comment-chris-proudlove/2012/9/22/weak-west-swallows-arab-lies-about-israel.html

“One example of this is the San Remo Resolution of 1920, which confirmed the 1917 Balfour Declaration, giving Jews a homeland with all the political and human rights afforded to other democratic nations – simply by ignoring such laws as if they do not exist effectively erases them.  If these revisionists were real supporters of peace and justice for the Palestinians in Gaza, they would be opposing the increasingly oppressive Hamas government.”

“We must remember that the San Remo Accords were ratified by the League of Nations in 1922. This treaty was affirmed by the League’s successor, the United Nations, in 1947 and is irrevocable; a fact which is now being swept under the carpet by many Anti-Zionist activists.”

http://www.christiansforzion.com/comment-mike-fryer/2013/5/30/antisemitismanti-zionism-part-11

“This treaty dates back to the aftermath of the First World War and gives Israel the right to settle Jews on vacant land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea and is still legally binding according to many of the world’s leading lawyers.”

http://www.christiansforzion.com/comment-chris-proudlove/2012/12/1/israel-pays-price-for-not-saying-land-is-ours-according-to-t.html

“According to the 1922 San Remo Treaty, Israel has the right to settle Jews on vacant land between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan i.e. Samaria and Judea (West Bank).”

http://www.christiansforzion.com/comment-chris-proudlove/2012/11/13/answers-to-silly-sizer-questions-about-legitimacy-of-israel.html

“The state of Israel was created as a result of the Balfour declaration in 1917 and ratified by San Remo conference five years later.”

http://www.christiansforzion.com/news/2013/5/14/nakba-day-catastrophe-for-whom

The thing that sticks out most from those quotes is the absence of any real detail…or any details at all. Which surely must raise the question…Do these guys really know about this treaty [sic]?

Well as it turns out, they don’t, at least Chris Proudlove doesn’t yet he is the one who mentions it most.

Here’s a quote from one of Chris’s blogs titled ‘Why Jewish anti-settlements campaigner ended with red face’

“After Hagit’s passionate speech on human rights I asked her what she knew of the 1922 San Remo Treaty. When Hagit said she knew nothing about it, I castigated her ignorance, saying it was about time she did.

I told her that under this accord, valid under international law, Israel had the right to settle Jews anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea provided they did not interfere with existing settlements.”

He goes on to tell us that,

“I hope she studies details of the treaty I have sent her and modifies her approach.”

Chris posted that blog on July 6 2012 but as it turns out, Chris had never even read the Mandate for Palestine. On January 14th 2013 Chris wrote a blog in which he claimed,

“WITH THE campaign for the delegitimizatrion of Israel on the rise this is the most important political message I’ve posted. “

He then goes on to cut and paste an article by one Roy Thurley. During my debate with him in that blog he admitted that he had never read the mandate which begs the question of what in the Sam Hill did he send the poor woman whom he castigated?

But a more important question, given that he claims to have attended seminars, read leaflets, and bought dvds concerning the San Remo treaty [sic], why didn’t any of these people furnish him with what is the most important document on the subject, the Mandate?

For those of you who don’t know, the San Remo treaty [sic] was intended to give Jews, in certain numbers, the right to immigrate to Palestine and take up Palestinian citizenship where they would live side by side with Arabs who were  to remain the majority. After a set number of Jewish immigrants had moved into Palestine further immigration had to stop unless the Arabs agreed to it. Therefore what these bumbling Zionists are actually saying is that Israel, as it is today, is illigitimate, but because they are so closed minded they can’t see those woods for the trees.

Many people in the past few years have commented on how Israel, as it now stands, as a Jewish “democratic” state will come to end [and were called anti semites for their troubles] and what they meant by saying that Israel will come to an end is that unless Israel ceases its settlement building the only viable solution to the Israel Palestine problem will be one of One people. One state. One vote. Which is exactly what San Remo was supposed to be…but the thing about 1p 1S 1v is that it will be an Arab majority and therefore Israel can no longer be a Jewish state….Its Jewish nature will cease to be.

Now i’ll finish off with a comment i posted previously.

Neither the San Remo treaty [sic] or British mandate gave Jews the right to a state of their own. Jews outside of Palestine had no legal claims to anything inside Palestine hence the wording “Historical Connection” in the Balfour declaration. On top of that Article 7 of the mandate clearly states,

“The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.” ie. Jews were outside of Palestine were to be given the opportunity to immigrate to Palestine, take up Palestinian citizenship, and make there their home.

This is further confirmed by a quote attributed to Nahum Sokolow at the Paris peace conference,

“The object of Zionism is to establish for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law.” ..It has been said and is still being obstinately repeated by anti-Zionists again and again, that Zionism aims at the creation of an independent “Jewish State” But this is fallacious. The “Jewish State” was never part of the Zionist programme. The Jewish State was the title of Herzl’s first pamphlet, which had the supreme merit of forcing people to think. This pamphlet was followed by the first Zionist Congress, which accepted the Basle programme – the only programme in existence.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_for_the_Jewish_people

Also at the Paris peace conference US Secretary of State Lansing asked Dr Weizmann “to clear up some confusion which existed in his mind as to the correct meaning of the words “Jewish National Home”. Did that mean an autonomous Jewish Government?” Dr Weizmann replied in the negative. As can be seen here, Bottom paragraph,
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1919Parisv04&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=169

On top of all this we have the Churchill White Paper,

“‘it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty’s Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sèvres, is not susceptible of change.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_White_Paper

And the Macdonald White paper,

“‘The objective of His Majesty’s Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. [..] The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.’

And Section II. Immigration:,

“…After the period of five years, no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939

Advertisements

23 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

23 responses to “San Remo According To Christians For Zion

  1. Christopher Proudlove

    BELOW my latest blog on the Christians for Zion website. I recommend you read the Howard Grief book that’s mentioned, Trevor … The ICJ verdict does not count because it ignores the San Remo Treaty. I asked you to comment on ICJ’s views of this treaty and you could not give an answer. ICJ has colluded, along with other international bodies, to forget that San Remo is still international law. Trevor, you are also turning a ‘blind’ eye and resort to bluster to try to obfuscate the issues involved.
    TRIBUTES have been paid to Howard Grief, author of the seminal book on Israel’s territorial rights in the Holy Land , who has died at the age of 73.
    Pro-Israel blogger Richard Millett recalls him speaking at the Application of Israeli Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria conference in Hebron in July 2012.
    He comments: “I would like to pay tribute to this extraordinary man and the unique legacy he left to the Jewish people in his book The Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law published in 2008, which was the product of more than 20 years of research.
    “It is a work of profound scholarship yet the documentation of the Jewish legal rights to the land set in an historical narrative makes it a compelling read. Each titled chapter within it is a stand-alone with the first being the most important.”
    The Canadian lawyer specialised in commercial law and litigation. He had a passion and love for Israel and Jewish people which saw him make aliyah to the land he loved in 1989 with his Israeli wife and two young sons. He was practising as an attorney in Jerusalem when appointed legal advisor to Yuval Ne’eman, Minister for Energy and Infrastructure in the Shamir government, on matters pertaining to Israeli territorial sovereign rights. Ne’eman was a distinguished physicist who set up Israel’s space programme and discovered the existence of quarks which brought him a Nobel Prize.
    Mr Millett observed: “Howard realised that Israeli sovereignty did not originate from the UN Partition plan of 1947, universally believed to be the instrument of international law that created Israel, but instead it was the San Remo Conference of the 24th and 25th April 1920 that invested sovereignty in the Jewish people through the representative Zionist organisations.
    “It was at San Remo, the continuation of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, that the Principal Allied Powers, the victors in the war against the Central Powers, set aside all of Palestine as the land designated for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home based on the historical connection of the Jewish People with Palestine.
    “The San Remo resolution was described by Lord Curzon, the British foreign secretary of 1919, as the Jewish Magna Carta.
    “The Franco-British Boundary Convention of 23rd December 1920, which fixed the northern and north-eastern boundary of Palestine with Syria-Lebanon, made it clear beyond any doubt that Judea, Samaria and Gaza were to be integral parts of the Jewish National Home. Indeed, the maps of the cartographer and theologian George Adam Smith were to be used as the basis of the future borders based on the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
    “Howard conducted his painstaking research from British government archives and the minutes of the San Remo conference, both in English and French, as well as numerous other original documents associated with that era.
    “His original research established him as the leading world authority on the subject and has been used in an Israeli government video explaining Israel’s rights to the territories.
    “On a personal note it was my good fortune to have met Howard and to have enjoyed his friendship during the last two years of his life.
    “In June 2011, whilst in Jerusalem, I phoned him with a view to him giving a lecture in London but he explained that his health would not allow it as he was on dialysis several times a week.
    “Nevertheless, despite his deteriorating health, he was busier than ever writing articles, giving lectures and responding to requests worldwide for his opinions. He had presented a petition to the Canadian House of Commons on behalf of Canadian citizens regarding Israeli sovereign rights to the territories and was in the process of doing the same in America to Congress.
    “He had an ever growing emailing list and it was always a pleasure to read his latest missive addressed to “my dear correspondents”. He had a marvellous pen that he used to great effect in his put-downs to those so-called legal experts, dilettantes he called them, who admonished Israel for her “illegal” behaviour.
    “My particular favourite was a letter on behalf of clients regarding demands from the European Former Leaders Group, including Chris Patten (now BBC chairman) and others, to the President of the European Council that denounced Israel for its “illegal” settlement activity, including in East Jerusalem, and demanded that punitive measures be taken against it.
    “He admonished them for their “impudence” and their “complete and abysmal ignorance of Jewish Legal Rights to the Land of Israel” and then went on to inform them what these were in a concise summary.
    “In conclusion, Howard was a modest and gentle person who was never interested in his own ego and who spent his most productive years documenting Jewish rights to the Land at his own expense so that future generations would have the knowledge with which to fight the delegitimisation and demonisation of Israel that has now become common currency.”

  2. I’ll post my other comment here.

    Again, lots of text and no questions answered and no documented evidence put forth.

    ““He admonished them for their “impudence” and their “complete and abysmal ignorance of Jewish Legal Rights to the Land of Israel”

    Jews had no legal rights to the land hence the wording “Historical connection” in the BD

    “…but instead it was the San Remo Conference of the 24th and 25th April 1920 that invested sovereignty in the Jewish people through the representative Zionist organisations.”

    No, San Remo never invested sovereignty in the Jewish people.

  3. Christopher Proudlove

    Read the book Trevor! The documentary evidence you seek is there. You say San Remo never invested sovereignty in the Jewish people. Oh but it did, Trevor, open your bigotted mind.

  4. “You say San Remo never invested sovereignty in the Jewish people. Oh but it did…”

    Show me the documented evidence….and by documented i don’t mean the slanted and biased opinion of a Hasbarist.

    “Trevor, open your bigotted mind.”

    Continually i ask you for documented evidence. Continually you fail to offer any.

    Next, when you fail to offer any documented evidence, you’ll probably revert to pathetically calling me “Anti SEmitic”?

    I’ll be back tomorrow to answer any outstanding comments.

  5. If you have read the book, and i have some doubts that you have, post up a relevant passage with documented evidence to back up your claims.

    Some things you should note. Unlike the CfZ website no one is coming along to censor/remove my comments. I will continue to ask you to provide documented evidence about your claims on San Remo and either you will,

    A] Have to admit to your ignorance

    B] Post up any relevant data to back up your claims.

    C] Admit that the Zionist Hasbara on San Remo is sheer propaganda.

    D] Disappear from these pages in a cowardly fashion and answering that either A or C is your actual position on the matter.

    Now please, stop making a fool of yourself and post up the evidence to back up your ramblings.

  6. Christopher Proudlove

    I’m at the CMJ conference this weekend. I will comment next week. San Remo Rules OK! Your erroneous comment that I proved Mike Fryer lied needs removing. There are libel laws you know. If I didn’t comment I wonder who else would so so. If San Remo was not relevant in 1947/48 why did the United Nations grant Israel full membership, Trevor? I provide evidence but you ignore it. San Remo is the truth not your half-baked comments. I will prove you incorrect on one matter next week. Ignorance of the San Remo Treaty by governments is a disgrace. Please tell us, Trevor, what treaty superseded San Remo?

  7. Christopher Proudlove

    This article by former UK Christian Friends of Israel leader Roy Thurley outlines the San Remo Treaty. Entitled ’90 years On’ it is available on the European Coalition for Israel website under San Remo Resources. The 29 Articles of the treaty are included at the end of this email.

    CASTELLO DEVACHAN stands on a hillside at the end of Corso degli Inglesi, overlooking the Italian Riviera town of San Remo. The villa itself has a chequered history, including use as the local Gestapo HQ during the Second World War, but its claim to fame dates from April 1920 when it was used by the newly-formed League of Nations to house a conference to decide the future of the Middle East in the aftermath of the First World War. Here lie the beginnings of the reborn State of Israel, and the Agreements made at that conference are still valid today and vital to a proper understanding of Israel’s right to its land, including territory currently occupied by Palestinian Arabs.

    To celebrate the 90th Anniversary of the San Remo Agreement, the European Coalition for Israel held a commemorative event over the weekend of 24th/25th April 2010. This took place on the same dates, and in the same place, as the original conference ninety years earlier. We came together to declare that the original agreement still stands today, and to hear legal argument from international scholars concerning Israel’s current occupation of ‘Palestine ‘. This article is a summary of the information shared at the commemoration.

    Before we examine the Agreement made in 1920, let us back-track a few years. In November 1917 Britain issued what has come to be known as the Balfour Declaration, stating 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 should be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” At the time, the province of Palestine was still part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, with which Britain and her allies were at war.

    The League of Nations

    Within weeks of this Declaration being published, Britain had liberated Palestine from Turkish rule, and was therefore in a position to implement its policy. Watching from the other side of the Atlantic, US President Woodrow Wilson issued what has become known as the Fourteen Points. Included as part of point 12 was the statement that the “Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development”. These fourteen points became generally accepted by other nations following the end of the War, and formed the basis for the League of Nations , which was established by the Treaty of Versailles.

    We come now to the San Remo Conference, held at Villa Devachan from 19th to 26th April 1920. This was an international meeting of the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council, attended by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the Prime Ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George), France (Alexandre Millerand) and Italy (Francesco Nitti) and by Japan’s Ambassador Keishiro Matsui. The USA were also present, with observer status.

    This Conference got to work on deciding the future of the Middle East following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In accordance with Woodrow Wilson’s fourteen points, the victorious allies were not going to acquire new colonies in the area, but were going to establish new sovereign states there over a period of time. The parties recognised that not all the areas of the Middle East were yet ready for full independence, so they agreed to set up Mandates for each territory, with one of the Allied Powers being put in charge of implementing each Mandate.

    Initially there were four Mandates agreed, for Lebanon, Syria, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Palestine. In the first three Mandates, it was recognised that the indigenous people were able to govern themselves, with the Mandatory Power assisting in setting up the institutions of government where necessary.

    The Mandate for Palestine

    That was not true of Palestine, as this was to become a homeland for the Jewish people and the vast majority of them were not yet living in the Land. The Mandate for Palestine was thus completely different from the others, and set out how the Land was to be settled by Jews in preparation for when they could form a viable nation there.

    There are a number of points which must be noted concerning this Mandate:

    1. For the first time in history, Palestine became a legal entity. Hitherto it had been just a geographical area.

    2. All prior agreements before the San Remo conference were terminated. This includes both the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Faisal-Weizmann agreement.

    3. The Balfour Declaration was recognised and incorporated into international law.

    4. Sovereignty over Palestine was vested in the Jewish people.

    5. The Jewish people became the national beneficiary, based on self-determination, even though most of the Jews had not yet returned to their Land, because of their historical connection to it.

    6. Transfer of the title on Palestine cannot be revoked, either by the League of Nations or the United Nations as its successor, unless the people of Palestine want to give up their title.

    7. The Mandate for Palestine was to be given to Britain as the Mandatory Power.

    8. The San Remo Agreement was included in the Treaty of Sèvres and confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24th July 1922.

    9. The Arabs gained equivalent rights in Lebanon, Syria and Mesopotamia.

    10. The San Remo Agreement marks the end of the longest colonised period in history, lasting around 1,800 years.

    It is therefore very clear that the Jewish State draws its legal existence from the San Remo Agreement of 1920, and not the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 (Resolution 181). All 51 nations of the League of Nations voted in favour of this Agreement.

    Boundaries of the Land

    The exact boundaries of the Land covered by the Mandate for Palestine were not defined at San Remo, and neither were the boundaries for the other Mandate territories. A map agreed by Emir Faizal and Chaim Weizmann prior to the conference had placed the eastern border along roughly the same line as the border from Second Temple times, but Britain decided that it should be the Jordan River instead.

    Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine gave the Mandatory Power permission to postpone or withhold most of the terms of the Mandate in the area of land east of the Jordan River, if it did not consider them to be applicable. Britain exercised that power in a memorandum to the League of Nations on 16th September 1922, which the League subsequently approved. This brought into being a new Mandate, for Trans-Jordan, also to be administered by Britain. It is interesting to note that the League of Nations referred to this territory as “The Trans-Jordan Province of Palestine” right up until the last meeting of the League on 18th April 1946. Trans-Jordan (now known as Jordan) gained its independence from Britain in 1946 when it became a Hashemite Kingdom.

    Since then there have been no other modifications to the Mandate for Palestine, and thus the provisions of the Mandate are still applicable to the whole of the land of Palestine west of the Jordan river, including what is today referred to as the ‘West Bank’ and Gaza Strip.

    The end of the Mandate

    History demonstrates clearly that Britain failed miserably to carry out the sacred trust invested in it by the League of Nations. After the Second World War, the League of Nations was disbanded and a new organisation, the United Nations, set up. This new body inherited all the agreements made by its predecessor, including the Mandate for Palestine. In 1947 Britain decided to terminate her stewardship of the Mandate, and notified the United Nations accordingly. It should be noted that the Mandate itself was not terminated, but only Britain’s stewardship of it. In a similar way, Britain’s stewardship of the Mandate for Trans-Jordan had been terminated the previous year by that country being granted independence.

    The UN proposed a Partition Plan for Palestine, recommending the setting up of an Arab state, a Jewish state and an international zone to include Jerusalem . This Resolution (181) was only a recommendation to consider partition. It was not an injunction that must be obeyed. The recommendation was accepted by the Jewish leadership but rejected by the Arabs, and had no legal validity once rejected.

    When the State of Israel was declared at the end of the British Mandate period, it became the fulfilment of the Mandate for Palestine, which had been created in order to bring about this outcome in due course. Although the manner by which the fulfilment came about left much to be desired, the Jewish State of Israel was what was envisaged by the writers of the San Remo Agreement nearly thirty years earlier. Effectively, this was recognised by the United Nations when it accepted Israel into membership on 11th May 1949.

    Israel’s War of Independence

    Immediately after Israel’s Declaration of Independence, five surrounding Arab nations invaded the new state. By the time that hostilities ceased, Israel had lost some of its territory to the attackers – the Golan Heights to Syria, Judea and Samaria (including the eastern part of Jerusalem) to Trans-Jordan, and the Gaza Strip to Egypt. It is universally accepted that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by attacking another country, so the actions of the Arab nations were in fact illegal under international law. Whereas Syria and Egypt only occupied their captured territories, Trans-Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria and called it the West Bank, in order to link the territory with the East Bank of the Jordan. This annexation was only recognised by two countries in the world, Britain and Pakistan, and has no effect upon the illegality of Trans- Jordan ‘s acquisition of the Land.

    The Six Day War

    Israel’s Six Day War of June 1967 resulted in the recapture of those territories it had lost in 1948. From Israel’s perspective this was a defensive war, as Egypt, for example, had already declared war by blocking the Straits of Hormuz in the Gulf of Aqaba. Similarly, shortly after the war began, Jordan also declared war on Israel. There are therefore two excellent reasons why Israel’s recapturing of the territories it lost in 1948 was not illegal.

    1. The territories belonged to Israel, as the fulfilment of the Mandate for Palestine, in the first place, so they were only retaking what already belonged to them anyway.

    2. Israel was not acquiring territory as an aggressor, but in a defensive war forced upon it by the surrounding Arab nations.

    After returning the Sinai to Egypt in the peace agreement of 26th March 1979, the territory under Israeli control was almost identical to that which comprised the Mandate for Palestine.

    Subsequently, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip on 12th September 2005, but did not pass control to any other state. Thus, legally, the Gaza Strip remains part of Israel’s territory, even though not occupied by it at this point.

    Illegally Occupied Territory?

    It should be obvious from all this that the expression “illegally occupied territory” is totally inapplicable to Israel’s presence in, for example, Judea and Samaria (the ‘West Bank ‘). A state cannot ‘illegally occupy’ a territory that belongs to it in the first place! I am sure that we are all well aware from the Bible that God has granted to the Jewish people the whole of the land currently comprising the State of Israel, as well as Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Israel’s legal entitlement to these lands confirms the Word of God on the matter for those of us who believe the Bible. For others, and particularly for those who would deny Israel’s right to the territories it recaptured in 1967, the legal case set out here is a challenge that needs to be addressed.

    Acknowledgments

    I am indebted to Jacques Gauthier BA, LLB, PhD; Howard Grief, author of “The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law”; Salomon Benzimra P.Eng; and Eli Hertz, President of Myths and Facts Inc, for material used in the preparation of this article.

    Further information is available on http://www.mythsandfacts.org

    ROY THURLEY

    20 Years of Research Reveals: Jerusalem Belongs to Jews

    Reporter: Hillel Fendel

    Publisher: Arutz Sheva – Israel National News

    Read the article: Jerusalem Belongs to Jews

    Pressure on Israel to Deliver Concessions is Misguided

    Author: Alan Elsner

    Publisher: The Israel Project

    Read the article: Pressure on Israel to Deliver Concessions is Misguided

    Countdown to September: Israel, the Palestinians, and the UN General Assembly

    Author: Dore Gold

    Publisher: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

    Read the article: Jerusalem_Viewpoint_May-June_2011.pdf

    The European Union: Challenges for Israeli Diplomacy

    Author: Tamas Berzi

    Publisher: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

    Read the article: Jerusalem_Issue_brief_14_April_2011.pdf

    The Palestinian UN Gamble – Irresponsible and Ill-Advised

    Author: Alan Baker

    Publisher: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

    Read the article: Jerusalem_Issue_brief_3_April_2011.pdf

    The Settlements Issue: Distorting the Geneva Convention and the Oslo Accords

    Author: Alan Baker

    Publisher: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

    Read the article: Jerusalem_Issue_brief_5_Jan_2011.pdf

    The Fallacy of the “1967 Borders” – No Such Borders Ever Existed

    Author: Alan Baker

    Publisher: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

    Read the article: Jerusalem_Issue_brief_21_Dec_2010.pdf

    Recognition of a Palestinian State – Premature, Legally Invalid, and Undermining any Bona Fide Negotiation Process

    THE MANDATE FOR PALESTINE
    July 24, 1922. The mandates for Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine were assigned by the Supreme Court of the League of Nations at its San Remo meeting in April 1920. Negotiations between Great Britain and the United States with regard to the Palestine mandate were successfully concluded in May 1922, and approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922. The mandates for Palestine and Syria came into force simultaneously on September 29, 1922. In this document, the League of Nations recognized the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and the “grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”
    The Council of the League of Nations
    Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
    Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country ; and
    Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
    Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
    Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
    Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
    Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;
    Confirming the said mandate, defines its terms as follows:
    Article 1.
    The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.
    Article 2.
    The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self -governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
    Article 3.
    The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
    Article 4.
    An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.
    The Zionist organisation, so long as its organisation and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty’s Government to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
    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 6.
    The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency, referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
    Article 7.
    The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
    Article 8.
    The privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection as formerly enjoyed by Capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, shall not be applicable in Palestine.
    Unless the Powers whose nationals enjoyed the afore-mentioned privileges and immunities on August 1st, 1914, shall have previously renounced the right to their re-establishment, or shall have agreed to their non-application for a specified period, these privileges and immunities shall, at the expiration of the mandate, be immediately re-established in their entirety or with such modifications as may have been agreed upon between the Powers concerned.
    Article 9.
    The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as when as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights.
    Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed. In particular, the control and administration of Wakfs (Muslim holy places) shall be exercised in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders.
    Article 10.
    Pending the making of special extradition agreements relating to Palestine, the extradition treaties in force between the Mandatory and other foreign Powers shall apply to Palestine.
    Article 11.
    The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.
    The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration.
    Article 12.
    The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers. He shall also be entitled to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine when outside its territorial limits.
    Article 13.
    All responsibility in connection with the Holy Places and religious buildings or sites in Palestine, including that of preserving existing rights and of securing free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, while ensuring the requirements of public order and decorum, is assumed by the Mandatory, who shall be responsible solely to the League of Nations. in all matters connected herewith, provided that nothing in this article shall prevent the Mandatory from entering into such arrangements as he may deem reasonable with the Administration for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this article into effect; and provided also that nothing in this mandate shall be construed as conferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Muslim sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed.
    Article 14.
    A special Commission shall be appointed by the Mandatory to study, define and determine the rights and claims in connection with the Holy Places and the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine. The method of nomination, the composition and the functions of this Commission shall be submitted to the Council of the League for its approval, and the Commission shall not be appointed or enter upon its functions without the approval of the Council.
    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.
    The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.
    Article 16.
    The Mandatory shall be responsible for exercising such supervision over religious or eleemosynary bodies of all faiths in Palestine as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government. Subject to such supervision, no measures shall be taken in Palestine to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of such bodies or to discriminate against any representative or member of them on the ground of his religion or nationality.
    Article 17.
    The Administration of Palestine may organise on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the country, subject, however, to the supervision of the Mandatory, but shall not use them for purposes other than those above specified save with the consent of the Mandatory, except for such purposes, no military, naval or air forces shall be raised or maintained by the Administration of Palestine.
    Nothing in this article shall preclude the Administration of Palestine from contributing to the cost of the maintenance of the forces of the Mandatory in Palestine.
    The Mandatory shall be entitled at all times to use the roads, railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed forces and the carriage of fuel and supplies.
    Article 18.
    The Mandatory shall see that there is no discrimination in Palestine against the nationals of any State Member of the League of Nations (including companies incorporated under its laws) as compared with those of the Mandatory or of any foreign State in matters concerning taxation, commerce or navigation, the exercise of industries or professions, or in the treatment of merchant vessels or civil aircraft. Similarly, there shall be no discrimination in Palestine against goods originating in or destined for any of the said States, and there shall be freedom of transit under equitable conditions across the mandated area.
    Subject as aforesaid and to the other provisions of this mandate, the Administration of Palestine may, on the advice of the Mandatory, impose such taxes and customs duties as it may consider necessary, and take such steps as it may think best to promote the development of the natural resources of the country and to safeguard the interests of the population. It may also, on the advice of the Mandatory, conclude a special customs agreement with any State the territory of which in 1914 was wholly included in Asiatic Turkey or Arabia.
    Article 19.
    The Mandatory shall adhere on behalf of the Administration of Palestine to any general international conventions already existing, or which may be concluded hereafter with the approval of the League of Nations, respecting the slave traffic, the traffic in arms and ammunition, or the traffic in drugs, or relating to commercial equality, freedom of transit and navigation, aerial navigation and postal, telegraphic and wireless communication or literary, artistic or industrial property.
    Article 20.
    The Mandatory shall co-operate on behalf of the Administration of Palestine, so far as religious, social and other conditions may permit, in the execution of any common policy adopted by the League of Nations for preventing and combating disease, including diseases of plants and animals.
    Article 21.
    The Mandatory shall secure the enactment within twelve months from this date, and shall ensure the execution of a Law of Antiquities based on the following rules. This law shall ensure equality of treatment in the matter of excavations and archaeological research to the nations of all States Members of the League of Nations.
    (1) ‘Antiquity’ means any construction or any product of human activity earlier than the year A.D. 1700.
    (2) The law for the protection of antiquities shall proceed by encouragement rather than by threat.
    Any person who, having discovered an antiquity without being furnished with the authorisation referred to in paragraph 5, reports the same to an official of the competent Department, shall be rewarded according to the value of the discovery.
    (3) No antiquity may be disposed of except to the competent Department, unless this Department renounces the acquisition of any such antiquity.
    No antiquity may leave the country without an export licence from the said Department.
    (4) Any person who maliciously or negligently destroys or damages an antiquity shall be liable to a penalty to be fixed.
    (5) No clearing of ground or digging with the object of finding
    antiquities shall be permitted, under penalty of fine, except to persons authorised by the competent Department.
    (6) Equitable terms shall be fixed for expropriation, temporary or permanent, of lands which might be of historical or archaeological interest.
    (7) Authorisation to excavate shall only be granted to persons who show sufficient guarantees of archaeological experience. The Administration of Palestine shall not, in granting these authorisations, act in such a way as to exclude scholars of any nation without good grounds.
    (8) The proceeds of excavations may be divided between the excavator and the competent Department in a proportion fixed by that Department. If division seems impossible for scientific reasons, the excavator shall receive a fair indemnity in lieu of a part of the find.
    Article 22.
    English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew, and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.
    Article 23.
    The Administration of Palestine shall recognise the holy days of the respective communities in Palestine as legal days of rest for the members of such communities.
    Article 24.
    The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of Nations an annual report to the satisfaction of the Council as to the measures taken during the year to carry out the provisions of the mandate. Copies of all laws and regulations promulgated or issued during the year shall be communicated with the report.
    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.
    Article 26.
    The Mandatory agrees that, if any dispute whatever should arise between the Mandatory and another Member of the League of Nations relating to the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the mandate, such dispute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation, shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice provided for by Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
    Article 27.
    The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.
    Article 28.
    In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the mandate, including the rights of public servants ,to pensions or gratuities.
    The present instrument shall be deposited in original in the archives of the League of Nations and certified copies shall be forwarded by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to all Members of the League.

  8. The first part of your post is the exact same as the blog you wrote claiming “this is the most important political message I’ve posted.”

    I suggest you go look over that again and look at my comments [well the ones that weren’t censored in what i can only describe as Nort Korean-esque communism] you can find it here

    http://www.christiansforzion.com/comment-chris-proudlove/2013/1/14/san-remo-treaty-legitimizes-israels-right-to-holy-land.html

    Next you simply post up the mandate without pointing out which parts are relevant to your case nor indeed do you attempt to make any case at all.

    “Your erroneous comment that I proved Mike Fryer lied needs removing. There are libel laws you know.”

    So sue me!

    Ps I would be grateful if you could post your comments in the appropriate place. Thanks.

  9. I’ll expand to my above comment. But first two further querstions.

    1] Can you confirm that you have read, in full, the Howard Grief book that you recommend i read?

    2] Can you now explain the findings of the ICJ regarding San Remo/the mandate. I remember before that you said you wished that “the courts would revisit” the treaty and i’m just wondering if perhaps you’ve mentioned that elsewhere and someone told that the ICJ had “revisited” the treaty and you now refuse to accept their findings?

    As for my queries about your above post.

    “4. Sovereignty over Palestine was vested in the Jewish people.

    5. The Jewish people became the national beneficiary, based on self-determination, even though most of the Jews had not yet returned to their Land, because of their historical connection to it.”

    Can you explain how you come to the conclusion that “Sovereignty over Palestine was vested in the Jewish people.”?

    And can you explain how you come to the conclusion that “The Jewish people became the national beneficiary, based on self-determination”?

    Could you also give me your explanation on the UN charter article 80?

    Thanks.

  10. Also. Would it be fair to observe the following given that you constantly claim the San Remo treaty is “irrevocable”.

    The partition plan was illegal under the terms of the mandate and therefore when the Zionists agreed to the plan they were agreeing to an unlawful act.?

    Israel acted unlawfully when it declared independence and acknowledged its boundaries?

    And therefore, according to your claim that the San Remo treaty is “irrevocable” that the state of Israel is in fact in violation of the terms of the San Remo treaty and mandate?

    I would just like to point out that none of the above is my position but it is, seemingly, even though unwittingly, your position, Chris?

  11. Christopher Proudlove

    I’m researching the matters raised

  12. Christopher Proudlove

    You have my email address, Trevor. Please send me your address and telephone number and my legal representative will be in touch.

  13. “I’m researching the matters raised”

    What! The questions i have posed for you are central to your claims. Are you trying to tell me that you, a man who has been spouting off about San Remo for the past few years, doesn’t even know the basic and fundamental points to back up your claims?.

    “You have my email address, Trevor. Please send me your address and telephone number and my legal representative will be in touch.”

    Please make your comments/requests in the appropriate threads.

    Thank you

  14. Christopher Proudlove

    The Churchill White Paper endorses Israel’s claims, Trevor. I’m laughing out loud at your ignorance. The MacDonald White Paper has no legal significance but it shows how the treacherous British politicians had reneged on Balfour.

  15. Christopher Proudlove

    I’m still waiting for your full name and address Trevor. It is no use contacting my legal representative without these details Trevor. Why are you prevaricating? If you do not furnish me with the details it shows you are running scared and not prepared to stand by your remarks.

  16. Christopher Proudlove

    Trevor accuses me of not knowing the basics of the San Remo Treaty but has repeatedly posted them on his website! We are all laughing out loud now!

  17. “I’m still waiting for your full name and address Trevor. It is no use contacting my legal representative without these details Trevor. Why are you prevaricating? If you do not furnish me with the details it shows you are running scared and not prepared to stand by your remarks.”

    Please make your requests in the proper blog. If you continue to post comments in the wrong section I WILL DELETE THEM. You will however be able to re-post your comments in the appropriate section.

    As for you your weak and pathetic attempts at intimidating and bullying me…well it’s not working and this is why you wont post up your requests in the proper place.

    Back on topic. “Trevor accuses me of not knowing the basics of the San Remo Treaty but has repeatedly posted them on his website! We are all laughing out loud now!”

    I keep having to repeat myself because you blatantly refuse to answer my questions and as previously explained to you, i will keep asking until you answer. Once you’ve answered we can then move on.

    you cant even confirm or deny that you have read Howard Grief’s book.

    So i’ll repeat my questions once again.

    1] Can you confirm that you have read, in full, the Howard Grief book that you recommend i read?

    2] Can you now explain the findings of the ICJ regarding San Remo/the mandate. I remember before that you said you wished that “the courts would revisit” the treaty and i’m just wondering if perhaps you’ve mentioned that elsewhere and someone told that the ICJ had “revisited” the treaty and you now refuse to accept their findings?

    Can you explain how you come to the conclusion that “Sovereignty over Palestine was vested in the Jewish people.”?

    And can you explain how you come to the conclusion that “The Jewish people became the national beneficiary, based on self-determination”?

    Could you also give me your explanation on the UN charter article 80?

    Thanks.

    Ps As you can clearly see my “remarks” still stand so i think that answers fully whether i’m “running scared or not.

  18. Christopher Proudlove

    1) I have not yet acquired a copy, but it comes highly recommended. I have written about Grief’s contribution before.
    2) The item you posted was only advisory and lacked the full weight of an International Court of Justice deliberation. My latest post on the http://www.christiansforzion.com website cites a binding ruling from the ICJ’s predecessor confirming Israel’s legitimacy.
    3) The above blog explains how the sovereignty over Palestine (the western bit) was vested in the Jewish people.
    4) Britain was given the mandate by the League of Nations to nurture Jewish participation in the Holy Land until Jews were ready to rule themselves. Having failed in this task the mandate was taken over by the United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations. The UN gave the go-ahead for Jewish rule in November 1947. Israel thus became a self-governating nation on May 14, 1948, and a full member of the United Nations a year later. In a despicable action, several Arab states rebelled against the UN and declared war on Israel hoping to “strangle” the Jewish state at birth. By God’s grace the Muslim nations were defeated but they have continued their annihilation rhetoric and periodic military attempts to defeat Israel which again were failures.

  19. Christopher Proudlove

    As far as I can see UN Charter article 80 no longer applies to Israel as it has been a full member of the international body since 1949.

  20. Christopher Proudlove

    ISRAEL’S LEGITIMACY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

    EUROPEAN statesmen in the 18th,19th and 20th centuries, including Britain’s Lord Palmerston, Lloyd George and Napoleon Bonaparte of France, favoured the rebirth of a Jewish nation. (Barbara Tuchman, Bible and Sword; England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour Ballantine Books, 1984, p337).
    In 1908 Winston Churchill called for a Jewish state. The “lifelong Zionist” saw the establishment of a “strong, free Jewish state” as a “notable step toward harmonizing disposition of the world among its people.” Churchill was later even more explicit. He stated: “It is manifestly right that the scattered Jews should have a national centre and a national home and be reunited and where else but in Palestine with which for 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated? We think it will be good for the world, good for Jews, and good for the British Empire, but also good for the Arabs who dwell in Palestine … They shall share in the benefits and progress of Zionism.” (The Question of Palestine, New York: Vintage Books, 1992 ed.) How prophetic!
    American Methodist minister the Reverend William Blackstone petitioned the U.S. government to restore Palestine for the Jewish people. He argued that the Jews had never given up their title to the land of their ancestors after being expelled by Roman force. Rather than being forced to convert to Islam during the Arab conquest of the Middle East, Jews also left their ancestral homeland. Blackstone was supported by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, a future president, William McKinley, and many other influential American 19th century figures. (David Brog: Standing with Israel; Why Christians Support the Jewish State, Lake Mary: Front Line, 2006, pp 99-101).
    Alan Dershowitz’s book The Case for Israel quotes a leading Zionist, Nachum Sokolov, telling a Cairo newspaper in 1914 that Arabs should view the Jewish refugees as fellow Semites “returning home” and together they could both prosper.
    In 1917 the Balfour Declaration of the British Government called for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. Jews who had warmed to Theodor Hertz’s call for a Jewish state at the end of the 19th century were delighted. Pogroms were still rife in Eastern Europe and the reconstitution of a Jewish state in the Holy Land was in line with their dreams and aspirations.
    The Republic of Turkey, successor to the defeated Ottoman Empire after the First World War, renounced rights to all territories the country once held. The Zionist Organization asked the victorious Allied powers to “recognize the historic title of the Jewish people to Palestine and the right of the Jews to reconstitute in Palestine their National Home.” They explained that they had been driven out of their ancestral homeland by violence and for centuries had never ceded their rights to the Holy Land. This claim was recognized by San Remo Conference of 1920 and in the British Mandate for Palestine.
    Those who say that the words “national home” did not mean a fully-fledged state are mistaken. This is made clear by the U.S. position at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference: “It will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish state as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.”
    In the same year U.S. President Woodrow Wilson said: “I am persuaded that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundation of a Jewish commonwealth.” In 1922, the U.S. Congress resolved that a “national home for the Jewish people be established in Palestine.”
    Churchill noted that the substance of the Balfour Declaration had been reaffirmed in several binding multi-national treaties, as well as the League of Nations mandate itself, and was “not susceptible to change.” San Remo thus became a matter of binding international law.
    The League of Nations did not create new rights for Jews, but acknowledged a pre-existing right which had not been forfeited by Jewish people or suspended by international law after successive empires ruled the Holy Land for 1,800 years. The Permanent Court of Justice, a forerunner of the International Court of Justice, declared the creation of a Jewish national home, including Jerusalem, was an “international legislative act.” (Douglas Faith, William V O’Brien, Eugene V Rostow, Israel’s Legitimacy in law and History, New York: Centre for Near East Policy Research), 1993).
    Emir Faisal, who would later become king of Iraq, commented at the Paris Peace Conference that the Arab deputation regarded the Zionist Organization’s proposals as “moderate and proper.” He added: “We will do our best, so far as we are concerned, to help them through; we wish the Jews a hearty welcome home.” (Esco Report, p 143). Faisal wanted one huge Arab state and a Jewish Palestine to emerge from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. He wrote to Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann that “all necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale.”
    In accordance with U.S. wishes, the victorious allies were not going to colonise the Levant but set up new sovereign states. Regions that were not ready for self-government were to be temporarily administered by British and French Mandates. Britain was given the responsibility of setting up the institutions of government in Palestine ready for Jewish self-rule.
    Palestine thus became a legal entity for the first time not just a geographical area. The Balfour Declaration was incorporated into international law and the Mandate granted sovereignty over Palestine to the Jewish people even though most of the world’s Jews lived elsewhere.
    The Jewish state draws on these legal declarations for its legitimacy which were approved unanimously by the 51-member League of Nations.
    The League approved the British plan to create the new Mandate territory of “The Trans-Jordan Province of Palestine” in September 1922. Now known as Jordan, it gained its independence in 1946. The territory to the east of the River Jordan covered 78% of the old Palestine. The rest of Palestine, including the Gaza Strip, was earmarked for the future state of Israel.
    It is interesting to note that the Jews embraced the name of Palestine. They were happy to be known as Palestinian Jews. Arabs called themselves Southern Syrians. Since Israel’s independence, however, the Palestine Post has become The Jerusalem Post.
    The independent State of Israel was restored at the end of the British Mandate on May 14, 1948. This fulfilment of the San Remo agreement was set in stone a year later when the Jewish state was granted membership of the United Nations.
    So, when you hear of Israel “illegally occupying” Judea and Samaria (known as the West Bank from 1951) it is not so. Israel calls the West Bank “disputed territory” because it has not formally annexed this part of its ancient homeland, apart from its ancient capital of Jerusalem.

  21. Pingback: Lying For Zion | christiansforzionwatch

  22. Roger

    STATE or HOMELAND?
    Apart from the plethora of lies on this page.
    Let me upset you all by STATING Facts about the term Reconstitute.

    1/
    There WAS a “Jewish Homeland” under the Persians, the Greeks , the Romans.
    (note that sovereignty was NOT JEWISH)

    According to the supplementary white papers explaining San Remo …..There WAS to BE a Jewish Homeland under the Palestinians sovereignty UNTIL ZIONIST Jews lost patience & forced the 1947 PP.

    The ONLY time since Solomon there was a Jewish sovereignty was under the reprobate Hellenistic Hasmoneans …And the lasted ONLY 47 years.

    All the Rest of the time The Jews were UNDER the THUMB & were under subjection.

    Inconvenient facts I KNOW!

    Don’t worry — I am a Christian.

    I know what you are thinking —- God didn’t plan for Jews in the San Remo plan to be under Subjection EVER again.

    Think AGAIN!!!

  23. Hi, Roger. It would be most helpful if you could list the plethora of lies .

    Thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s