INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND JERUSALEM aka PALESTINE - Draiman

INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND JERUSALEM aka PALESTINE

International law is often cited as a pretext for the policies of Western governments and human rights agencies toward Judea, Samaria, and Gaza in general and Jerusalem in particular. A certain assumption or presumption about the international law status of these areas is the premise for claims that they are “occupied territory,” that Israeli construction in formerly Jordanian-ruled parts of Jerusalem is “illegal,” etc.

Given the centrality of allegations about international law in the diplomatic and political assaults on Israel made by such bodies as the European Union, the UN General Assembly, and others, there is a need to know, to understand and to expound the true international law concerning the Land of Israel as a matter of sheer political self-defense. What indeed has been the status of Judea, Samaria, Golan and Gaza under the law of nations?

International law has recognized Jewish rights to sovereignty over the Land of Israel and to settlement throughout the land. In April 1920, at the San Remo Conference (part of the post-World War I peace negotiations), the Supreme Principal Allied Powers, acting on behalf of the international community, recognized all the land in Palestine east and west of the Jordan River and the sea, including Jerusalem, as part of the Jewish National Home, based on the Jewish people’s historic rights. On the same grounds, the Golan[1] and Transjordan too were within the National Home (albeit the eastern border of the National Home, was  clearly east of the Jordan river, it was also acknowledged by the January 1919 Faisal Weizmann Agreement).

The San Remo decision meant also the juridical creation of “Palestine” as a political entity as well as the introduction of that name as the official geographic designation for the new entity to be the reconstituted Jewish National Home. During the centuries of Ottoman rule, the country was divided among larger administrative entities with their capitals outside the country, the vilayets of Beirut and Damascus, although in the mid-nineteenth century, as a consequence of increasing influence by Christian powers on the Ottoman Empire and Jerusalem’s political sensitivity due to the Christian powers’ interest in the city, the Jerusalem area was made into an independent sanjaq (district). It was called “independent” because its governor reported directly to the Ottoman capital, Istanbul (then called Constantinople in the West), not to a provincial (vilayet) governor.

Furthermore, Arab-Muslims traditionally saw the land as an undifferentiated part of Bilad al-Sham, usually translated as Syria or Greater Syria, which comprised the Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan of today, roughly speaking. Before the Crusades, the Arab-Muslim conquerors had designated the southern part of Israel (roughly speaking) as the military district of Filastin, corresponding to the Roman-Byzantine district of Palestina Prima (one of three parts of Palestina). The Crusaders ordinarily called the country Holy Land (Terra Sancta). Use of the name Filastin was not resumed by Muslim rulers after the Crusades. Under the Mamluks and Ottomans, Bilad al-Sham underwent several administrative reorganizations, changes of internal borders, etc. But there was never a Muslim governmental unit of any name that corresponded geographically to the Jewish concept of Land of Israel or the Greco-Roman Judea (= IUDAEA, which included Samaria, Galilee, Golan, the coastal plain, the Jordan’s eastern bank, etc., in addition to Judea in the narrow sense). Emperor Hadrian had renamed the Province of Judea (= Provincia Iudea) “Palestina” (ca. 135 CE) for imperialist reasons.

Hence, the Arab-Muslim geographic concept differed radically from that of Jews and Christians. Further, whereas both Jews and Christians saw the country as a distinct geographic concept, they tended to use different names for it. In Jewish tradition the land was long called the Land of Israel, while Christians, through the nineteenth century, were likely to call it Holy Land (according to their various languages, that is, Terre Sainte, etc.), with Palestine, Judea, Land of the Bible, etc., as alternate names.

The 1920 San Remo decision for the Jewish National Home was ratified by the League of Nations with illegal violation by allocating the land east of the Jordan River to Transjordan, in 1922 and endorsed by a joint resolution of the United States Congress that same year, with a more official US endorsement coming in the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine (proclaimed 1925).

This legal state of affairs was expounded in a legal memorandum drawn up in 1946 [2] by a group of distinguished American-Jewish jurists including Judge Simon Rifkind, Abraham Fortas (later appointed to the Supreme Court), and others.

To measure the extent of American commitment to the National Home at the beginning, we may quote from the terminology of the time: “RES. 52: Expressing satisfaction at the re-creation of Palestine as the national home of the Jewish race” (House Committee on Foreign Affairs). “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…” (1922).

Because the legal issue is once again very much alive, a brief survey of the matter is useful, with particular reference to Jerusalem.[3] By the time the League of Nations was replaced by the UN in 1945, Britain had illegally tried to revoke the Jewish National Home, violating the principles of the League’s mandate. This attempt was embodied in the Palestine White Paper of 1939, on the eve of the Holocaust, and in various subsequent ordinances illegally enacted by the British mandatory government, which made it very difficult for Jewish refugees to enter the country and forbidding any Jews to buy real estate in most of the country. Nevertheless, this British attempt to change the country’s status was rejected as illegal by the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission in June 1939. The British ignored it and severely restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine, These restrictions caused the deaths of millions of Jews trying to escape Nazi concentration camps. The British went out a far as blowing-up after WWII Jewish refugee ships bound for Palestine as "Operation Embarrass".

When the UN was founded in 1945, it reaffirmed through its Charter the existing territorial rights of peoples as they had been before the war (Article 80). This applied of course to the Jewish National Home which was reconstituted in 1920. However, many or most people today are either not aware that the whole country constituted the Jewish National Home, or believe that the UN had somehow eliminated this status and, in any case, had fixed legal boundaries for Israel through the 1947 Partition Resolution. Yet the 1947 resolution was passed by the General Assembly. And all General Assembly resolutions on political issues are merely recommendations and have no validity unless accepted by all parties, and the Arabs rejected them outright.

The UN Charter states, defining the powers of the various UN bodies: “The General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security… and… may make recommendations with regard to any such question” (Article 11; also see Arts. 10, 12, 13, 14). Only the Security Council can make binding resolutions, according to the Charter, which must be accepted by the parties to be valid.

Now the Partition Plan, in a not uncommon display of unrealistic, political move that recommended two states in the former revised mandatory of Palestine west of the Jordan River, one Jewish and one Arab, plus a special status for Jerusalem (The British as trustee for the Jewish people and in violation of international law and treaties of post WWI, had separated Transjordan unilaterally from the Reconstituted Jewish National Home in 1922, although not de jure). The Holy City was to be an internationally governed corpus separatum. While the Jewish leadership accepted the Plan, the Arab governments and local Arab leadership universally rejected it, which made the resolution and partition meaningless. After the war had begun the UN made no effort to prevent the invasion of the country by Arab states, to prevent Arab attacks on Jews within the country or to eliminate the Arab siege of the Jews in Jerusalem, a city where Jews had been the majority at least since 1870. Thus Israel did not feel bound by the Partition recommendation. Professor Eugene Rostow, an authority on international law, has pointed out that the Arab war on Israel of 1947-49, “made the Partition Plan irrelevant and void.”[4]

After the battles of the War of Independence had ended, Israel and four Arab states signed armistice agreements. The accord with Jordan (then called Transjordan) specifically stated that no political border with Israel was being recognized, merely an armistice line (the “green line”). And this at Arab insistence! Arab spokesmen repeated this on later occasions. For instance, the Jordanian delegate to the UN told the Security Council a few days before the Six Day War:

There is an Armistice Agreement. The Agreement did not fix boundaries; it fixed a demarcation line. The Agreement did not pass judgment on rights – political, military, or otherwise. Thus I know of no territory; I know of no boundary. (May 31, 1967)

Obviously, since no political border between Jordan and Israel was recognized, then the prior legal status prevailed – that is, the Jewish National Home recognized and constituted in 1920 at San Remo. Hence, the areas that Jordan called “West Bank,” as well as east Jerusalem (which had thousands of Jewish residents before 1948), remained part of the National Home even during Jordanian occupation. The Assembly’s repetitions of its Jerusalem recommendation (GA resolutions 194, 303, etc.) could not change this. Nor did the Security Council change the status of Jerusalem by its famous Resolution 242 after the Six Day War.

Although the Council’s resolutions are said by the UN Charter to be binding, this resolution did not specify what territories were “occupied.” Perhaps the Council was referring to the Sinai Peninsula, occupied by Israel in that just war of self-defense. Furthermore, the Council could not legislate ex post facto, after the fact, to take away the already existing rights of the Jewish people. According to Professor Rostow, “The withdrawal and abandonment of Great Britain as administrator and trustee did not of course terminate the Mandate as a trust [for the Jewish people].”[5]

Jerusalem as the ancient and current capital of Israel, of course took a special place in the age-old yearning for a restored Jewish National Home. Thus, in Jerusalem too this yearning ran into opposition not just from Arabs but from misinformed Western powers (and others following their lead). They have long irrationally refused to recognize any part of Jerusalem as part of Israel, nor do they recognize the Holy City as Israel’s capital. Their pretext is the separate status provided for Jerusalem in the Partition Plan, which even if it was binding, expired after 10 years. Yet this Plan was merely an Assembly recommendation, whereas the San Remo decision of 1920 was international law. Thus, the irrational refusal of the powers to transfer their embassies to Jerusalem, which means refusal to accept the city as Israel’s capital, has no foundation in law.

Obviously, the refusal has its illogical reasons. It may stem from the same reasons that induced the British to allow Arab mobs in a series of pogroms (1920, 1929, 1936-38) to drive Jews away from the neighborhood of Jewish holy places, such as the Temple Mount and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. It may be related to Britain’s reasons for appointing only Arab mayors for Jerusalem, even-though the Jews had a majority throughout the whole mandatory period, despite the Jewish majority since at least 1870. Now the Ottoman Empire did the same up to 1917, but then the Ottoman Empire was an avowed Muslim state, whereas the British had accepted an international commitment and obligation as trustee (the Mandate for Palestine) to foster immigration and development of the country as the Jewish National Home.

It is clear that according to the San Remo decision of 1920 and the League of Nations vote of 1922 for the Jewish National Home, Israel’s liberation and extension of its jurisdiction over all of Jerusalem since the Six Day War is legal and proper.

Nevertheless, self-serving deceptive interpretations of law are often made by interested parties. In the case of Israel, such interpretations provide pretexts for declarations by governments and groupings of governments – the Arab League, the European Union, the UN General Assembly – that are hostile to Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem (or indeed anywhere in the country). Such false, deceptive and hostile interpretations remind us that we dare not place our trust in law or international accords. Yet, the outbursts in the form of declarations and illegal resolutions based on these interpretations have the illusion of more force and cause more damage than many friends of Israel seem to realize, although they may be less effective than their authors would like). And thus they need to be answered.

FOOTNOTES

1. The Golan was an original part of the Jewish National Home as decided at San Remo and had been populated and ruled by Jews in Second Temple times and afterwards. In 1923, the British authorities in violation of international law and treaties, transferred the Golan to the French mandate of Syria without approval of the Zionist Organization.

2. Simon Rifkind, Abraham Fortas, et al., Basic Equities of the Palestine Problem: A Memorandum (1946) [reprinted New York: Arno Press, 1977].

3. We shall use the Rifkind-Fortas memorandum, our own study of the UN Charter and subsequent UN acts, writings of Prof. Julius Stone and Prof. Eugene Rostow, and various historical information. We have also benefited from conversations with Attorney Howard Grief of Jerusalem, a former advisor on international law to the Israeli Ministry of Energy, who has done research into the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Decision, the League of Nations Mandate, etc., up to the series of agreements going by the name of the Oslo Accords. The conclusions are my own. In early October 2015, the leader of the Arab PA in a speech in front of the UN declared that he will not abide by the terms of the Oslo Accord and therefore, the Oslo Accord is no longer in affect.

4. Eugene Rostow, “Resolution 242 at Twenty,” Jerusalem: Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, 1988, p 5.

Since WWII; the Arab States terrorized and expelled over a million Jewish families and confiscated all their assets including homes and land of about 70,000 square miles valued today in the trillions of dollars. Most of those expelled Jewish families from Arab countries were resettled in Israel and today comprise over half the population.

5. Ibid.

The author is a researcher, writer and translator, living in Jerusalem.

This is a substantially revised and re-written version of an article published in Midstream (New York) in February/March, 1999.

Arab Israel Conflict - Questions and Solutions r2 -YJ Draiman

Arab Israel Conflict - Questions and Solutions r2

There is no glib or ready solution to the present confrontation.  Enmity bred over decades cannot be easily defused.  The Arab-Palestinian "refugees" have found their "myth" as Mousa Alami prescribed.  They found an identity in that myth; and a dream.  But surely a dream of destruction, mayhem and bloodshed; of "injustice" masquerading as justice, and of "rights" based upon deception and falsehoods, cannot and should not continue to capture the sympathy and imagination of the gullible outside world at the expense of the Jews, whose identity the Arab-Palestinians would usurp. 

If Egypt and the late president Anwar Sadat could make peace with Israel, however tenuous, after a saber rattling and the religiously inspired anti-Jewish sentiments that created a warm bond between Egypt and Nazism, then so might the other "moderates" and "rejectionists" in the Arab world today.  Once, during Solomon's reign (965-928 BC), "United Israel" which extended all the way to Iraq, was so "highly honored as the leading state between Egypt and Asia minor," that Egypt's pharaoh "had given his daughter in marriage" to Solomon, for "good diplomatic and political reasons." 

As the minister of agriculture of Syria, an avowed supporter of the Soviet Union, had illustrated, it was "American" technological assistance that Syria wanted and needed.  But might it have been the irrigation expertise of Israel that he really needed?  The result of the peacemaking process depends greatly on the international community continued adherence to the truth as it is sometimes tacitly acknowledged, and not the totalitarian-sponsored pan-Arab deception and inversion of truth.  To achieve their short-sighted ends -- a "peaceful" piece of the Arab oil action -- some nations among the free world community appear to be buying the turn-speak (false and deceptive propaganda).

For sixty-five years, while the real nature of the Arab "refugee problem" has often been identified, the affluent Arab world has paid only a relative pittance to the care of the "refugees". On the other hand, prodigious Arab funds have supported terror and violence.  The Arabs have, in addition, rejected every genuine humanitarian attempt to solve the "problem" of their brethren, whose right to dignity of citizenship is their legitimate human right. But The Arab nations chose to use them as a pawn against Israel, no matter the human cost and misery.

The world community has made the mistake of unwittingly creating a breeding ground of violence and terror.  Through perpetuation of the "humanitarian" conditions of the "temporary" camps, it hoped perhaps to avoid having to exact from the Arab world an attitude towards its refugees that conform to the customary requirements expected from other nations; the penalty for such demand was perceived to be the possible loss of substantial Arab oil benefits (which today has diminished greatly).  The wound was allowed to fester until it began to burst into the terrorism of the PLO and other offspring of the earlier terror tactics in Western Palestine aka Israel organized by the Mufti after WWI, in consultation with his Nazi soul mates.

Now, the world community is being faced with a Pan-Arab suggestion for another blunder, this one even more difficult to retrieve.  The new "moral" flame is presently offered, to take the place of justice.  Through the false and deceptive revisionist history of Arab propaganda, it is asserted that Israel must bear the guilt for the Arab "refugees", since the Jews "in 1948 excluded the Arabs from their homeland since time forgotten".  Unfortunately, and perhaps not surprisingly to those sophisticated in the art of politics, the case which has been falsified and distorted by propaganda does not benefit the "Palestinian" Arab refugees themselves.  As the Arab-Palestinian writer Fawaz Turki concluded, although it was "Arab governments" who "continued to oppose integration", the price for this intransigence and inflexibility was paid by the Arab-Palestinians alone and not by the Arabs. Pawn politics and indifference were the two foci of a problem of tragic and human dimensions. 

The Arab Soviet distortion has prolonged the refugees’ frustration, and supports -- indeed it rationalizes and justifies -- Arab terrorist activities, even against Arab-Palestinians.  The very political process by which the refugees plight has been highlighted has condemned many Arab "refugees" to encampment psychologically if not physically (the situation today in Syria is no different with millions of refugees).  However, hundreds of thousands of other Arab "refugees" are already living and working in the critically labor-needy Arab states, in some instances running those countries (Jordan's population is about 75% Arab-Palestinians), and they feel that citizenship is "owed" to them.  Indeed, unpublicized and largely unknown, many are in fact already bona fide citizens.

The present propaganda argument is based on the deceptive "historical claims" of the "native Arab Palestinians on his land" -- now called Israel (The real truth is we all know that the Arabs are the occupiers of Jewish territory).  According to the propaganda claim, it is from the Jewish settled area of Western Palestine aka Israel, that the "Arabs were excluded from their homeland since time forgotten".  Such a claim cannot be sustained.  If the "historical" claim is measured against documented and archaeological history, which contradicts that claim, the Arab propagandist and their supporters often shift to an argument based on pragmatics:  the "Arab-Palestinian people" exist, therefore they must have a "homeland".  That argument must run head on into the realities of justice, of Jordon, and the Arab-Jewish exchange of refugee population in 1948 (the Arab state of Jordan consists today of over 78% of Jewish Territory and over 70% Arab-Palestinians). 

The Arabs recognition of how vulnerable was their "return of the Arab refugees" argument inspired the transformation of the "refugee" into a false and deceptive "historical" claim.  "Arab-Palestinian self-determination" was the "new tool"; claim is based on the specious and misconceived comparison of the "90% Arab-native including Christians etc., and 9%-Jewish population," in all "Palestine"-- what we now know should properly be limited, for comparison, to the Jewish settled area of Western Palestine aka Israel.  As a few Arab strategists have admitted, the real "refugee" rights could too easily become evident.  The "consequences" of the obvious Arab Jewish refugee exchange of populations were frankly assessed by the Arab writer Sabri Jiryis; "Jews have absorbed the million Jews who were terrorized and expelled from Arab states and the Arab states, in their turn, must settle the Palestinians "Arabs" within their borders and solve their problems."

The expelled Arab-born segment of the Jewish population has finally been recognized, inevitably, as the bulk of the "Sephardic" majority within an "Orientalized" Israel, which amounts to over half the current population. Western observers are seldom reminded that the Sephardic Israeli majority is in fact mainly composed of either the descendants or of those who were themselves the Jewish Arab refugees who were terrorized and expelled from Arab-Muslim countries. Thus, the accompanying social problems, the Arab-born Jews' distrust of the Arab world and their Support of a "hard-line" government position toward the Arabs--all conditions that are predictable and logical when seen in context--are not evaluated in context. The social problems are the results of Israel's attempt to absorb a refugee population at least double to the number of Arabs who purportedly left Israel in 1948--a massive Jewish refugee population that doubled the number of Jews already in Israel in 1948.  Moreover, all the Arab-born Jewish refugees converged on the Jewish State at about the same time that the Arabs left, while Israel was improvising its urgent defense against Arab warfare--the connection is rarely if ever made. What was obvious is the literal exchange of Jewish and Arab refugee population, where the Jewish refugees outnumbered the Arab refugee two-to-one.  Even if one accepts the inflated Arab counts, this fact goes unrecognized and ignored, or is shrugged aside as an unwelcome complication.

Moreover, to judge the attitudes and viewpoints of the million Sephardic Jewish refugees who were forced to escape from terror and oppression in Arab lands, and who had all their personal assets confiscated, (businesses, homes and over 120,000 square km. of land), apart from the critically significant historical circumstances that made them that way is as faulty and incomplete as it would be for an observer to try to judge the reactions and activities of American blacks toward civil rights without ever having heard of slavery or the history of the blacks in America and the genesis of the civil rights movement. Yet the Sephardic Jews' attitudes toward their former masters--attitudes born of harsh experience in the Arab lands and the Arabs' continued avowed hostilities toward the Dhimmi Jewish state--are scarcely ever related to the bitter history and the circumstances surrounding the pivotal million Jewish families brutally forced exodus from the Arab world.

Meanwhile the Arab émigré-refugees remain exploited by the Arab leaders in the Arab world, their own milieu. Most are actually already absorbed, while a small percentage is still in their camps. All remain without a moderate leadership, and many fear for their lives. In fact, were they to take a truly moderate stance, they might well be murdered, as others have been.

One must care about the Arab "Palestinian" peoples, whatever their heritage. They are Arabs and Jews and "others" who have been long abused in a world misled by its torturous deceptive misconceptions. Instead of permitting those Arab "refugees" who are outside of Jordanian Palestine to suffer the planned discrimination of adamant Arab governments in land where many "refugees" have lived for a generation or more, the free world (who claim to be compassionate) might begin a fair and realistic effort to solve the problem once and for all.

The possibility of solution is there. An Arab Palestinian State already exists in Jordan, many Arab Palestinian carry a Jordanian passport. The other Arab states can be encouraged to make room for those among the Arab refugees who have not yet been absorbed, and to give citizenship in their respective states of asylum to those outside Jordan. There is no bromide here for facile solution, or one that would not be fraught with bitterness and antagonism. Before the India-Pakistan exchange of refugee populations was resolved, years of rancor and violence elapsed.

What must not continue, what cannot be allowed to continue, is the cynical scapegoat use of the Jewish State and the Jewish refugees therein, or the sacrifice of the Arab refugees who are, in the name of "humanitarianism," being employed inhumanly as a war weapon against Israel by the Arab world. In the face of these major problems, too many politicians and persons of influence choose to shut their eyes to the facts. Too many refrain from critical analysis of false and deceptive propaganda in order to preserve their illusions about the price of oil. And far too many, the overwhelming bulk of us, had never been furnished with enough data to understand what the problem really was and do not care, since it is easier to be ignorant, than take a logical stand.

A program calculated to furnish incentives to the Arab states and others--a "Marshall-type" plan to cooperate for peace--has been proposed by many eminent bipartisan political figures. Such a program would convert the bilateral peace into a truly regional peace, by demonstrating that "the fruits of peace exceeds the spoils of war." Thus, "The tree of peace will bloom and flourish, whereas the tree of war will wither and perish." 

The plan could be financed by all the countries which have a great interest in peace and stability in the Middle East because of their dependency of the oil in that region. It would be based on the knowledge that there is also an Arab dependency upon the free world to continue its present relationship with Arab states. Such a plan ought to create an incentive to solve the problems that stands in the way of regional space.

To the extent that we render aid, it would necessarily be linked with "the settlement of the refugees" or, if they are already settled, then citizenship for the Arab refugees within these various Arab lands. It should also be predicated (the financial aid) on the total abdication of the use of terror and violence, and the promotion of peace and coexistence.

The United States has provided over a billion dollars in UNRWA funds over the last fifty-plus years, for what was to have been "temporary relief before settlement".  Is it not possible that the fund which has prolonged the refugee status of the "Arab refugee" could be replaced by aid in conjunction with development, and that permanent Arab refugee resettlement in the Arab regions could follow? The Arab world wants the benefits of co-existence with the "West" and therefore a major role can be played by the United States in helping to resolve the Arab refugee-émigré problem.

All the necessary ingredients exist; recent reports of migrant labor in the Arab states have shown that the Arabs are urgently in need of labor, skilled and unskilled. Within the Arab world there is now an abundance of capital to pay the costs of integrating the refugees. Foreign funds, once freed from no-longer necessary UNRWA camps, could assist the rehabilitation of the Arab refugees and funds utilized to promote war and conflict would be diverted to building economic future for the Arab refugees. The million Jewish refugees from Arab lands have already been absorbed by the Israelis, but their properties that were confiscated would far exceed what even the Arab refugees left behind.

The de facto exchange of Arab and Jewish refugee populations is undeniable, a fait accompli. Its recognition by the Arabs should be facilitated with the West's endorsement. Recall the Syrian official's offer to "give land away to workers who come--except the Arab-Palestinians," whose "hatred must be directed at Israel." ( although it is a matter of record that Syria has given Jewish homes and property in Syria to Arab-Palestinians) Syria's request for "American technology," along with United States and other Western assistance now in effect or projected in many Arab "rejectionist" states, ought to be reciprocal; cooperation should be enlisted and required from nations that are aided by the United States and the West.

If the Arab world political and unjustified discrimination against its Arab refugees-émigré brothers were to cease, and if the camp indoctrination could no longer act as a catalyst to the rejection of peace with Israel, if the Jordanian-Palestinian state, the Arabs' forced "displacement" of the million Jews, and the exchange of populations that took place between Jews and Arabs are all finally understood and recognized by the free world, then the Arab "rejectionist" front dedicated to the Jihad (holy war) against Israel may finally realize that the program of false propaganda and deception cannot succeed. They may then accede to a policy of genuine moderation, of a kind which in Western sense means toleration, coexistence and peace. 

At long last the Arab refugees would then be allowed the right to live in a more normal environment, to the refugees' optional benefit, and to the ultimate advantage of the Arab host nations. This possible peaceful and ultimately most humane course of action would entail only a relatively minor financial transaction for the Arab nations. It would dignify the refugees and enable the Arab countries of asylum to observe the universal laws of hospitality and decency toward their refugees. It will also, if done, demonstrate that the Arabs are genuinely concerned for the welfare of their brethren, that they have finally observed the humanitarian requirements expected of any government that wishes to benefit from mutual relationships in the free world, and that they are not primarily interested in utilizing the refugees, human beings, flesh and blood, as their weapon in their war.

Thus far, merely mouthing the false and deceptive words of turnspeak has achieved an amazing measure of success for the revisionist history and the propaganda of the "Arab Israeli Conflict." As the late PLO-Saiqa (Syrian PLO) leader Zuheir Muhsein observed in PLO strategy discussions in 1974, many nations had already accepted the calculated interchange of images: the Arabs had managed 'to juxtapose the Israeli existence with a 'Palestinian' one.' Muhsein went on to explain the proposed "Independent Arab-Palestinian State" on the West Bank aka Judea and Samaria:

“Our purpose is a democratic State in the whole of Palestine.... A State in the occupied area will not constitute an obstacle. The contrary is true--it will be a point of departure.... This State will be the backbone of our struggle against Israel."

The Arabs, through terror and enticement of oil power, actually manipulated the prevention of the Jewish majority that should, as mandated in 1920 (by international law and treaties), have become in turn the sovereign Jewish State of Palestine before WWII. Had the Arabs not succeeded, the "final solution to the Jewish problem by the Nazis" might have been haven, not Holocaust.

The cruelest instance of willful blindness to the nature of one’s actions is attributable to British exceedingly restrictive Jewish immigration policy. It is horrifying to learn that the British--a supposedly 'civilized people"--were willing to see Jews in Europe put to death by the Nazis for "fear" of "Arab reaction and comment". The British falsely claimed that "Palestine" aka Israel had "no more places" for Jews, while at the very same moment the British were imposing "illegal" Arab immigrants by tens of thousands into Palestine to do "necessary" work--work and place that they denied to the Jews.

In the end, Britain's systematic policy of virtual exclusion of Jews resulted in utter disaster. It was disaster in the eyes of the British because they left Palestine defeated and in a state of war until today. For the Arabs, who had won a battle against the entry of perhaps six million prospective Palestinian/Israeli Jews, it was disaster then to be faced, ironically, with anathema of a Dhimmi nation that the Jews ultimately achieved because of the world's horror at the senseless slaughter of those six million Jews. For the Jews, there was disaster in the tragic timing of Israel's declared sovereignty and independence. Had it been unrepressed it would have culminated its control and sovereignty in time to preclude the Holocaust. As it turned out, Israel emerged just in time to gather in not only the survivors of Hitler's savagery, but that great swell of persecuted and terrorized million Arab-born Jews who fled the Arab countries seeking refuge. Without a doubt, the probable fate of those Jewish terrorized refugees from Arab lands, had the Jewish state been voted down (even-though according to international law and treaties, Israel was reconstituted in 1920 and required majority to take full control) due to lack of numerical majority became, mercifully, only a matter for abstract speculation.

Today, the explicitly stated Arab goals appear to be gaining credence once again through the medium of false and deceptive propaganda and twisted rhetoric, unquestioned by those of us who haven't known the questions to ask and do not care, and unhindered by many who have guessed. Those who understand the reality ought to demand more.

Throughout the Mandate for Palestine (1920-1948), the British attempted to gain peace by appeasing Arab intimidation and terror. It was a self-imposed intimidation based upon a perception of oil-power and force which the Western powers in fact evoked upon themselves. Yet, others are considering a similar catastrophic course today. But the lesson ought to be clear by now that the West's continuation of the protracted British policy of submission to Arab pressure has not brought a peaceful life to the region. On the contrary, it inflames the regional conflict for the foreseeable future. As Winston Churchill cautioned in 1939, the acts that we engage in for appeasement and concessions to the Arabs today we will have to remedy at a far greater cost and remorse tomorrow.

YJ Draiman

PS.

"No Jew has the right to yield the rights of the Jewish People in Israel.

No Jew has the authority to do so.

No Jewish body has the authority to do so.

Not even the entire Jewish People alive today has the right to yield any part of Israel.
It is the right of the Jewish People over the generations, a right that under
no conditions can be cancelled.

Even if Jews during a specific period proclaim they are relinquishing this right, they have neither the power nor the authority to deny it to future generations.

No concession of this type is binding or obligates the Jewish People. Our right to the country - the entire country - exists as an eternal right, and we shall not yield this historic right until its full and complete redemption is realized."

The Jewish people war of survival was not won when Hitler lost. It continues to this day, against enemies with far more effective tools of mass murder at their disposal. Plus we are easy to find now.

Ben Gurion at the 1937 Zionist Convention in Basel, Switzerland

Wake-up world to the real Muslim mission - YJ Draiman

Wake-up world to the real Muslim mission.

Israel has no choice but to continue to fight for its survival with a unified people and a unified nation.

I have long said, this is not about land, but extermination of a nation, religion and culture which is not accepted by another. I have actually asked the question, what if there was no 'holy land'. Say a natural disaster, dissolving the place into nothing, but not the people. Would the Arabs still fight? Well, the answer was chilling and emphatic, it saddened me greatly. The answer was over and over, "we have the right to kill all non believers". I have read and re-read everything, from both sides, also, many non-biased writings.

I have come to the conclusion that Israel must protect herself in every way possible or face genocide. The Arab countries have terrorized and expelled over a million Jewish families and their children, confiscated all their assets, businesses, homes and land totaling over 120,440 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles (which is about 6 times the size of Israel) and valued in the trillions of dollars. Most of those expelled Jewish families were resettled in Israel and today consist over half the population.
Those in power in the Arab-Palestinian leadership have rejected again and again any and all attempts to recognize Israel's right to exist. They continue to teach their children and the masses hate, terror and violence. They honor suicide bombers and support their families financially.

Don't start with who was there first, even-though in actuality there has never been in history an Arab-Palestinian Nation, but there has been a Jewish Nation homeland in Palestine-Israel for the past 4,000 plus years and the Jews are the remaining indigenous people, although sometimes occupied by various empires. Israel has won and liberated their ancestral historical land in a defensive war, it is known that possession is nine tenths of the law. Israel is the rightful liberator and successor of its own ancestral land, having won and liberated its ancestral homeland in war, numerous times. Sadly, it will continue, because when one Arab culture wants another's elimination, there is no talking.

I hope Israel does not concede to any of the Arab demands, or give up any more land, (on the contrary, Israel should take back control of all the territory allocated to the Jewish state under the 1920 San Remo Treaty), because they will only make themselves more vulnerable and endanger the safety and security of its citizens, as past experience has proved. Israel must not capitulate to world pressure. Israel's foremost duty and obligation is the safety and security of its citizens at all costs. Any responsible democratic country will do no less. Israel as a responsible democratic country must do the same. The end result will be that the world at large will respect a country that defends its people from terrorism, violence and harm at all cost.
.
The Muslim mission in the world is not only Israel but the rest of the infidel non-believers. Might I remind you, on 911, there was Arab terrorists who wished our extermination, right here in America. This will continue until education and humanity replaces a hatred, for no other reason, than to not accept that you exist.
The Muslims have killed over 500 million people since its inception 1500 years ago, and they will continue to kill anyone who they consider is an infidel. They have colonized the Middle East over the years. Slowly but surely they are taking over Europe and the Nordic countries, and if we are not careful they will take over the United States and other countries.

YJ Draiman

It is time to factually clarify the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law r10 - YJ Draiman

It is time to factually clarify the legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law r10. 

“When the occupant is not the one you want to believe in”

In 1967 Israel liberated occupied Jewish Palestinian territories.   For the enemies of Israel and many of Its’ friends, and for a majority of Israelis, this is a basic axiom. During the Six Day War, it is stated that Israel liberated and captured the Jewish Palestinian territories, resettled and installed there Its’ “settlers” with impunity and in obvious violation of international law.  Is this axiom a lie? If international law asserts the exact opposite, for obvious political and diplomatic reasons, then the facts have been ignored and have instead embraced the current unfounded and false and deceptive Arab propaganda. This understanding is a misconception and false. 

It is time to clarify and illustrate the Jewish legal status of Judea and Samaria under international law.    

One only has to read the documents.  However, the Media has without a doubt, immersed itself in hearsay and untruths, twisting facts and intentionally ignoring the truth.  It is time to examine the real truth and facts as supported by documents and history.

We hardly talk about it, yet, when looking at historical documents on the legal status of Judea and Samaria, one finds powerful arguments against all critics who accuse Israel of occupation of the territories. It must be noted it doesn’t matter if these critics are Arabs, Americans, Europeans or even members of the Israeli extreme left.
The San Remo Treaty of 1920, written almost a century ago and confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne, forms the foundation of truth. Yet, it seems hardly anyone in the Prime Minister’s office, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or Hasbara has taken the time to build a strategy based on said Treaty and other documents which followed that prove clearly that Israel is far from the colonial power it is being accused of being since 1967.
When considering the media archives that preceded the Oslo Accords (which are now null and void), we realize that the official Israeli narrative concerning the Israeli presence in the West Bank was much less ”worried” then today. Until 1993, Israel gave the impression of not requiring justification for rebuilding Jewish settlements beyond the Green Line. Until that time, Israel did not seem to plead for the international community and the Arab world in particular to give It the acquiescence of keeping the famous “settlement blocs.”
According to Prof. Eliav Cho’hatman, lawyer and lecturer at the Graduate Institute of Law “Shaare Mishpat,” there is no doubt that the Oslo Accords marked the starting point of this attitude it deems “catastrophic”: “Until then, our leaders did not hesitate to brag our rights over all the land of Israel from the point of view of international law but since the agreements were signed, only security patterns are referred to plead that part of these territories we are entitled to remain in our hands.”  Prof. Cho’hatman says he sent to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during his first term (1996-1999), his work on the above, but regrets that the head of government has not availed itself: “When I heard of two states for two peoples, I understood why.”
To understand this issue, we must examine Balfour Declaration and San Remo Treaty which was confirmed in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne, a little less than a century ago, November 2, 1917, to be precise. At that time, Lord Balfour, Foreign Minister of Great Britain, in writing, and in agreement with Chaim Weitzman, then president of the World Zionist Organization, wrote in an official letter to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, honorary president of the Zionist Organization of England, the following. In this letter, the UK is in favor of the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. This is the famous “Balfour Declaration” which raises unbridled hope in the Jewish world. In the aftermath of World War I, the League of Nations entrusted to Britain a Mandate over Palestine as trustee for the Jewish people over all of Palestine.
Three years after the Balfour Declaration in 1920, the conference was held in San Remo, Italy during which the great powers decided how to split the territories conquered during the war. At this conference, it was decided to incorporate the 1917 Balfour Declaration into The San Remo Treaty of 1920 (its terms are in effect in perpetuity) and confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne. There was also the 1920 Franco-British Convention that mapped out the territory which showed Palestine as allocated exclusively to the Jewish Homeland, it set the British Mandate for Palestine as trustee for the Jewish people. This decision confirms the international recognition of the Jewish right to self-determination in Palestine and the mandate for Britain to “work towards the realization of this statement to reconstitute a national home for the Jewish people in all of Palestine” (Balfour Declaration).  It must be noted, the San Remo Treaty did not grant any other nation or people land in any part of Palestine, only the Jewish people.  Including the incorporation of the Balfour Declaration into the Palestine Mandate by the United Kingdom, this text is the same international resolution supported by the 52 member countries of the League of Nations, and later by the United States, which would become a member of the international organization a few years later.

The San Remo Treaty of 1920 and its terms to reconstitute the Jewish people in its ancestral land was reconfirmed in the 1920 treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne. Moreover, it was verified by territorial maps drawn out in the 1920 Franco-British Convention.

British Mandate for Palestine

The three principles of the British Balfour Declaration regarding Palestine as a reconstituted Jewish country were adopted in the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres which was executes by all the members of the Supreme Allied Powers:

ARTICLE 95.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers in the San Remo Conference, in favor of the re-establishment in all of Palestine 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 and granting the Jewish people exclusive political rights in Palestine.

Palestine officially fell under the British Mandate as trustee for the Jewish people.

French Mandate of Lebanon

The French Mandate was settled at the San Remo Conference. Comprising the region between the Euphrates River and the Syrian Desert on the east, and the Mediterranean Sea on the west, and extending from the Alma Dagh Mountains on the south to Egypt on the south; Area of territory about 60,000 sq mi (160,000 km2) with a population of about 3,000,000. Lebanon and an enlarged Syria, which were later assigned again under League of Nations Mandate. The region was divided under the French into four governments as follows: Government of Aleppo from the Euphrates region to the Mediterranean; Great Lebanon extending from Tripoli to Palestine; Damascus, including Damascus, Hama, Hems, and the Hauran; and the country of Mount Arisarieh.

French Mandate of Syria

Faisal ibn Husayn, who had been proclaimed king of Syria by a Syrian national congress in Damascus in March 1920, was ejected by the French in July of the same year.

The San Remo Treaty of 1920  – some relevant terms
In paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Protocol of San Remo, we read: “No territory of Palestine will be sold or leased or held in any way under the control of the government of any foreign power.” Or: “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights of other parts of the population are not altered, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency; The dense settlement of Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. ”
Finally, the Palestine Mandate states: “the Administration of Palestine is responsible for the adoption of a law on nationality. Included in this law must be provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who acquire permanent residence in Palestine.”  At that time, it must be remembered, Palestine is not just the west bank aka Judea and Samaria of the Jordan. Rather, it also includes, most importantly the majority (approx. 78%) of the territory which is the east bank of the Jordan River, where today is located the new State of Jordan.

Britain reneged on its duty and promises
What happens next is related to internal political changes in Britain and the election of a government hostile to the creation of a Jewish homeland throughout the territory of Palestine. Thus Britain, having clearly supported the conclusions of the San Remo Conference of 1920 and its confirmation in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, changes its mind in violation of the treaty and weaves very tenuous diplomatic ties with the Arab countries surrounding the area of Palestine and with several Arab leaders (to control natural resources, such as oil).
If one argues that the perpetual right of Israel to all of Palestine has been abrogated, then one also brings into question the status of the Arab states that were created by England in the aftermath of World War II. The legality of these Arab states that were carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire also rests on the same “trusteeship system” installed after the first world war by the community of nations. In fact, the Weizmann-Feissal agreement of the 1919 peace conference talked of one Jewish state (all of Palestine) and only one Arab state (the other 99.9% of the Middle East - 5 million sq. mi.).

The creation of Transjordan on Jewish land 

It was after this diplomatic rapprochement that Transjordan was created in 1922.Transjordan is a semi-autonomous state like Britain led by Abdullah Hussein, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca Ibn Ali, and great-grandfather Abdullah, the current king of Jordan. However, in regard to the West bank (Judea and Samaria) of the Jordan river, and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) nothing has changed. Per San Remo Treaty and all subsequent agreed to documents, these regions are still part of the territories over which the Jewish national home has to be re-established as confirmed per the 1920 Treaty of Sevres , which was executed by all the members of the Supreme Allied Powers. According to many lawyers, Professor Julius Stone, Howard Grief, Stephen M. Schwebel, Former ICC Judge  including Prof. Dr. Cho’hatman with Talya Einhoren, and American lawyer Eugene Rostow, one of the drafters of the famous U.N. Resolution 242 which is the partition plan of November 29, 1947, does not change the situation either. Indeed, having been adopted by the U.N. General Assembly and not by the Security Council, it cannot be considered legally binding. Legally, it is only a recommendation that obtains legal validity in case of endorsement by the parties in question: the Jews and the Arabs. This plan was rejected by the Arab powers, thus, its status remains protocol and has no legal affect However the Un Partition plan recognizes The Jews right to attain sovereignty due to increased population and effectuating the trust that was set-up in 1920 granting Palestine for the Jewish Homeland.  For other lawyers who seem to be oblivious to international law and the limitations of the UN only as an advisory board, which bears no validity unless the parties agree and execute an agreement, they fantasize that the UN partition plan has transformed the status of the Judea and Samaria territories into one of dispute.  On one hand, the Territories are not part of the state of Israel created in 1948.  On the other hand they do not belong to Jordan which occupied those lands from 1948 to 1967. The War of 1967 liberated said Territories returning them to the rightful owners the Jewish state of Israel, as per international law and treaties from 1920.

*** see at end of article Judicial review The Jordanian occupation 
Did the Jewish people temporarily lose the rights to Judea and Samaria with the Jordanian occupation between 1948 and 1967? For many uninformed lawyers, the answer is no. Jordan proclaimed Itself sovereign of the territories after the war of independence with the support of only two countries, Britain and Pakistan. Moreover, the same Jordan decided in 1988 to abandon its sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. Incidentally, the term West Bank formally is no longer needed. It should also be known that many Arabs in the West Bank also known as Judea and Samaria are citizens of Jordan and carry a Jordanian passport.

The dissolution of the League of Nations
Does the dissolution of the League of Nations which was replaced by the UN, and the end and the abdication of the British Mandate for Palestine cause any change in the rights of the Jewish people to their land? Again, the answer is no because, under section 80 of the UN Charter, “nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as affecting directly or indirectly in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the Organization may be parties.” Clearly, this means that the UN  committed in 1945 to protect the legitimacy of the Jewish land rights established by the League of Nations, The 1920 San Remo and the confirmation by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne .
For Professor Eugene Rostow, mentioned above, this means that “the right of the Jewish people to settle in the land of Israel has never been interrupted on all the territory west of the Jordan River (and east of the Jordan River), and since a peace agreement has not and will not be signed between Israel and its neighbors the status has not changed.”  He later wrote that under all international treaties and agreements, “Israel has an undeniable right to establish settlements in the West Bank.”

No unilateral approaches 
Did the Oslo agreements affect the status of Judea and Samaria under international law? Again, the answer is to be found in the texts themselves. Indeed, it is stated in the preliminary agreement in 1993 that the final peace agreement will be signed by both parties “through negotiations.” The agreement, called Oslo II and ratified in 1995 (which is currently null and void), provides for its part that neither side “does not initiate or commence proceedings which can change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the end of negotiations on the final peace agreement.” Any unilateral approach – such as the announcement in September by the Palestinians of an independent state – will therefore be in stark contrast not only with the Oslo agreements (which may be null and void) but also with resolution 242 of the UN that supports the right of each party to “live in peace within secure and recognized borders.” The borders of a proclaimed Palestinian state are of course far from being “secure and recognized” in the view point Israel. Incidentally, Resolution 242 does not speak of, thus, does not apply to any such Palestine, rather, only to existing states, that is to say,Jordan, Egypt and Syria. The Arabs in Palestine aka Israel, now indoctrinate their children and the masses to commit terror and violence, which nullify the Oslo Agreements.

Do not just be right, but also know
There are other arguments for the legitimacy of the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria. For example, the fact that these territories cannot be considered ”busy” since they do not belong, de facto, to an enemy state. Or inconsistency of the term ”1967 borders” which are not borders but the cease-fire line between Israeli and Jordanian armies at the end of the 1967 and 1948 War of independence. Legally,Israel is therefore in a rather comfortable and sound position.

Yet these arguments are not raised. The reasons? There are many: Israel and the Israelis became erroneously convinced themselves that they were a colonial power and archives in the world will not be able to release this distorted image. Also in Jerusalem, it probably feels that right or not right, the world has already chosen sides. In the corridors of the Foreign Ministry, it is even said that under international law, “it is 99% perception, and 1% enactment of factual law.” But in Israel, there is another expression that says it is not enough to be right, but you must also be smart. And now for the good of the State of Israel, “be smart” is to make the world know what is right. Moreover, possession is nine tenths of the law.

The Jewish and Arab Refugee resolution

Since the late 1940’s the Arab States have expelled over a million Jewish families. They confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and Real Estate which is 120,000 Sq, Km. (75,000 sq. miles, about 6 times the size of Israel) and is valued in the trillions of dollars. The State of Israel has resettled the majority of the million Jews and their families expelled from the Arab countries in Greater Israel. The Arabs claim that about 600,000 Arabs were displaced from their homes during the 1948 war. Most of the Arab population abandoned their homes at the request of the 6 Arab Armies who were sure to defeat the newly reconstituted Jewish State. About 300,000 Arabs out of the 600,000 stayed. Now the Arab and Jewish population has increased dramatically. Many new Arabs have moved into the area, and many new Jews from the Holocaust and other areas have emigrated to Israel. It is about time that the Arab countries who expelled over a million Jewish families should resettle the Arab refugees in their vast lands. Utilize the funding which is given to the Arab refugees (instead of using it for weapons and war) to relocate, build housing, schools, commerce and industry and resolve this tragedy once and for all. This will bring peace and tranquility to the region.

***Authoritative experts who have declared Israel’s presence in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan to be legal, include inter alia

• Judge Schwebel, a former President of the ICJ, who pronounced “As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem.” (See Appendix A and http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id248.html )

• Professor Julius Stone, one of the twentieth century’s leading authorities on the Law of Nations. See http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id160.html

• Eugene W. Rostow, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969 who played a leading role in producing the famous Resolution 242.
  See http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id45.html

• Jacques Gauthier, a non-Jewish Canadian lawyer who spent 20 years researching the legal status of Jerusalem leading to the conclusion on purely legal grounds, ignoring religious claims that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, by international law.                 See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28qwcVPNy3E
  and http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125049#.TkAg4mGuySo

• William M. Brinton, who appealed against a US district court’s withholding of State Department documents concerning US policy on issues involvingIsrael and the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip. He showed that none of these areas fall within the definition of “occupied territories” and that any claim that the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, or both, is a Palestinian homeland to which the Palestinians have a ‘legitimate right’ lacks substance and does not survive legal analysis. According to Mr. Brinton no state, other than Israel, can show a better title to the West Bank.

• Sir Elihu Lauterpacht CBE QC., the British specialist in international law, who concludes inter alia that sovereignty over Jerusalem already vested in Israel when the 1947 partition proposals were rejected and aborted by Arab armed aggression.

·  Simon H. Rifkind,  Judge of the United States District Court, New York who wrote an in depth analysis “The basic equities of the Palestine problem” (Ayer Publishing, 1977) that was signed by Jerome N. Frank, Judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals Second Circuit; Stanley H. Fuld, Judge of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York; Abrahan  Tulin, member of the New York Bar; Milton Handler, Professor of law, Columbia University; Murray L. Gurfein, member of the New York Bar; Abe Fortas, former Undersecretary of Interior of the United States and Lawrence R. Eno, member of the New York Bar. They jointly stated that justice and equity are on the side of the Jews in this document that they described as set out in the form of a lawyer’s brief.

YJ Draiman

P.S.

“who controls the energy supply controls whole continents”;
“who controls water sources controls life”.

“Who controls the food supply controls the people”;

“who controls money controls the world”;