Report of the Intelligence section of the American Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, Jan 21, 1919

Report of the Intelligence section of the American Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference,
Jan 21, 1919

Introduction

The following draft report was prepared by the intelligence section of the American delegation to the Paris peace talks. The report seems to leave no doubt that insofar as the Americans are concerned, that the intent of the Mandate given to Great Britain in Palestine was to foster creation of an independent Jewish state, despite the ambiguity of the wording of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate itself, which refer to a "national home:"

... and being further assured that it will- be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as the reconstituted Jewish state as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.

The borders were understood to include those on a proposed map that included Mount Hermon in the Golan Heights, which was later given to Syria:

As drawn upon the map, the new state would control its own source of water power and irrigation, on Mount Hermon in the east to the Jordan; a feature of great importance since the success of the new Jewish state would depend upon the possibilities of agricultural development.

 This is not the map presented by the Zionist delegation, which was put before the conference in February, postdating this report.

The recommendations below apparently ignored the negative report of the King Crane commission, 

This understanding of the borders of the Mandate and of the conditions under which it was granted as the precursor of a reconstituted Jewish state, may be used in gauging the later faulty behavior of the British, specifically the Churchill White Paper of 1922 which seems to deny statehood to the Jews, and the White Paper of 1939, which limited Jewish immigration in order to ensure an Arab majority in Palestine.

Outline of Tentative Report and Recommendations of the Intelligence Section of the American Delegation to the Peace Conference, in accordance with instructions, for the President and the Plenipotentiaries, January 21, 1919

{ David Hunter Miller, My Diary at the Conference of Paris, Vol. iv, pp. 263-264.}

                                            26. Palestine.

It is recommended:

1) That there be established a separate Jewish state of Palestine.

2) That this Jewish state be placed Under Great Britain as a mandatory of the League of Nations.

3) That the Jews be invited to return to Palestine and settle there being assured by the Conference of all proper assistance in so doing that may be consistent with the protection of the personal (especially the religious) and the property rights of the non-Jewish population or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country and being further assured that 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.

4) That the holy places and religious rights of all creeds in Palestine be placed under the protection of the League of Nations and it]s mandatory.

Discussion.

     1) It is recommended that there be established a separate Jewish state of Palestine.

The separation of the Palestinian area from Syria finds justification in the religious experience of mankind. The Jewish and Christian churches were born in Palestine, and Jerusalem was for long years, at different periods, under different occupiers and historically the capital of The Land of Israel. And while the relation of the Mohammedans to Palestine is not so intimate, from the beginning they have regarded Jerusalem as a holy place. Only by establishing Palestine as a separate Jewish state can justice be done to these great facts.

     As drawn upon the map, the new reconstituted Jewish state would control its own source of water power and irrigation, on Mount Hermon in the east to the Jordan; a feature of great importance since the success of the new Jewish state would depend upon the possibilities of agricultural development.

 2) It is recommended that this reconstituted Jewish state be placed under Great Britain as a mandatory of the League of Nations.

Palestine would obviously need wise and firm guid­ance. Its population is without political experience, is racially composite, and could easily become distracted by fanaticism and bitter religious differences.

The success of Great Britain in dealing with similar situations, her relation to Egypt, and her administrative achievements since General Allenby freed Palestine from the Ottoman Empire; all indicate her as the logical mandatory.

3) It is recommended that the Jews be invited to return to Palestine and settle there, adding to the existing Jewish population and being assured by the Conference of all proper assistance in so doing that may be consistent with the protection of the personal (especially the religious) and the property rights of the non-Jewish population, and being further assured that it will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a reconstituted Jewish state as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.

 It is right that Palestine in its entirety should become the reconstituted Jewish state, if the Jews, being given the full opportunity, make it such. It was the cradle and home of their vital race for over 3,600 years, which has made large spiritual contributions to mankind, and is the only land in which they can hope to find and rebuild the home of their own; they being in this last respect unique among significant peoples.      .

At present, however, the Jews form barely a tenth of the total population of 700,000 in Palestine, and whether they are to form a majority, or even a plurality, of the population in the future state remains uncertain. Palestine, in short, is far from being a Jewish country now. England, as mandatory and trustee, can be relied on to give the Jews the deserved privileged position they should have without sacrificing the rights of non-Jews.

 4) It is recommended that the holy places and religious rights of all creeds in Palestine be placed under the protection of the League of Nations and it’s mandatory. .The basis of this recommendation is self-evident.

The Real Story of How Egypt Expelled Its Jews

Israel Bonan and his family on vacation in Alexandria, Egypt, 1950's Israel Bonan

Opinion Our Passports Were Stamped 'Exit, With No Return': The Real Story of How Egypt Expelled Its Jews

Eyal Sagui Bizawe’s article accused Mizrahi Jews of exaggerating their suffering to buy their way into the 'Jewish persecution narrative'. Putting his ridicule and venom aside, he is simply and factually wrong. Here's my story

Israel Bonan

08.10.2017 | 17:27

4 comments

My name is Israel Bonan, and I live in the United States. I was born in Egypt, and so were both my parents. In 1967, while the Six Day War was raging between Israel and Egypt, I was jailed for being a Jew, and deported - rather, expelled, with a passport stamped "Exit with No Return."

According to Eyal Sagui Bizawe (Can we Talk about 'The Expulsion of the Jews'?) there's something illegitimate, even suspect, about my biography, and that of many other Egyptian Jews. In his words, "It’s not even clear a full-fledged expulsion happened."

Related Articles

• Jews Were Expelled From Egypt. But Can We Talk About 'The Expulsion of The Jews?'

• The Story of the Exiled Arab Jews

Even as a self-declared non-historian, Mr. Bizawe has a curiously cynical perspective on events that are well within living memory.

He charges his own kith and kin of deliberate exaggerations; of slanting the Mizrahi narrative with borrowed terminology, just to gain acceptance to the collective narrative of Jewish persecution.

His central claim is that "it’s indisputable that most of Egypt’s Jews were not expelled." More claims: Jews in Egypt were not expelled because they were Jews. In 1948, they were expelled for being Zionists or Communists. In 1956, they were expelled for being French or British citizens. There were still Jews in Egypt in the 1960s, and Jews who wished to leave left at their own convenience. Don’t suggest there was a targeted expulsion of "Egyptian Jewry," when members of other communities were expelled as well.

In response to Mr. Bizawe’s request to hear firsthand accounts, and to set the historical record straight, I’d like to offer my own narrative. 

Let’s start with the terms we use.

Bizawe is vexed by what he claims is the co-option of the language of the Holocaust and of Palestinian narratives (pogroms, concentration camps, Nakba) to describe the persecution of Mizrahi Jews.

When I started speaking out about this issue, I labored over how I should refer to organized riots targeted against the Jewish community. Lo and behold, that is the definition of pogrom. I used both designations, riots and pogroms, though pogrom was much more readily understood by most audiences. 

But Bizawe's beef isn't only linguistic. Apart from mocking the use of the word pogrom, he goes a step further - he questions whether these pogroms were directed at Jews at all, and he cites the 1952 Cairo riots. "[Regarding T]he 1952 Cairo riots known as the Cairo fire, it’s difficult to state that it was a clearly anti-Jewish event."

View of the remains of the burnt out 'Cicurel', Cairo's biggest department store, in Cairo, Egypt, Jan. 26, 1952. AP

Indeed, the 1952 Cairo riots had nothing specifically to do with the Jews of Egypt, though the rioters still didn’t miss a beat and burned and looted many Jewish department stores that day (to wit, the Cicurel department store, pictured burned in Bizawe's article). Bizawe needed to look elsewhere - the Cairo and Alexandria riots from 1945 (on the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration) to 1948 (the establishment of the State of Israel).

Between those years, riots and targeted bombings of the Jewish community and Jewish businesses resulted in 108 unprosecuted deaths, injuries in the hundreds, and the looting and razing of over 200 Jewish businesses.  

The author also takes issue with the use of the term "concentration camps" to refer to detention camps, which is his preferred "non-European" terminology. "Detention camps": three meals a day, a private bathroom and shower, a fluffy bed and pillow, conjugal visits... 

Mr. Bizawe, these were jails, and some of these jails were hard-labor jails, where some four dozen Jewish inmates slept in a single cell head-to-toe.

Hard-labor jails, where "exercising" was mandatory: running in circles while being whipped and chanting anti-Israel slogans. Jails where, in front of the Jewish inmate collective, a brother was ordered to undress and sodomize his own brother in front of their father, who almost died of a heart attack on the spot. Jails where fathers, brothers, and sons denied their relationship to each other, lest they suffer similar consequences.

Next, the author takes issue when Mizrahi Jews from Egypt refer to their ordeal as Nakba, an Arabic word denoting a calamity. 

While I can understand using the term to convey the point of Mizrahi Jews' suffering to a possible audience in the Arab world, and Palestinians in particular, I personally cringe whenever I hear the term in conjunction with the Mizrahi experience. 

A calamity is only a calamity when your response to it is to accept victimhood; we, the Mizrahi Jews, did not accept passive victimhood. We survived the trauma and prospered, with the help of many, including the help of Israel, too. Our expulsion was an emancipating moment for us.

Israel Bonan and his siblings as children in Cairo, 1950s Israel Bonan

Finally, Mr. Bizawe’s denouement: that in the case of the Jewish community of Egypt, it was not "a full-fledged expulsion."

Sure, the author opines, some were expelled, some suffered, but was it really the same kind of expulsion as that of Spanish Jewry, the author asks?

 "We can imagine rows of hooded soldiers gathering Egyptian Jews in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and giving them two options: convert to Islam or be expelled. Or even not giving them the choice but expelling them all. But such an event simply never occurred."

Putting aside the vulgar and unworthy lack of empathy, the ridicule and venom, what is the definition of the word expulsion? A common definition would be: “The process of forcing someone to leave a place, especially a country.”

A process usually entails more than one step to accomplish a purpose.

So, what was the process used to expel the Jews and other minorities from Egypt? These steps spanned many years, promoted by successive governments all marching to the same tune: "Egypt for the Egyptians". 

The process follows the same template of Nazi Germany, and of all forms of fascism. Loss of citizenship rights and protection, loss of jobs in the private and public sectors, no prospect for future employment, dispossession of assets, death, and expatriation/expulsion. 

Jewish girls seen in an undated photo during a bat mitzvah ceremony in Alexandria, Egypt. Wikipedia

In 1929 Egypt enacted a nationality law that stripped the great majority of Egyptian Jews, who’d lived in Egypt for centuries, of their nationality and their citizenship rights and protection. This law forced the Jews of Egypt to outright seek such protection from foreign governments by proving plausible lineage to those countries, or to remain stateless.

In case Mr. Bizawe misses the significance of that law, it implied that the majority of the Jews were not to be considered Egyptians, because of their religion.

In 1947 Egypt enacted the Company Law, which mandated Egyptian citizenship for 90% of employees and 70% of management in any private or public company. The Company Law, in one fell swoop, denied most Jews, as well as Armenians, Greeks, and other ethnic minorities, of their livelihood.

This one-two punch is a true example of economic ethnic cleansing; first you declare they are non-Egyptians, and then you restrict work in the public and private sectors to Egyptians only. After that, Jews quickly learned they would never find a job. 

Once again, in case Mr. Bizawe misses the significance of that law: Greeks and Armenians were targeted for their nationality, but Jews for their religion.

In 1954 Egypt enacted the Nationalization Law, stripping Jews and even well-to-do Egyptians of their businesses, and nationalizing their assets. 

With the rise of Arab nationalism and the onset of the UN partition debate over Palestine, the political environment in Egypt grew progressively more hostile toward the Jewish community. Mr. Bizawe ignores the significance of the final incarceration and expulsion of Jewish adult males in 1967.

Israel Bonan and his siblings as teenagers in Cairo in the early 1960s Israel Bonan

Did the Mizrahi Jews "leave of their own volition"? My sister left Egypt first, to be betrothed; my brother followed a year later, after he finished his engineering studies; and I had one month left before I could earn my own engineering degree and, together with my elderly parents, join my siblings. 

What is "of our own volition?” History is about cause and effect: the laws and measures taken left us with no option but to leave. 

It is worth noting that our plans for leaving were interrupted, because I was jailed, together with all Jewish males of roughly 18 to 55 years of age; to a person, we were expelled, after having spent anywhere from a few days to more than three years in jail - straight from jail to ship or plane.

Mr. Bizawe makes much ado of the fact that Jews "were also not the only ones expelled." Shortly after the Jews of Spain were forced to choose between conversion/expulsion or death, Muslims also shared a similar fate, by having to choose between conversion/expulsion or enslavement. Does that negate the "expulsion of Spanish Jewry" in his estimation?

Beside Jews, the other minorities who were also expelled never had to stay a day in a "detention camp" or hard-labor jail, or do any forced "calisthenics"; that was reserved exclusively for the Jews of Egypt. 

Did the remainder of the Jews of Egypt who were not expelled outright but left from 1948 to 1967 "leave of their own volition", with less than ten dollars per person in their pockets?

Expulsion, whether it is active expulsion (gun to head) or passive expulsion (squeezed out), is still expulsion by any other name. Did they "leave of their own volition"?

Cairo's Maimonides Synagogue in 2006: Finally, Egypt is 'rid' of its Jews Roland Unger, Wikimedia

The Jews of Egypt saw the writing on the wall. Having no jobs, no money, no prospects, with the rest of their extended families expelled or still in jail, would they still wish to stay, and were they allowed to? 

Unfortunately, in certain cases (elderly Jews who did not rate imprisonment), yes on both accounts; some stayed and died in their "homes" in Egypt, because the trauma of being displaced, and of leaving the known for the unknown, was too much for them to bear, especially in their old age. 

Nowadays, the Jewish community is but a handful of women over 80 years of age; finally, Egypt is rid of her Jews.

Mr. Bizawe, I assume you never experienced torture, jail, or abuse; you earn your own living, nobody took your assets away when you reached middle age, forcing you to start a new life, in a new country, with a few dollars in your possession, while leaving of "your own volition"; you never had to worry, as a refugee would, about your children’s future...This list is too long and, yes, depressing to enumerate.

I don’t wish any of it on you. No one deserves to see their parents age ten years in one day; no one should have to be humiliated and persecuted for who they are: a Jew. 

Make no mistake: We, the Mizrahi Jews, are not victims. We are survivors. Our stories need to be told, and we most certainly don’t need a reason or a lie to seek admission to any collective Jewish suffering club.

Israel Bonan, born in Egypt and expelled in 1967, lives in the U.S. and worked in computer design and database application consulting and until retirement, as an adjunct professor at Simmons College. 

Trending Now

'Exit, With No Return': The Real Story of How Egypt Expelled Its Jews

Expert: Arab-Palestinian state an existential danger to Israel

Expert: Arab-Palestinian state an existential danger to Israel

Leading US researcher states 'Arab-Palestine' is liable to endanger Israel much more than third Intifada will increase danger of nuclear war.

The "state of Arab-Palestine” presents a far greater threat to Israel than a third Intifada or persistent terrorism. This threat, which would further exacerbate the area’s correlation of forces, is potentially existential. Under certain circumstances, Arab-Palestinian statehood west of the Jordan River could meaningfully enlarge the prospects of both mega-terror attacks and regional nuclear war, warns Prof. Louis René Beres of Purdue University, expert on nuclear strategy.
In an article published on the Begin-Sadat (BESA Center) website, he explains that examining the subject in depth shows that the danger to Israel from a Arab-Palestinian state is far greater than is generally stated, and that it may be existential.
However, he pointed out, the actual danger is indirect - as in the case of a disease that is not serious enough to kill a person, but weakens it in such a way that other diseases can kill it. However, he said, it is also possible that a Arab-Palestinian state would pose a mortal danger in itself, but would implement the danger in a piecemeal manner.
According to Beres, since any Arab-Palestinian state will be created at the expense of the State of Israel, Israel will weaken as a result of the agreement, while the Arab-Palestinian entity will be strengthened. On the basis of Arab-Palestinian actions, declarations and positions over the years, there is no escaping the conclusion that in this situation, the Arab-Palestinians will continue their terrorist activities and terrorism will expand in scope.
As for the fear of a third Intifada, he wrote, it makes no sense for Israel to encourage its adversaries to become an even more organized and powerful entity, because such an entity could cause Israel greater damage. For example, it could attack the reactor in Dimona. Beres notes that polls conducted by the Arab PA found that most of the residents there support the armed struggle against Israel.
According to Beres, the establishment of a Arab-Palestinian state would reduce Israel's strategic depth, which is limited in any case.
As a result, Israel will have to react more strongly and immediately to any threat from Arab countries, whether it is a conventional or an unconventional threat. This will increase the risk of deterioration into non-conventional war. Beres also argues that "Arab-Palestine" could turn into an ISIS state or a disintegrating Syrian-style state.

The British objectives in ‘mentoring the revival of a national home for the Jewish people’ under the Mandate for Palestine were not based solely on the 1917 Balfour Declaration (which was approved by many nations, prior to Britain’s official Declaration). While international support for the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was set in motion by this landmark British policy statement, international intent rested on a solid consensus, expressed in a series of accords and declarations that reflected the ‘will’ of the international community, hardly the product or whim of a colonial empire with its own agenda.
(Napoleon in 1799 offered the Jewish community in Palestine aka The Land of Israel to reconstitute the Jewish State in Palestine as a French protectorate)
The Mandate itself notes this intent when it cites that the Mandate is based on the agreement of the Principal Allied Powers and declares:
“Whereas recognition has therefore been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country” [italics by author] with no restrictions as to the boundaries. There was also the January 1919 Faisal Weizmann Agreement.
A June 1922 letter from the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, Winston Churchill, reiterated that:
“…the [Balfour] Declaration of 1917 [was] re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at the April 1920 San Remo and again in the August 1920 Article 95 in the Treaty of Sevres … the Jewish people … is in Palestine as a right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historical connection.”
In the first Report of The High Commissioner on the Administration of Palestine 1920-1925 to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, published in April 1925, the most senior official of the Mandate for Palestine, the High Commissioner for Palestine, underscored how “international guarantee[s]” for the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine aka The Land of Israel were achieved:
“The Declaration was endorsed at the time by several of the Allied Governments; it was reaffirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo in April 1920; it was subsequently endorsed by unanimous resolutions of both Houses of the Congress of the United States; it was embodied in the Mandate for Palestine approved by the League of Nations in 1922; it was declared, in a formal statement of policy issued by the Colonial Secretary in the same year, ‘not to be susceptible of change’; and it has been the guiding principle in their direction of the affairs of Palestine aka The Land of Israel of four successive British Governments. The policy was fixed and internationally guaranteed.”
**It is also important to note that after WWI the Arabs/Muslims received over 13 million sq. km. of territory with a wealth of oil reserves, excluding Palestine. At the same times the Jewish people were allocated about 120,000 sq. km. but today they have about 21,000 sq. km. The world at large also ignores that the Arab Muslim countries terrorized and expelled over a million Jewish families who lived there for over 2,800 years and confiscated all their assets, including personal property, businesses, homes and over 120,000 sq. km. of Jewish owned Real Estate for over 2,600 years (which is 6 times the size of Israel and valued in the trillions of dollars, they also took over 77% of Jewish territory east of the Jordan River which is Jordan and expelled the Jews). Most of the million expelled Jewish families were resettled in Israel, and today comprise over half the population.
YJ Draiman

The San Remo Conference of 1920 was an international meeting held following the conclusion of World War I that determined the precise boundaries for territories captured by the Allies.

The conference, attended by Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan- with the United States as a neutral observer, was held in San Remo, Italy, in April 1920. The conference was a continuation of a previous meeting between these Allied powers that had been held in London in February 1920, where it was decided, among other things, to put Palestine under British Mandatory rule. At San Remo, the Allies confirmed the pledge contained in the Balfour Declaration concerning the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine as an international law and guarantee.
The British delegation to San Remo was headed by Prime Minister David Lloyd George and Lord Curzon, who had replaced Lord Balfour as foreign minister in 1919. Balfour, however, was also present at the conference as a consultant for final settlement issues. At both meetings the French expressed many reservations about the inclusion of the Balfour Declaration in the peace treaty, and it was only after the exertion of British pressure and the U.S. that they were gradually were persuaded to agree to it.
The San Remo Conference was also attended by Chaim Weizmann, Nahum Sokolov, and Herbert Samuel, who presented a memorandum to the British delegation on the final settlement in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The article concerning Palestine was debated on April 24 and the next day it was finally resolved to incorporate the Balfour Declaration in Britain's mandate in Palestine. Thus Britain was made responsible as trustee "for putting into effect the declaration made on the 8^th [sic.] November 1917 by the British Government and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people; 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." (Which the Arab countries violated consistently and expelled over a million Jewish families and confiscated all their assets).
The resolution at San Remo of April 1920 which issued international recognition and guarantee of reconstituting the Jewish Homeland in Palestine with no restrictions on boundaries was celebrated by mass rallies throughout the Jewish world.

Balfour Declaration, the British government’s letter of support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. (Which emulated Napoleons 1799 letter to the Jewish community in Palestine promising that The National Home for The Jewish people will be reestablished in Palestine, as the Jews are the rightful owners). Furthermore was declared as having the force of International Law in the April 1920 San Remo Conference by the Supreme Allied Powers and confirmed in Article 95 Treaty of Sevres on August 1920.There no allocation of territory to any other entity.

“We find these joys to be self evident: That all children are created whole, endowed with innate intelligence, with dignity and wonder, worthy of respect. The embodiments of life, liberty and happiness, children are the original blessings, here to learn their own song. Every girl and boy is entitled to love, to dream and belong to a loving “village.” Thus, to pursue a life of purpose.
We affirm our duty to nourish and nurture the young, to honor their caring ideals as the heart of being human. To recognize the early years as the foundation of life, and to cherish the contribution of young children to the human evolution.
We commit ourselves to peaceful ways and vow to keep from harm or neglect these, our most vulnerable citizens. As guardians of their prosperity we honor the bountiful Earth whose diversity sustains us. Thus we pledge our love for generations to come. ”

Political Rights in Palestine aka The Land of Israel were granted only and exclusively to the Jews

October 31, 2013  |  Eli E. Hertz            

"Neither customary international law nor the United Nations Charter acknowledges that every group of people [Arab Palestinians included] claiming to be a nation has the right to a state of its own." [1]

The Mandate for Palestine, a legally binding document under international law, clearly differentiates between political rights – referring to Jewish self-determination as an emerging polity – and civil and religious rights, referring to guarantees of equal personal freedoms to non-Jewish residents as individuals and within select communities. Not once are Arabs as a people mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine. At no point in the entire document is there any granting of political rights to non-Jewish entities (i.e., Arabs). Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine explicitly states that the Mandatory should:

“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.”

Political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed by the League of Nations in four other mandates – in Lebanon and Syria [The French Mandate], Iraq - which amounted to millions of sq. km. of land with a wealth of oil reserves and later Trans-Jordan [The British Mandate]. Political rights in Palestine were granted to Jews only.

International law expert Professor Eugene V. Rostow, examining the claim for Arab Palestinian self-determination on the basis of law, concluded:

“The mandate implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favor of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land. Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Minister, made this reading of the mandate explicit. There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent ‘natural law’ claim to the area.”

[1] See Eugene V. Rostow, The Future of Palestine, Institute for National Strategic Studies, November 1993. Professor Rostow was Sterling Professor of Law and Public Affairs Emeritus at Yale University and served as the Dean of Yale Law School (1955-66); Distinguished Research Professor of Law and Diplomacy, National Defense University; Adjunct Fellow, American Enterprise Institute. In 1967, as U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, he became a key draftee of UN Resolution 242. See also his article: “Are Israel’s Settlements Legal?” The New Republic, October 21, 1991.

P.S.

Kaiser Wilhelm II's 1895 drawing 'Nations of Europe
Wilhelm wrote in 1898 that he had always been interested in the 'basic idea' of a Jewish state in Palestine. Now he was convinced that the settlement of the Holy Land by the wealthy and hard-working nation of Israel would soon bring to the former unsuspected prosperity' --- a blessing which could spread to produce a significant economic revival in Asia Minor. That in turn would restore the financial fortunes of Turkey, and so the sick man of Europe would be sick no more.
In addition, the energy, creativity and efficiency of the tribe of Sem would be diverted to worthier goals than the sucking dry [Aussaugen] of the Christians, and many an oppositional Semite now supporting the Social Democrats would go off to the East, where there is more rewarding work to be done ... Now I realize [the Kaiser explained] that nine-tenths of all Germans would recoil in horror if they were to discover that I sympathized with the Zionists or would even, as I intend to do if asked, place them under my protection.
But he, Wilhelm, had his defense ready: 'Our dear God knows even better than we do that the Jews helped kill Our Savior, and he has punished them accordingly. But neither the anti-Semites nor others, myself included, have been asked or empowered by Him to bully these people after our own fashion in majorem Dei Gloriam!' One must remember the Christian exhortation to love one's enemies, the Kaiser exclaimed. And besides, 'from an earthly, realistic political standpoint it should not be forgotten that, considering the immense and extremely dangerous power which international Jewish capital represents, it would after all be of huge advantage to Germany if the world of the Hebrews looked up to it in gratitude?! The Sultan's unexpected objection put a quick end to Wilhelm's plan for a German Protectorate of a Jewish state in Palestine; 

Herzl meets the German Kaiser

“Herzl leaves Vienna secretly and travels to Turkey and Palestine in order to meet with the German Kaiser Wilhelm II, who is touring the East. He plans to recruit the Kaiser to influence the Turkish Sultan to seriously consider the proposals of the Zionists.

On October 18^th, Herzl meets with the Kaiser in Istanbul and lectures him on the need to settle the Jews in Palestine. The Kaiser makes comments that could be interpreted as anti-Semitic. In spite of this he tells to Herzl: “Tell me in one word: what should I demand from the Sultan?” Herzl replies: “A franchise company [that will accept Eretz Israel] with German backing.”

Late October – early November, the German Kaiser Wilhelm II arrives in Palestine, the high point being his visit to Jerusalem. Herzl is visiting Jaffa, the southern settlements and Jerusalem at the time. He meets the Kaiser twice: on October 28 at the gate of Mikve Israel and on November 2 in Jerusalem. The Kaiser makes no promises.”

Could an Arab-Palestinian State in Israel ever be acceptable? - YJ Draiman

A second Arab-Palestinian State (Jordan is the first), especially in Israel (west of the Jordan River), is not viable; not even in theory.  There is nothing to debate. The past 70 years has proven that the Arab culture and mentality is not conducive to coexistence with its own people, much less with the Israelis.

If there is to be peace for Israel, and thus, the entire Middle East, it is imperative that Israel has a total crushing victory over its enemies.

Reviewing all the efforts Israel has tried in the past seven decades in trying to give the Arabs concessions upon concessions has only returned more terror, violence, suicide bombing and encouragement to continue the terror and violence. The PLO and Hamas Charter state explicitly that they must fight Israel’s Occupation and all of Israel belongs to the Arabs. Thus, they consistently incite the Arab population to acts of terror and violence; actually educating their children to hate and kill Jews. 

Examining the facts of what has taken place in Gaza since Israel withdraw its forces in 2005 proves that the Arabs do not want peace and instead of using their resources to build an economy and improve the lives of their people, the terrorist organizations who run Gaza use these resources to build attack tunnels, purchase weapons, rockets, missiles and other war making instruments and supplies and attack Israel. All the while taking a section of Gaza and turning it into luxury enclave for their leadership, while the rest of the population lacks the basic necessities to survive, which they blame on Israel. 

Gaza is nothing more than a terrorist entity promoting terror and violence against Israel and all Jews. No other country in the world would allow such a terrorist organization to exist within their borders. 

An examination of the devastating effect on Europe and the U.K. from the Arab immigrants from the Middle East and the steps being taken by those countries to rectify the problem proves the above factual statement.  Perhaps those countries should set-up an Arab-Palestinian State within their borders.

The situation in other Arab/Muslim countries is no different with some minor exceptions. About 400,000 Arab-Palestinian were employed and living in Kuwait.  After the 1991 Gulf war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, the Kuwaitis expelled the Arab-Palestinians due to their support of Saddam Hussein. If other Arab countries refuse to create a State for fellow Arabs, why should Israel be forced to create a State for the Arab-Palestinians?

Historical facts show Arab countries, are in support of the Arab-Palestinian agenda, they lost four wars against Israel since 1948. Now these same Arab countries and the Arab League are using the illusion and deception that they want peace which can only be achieved by creating an Arab-Palestinian State in Israel.  With this insidious and deceptive approach they have managed to gain more in concessions than all their wars, and receive billions of dollars in financial support. These concessions by Israel and the financial support from nations of the world and the U.N. which the Arab-Palestinians continue to use to promote terror, killings and endless daily acts of violence against innocent Jews of Israel. They defraud and deceive the world by not using all the funds for the betterment of all the Arab-Palestinians.

The Arab-Palestinians and their supporters are waging war against Israel under the guise of a “peace process”.          

The solution to the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli confrontation lies not in more painful concessions, but by reversing all those concessions by Israel. 

The only true solution is for Israel to impose its' will and crushing the enemy so it cannot continue to wage terror and violence.  It should not, and cannot be ignored that the ultimate goal, the dream of Arab-Palestinians is to eliminate the Jewish state.  They have openly stated such and should be considered a declaration of war against Israel.   

“If someone comes to kill you, you must preempt him/them and kill him/them first”.

What Israel needs is the world at large to mind its own problems, they have enough of their own and let Israel resolve the Arab-Palestinian problems without outside interference whatsoever.  

Ironically, allowing Israel to put an end to the terrorist acts of the Arab-Palestinians is the best thing that could happen to the Arab-Palestinians population.  It would liberate them from their destructive obsession and allow them to begin constructing their own polity, economy, society, and culture with the ultimate goal of becoming self-sufficient. 

Israel must have all the territory west of the Jordan River. It is legally and historically Jewish territory which was guaranteed by the Supreme Allied Powers as part of an international agreement after WWI.  At the same time the Arabs were allocated over 13 million sq. km. (6 million. sq. mi.) with a wealth of oil reserves, plus they took over 77% of Jewish allocated land of Palestine and established the new Arab State of Jordan east of The Jordan River.  The new State of Jordan immediately expelled all the Jews and confiscated all their assets.  

Furthermore, other Arab countries also terrorized and expelled over a million Jewish families who now reside in Israel and comprise over half the population.  These are the very same Jewish refugees from Arab countries which the Arabs confiscated all their assets including, personal assets, businesses, homes and over 120,000 sq. km. (46,332 sq. mi.) of Jewish owned Real estate for over 2,600 years.

It is going to be a monumental achievement to relocate the Arabs in Israel to Jordan and/or to other Arab countries.  However, it is a known fact that after WWII over 100 million refugees were resettled in various countries so it can be done.  However, by relocating the Arabs in Israel to the homes and land confiscated from the million expelled Jewish families is more than a fair exchange. Arab refugees being returned to Arab countries to replace the Jewish refugees wrongfully and forcefully expelled.  This would be a peaceful solution to the unending war being waged against Israel.

Another solution would be for the total and crushing defeat of all Arab-Palestinian organizations by Israel which would mark the beginning of the end of the wider Arab and Muslim war on Israel. 

YJ Draiman

THE BASICS OF OUR LEGAL RIGHTS
ISRAEL IS NOT AN “OCCUPIER”
Will you remain silent while the PA continues to tell lies?
• They are used to advance the BDS movement.
• They promote the rights of the PA Arabs to a state in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem (j-s-j).

Until now, these lies have not been consistently refuted by Israel. Use the information below to effectively counter these damaging and false charges.

The following claims are made:
• In 1967 Israel conquered Judea and Samaria and part of Jerusalem from the Kingdom of Jordan, which held legal jurisdiction over the territory.
• This was/and is “Palestinian Arab” territory.
• The Laws of Occupation apply to Israeli presence in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem (j-s-j).
• The settlements are illegal.

Each of these assumptions is incorrect:
Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem are part of the area designated by the Mandate for Palestine for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish People only. That status of the land has not changed.
The Mandate – enacted in international law by the League of Nations and assigned to Great Britain – was predicated on the Balfour Declaration and preceded by the San Remo Conference.
Article 80 of the UN charter, 1945, assured that the rights inherent in the Mandate were not abrogated or altered because of the demise of the League of Nations and its succession by the UN.
Contrary to popular opinion, there was no legal decision made in 1947 to ‘partition’ the land called Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. There was merely a recommendation by the UN General Assembly (Resolution 181). The Arabs refused to accept this and Judea and Samaria then remained, without change, part of the territory that the Mandate for Palestine had established for a Jewish homeland.
Jordan’s entry into Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem in 1948 as part of an offensive military action was illegal. Jordan’s annexation of this land was in contravention of international law.
Israel took this land from Jordan in 1967 during a defensive war, which makes its actions legal. The areas that Israel took control of during the Six Day War in 1967 were not part of any other legal sovereignty. They were stateless areas that had in any case been designated for the Jewish People by the Mandate for Palestine.
The Laws of Occupation apply to a situation in which territory is taken from another state. Since Israel did not take land from a sovereign state, the laws do not apply to Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem. The injunctions and restrictions that lawfully might be placed on an occupying nation are not relevant to Israel’s presence in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem.
The claim that Israel’s presence in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention is frequently used to bolster the argument that Israel is an occupier. However, there is a very solid body of legal opinion – including that of the International Red Cross – that concludes that the Convention was drafted to address situations of coercive transfer of population, such as that practiced by the Nazis. This is not remotely connected to Israel’s settlement policy.

The charge is made frequently that Israel must “return” to its legitimate “pre-1967 border.” The line – often called the Green Line – was not a border, however: It was an armistice line. The 1949 armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan defined this ceasefire line as temporary, saying that a final border would be established via negotiations. Those negotiations were never held.
Security Council Resolution 242 (which is non-binding with no legal standing), passed in 1967, did not require Israel to return behind the Green Line, but instead recognized Israel’s need for secure borders. No pullback by Israel was called for until after negotiations had determined the final border. Those negotiations, which would have been with Jordan, were never held. (Note: Jordan officially relinquished all claims to Judea and Samaria in 1988.)
There was no mention of a Arab “Palestinian People” or a Arab “Palestinian State” in Resolution 242. There has never been a Palestinian State and Judea and Samaria in no sense belong to the Arab Palestinians.
The claim that the Arab Palestinians are entitled to a state is purely a political and not a legal argument.

Therefore:
The settlements are not illegal.
Israel is not an occupier in Judea-Samaria or Jerusalem.