Israel has an International Legal and Historical Right to all of Judea and Samaria
It is important for all to know that under present day international law, all of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria belong to the Jewish people. Therefore the attempts by the international community to pressure Israel to give up this land is a violation of present day international law. The legal status of this land is indisputable in the face of the facts. Here in this section The Jewish Heritage Project will provide you this proof because it has become apparent the that media centers of the world for the most part will not take note of this truth but have been partakers in the propagation of the deception whether inadvertently or not, that the Jews are occupiers of land that they have no rights to. Also world history bares witness that this was the location of the ancient Hebrew civilization. The Moral Foundation of this world was set out first in Jewish Scriptures which take special notes that G-d Made a Promise to Abraham the father of The Jewish People saying To him regarding this Land, “To Your Offspring Will I Give This Land” B’resheet 12:7
==========================================================
Israel Palestinian Conflict: The Truth About the West Bank
Israel’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon explains the historical facts relating to the Israeli Palestinian conflict
===========================================================
The Re-emergence of The Ancient Hebrew Jewish Civilization on the Land Where it First Began.
“I Will Return The Captivity of Judea and The Captivity of Israel, And Will Rebuild Them As at First” Jeremiah 33:7
======================================================================
Renanah Goldhar Gemeiner gives a speech on the History of Jews in Palestine. A treasure of facts everyone should know
=======================================================================
Salomon Benzimra – gives a speech on,
“The Jewish Peoples Rights to The Land of Israel”
==========================================================================================
Renanah Goldhar Gemeiner explains the importance of the San Remo Resolution of 1920 to the Jewish People.
===================================================================================
Howard Grief interview – The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law – part 1
===========================================================
Howard Grief – EC4I middle east conflict documentary: Give Peace A Chance
=================================================================
Howard Grief – The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law
This video was made by Hoshea Allen
===========================================================
Dr. Jacques Gauthier
International Law Scholar and Human Rights Attorney Presents
“Sovereignty Over Jerusalem and its Old City”
===============================================================
The Legal Case for Israel Video
by Professor Eugene Kontorovich
San Remo conference of 1920 gave all of the land, including
Judea and Samaria, to the Jews.
Japan, Britain, Italy, France and United States gathered in San Remo Italy.
Read article by Salomon Benzimra
The Levy Report
On January 2012, the government of Israel established a commission to study the status of Israels presence in Judea and Samaria according to international Law. The commission was lead by Edmond Levy, a former Supreme Court justice, and included Alan Baker, former legal advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Tchia Shapira, former deputy president of the Tel Aviv District Court.
On July 4th a the report was issued, It was learned in the report that Israels presence in Judea and Samaria is not illegal according to international law. In other words it has found that Israel in not conducting an illegal occupation.
In the conclusions it was stated,
“Therefore, according to International law, Israelis have the legal right to settle in Judea and Samaria and the establishment of settlements cannot, in and of itself, be considered to be illegal.”-
=============================================================
The Balfour Declaration
This became the basis for international law regarding the Jewish peoples rights to Palestine
Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
“His Majesty’s Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, 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.”
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour
Arthur James Balfour
===========================================================
The Mandate for Palestine
On April 1920 the Principle Allied Powers of World War I assembled in the city of San Remo in Italy regarding division of land from the former Ottoman Empire. It backed up the wording of the Balfour Declaration and adopted a resolution on April 25, which became the basis for the Mandate for Palestine. On July 24, 1922 …28th of Tamuz, 5682, the League of Nations created the binding international legal document which backed up the Balfour Declaration and the conclusions of the San Remo conference. This was a homeland for Jews on their ancient Lands. Those ancient Lands are indisputable…..When the United Nations came into existence, it inherited League of Nations positions and recognized the Mandate for Palestine in article 80 of the U.N. charter.
The Mandate for Palestine states,
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, ……
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; …..
Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; ….”
“The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the government of any foreign power….”
To this day the Mandate for Palestine remains the only binding international law in existence regarding ownership of this land. It has never been superseded by another law. Therefore all efforts by the international powers to pressure Israel to give up this land is a violation of international law.
==================================================================
WHAT IS PALESTINE? WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS?
Wallace Edward Brand •
ReplyDeleteHarvard Law School
I agree with Ms Avraham. SSRN.com/astract=2385304 It seems to me that "Where the prior holder of territory had seized the territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense" has "liberated" the territory. It is not "occupied" in the sense of a "belligerent occupation" as that term is used in 4th Hague Convention which assumes in Article 43 that the state that has been dispossessed is the legitimate sovereign over that territory. In 1948, the collective political rights to self-determination in Palestine were in a trust in which the Jewish People were the beneficiary. In 1948, just as the Arab Legion, officered and supplied by Perfidious Albion invaded eastward, those collective political rights vested in the Jews and in 1967 when they obtained united control over the remainder of the territory of Palestine west of the Jordan, their beneficial interest was changed to legal dominion.
Selected Quotes from Golda Meir
ReplyDeleteGolda Meir was not a grand orator in any traditional sense of the term and she was a reluctant writer. Still, her words often contained a direct and simple eloquence. They reflect her no nonsense approach and are straightforward, honest and laced with humor. The following are examples of those words that could capture the moment and an audience.
1) The annual Leadership Award given by the Golda Meir Center contains these words from her told to Marie Syrkin: I can honestly say that I was never affected by the question of the success of an undertaking. If I felt it was the right thing to do, I was for it regardless of the possible outcome.
2) Golda would frequently tell people: Don’t be so humble, you’re not that great.
3) After Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol received criticism for the way he delivered a speech before the 1967 War, Golda said: A leader who doesn’t hesitate before he sends his nation into battle is not fit to be a leader. Similarly, in 1973, she reminded us: A man who does not hate war is not fully human.
4) Also on leaders, Golda stated: If only political leaders would allow themselves to feel, as well as to think, the world might be a happier place.
5) When accused of governing with her heart and not her head, she said in 1973: What if I do? Those who don’t know how to weep with whole heart don’t know how to laugh either.
6) The greatest challenge to leaders and educators, she also noted, is to bring idealism into the picture despite the cloud that hangs over humanity.
7) Also on educators, she said: A teacher is one who has a program -- arithmetic, reading, and writing, and so on – fulfills it conscientiously, and feels that he has done his job. An educator tries to give children something else in addition: spirit.
8) On peace, she said in 1957, before the National Press Club in Washington: Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us. (She also made a similar statement specifically regarding Nasser.) In a similar vein, she would say, Peace will come when an Arab leader is courageous enough to wish it and exercise it.
9) At a 1969 press conference in London, she added: When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons.
10) I am convinced, she also said, that peace will come to Israel and its neighbors because the tens of millions of Arabs need peace just as much as we do. An Arab mother who loses a son in battle weeps as bitterly as any Israeli mother.
11) When Golda was in Jerusalem in 1977 for Anwar Sadat’s historic visit, she asked him what took him so long. And reminded the Egyptian President and the Israeli nation: Of course, we all must realize that the path to peace may be a little bit difficult, but not as difficult as the path to war.
12) On negotiations, she explained: The only alternative to war is peace. The only road to peace is negotiation.
“What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted!
ReplyDeleteThrice is he arm’d that hath his quarrel just,
And he but naked, though lock’d up in steel,
Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted.”
THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
ReplyDeleteGENERAL SMUTS'S VIEWS.
DISCUSSIONS IN PARIS.
A cable message from London, dated
January 12, states that General Smuts
(Minister of Defence in the Union of
South Africa) ¿as issued a pamphlet
upon the constitution of the League
of Nations.
General Smuts expresses the opinion
that the Peace Conference should .re-
gard itself as the first meeting of the
league. The prime principle of settle-
ment should be that, apart from
Alsace-Lorraine and the German colo-
nies, there should be no annexation of
territories by any of the victorious
States. Probably Finland. Poland,
Czech-Slovia, and Jugo-Slavia are cap-
able of becoming independent States
immediately, but Transcaucasia, Me-
sopotamia, Lebanon, and Syria will
probably require the guiding hand of
some external authority. Other coun-
tries, such as Palestine and Armenia,
should be controlled by the League of
Nations, which may properly be re-
garded as reversionary of German, Aus-
trian. Russian, and Turkish Empires,
which had failed because founded upon
the exploitation of weaker nationalities.
1 The leaguo must have control, not di
' reotly, but by nominating a particular
l*State to act in its behalf. This nomina
Î tion should be conditioned by peoples in
question having the right to choose the
power which they prefer should have
the mandatory duty, although this
cannot be applied in cases where it is
impossible to consult the country. _
In forming the league, continues
General Smuts, two extremes to be
avoided are:-A super-state and a
mere debating society. The league
must be practical and effective as a
system of world government. The j
council should be small, and composed ]
; of five permanent members, to be no-
minated bv the British Empire, France,
Italy, United States, and Japan. When
Germany has a stable and democratic
j Government she can nominate another
! permanent member. To these should
be added four additional members
chosen from a' panel representing the
lesser Powers, such as Spain, Hungary,
Fix this text
and Servia, whose nominees would
serve in rotation. There would thus
be 10 members of the council, which
would resemble the Versailles Council.
I No resolution of the council ought to
be valid unless passed by. more than a
two-thirds majority.
I General Smuts is of opinion that
conscription is the tarpot of militarism.
Unless it is cut out we considers our
labors will be in vain. The members
of the league must bind themselves not
ta go to war with each other until the
council shall have arbitrated on the
dispute. This prohibition must be
guaranteed by force in addition to an
economic and financial boycott.
THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
ReplyDeleteGENERAL SMUTS'S VIEWS.
DISCUSSIONS IN PARIS.
A cable message from London, dated
January 12, states that General Smuts
(Minister of Defence in the Union of
South Africa) ¿as issued a pamphlet
upon the constitution of the League
of Nations.
General Smuts expresses the opinion
that the Peace Conference should .re-
gard itself as the first meeting of the
league. The prime principle of settle-
ment should be that, apart from
Alsace-Lorraine and the German colo-
nies, there should be no annexation of
territories by any of the victorious
States. Probably Finland. Poland,
Czech-Slovia, and Jugo-Slavia are cap-
able of becoming independent States
immediately, but Transcaucasia, Me-
sopotamia, Lebanon, and Syria will
probably require the guiding hand of
some external authority. Other coun-
tries, such as Palestine and Armenia,
should be controlled by the League of
Nations, which may properly be re-
garded as reversionary of German, Aus-
trian. Russian, and Turkish Empires,
which had failed because founded upon
the exploitation of weaker nationalities.
1 The leaguo must have control, not di
' reotly, but by nominating a particular
l*State to act in its behalf. This nomina
Î tion should be conditioned by peoples in
question having the right to choose the
power which they prefer should have
the mandatory duty, although this
cannot be applied in cases where it is
impossible to consult the country. _
In forming the league, continues
General Smuts, two extremes to be
avoided are:-A super-state and a
mere debating society. The league
must be practical and effective as a
system of world government. The j
council should be small, and composed ]
; of five permanent members, to be no-
minated bv the British Empire, France,
Italy, United States, and Japan. When
Germany has a stable and democratic
j Government she can nominate another
! permanent member. To these should
be added four additional members
chosen from a' panel representing the
lesser Powers, such as Spain, Hungary,
Fix this text
and Servia, whose nominees would
serve in rotation. There would thus
be 10 members of the council, which
would resemble the Versailles Council.
I No resolution of the council ought to
be valid unless passed by. more than a
two-thirds majority.
I General Smuts is of opinion that
conscription is the tarpot of militarism.
Unless it is cut out we considers our
labors will be in vain. The members
of the league must bind themselves not
ta go to war with each other until the
council shall have arbitrated on the
dispute. This prohibition must be
guaranteed by force in addition to an
economic and financial boycott.
“What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted!
ReplyDeleteThrice is he arm’d that hath his quarrel just,
And he but naked, though lock’d up in steel,
Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted.”