The Relationship of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel Rabbi David Rosen

The Relationship of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel

Rabbi David Rosen

When anti-Israel rhetoric increases, one inevitably comes across new attempts to minimize the Jewish connection with the Land of Israel and impugn thereby the very existence of a Jewish state.  Paradoxically this sometimes comes from certain Christian quarters, when one would have thought that anyone with even a cursory familiarity with the Hebrew Bible (that Christians refer to as the Old Testament) would be familiar with the bond between the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the Promised Land.  Yet even where this historical relationship is acknowledged, it is often argued that this bond was something of the distant past and bears no relevance let alone justification for the contemporary context.

However, contrary to anti-Zionist propaganda, the return of the Jewish people to its ancestral homeland did not begin just a half a century ago, following the Holocaust, nor even a hundred years ago with the advent of modern Zionism.  For the past almost twenty centuries, ever since their expulsion from Palestine by the Romans (70 C.E.), Jews have striven continuously to reestablish their bond with the Land of Israel, although the foes of the Jewish people did their best to obliterate the Jewish connection with the Land.  Indeed, the Romans introduced the name Palestina in order precisely to erase the usage of the name Judea, just as they renamed Jerusalem, Aelia Capitolina.

Spiritually, the Jewish people never left the Land.  Even in exile, Jews the world over turned to Jerusalem in prayer as they continue to do today.  These daily prayers and grace after meals which Jews have recited over the centuries are replete with references to the restoration of and return to Zion.  The solemn service for the Day of Atonement, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, concludes with the words “Next year in Jerusalem.”  At the end of their day of fasting and communion with God, Jews the world over throughout the generations, reaffirmed their hope for a “return” to their Homeland, not at some indefinite date in the remote future, but “next year.”  This affirmation was similarly made at the conclusion of the Passover meal.

Indeed the liturgy and religious observances of Judaism are closely bound up with the physical aspects of the Land of Israel – the produce of its soil and the course of its seasons.  On the Feast of Tabernacles, the festival of the harvest ingathering, which comes at the start of the “rainy season” in Israel, Jews wherever they may dwell, recite prayers for rain.  On Passover, when the “dry season” begins in the Holy Land, Jews from Alaska to Australia beseech God to bless the Land of Israel with life-giving morning dew.

It is accordingly evident to anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Jewish religion, that the attachment of the Jewish people to their ancestral land has transcended both time and space.

But if all this is so, the opponents of the Jewish State demand, why did the Jews stay away from Palestine for so many centuries?  While it is certainly true that many chose to remain in exile; the neglect of the land by successive conquests over the ages and the hazards of travel, made repatriation a precarious option.  Nevertheless, as late as the seventh century of the Common Era – six centuries after the conquest of the country by Rome – there were in Palestine a sufficient number of Jews to give material help to the invading Persian armies.  Even after the conquest of the country by Arab tribes some two decades later, the Jews of the Holy Land remained strong enough to be a factor of significance during the Crusades of the eleventh and twelfth centuries.  The mere recorded historical fact of the Crusaders’ slaughter of the Jews of Jaffa, Ashkelon, Caesarea and Jerusalem, is ample proof that there was a substantial Jewish presence in Palestine theretofore. 

Throughout the centuries, each persecution and expulsion in the Diaspora brought a new influx of Jews to the Holy Land.  The Spanish exile of 1492 was followed by a wave of repatriation to the Land of Israel, and in fact, by an attempt to establish an independent Jewish entity in the Galilee in the sixteenth century.  This “state” was to be ruled by Don Joseph Nasi, Duke of Naxos and Cyclades.  During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, great popular messianic movements involving entire Jewish communities in the European Diaspora, sent masses of Jews on their way to the land of their fathers.  There have even existed some settlements in the Galilee where Jewish families lived uninterruptedly for two millennia, such as the village of Pekiin, tracing their origins back to the first century of the Christian era.

Anti-Israel propagandists suggest that during the whole period of Jewish exile, there was some kind of continuous local non-Jewish rule.  This of course could not be further from the truth. 

The first exile by the Babylonians lasted only half a century and was followed by a period of Israelite autonomy under Persian and then Greco-Syrian rule, until the Maccabean revolt in 165 B.C.E.  Jewish independence was subsequently reestablished and maintained until the Roman conquest, destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70 C.E. and subsequent exile of the majority of the Jewish population.  However thereafter, the Holy Land was subject to continuous foreign conquests.

Byzantine rule came to an end in 638 with the Arab invasion of Palestine.  The rule of the Caliphates however, came to an end in 1071, followed by Turkish Seljuk rule.  The Crusader conquest in 1099 was followed by Ayyubid rule in 1187, Mameluke (Albanian) rule in 1260, and Ottoman conquest in 1516.  The Turks ruled for the lengthy period of exactly four hundred years and were replaced by the British in 1918 until the establishment of the State of Israel.

Thus, since the end of Jewish Hasmonean rule, during the whole period of recorded history, Palestine was never ruled by the local inhabitants.

At the beginning of the British Mandate there were in the whole of Palestine 557,000 Arabs (both Moslems and Christians) and 84,000 Jews.  Only 30% (some 186,000) of these Arabs lived in the area which is now the State of Israel.  The Arab population increased rapidly during the Mandatory period, in direct relationship to the increase of Jewish population.  Palestine, which was an area of Arab emigration prior to 1922, suddenly became a locale for Arab immigration.  The principal cause was the Jewish settlement which improved the general conditions (e.g. Moslem infant mortality which was 19.6% in 1922 declined to 14% by 1939).  Between 1922 and 1939 the resident non-Jewish population of Palestine increased by 75.2%.  During the inter-war period there was an increase of 375,000 in the Jewish population in Palestine and 380,000 in the non-Jewish population in Palestine.  Moreover, the Arab increase was greatest wherever Jewish development was most marked.  Thus, in Haifa the Arab community increased by 216%, in Jaffa by 134%, and in Jerusalem by 97%.  All these were within the area of Jewish development.  On the other hand, where there was no Jewish settlement, in Nablus, for example, the Arab increase was only 42%; Jenin 40%, Hebron 40%, Bethlehem 32%, Beit Jalah 23%.

The following statistics regarding the faith communities in Jerusalem from the middle of the nineteenth century, demonstrate the preponderance of the Jewish population in the city already well before the rise of modern Zionism as well as thereafter.

Year	Jews	Moslems	Christians	Source
1844	7,120	5,000	3,390	Encyclopedia Britannica
1896	28,112	8,560	8,748	Calendar of Palestine
1905	40,000	7,000	13,000	Encyclopedia Britannica
1922	33,971	13,413	14,699	Chambers Encyclopedia
1939	80,850	27,000	26,000	Colliers Encyclopedia
1944	97,000	29,000	31,000	Chambers Encyclopedia
1948	100,000	40,000	25,000	Z. Vilnay, Jerusalem – The Old City, 1962
1967	195,700	54,963	12,646	Israel Central Bureau of Statistics

It is interesting to see that the Christians constituted even a larger group than the Muslims in most of the second half of the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries.

Among some of the most unfounded claims of Israel’s enemies that have recently been made, is the assertion that at the end of the nineteenth century Palestinian Arabs lived in 90% of the land.  However anyone who knows anything about geography knows that even in the most densely populated areas, human beings do not occupy ninety percent of land.  More pertinent, however, is a reading of Mark Twain’s account of his visit to the Holy Land that makes it clear how little of the land was actually populated at all.  Moreover, Jewish purchase of arable land was limited by the major owners of such, who were overwhelmingly absentee Arab landlords who leased the land to local peasants.  Not for nothing therefore, were most kibbutzim built on drained swamp land and desert and Israel’s largest city was erected on the sand dunes north of Jaffa!  Notable are the statistics provided by the Christian journalist Terrence Prittie, who in his book on the Israel-Arab conflict (p. 120) writes that in all of Palestine in 1945 there were just over 1.1 million Arabs, roughly 650,000 of them in areas that subsequently became part of Israel.

Nevertheless, the evident and overwhelming unique Jewish historical attachment to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, does not mean that the attachment of Palestinian Arabs to this land should be ignored.  Precisely because two peoples do live in and are attached to the land, we need to find the way to enable both the local Arab and Jewish populations to enjoy national self determination with dignity and security.  Sadly we could have already been there in 1947.  As a result of the Arab refusal to accept the United Nations proposed partition that would have allowed two states to live alongside each other and instead the launching of all-out war against Israel; the local Arab Palestinians bore the brunt of the conflict.  Indeed perhaps the greatest tragedy of the Palestinian people has been their leadership and that of the Arab world, which time and again has encouraged fantasies of destroying Israel and has rejected the opportunities for compromise.

Those anti-Israel propagandists who seek to deny the continuous bond and relationship between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel, only play into this delusion which just encourages the violence that has boomeranged on the Palestinian population and continues to prevent them from seeking the compromise that can provide them and their children with a decent future of dignity, sustenance and security.

The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law and Treaties - Draiman

The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law and Treaties

With The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law (Mazo Publishers, Jerusalem) Canadian-born Israeli constitutional scholar and lawyer Howard Grief has given us a book that shatters every myth, lie, misrepresentation and distortion employed over the 61 years of Israel’s existence to negate the sovereign rights of the Jewish People to their national home.
It is a lengthy treatise – 660 pages plus a 50-page appendix – but the Jewish people’s long and tortuous struggle to retrieve their stolen patrimony deserves nothing less than full disclosure. Anyone who has ever been at a loss to counter the slanders and calumnies that are the stock in trade of the Israel-bashers and anti-Semites on both the Left and Right will treasure every one of its 20 illuminating chapters.

Rooted in the premise that the best antidote to a myriad of small and medium sized fabrications is the exposure of the whole cloth from which they’ve been woven, The Legal Foundation lays bare two dominant myths that have shaped popular perspectives on Israel. The first is the fallacy that Jewish sovereignty over the land of Israel was the joint product of the 1947 United Nations Partition and the May 15th, 1948 termination of the British Mandate for Palestine.
In fact, as Grief points out, Jewish sovereignty in Palestine had been validated under international law 28 years earlier.
“The legal title of the Jewish People to the Mandated territory of Palestine in all of its historical parts,” he informs us, was first recognized on April 24, 1920 when the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council (Britain, France, Italy and Japan), meeting in San Remo, Italy, “converted the 1917 ‘Balfour Declaration’ into a binding legal document.” This was confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne.
How “binding” may be construed from the fact that its wording gave effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and became incorporated into the Mandate for Palestine.
Indeed, the “San Remo Resolution,” within which the Allied Supreme Council’s decision is contained, constitutes what the author terms “the foundation document of the State of Israel, the legal existence of which is directly traceable from that document.”
That the Jewish People were unable to exercise their sovereignty in Palestine for 28 years – it being assigned to the British Mandatory power as their de facto agent – did in no way detract from their ‘de jure’ rights to the land under international law during that interregnum.
In this thesis, Grief is ironically supported by both a passionate Zionist, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis and one of Zionism’s most implacable opponents, post World War I British Foreign Secretary Lord George Nathaniel Curzon.
Brandeis believed that with the passage of the San Remo Resolution, the debate over who owned Palestine was effectively over. Curzon called the Resolution the “Magna Carta” of the Jewish People.
From the initial miss-attribution of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine to the 1947 Partition Plan rather than the 1920 San Remo Resolution, it was just a hop and a skip to a second major miss-representation of Israel’s international legal status – the erroneous assumption that the Partition Plan and the May 1948 termination of the British Mandate somehow erased the Jewish People’s rights to Palestine in all its historical parts and dimensions enunciated at San Remo, and implemented under the terms of the League of Nations Covenant.
Those “parts and dimensions” were defined inter alia, as including the
northwestern portions of the Golan and most of present day Jordan by the “Franco-British Boundary Convention” in Paris.
The presumptive cancellation of those rights, Grief submits, is thoroughly discredited by “the principle of acquired rights,” codified in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the “Law of Treaties,” and the “doctrine of estoppel.”
The first, he asserts, insures that “the fundamental rights of the Jewish people did not lapse with the international process which brought them into existence. The second further guarantees that these rights cannot simply be abrogated or denied by those states which previously recognized their existence.”
Taken together, they provide what the author terms a “definitive answer anyone who claims that Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty over all of Palestine and the land of Israel did not continue after the end of the Mandate for Palestine…except in the allotted boundaries of the UN Partition Plan…”
Noteworthy among the states that wholeheartedly endorsed Jewish sovereignty over Palestine in all its “historical parts and dimensions” was the United States of America – the same U.S.A that today regards Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria as an illegal “occupation” of lands upon which it favors the creation of a Palestinian State.
The Obama administration and the Bush administration that preceded it are either unaware or have chosen to be unaware of the fact that the 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine made the U.S. a “contracting party” to the Mandate, further reinforcing a unanimously passed Joint Resolution of the 67th Congress two years earlier, signed by President Warren G. Harding, recognizing a future Jewish State in “the whole of Palestine.”
It needs to be borne in mind, Grief notes, that the Mandate for Palestine that was ceremoniously incorporated into U.S. law in 1924 “was a constitution for the projected Jewish state that made no provision for an Arab state and which especially prohibited the partition of the country.”
Thus, he concludes, the fierce exception the U.S. has taken to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and its unremitting pressure for creation of a “Palestinian State” amount to a repudiation of its signature to the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine. It is in violation of American law and America’s obligations under international law.

The Jewish heart and mind is eternally connected to Jerusalem and Israel for thousands of years.- YJ Draiman

The Jewish heart and mind is eternally connected to Jerusalem and Israel for thousands of years.

“For over three thousand years, Jerusalem has been the center of Jewish hope and longing. No other city has played such a dominant role in the history, culture, religion and consciousness of a people as has Jerusalem in the life of Jewry and Judaism. Throughout centuries of exile, Jerusalem remained alive in the hearts and prayers of Jews everywhere as the focal point of Jewish history, the symbol of ancient glory, spiritual fulfillment and modern renewal. This heart and soul of the Jewish people engenders the thought that if you want one simple word to symbolize all of Jewish history, that word would be ‘Jerusalem.’ ”

“Every Jew has a spark in his soul from the light of God above that illuminates his way during difficult times. And when it seems to him that he is lost and that there is no way out, the spark flares and lights his way. This is the little jug of oil that is revealed in time to save the Jew in times of despair and to light up his life in desperate times.” The Jewish people liberation and return to Jerusalem in 1967 fulfilled part of the Jewish aspirations and the completion will be when the Jewish Temple is rebuilt.

How many holidays do the Arabs celebrate due to historical events in the land of ancient Israel. The Jewish people celebrate most of their holidays and fast days in memory of and the goal and aspiration to return to Israel and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem – where it was before it was destroyed and desecrated by the enemies of the Jews. Many of the Jewish prayers for thousands of years recite the love of Israel and the Jewish aspirations to return to their ancestral land and bring back its glory and holiness. In our daily blessing after meals we thank G-d and pray to return to Jerusalem to build the Temple.

In a Jewish wedding, they break a glass in memory of Jerusalem and the aspiration of the Jewish people to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Jewish Temple.

Every day at the end of the meal the Jews recite a blessing and thank G-d for providing sustenance and beseech G-d to return and rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
Most Jewish prayers mention our pleading to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple.
YJ Draiman

Jerusalem Temple Mount Guide 1925
Click here for the 1925 Temple Mount Guide
http://www.raptureforums.com/IsraelMiddleEast/guide.pdf
One of the most disturbing end times propaganda being promoted today is the absurd notion that the Jews never had a presence on the famous Temple Mount area in Jerusalem. Anyone who is knowledgeable about history and aware of the recent archaeological discoveries on the Temple Mount area over the years knows that the propaganda being perpetuated by the Islamic's, United Nations, and other ungodly organizations is simply a political ploy to deny the Jews their historical capital of Jerusalem and the sacred Temple Mount area. The Temple Mount area is the holiest place in Judaism and the remnants of the Second Temple area visible in the form of the "Wailing Wall" where religious Jews flock from around the world in order to pray near the site of the First and Second Temples.
Some of the outstanding quotes from the official Temple Mount Guide are as follows:
"The site is one of the oldest in the world. Its sanctity dates from the earliest times. Its identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings" (2 Samuel 24:25).

Supreme Moslem Council: Temple Mount is Jewish

The widely-disseminated Arab claim that the Temple Mount isn't Jewish has been debunked - by the Supreme Moslem Council (Waqf), in a 1925 pamphlet.

 

 

Link to 1925 Waqf Temple Mount Guide noting that the First and Second Jewish Temples were located on the Temple Mount

Click here for the 1925 Temple Mount Guide
http://www.raptureforums.com/IsraelMiddleEast/guide.pdf

Israel Draiman ·  Top Commenter · Elected Official at City of Los Angeles

Link to 1925 Waqf Temple Mount Guide noting that the First and Second Jewish Temples were located on the Temple Mount

http://www.templeinstitute.org/1925-wakf-temple-mount-guide.pdf
For Jews, the Temple Mount is the holiest place in the world. The Jewish connection to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount originates in the biblical narrative, as it is said to be the location of the binding of Isaac.[2] The Talmud, Judaism’s supreme canonical text, says that the foundation stone on the Temple Mount is the location from which the world was created.[3] In Samuel II 24:18-25, King David bought the bedrock for the Temple from Araunah the Jebusite. Subsequently, Solomon, David’s son, used the bedrock to build the First Temple.[4] Solomon’s Temple was eventually destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon in 586 BCE.
Link to 1925 Waqf Temple Mount Guide noting that the First and Second Jewish Temples were located on the Temple Mount

For Jews, the Temple Mount is the holiest place in the world.
Following the destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon’s Temple, many Jews were sent into exile. However, under the Persian King Cyrus, the Jews were allowed to return and began to rebuild the Temple. The Second Temple was completed in 516 BCE and expanded by King Herod in 19 BCE. In 70 CE, the Roman Empire, led by Emperor Titus, laid siege to Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple. Jews have maintained an unbreakable connection to Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount since that time.

Today, Jews follow a number of different customs in remembrance of their fallen Temple. When Jews pray, they pray toward Jerusalem. Within the daily liturgy, there are numerous calls for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple. During the week, after meals, Jews recite a grace, which includes the recitation of Psalm 137 (“If I forget thee, O Jerusalem…”).[5] At the end of a wedding ceremony, the groom breaks a glass, which signifies the Jewish people’s continued mourning over the Temple’s destruction. In addition, many have the custom of leaving a wall in their home unfinished in remembrance of the destruction. All of these customs play a significant part in the Jewish connection to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, which former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated “represents the purist expression of all that Jews prayed for, dreamed of, cried for, and died for in the two thousand years since the destruction of the Second Temple.”[6] In addition to the customs and ideology, the Jewish connection to the Land of Israel and Jerusalem is internationally recognized.[7]

ISLAMIC LITERATURE AND THE TEMPLE MOUNT

Classic Islamic literature also recognizes the existence of a Jewish Temple and its importance to Judaism. This makes Arab-Palestinian Temple Denial all the more puzzling.

In Sura 17:1 of the Koran, the “Farthest Mosque” is called the al-masjid al-Aqsa. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn,[8] a well-respected Sunni exegesis of the Koran from the 15th and 16th centuries, notes that the “Farthest Mosque” is a reference to the Bayt al-Maqdis of Jerusalem.[9] In Hebrew, the Jewish Temple is often referred to as the Beyt Ha-Miqdash, nearly identical to the Arabic term. In the commentary of Abdullah Ibn Omar al-Baydawi, who authored several prominent theological works in the 13th century, the masjid is referred to as the Bayt al-Maqdis because during Muhammad’s time no mosque existed in Jerusalem.[10] Koranic historian and commentator, Abu Jafar Muhammad al-Tabari, who chronicled the seventh century Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, wrote that one day when Umar finished praying, he went to the place where “the Romans buried the Temple [bayt al-maqdis] at the time of the sons of Israel.”[11] In addition, eleventh century historian Muhammad Ibn Ahmad al-Maqdisi and fourteenth century Iranian religious scholar Hamdallah al-Mustawfi acknowledged that the al-Aqsa Mosque was built on top of Solomon’s Temple.[12]

This is a small sample of the Islamic literature attesting to the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount. Innumerable other writings from other faiths attest to this fact, as well.
Link to 1925 Waqf Temple Mount Guide noting that the First and Second Jewish Temples were located on the Temple Mount

http://www.templeinstitute.org/1925-wakf-temple-mount-guide.pdf

Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People: From the San Remo Conference (1920) to the Netanyahu-Abbas Talks - Draiman

Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People: From the San Remo Conference (1920) to the Netanyahu-Abbas Talks


Dr. Joshua Teitelbaum, September 15, 2010
Filed Under:   Diplomacy - Peace Process,  World Jewry

No. 579      September-October 2010
 According to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the real root of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians had been their ongoing refusal to recognize “the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in their historic homeland”, and the continued terror and violence and he has singled out this issue as a key “prerequisite for ending the conflict.” Netanyahu’s proposal puts back on the global agenda a fundamental Jewish national right that was once axiomatic but today is rarely mentioned.
 Ninety five years ago at the San Remo Conference following World War I (April 1920), the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers determined the allocation of the Middle Eastern territories of the defeated Ottoman Empire and decided to incorporate the 1917 Balfour Declaration supporting a Jewish national home in Palestine into the British Mandate for the territory, a move which confirmed international recognition of the right of Jewish self-determination.
 The language adopted at San Remo was a triumph for Zionism, which saw a national solution to the problem of the Jews been dispersed and persecuted in the Diaspora. It recognized the existence of the Jews as more than individuals who subscribed to a certain religion – Judaism – but rather as a corporate group deserving of national expression, in this case in the form of a national home. And this home was to be in Palestine, the ancient historical homeland of the Jews. The language agreed upon at San Remo was, as British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon put it, “the Magna Carta of the Zionists.” It was clear at the time that the term “national home” unequivocally meant a state.
 Jewish self-determination was part of a process that ended up decolonizing the Middle East in an effort that led to Arab as well as Jewish independence. Repeated recent associations of Israel with colonialism – an a historical canard that erases the millennia-long association of Jews with the Land of Israel as an indigenous people for over 3,000 years– ignores the benefit that Zionism actually brought to the Arabs through the process of decolonization. The British Peel Commission Report of 1937 was quite clear on this. Indeed, it was the return of the Jews to the their historical Land of Israel that gave critical mass to a distinct and unique Palestinian identity as well.
 The Jews have been brought back into history through the re-establishment of the State of Israel. This was accomplished with the aid of international institutions which recognized the justice and importance of Jewish national self-determination. These institutions accepted the validity of Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jews. Today, those who deny the Jewish right to national self-determination, more than 65 years after the founding of Israel, engage in a new kind of anti-Semitism.
In his June 14, 2009, address at Bar-Ilan University in which he accepted the principle of a demilitarized Palestinian state, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly emphasized an important Israeli requirement for a final peace agreement: Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. For Netanyahu, this was not a precondition for negotiations. But, according to his analysis, the real “root of the conflict” between Israel and the Palestinians had been their ongoing refusal to recognize “the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in their historic ancestral homeland.” He thus singled out this issue as a key “prerequisite for ending the conflict.”1

The recognition of the right of the Jewish people to their ancestral homeland is not a new idea. It actually has long historical roots going back in recent history to 1799 when Napoleon Bonaparte was battling forces in Accre , Napoleon at that time sent a formal letter to the Jews on April 20, 1799 - TO THE RIGHTFUL HEIRS OF PALESTINE-ISRAEL, offering Palestine as a homeland to the Jews under French protection, this event and other such events, of which, unfortunately, have been forgotten in much of the public discourse on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Indeed, the denial of this right has been part of the international campaign to challenge Israel’s very legitimacy. For that reason, it is critical to reemphasize the international, legal, and historical foundations of this idea in order to challenge the current discourse of intentional false delegitimization and restore the fact of Jewish self-determination as an internationally-accepted norm. Thus, Netanyahu’s proposal is important for reasons that go beyond the peace process, for it puts back on the global agenda a fundamental Jewish national right that was once axiomatic but today is rarely mentioned.

Historical Roots of the Internationally-Recognized Right of Jewish Self-Determination
Ninety Five years ago at the San Remo Conference in Italy following World War I (April 1920), the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers (Great Britain, France, and Italy) and the U.S. as associate power, determined the allocation of the Middle Eastern territories of the defeated Ottoman Empire. At San Remo it was decided to incorporate the 1917 Balfour Declaration supporting a Jewish national home in Palestine into the British Mandate for the territory, a move which confirmed international recognition of the right of Jewish self-determination in the place known to the Jews historically as the Land of Israel (in Hebrew, Eretz Yisrael).
While some have viewed the mandate system as a continuation of British and French colonialism, the Mandates were temporary by design and eventually gave way to Arab and Jewish independence. Indeed, the Mandate system could be viewed essentially as a move toward decolonization and deoccupation (U.S. President Woodrow Wilson certainly saw it as such), 2 a step on the way to returning much of the Middle East to its indigenous peoples and freeing them from the Ottoman colonizers-occupiers who had ruled for 400 years.
Ironically, the peace process of recent decades, which revived the unworkable idea of a two-state solution which would allow the fulfillment of both Jewish and Palestinian self-determination, has also resurrected the idea of a one-state solution (the Arabs already have a new state on the east bank of the Jordan river which is 78% of the Palestine Mandate territory, originally allocated to the Jewish people) – a move which in time would bring about an Arab majority in the land, thus ending Jewish self-determination. Although the supporters of a one-state solution or a Palestinian “right of return” may drape their ideas in the cloth of human rights, in effect they would be denying the Jewish people their fundamental right of self-determination, which included the resettement of the million Jewish families expelled from Arab countries. Beyond the great injustice this would bring upon the Jewish people, it would most certainly not bring about peace. Those truly and sincerely concerned with peace and stability should support self-determination for both peoples in two states, as decided by the Mandate for Palestine which divided Palestine, East of the Jordan river the Arab state of Jordan and West of the Jordan river the Jewish State of Israel. since in the Middle East a new one-state solution west of the Jordan river is in violation of international laws, treaties and the terms of the Mandate for Palestine and would only bring death and destruction. Think; Lebanon, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan – not Switzerland.
The Lead-Up to San Remo
By the time the San Remo Conference convened in April 1920, the Allies had already made some progress regarding the disposition of Ottoman territorial possessions. The British had become convinced of the desirability of a post-war British Palestine, but still needed to convince the French, since this contradicted the terms of the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 which determined that Palestine was to be under international control. The best way for the British to gain French support was first to convince them to support a Jewish national home in Palestine, which was achieved in June 1917.3 As a result of this diplomacy, the Balfour Declaration was issued on November 2, 1917. French acquiescence to British rule in Palestine was a result of the realities brought about by British military successes in the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire and Palestine in particular – in which the French played practically no role at all.4
The Covenant of the League of Nations, which was approved by the Paris Peace Conference in April 1919 and later incorporated in the Treaty of Versailles, signed on June 28, 1919, recognized the mandate system of “tutelage” and gave international validity to it in Article 22 of the Covenant.5 But the nature of the mandates and who would be the actual mandatory powers was negotiated between the victorious powers, Britain and France, who first met in London during February 12-24, 1920. The London conference, and the San Remo meeting which followed in April 1920, were aimed at establishing an Allied consensus prior to signing a treaty with the Ottoman Empire, which would become known as the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres superseded all previous agreements and treaties (and which would eventually be replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne with Turkey).

At San Remo Conference; Britain, France, Japan, and Italy, with the United States observing, met from April 18 to April 26, 1920, as the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers to discuss the Mandates and the future of the Middle Eastern territories of the recently defeated and now defunct Ottoman Empire. Britain was represented by Prime Minister David Lloyd George and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Lord George Nathaniel Curzon. At the table for the French were Prime Minister Alexandre Millerand and the director of political affairs for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Philippe Berthelot. The significance of what transpired at San Remo on April 24-25, 1920, has not always received the attention it deserves, for in a sense, it was at San Remo that Israel was reborn.6
On April 24, Britain and France, with Italy chairing the meeting and Japan observing, discussed the future of Palestine. The British, led by Lloyd George and Lord Curzon, were keen to have the Mandate for Palestine awarded to Great Britain, and to include the language of the 1917 Balfour Declaration in the treaty with Turkey. The French, however, were not enthusiastic, despite what the British perceived to have been prior agreement on the issue. Berthelot argued that the Balfour Declaration was a unilateral British document, and “an unofficial declaration made by one power” had no place in the treaty. Furthermore, the French wanted some recognition of their role as a custodian and protector of Christian holy sites, which the Balfour Declaration did not mention.
Lloyd George, however, would hear nothing of a French presence. Two Mandatory powers in Palestine were quite impossible, and, he threatened ominously, “it might even easily raise difficulties in regard to [Great Britain’s] relations with France.” France should let Britain handle Palestine alone and have mercy on London’s burden, since “[i]n any case the task of governing Palestine would not be an easy one, and it would not be rendered less difficult by the fact that it was to be the reconstituted national home of the Jewish people, who were an extraordinarily intelligent race, but not easy to govern.”7 The French eventually relented, reducing their demands to a stipulation in the procès verbal that the rights of non-Jewish communities would not be suspended. A draft of the article was put before the Supreme Council on April 24 and it was officially approved on April 25. In the end, the British had carried the day.
The San Remo language gave detailed content to the general provisions regarding the Mandate system as formulated in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations noted above. 
The operative paragraph reads:
The Mandatory power will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the all the other Allied Powers, in favor of the reestablishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall 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.8
The parties also agreed that France would be the Mandatory power for Syria and Lebanon, and Great Britain for Mesopotamia (later Iraq) and Palestine.9
The language with respect to Palestine adopted at San Remo is remarkable for several reasons. First, it established recognition by the Great Powers of the principle of Jewish national self-determination in their own ancestral historical land. As such, it was a triumph for Zionism, which saw a national solution to the problem of the Jewish people in Diaspora, as opposed to other proposed solutions, such as assimilation. It recognized the existence of the Jews as more than individuals who subscribed to a certain religion – Judaism – but rather as a corporate group deserving of national expression, in this case in the form of reconstituting their historical national home. And this homeland was to be in Palestine aka Israel, the ancient ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. Interestingly, the rights of the Arabs (“non-Jewish communities”) in Palestine did not include national, but only civil and religious rights.
The language is a verbatim repetition of the Balfour Declaration, with one significant change. Whereas in the 1917 Balfour Declaration, Great Britain promised to “use their best endeavors to facilitate” a Jewish national home in Palestine, at San Remo this became an operative obligation. As the Mandatory power, Britain was directly charged with “putting [the 1917 Balfour Declaration] into effect.” But most importantly, when the 1917 Balfour Declaration was first issued, it was little more than a political declaration. Once it was embedded into the San Remo Conference and adopted by the Palestine Mandate, it became “an international legislative act” by the Principal Allied Powers.10
The language agreed upon at San Remo was, as Lord Curzon put it, “the Magna Carta of the Zionists.”11 It was clear at the time that the term “national home” unequivocally meant a state. Back in 1917, three months after his declaration was issued, Lord Balfour confessed: “My personal hope is that the Jews will make good in Palestine and eventually found and rebuilt the Jewish state.”12 
U.S. intelligence recommendations drafted for President Wilson at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference had the same impression: “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.”13
In the Wake of San Remo
On April 26, 1920, acting upon instructions, British Major General Louis Jean Bols, Chief Political Officer and Chief Administrator, Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (South), announced to the heads of the communities in Jerusalem that the Supreme Council had approved a Mandate for Palestine that would probably go to Great Britain. Most importantly, he told them, “the Balfour Declaration regarding a Jewish National Home shall be included in the Turkish Peace Treaty.”14 The announcement, reported the Times, “was quietly received.”15 But in Jewish communities throughout the world, there were celebrations.16
The agreed language of San Remo was incorporated verbatim into the Treaty of Sèvres, executed by all the Supreme Allied Powers and signed with Turkey on August 10, 1920, as Article 95.17 The treaty, however, was never ratified by Turkey since the new nationalist government headed by Mustafa Kemal, the hero of Gallipoli, would have no part of the treaty due to its many clauses – unrelated to Palestine – that he considered prejudicial to Turkey. By the time a replacement treaty, the Treaty of Lausanne which added some modification relating to Turkey only, was signed with Turkey on July 24, 1923,18 the Mandate for Palestine had already been adopted and confirmed in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine of July 24, 1922.19 It went into effect on September 26, 1923.
The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine is a key document that underscores the international legitimacy of the right of Jewish self-determination in their ancestral Land of Israel, or Palestine. According to Howard Grief, this can be seen in the three “recitals” occurring in the Preamble.20 The first recital is embodied in the reference to Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, which, by implication, represents self-determination as “the well-being and development” of the former subject peoples. The second recital is the repetition of the 1917 Balfour Declaration as modified at San Remo, where Britain is charged with actually carrying out the intent of the Declaration. Finally, the third recitaland perhaps the most important recital in the Preamble recalls and notes that “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine”; it further stresses that this was “grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”21
It should be clear from the above that Jewish self-determination was part of a process that ended up decolonizing and deoccupation the Middle East, if not entirely by design. This effort led to Jewish as well as Arab independence in many states that formerly were occupied by the Ottoman Empire. Repeated recent deceptive and false associations of Israel with colonialism – an a historical canard that erases the millennia-long association of Jews with the Land of Israel as an indigenous people – ignores the benefit (even if ironic) that Zionism actually brought to the Arabs through the process of decolonization and deoccupation. The British Peel Commission Report of 1937 in Palestine was quite clear on this:
The fact that the 1917 Balfour Declaration was issued in order to enlist Jewish support for the Allies and the fact that this support was forthcoming are not sufficiently appreciated in Palestine. The Arabs do not appear to realize in the first place that the present position of the Arab world as a whole is mainly due to the great sacrifices made by the Allied and Associated Powers in the War and, secondly, that, insofar as the 1917 Balfour Declaration helped to bring about the Allies’ victory, it helped to bring about the emancipation of all the Arab countries from Turkish rule. If the Turks and their German allies had won the War, it is improbable that all the Arab countries, except Palestine, would now have become or be about to become independent states.22
With respect to the Palestinians per se, it is clear that for many years after the end of World War I, they the Arabs considered themselves part of Syria,23 although through constant contact with the challenge of Zionism, and with the independence of the Arab states, a separate Palestinian identity later developed in the 1960's.24
Indeed, it was the return of the Jewish people to their ancestral historical Land of Israel that gave critical mass to a distinct and unique Palestinian Jewish identity. If Jewish national self-determination had not been fulfilled, it is debatable if an entirely separate Palestinian nation would have emerged. The Syrian delegate raised this issue during the UN debate on the 1947 partition plan:
Palestine used to be a Syrian province. Geographical, historical, racial and religious links exist there, since hundreds of thousand of Arabs from Syria went to Palestine after WWI. There is no distinction whatever between the Palestinians and the Syrians and had it not been for the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the terms of the mandate, Palestine would now be a Syrian province [emphasis mine – J.T.], as it used to be.25
Putting Jewish Self-Determination into Action: 
The Partition of Palestine and the Admission of Israel to the United Nations.
If there were some lingering doubts in the international community about the wisdom of a reconstituted Jewish state, the German Nazi horrors of the Holocaust made abundantly clear its absolute necessity. On November 29, 1947, the United Nations, in General Assembly Resolution 181,26 agreed in violation of international treaty and the Mandate for Palestine to the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and a second Arab state,27 to share an economic union, with a special international regime for Jerusalem. The tally was 33 votes in favor, 13 against, 10 abstentions, and one absent. At the time, the fact of a Jewish nation-state was internationally accepted, and taken for granted. Jews were referred to in national terms – not just religious – throughout the UN document, as are Arabs. The term “Jewish state” is mentioned 27 times in the resolution.
Israel is both a Jewish nation-state and a democratic state. This was neither an impossible feat nor a contradiction in terms to the framers of the partition resolution, who stipulated that both the Jewish and Arab states in partitioned Palestine would have to be democratic and protect the rights of the national minority in their respective states.28 But Israel’s legitimacy as a state is not by definition connected to its democratic nature. That Israel’s democracy is imperfect – and what democracy is not – does not detract from its legitimacy. As Alexander Yakobson and Amnon Rubinstein write,
Even nations that do not maintain even a semblance of democracy are universally recognized as entitled to national independence, and even in such cases (not in fact wholly exceptional in the Middle East) no one claims that the very idea of national independence is an undemocratic one.29
Israel allowed a large national Arab minority to remain in its territory after the 1948 war. (Jordan and Egypt did not allow Jews to remain in the territory they captured [and confiscated all their assets including homes and over 50,000 sq. km. of land], which had been allotted to the Arab state authorized by the UN to come into existence in Palestine.) It naturally gave expression to the Jewish majority by using Jewish symbols in the national flag and seal, and in national culture and the designation of Saturday as the day of rest. This is no different from the many democracies that give expression to the Christian identity of their majority populations. For example, several states have Christian crosses in their flags: the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia (these actually have threes crosses in their flags); Switzerland; Norway; Finland; Denmark; Switzerland; and Greece. Pakistan and Turkey make use of the Islamic crescent in their flags, while India uses a religious symbol in its flag. Britain’s head of state, the Queen, is head of the Church of England.
The historical an ancestral connection of the Jews to the Land of Israel was clear to the international community, as manifested in the League of Nations Mandate which recognized the “historic connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and their right to reconstitute “their national home in that country.”30 UNSCOP, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine which recommended partition, clearly saw the historical connection of the Jews to the Land of Israel and its report mentions this several times.31
On May 11, 1949, the UN admitted Israel, the reconstituted Jewish state and reestablished by the 1920 San Remo International Conference as international law and treaty, and which was adopted by the League of Nations and the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the United Nations, as “a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations.”32
Europe and America: The Denial of the Legitimacy of Jewish Self-Determination is Anti-Semitic.
Not only is Jewish self-determination a right implemented by international law and treaties, just like the Arab states created after WWI and recognized by the international community for nearly a century, it has been defined as such by the European Union and the U.S. State Department in recent years, and the rejection of that right has officially been declared to be anti-Semitism and outright fraud and deception.
The EU’s European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia arrived at a “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism” in 2005. In elaborating the various manifestations of anti-Semitism, the document notes that the State of Israel is “conceived as a Jewish collectivity,” and cites as an example of anti-Semitism:
denying the right of the Jewish people to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavor.
This definition was adopted verbatim by the anti-Semitic U.S. State Department in March 2008.33
The International Legal Status of the State of Israel
In traditional international legal theory, states deserving of recognition are those which “possess a defined territory; a permanent population; an effective government; and the capacity to enter into relations with other States.”34 Israel met and continues to meet all these criteria. The fact that Israel is a Jewish state did not add to (or, for that matter, hinder) its acceptance as a legitimate state among the family of nations. It is legitimate because it meets these criteria.
The State of Israel is the legitimate expression of Jewish self-determination. This is in keeping with universal human rights, including the right to self-determination. While there are those who deny Jewish self-determination by claiming that the Jews are only a religion, this is not the position historically shared by the international community. This is because the Jews have a history and ancestral attachment to the Land of Israel and a constant yearning for a return to it, whether it is physical and contemporary, or metaphysical and anchored in messianic times.
The term “Jewish state” refers to national, not religious, identity. Most Israelis would claim they are members of the Jewish people, but are not religiously observant Jews. As Ruth Gavison admits, the relationship between Jews and Judaism is a unique one, since [n]o other people has its own specific religion. The Arab peoples, for example, comprise Christians, Muslims, and Druze. While there was a time when the French were mostly Catholics or former Catholics, they still waged religious wars with the Huguenots, and today a large number of Frenchmen are Muslim. At the same time, no other religion has a specific nationality of its own: Christians can be French, American, Mexican, or Arab; Muslims, too, can be Arabs, Persians, or African-Americans. This distinction is not merely the result of secularization: Judaism, at least from a historical perspective, has never differentiated between the people and the religion. Nor was there any belated development that altered this unique fact: Social stereotyping never allowed an individual to be a part of the Jewish people while at the same time a member of another religion; nor could one be an observant Jew without belonging to the Jewish people.35
Denying Israel’s Legitimacy: Thoughts on Root Causes
The legitimacy of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people seemed unassailable when the UN Partition Plan was approved in 1947 and the State of Israel was admitted to the United Nations the following year. What has happened to change that?
Supporters of Israel continue to be baffled by the constant barrage of Media attacks on Israel, no matter what Israel does. Sure, Israel still controls its liberated West Bank aka Judea and Samaria, and its settlement policy is controversial, but this is not for lack of trying to reach an agreement based on far-reaching and serious offers to the Palestinians (Camp David, 2000; Taba, 2001; and Prime Minster Ehud Olmert’s proposals, 2008). Yet Jerusalem seems to get no credit for withdrawals from Sinai (1982), Lebanon (2000), and Gaza (2005). In addition, clear acts of self-defense when attacked from these areas: Lebanon (2006) and Gaza (2008-2009), and defending a legal blockade against Turkish blockade runners (2010) and Operation Protective Edge in Gaza in response to thousands of rockets launched at Israel's population centers in July-August 2014, receive little sympathy from self-righteous pundits and government officials. In September 2010, TIME magazine published a cover story entitled: “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace,” just as Israel and the Palestinians re-embarked on direct negotiations, which had been delayed for a year and a half at Palestinian insistence. The article itself suggests that Israelis (read Jews) care more about money than about peace.36
Some American audiences have difficulty reconciling their notions of democratic freedom with that of Israel’s. This is because the American idea of freedom revolves around the right of the individual to be free from tyranny – foreign and domestic – while the founders of Israel, heirs to a European legacy of nationalism, conceived of freedom as the collective rights of a certain nation or people – in this case, the Jewish people. Daniel Gordis writes that while America has inspired much of the Israeli project, each country had a different founding ethos. America was about freedom as defined by breaking away from an undemocratic monarchy, designed to end “the long train of abuses and usurpations,” as stated in the American Declaration of Independence, while Israel’s Declaration of Independence is based on the Land of Israel “as the birthplace of the Jewish people.”37
Edward Said, drawing on Michel Foucault and others, taught us about the importance of narrative and discourse in the Arab-Israeli conflict.38 He was sensitive to how capturing the discourse – that nexus of language, knowledge, and power – was essential for promoting the Palestinian cause. Said and his followers have been enormously successful. Israel is often falsely cast in the role of colonialist, and words and phrases such as “occupation” and “right of return” have become politically saturated expressions with only one meaning. They then play an insidious psychological role in forming and weighting the discourse against Israel. But the law and possession is on the side of Israel. Had Israel not been standing today in the Middle East, the whole Middle east would be in Radical Islamist's hands and murder, terror, violence and mayhem would rule the region.

Certain elite circles in Europe have their own reasons for denying Israel’s legitimacy, especially the right of the Jewish people to a nation-state of their own. Daniel Hannan, a British Conservative Party member of the European Parliament, pointed out during an address in Jerusalem in early 2010 that Israel, by its very existence, challenges the intellectual basis of European integration, which seeks to supplant the old national ideal on the European continent with the European Union.
After all, Hannan argues, the EU was founded on the idea that old national loyalties are arbitrary, transient, and ultimately have been discredited since they were the cause of many of Europe’s great wars. 
In contrast, Israel, which was resurrected after 2,000 years, is the embodiment of the national ideal. If Israel was right to re-establish itself and thrive, Hannan concludes, and the national ideal is correct, then some in Europe might feel challenged that their multinational alternative was a mistake, explaining their need to attack Israel and undermine its legitimacy.39
There is something particularly galling and despicable about denying Jewish people-hood and self-determination. Identity is by definition self-defining. The Jews define themselves as a people and overwhelmingly support the embodiment of Jewish self-determination as manifested in the State of Israel. Just as there can be a Palestinian state in Jordan, since the Palestinians choose a unique identity, there can be a Jewish state. Affirming the right of the Jewish people to a nation-state, however, is not only important in the context of the Arab-Israeli peace process. It is critical for countering the forces that feel the need to delegitimize the Jewish state for their own internal political reasons.
The Jews have been brought back into history through the reestablishment of the State of Israel on its historical ancestral land. This was accomplished with the aid of international institutions which recognized the justice and importance of Jewish national self-determination. These institutions accepted the validity of Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jews. Today, those who deny the Jewish right to national self-determination, more than 65 years after the the internationally Mandated the reconstituting and founding of Israel, engage in a new kind of anti-Semitism, one that calls for the elimination of a state created by International law and treaties adopted by the League of Nations and assumed by the United Nations.
This cannot stand. The circumstances that led the international community to support the establishment of a Jewish and an Arab state in Jordan (the second legally unauthorized Arab state did not come into existence because the Arabs made war on Israel and took over the territories allotted to the Arab-Palestinians in Jordan) still obtain today. The international community thus has an obligation not only to work for peace and a two-state solution,  the Jewish people west of the Jordan river and the Arab-Palestinians east of the Jordan river as international law and treaties are being effectuated and adopted by the Mandate for Palestine signed by all the members of the League of Nations, but also to stand by its previous decisions and stop the campaign to delegitimize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
*     *     *
Notes
1. Address by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Bar-Ilan University, June 14, 2009, http://bit.ly/bZUrlH.
2. Irwin Mansdorf, “Is Israel a Colonial State? The Political Psychology of Palestinian Nomenclature,” Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, Jerusalem Viewpoints, No. 576, March-April 2010, http://bit.ly/Is_Israel_a_Colonial_State.
3. French Foreign Minister Paul Cambon to Zionist Executive Member Nahum Sokolow, June 4, 1917, in J.C. Hurewitz (ed.), The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics: A Documentary Record, Vol. 2, British-French Supremacy, 1914-1945 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979), p. 103.
4. Hurewitz, p. 119; 202-203.
5. Avalon Project – The Covenant of the League of Nations, http://bit.ly/CovenantofLeagueofNationsArticle22.
6. The most exhaustive study of the international legal basis for the State of Israel is Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law (Jerusalem: Mazo Publishers, 2008), which attributes great importance to the San Remo decision, and which he terms the “San Remo Resolution.”
7. See Efraim Karsh and Inari Karsh, Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1923 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), pp. 256-258. The minutes of the meeting from which these quotations are taken, as well as the text of the draft and final articles, are in Rohan Butler and J.P.T. Bury, Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939, First Series, Vol. 8 (London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1958), pp. 156-185.
8. Balfour’s letter to Lord Rothschild was dated November 2; the text was published in the Times on November 9, after probably being communicated to the press by the Foreign Office on November 8.
9. Butler and Bury, p. 177.
10. See Allan Gerson, Israel, the West Bank, and International Law (London: Routledge, 1978), p. 43. This was the language used by Judge Moore in the Mavrommatis case heard by the Permanent Court of International Justice.
11. Grief, p. 39.
12. Benny Morris, 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), p. 10.
13. “Tentative Recommendations for President Wilson by the Intelligence Section of the American Delegation to the Peace Conference,” January 21, 1919, in Hurewitz, pp. 132-36.
14. FO 371/5114, Bols to Lord Curzon, June 7, 1920, reprinted in Isaiah Friedman (ed.), The Rise of Israel: Riots in Jerusalem-San Remo Conference, April 1920, Vol. 12 (New York: Garland Publishing, 1987), pp. 212-221.
15. Times, May 1, 1920, reproduced in Friedman, p. 222.
16. FO 371/5118, Geddes (Washington) to Foreign Office, May 3, 1920, and editor’s introduction, in Friedman, p. 224.
17. Peace Treaty of Sèvres – World War I Document Archive, http://bit.ly/SevresTreaty.
18. Treaty of Lausanne – World War I Document Archive, http://bit.ly/TreatyofLausanne.
19. The Avalon Project – The Palestine Mandate, http://bit.ly/PalestineMandate.
20. Legally, a “recital” is “the repetition of some former writing, or the statement of something which has been done. Recitals are used to explain those matters of fact which are necessary to make the transaction intelligible.” http://bit.ly/RecitalDefinition, at lectlaw.com.
21. Grief, pp. 143-146.
22. http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/Cmd5479.pdf, (ch. II, para. 19, p. 24), cited in Mansdorf, “Is Israel a Colonial State?”
23. Peel Report, paragraph 23, p. 25, cited in Mansdorf, “Is Israel a Colonial State?”
24. For important views on the historical development of Palestinian identity, see Muhammad Muslih, The Origins of Palestinian Nationalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989); Yehoshua Porath, The Emergence of the Palestinian Arab National Movement, 1918-1929 (London: Frank Cass, 1974); Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998).
25. Alexander Yakobson and Amnon Rubinstein, Israel and the Family of Nations: The Jewish Nation-State and Human Rights (New York: Routledge, 2009), p. 38.
26. http://bit.ly/Resolution_181.
27. It was clear why the term “Arab” and not “Palestinian” was used for the Arab state. The Mandate for Palestine had included both Jews and Arabs, and the use of “Palestinian” only for the Arabs would not have made semantic sense at the time.
28. Yakobson and Rubinstein, p. 2; http://bit.ly/Resolution_181.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid., p. 41
31. Ibid., pp. 41-42, and quotation from the report therein.
32. http://bit.ly/Resolution_273.
33. http://bit.ly/EU_Working_Defintiton_of_Anti_Semitism; U.S. Department of State, Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism,http://bit.ly/state_anti_semitism. I thank Prof. Amnon Rubinstein for these references.
34. Sean Murphy, “Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 3 (July 1999), pp. 545-581. I thank international law expert Dr. Amichai Magen for discussing this issue and providing me with this reference.
35. Ruth Gavison, “The Jews’ Right to Statehood: A Defense,” Azure (Summer 2003), pp. 70-108 (pp. 101-102 quoted), http://bit.ly/9TRRjm.
36. See Daniel Gordis, “Acceptable in Polite Society,” commentarymagazine.com, September 7, 2010, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/acceptable-in-polite-society-15527. The online version of the TIME article is significantly abridged and edited and does not give the full effect of the print version.
37. Daniel Gordis, Saving Israel: How the Jewish People Can Win a War That May Never End (Hoboken: Wiley, 2009), pp. 136-137.
38. Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1979).
39. See Daniel Hannan on “Europe’s Antagonism to Israel,” Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, February 14, 2010, http://www.jims-israel.org/.

*     *     *

Joshua Teitelbaum, Ph.D., is Principal Research Fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He holds research positions at the GLORIA Center, IDC Herzliya, and the Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University. He also holds visiting positions at the Hoover Institution and the Center for Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, both at Stanford University. He is the author of several Jerusalem Center studies including WhatIranian Leaders Really Say about Doing Away with Israel (2008) and The Arab Peace Initiative: A Primer and Future Prospects (2009). His latest book is Political Liberalization in the Persian Gulf (Columbia University Press, 2009).
Publication: Jerusalem Viewpoints