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of unforgiveable ignorance by the FO it is plain wickedness for them, and other countries, to pretend that San Remo is no longer applicable.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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).”
“The state of Israel was created as a result of the Balfour declaration in 1917 and ratified by San Remo conference five years later.”
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.”
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,
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.”
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.”