The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the State of Israel

In truth, the post-1967 descriptor “Palestinian” -- like the descriptors “Texan” and “Californian” -- is merely geographical rather than ethnic. This assertion is ironically supported by the very language of the P.L.O. National Covenant of 1964, which rarely refers to its constituency as “the Palestinians” or as “the Palestinian people” (precisely because the descriptor “Palestinian” was the detested label by which the resident Jewish population had identified itself during the Mandatory period), but instead almost always refers to its constituency as “the Palestine Arab people” (e.g., Article 3) or “the people of Palestine” (e.g., Articles 4, 13, 19 & 22) or “the Palestine people” (e.g., Articles 17, 21 & 25), thereby describing the latter’s connection to “Palestine” almost exclusively in geographical rather than ethnic terminology. The only consistent ethnic label used by the P.L.O. National Covenant of 1964 to describe its constituency is the descriptor “Arab” (e.g., Articles 1, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 25). Moreover, it is telling that when the P.L.O. National Covenant of 1964 first employs the phrase “the Palestinian people” to describe the “personality” of its constituency, it emphasizes that its use of such descriptor constitutes only a temporary tactical ploy (see Article 11). Due to the fact that the "Palestinians" are no more a distinct ethnic people than are “Texans” or “Californians”, they do not have a legal right, historical right or moral right -- in derogation of paramount Jewish rights to the Land of Israel -- to establish a sovereign State within any portion of the Land in order to express a distinct ethnic identity that does not -- and has never -- existed.

The bogus claim of “Palestinian” ethnicity is merely an elaborate (and -- thus far -- diplomatically successful) ruse to disguise the true pan-Arab and pan-Islamic goal, which is to dismember and then eradicate the Jewish nation-state of Israel.

Occasionally, even “Palestinian” leaders themselves publicly admit as much. As candidly stated by Zahir Muhsein, then head of the Palestine Liberation Organization's Military Department and a member of its Executive Committee:

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the State of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality, Today, there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak, Today, about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan -- which is a sovereign state with defined borders -- cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While, as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”(Excerpt from interview given to Amsterdam-based newspaper “Dagblad de Verdieping Trouw”, March 31, 1977).

And, as subsequently declared by Azmi Bishara, an “Israeli” Arab professor of philosophy and cultural studies who later became the leader of Balad, an “Israeli” Arab political party that was elected to the Knesset based upon its anti-Israel platform:

“Well, I do not think there is a ‘Palestinian’ nation at all. I think there is an Arab nation. I always thought so, and I did not change my mind. I do not think there is a ‘Palestinian’ nation. I think it is a colonialist invention -- a ‘Palestinian’ nation. When were there any ‘Palestinians’? Where did it come from? I think there is an Arab nation. I never turned out to be a ‘Palestinian’ nationalist, despite my decisive struggle against the Occupation. I think that until the end of the 19th century, Palestine was the south of Greater Syria.” (Excerpt from televised interview given to Yaron London of Israel-based Channel 2 TV, circa 1999)

More recently, the in authenticity of “Palestinian” ethnicity was publicly reiterated -- due to economic necessity -- by Fathi Hammad, then Hamas’ Minister of the Interior and of National Security, as part of his demand that Egypt provide more diesel fuel to Hamas-ruled Gaza, with clarifications in brackets:

“Allah be praised, we all have Arab roots; and every Palestinian, in Gaza and throughout Palestine, can prove his Arab roots -- whether from Saudi Arabia, from Yemen, or anywhere. We have blood ties. So where is your affection and mercy? . . . Personally, half my family is Egyptian. We are all like that. More than 30 families in the Gaza Strip are called [by the last name] al-Masri [meaning: “the Egyptian”]. Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis. Who are the Palestinians? We have many families called al-Masri, whose roots are Egyptian. Egyptian! They may be from Alexandria, from Cairo, from Dumietta, from the North, from Aswan, from Upper Egypt. We are Egyptians. We are Arabs. We are Muslims. We are a part of you.” (Excerpt from speech aired on Egypt-based Al-Hekmah TV, March 23, 2012)

In this context, it is noteworthy that, more than 3,000 years ago, God declared to Moses: "They [Children of Israel] provoked Me with a non-god, angered Me with their vanities; so shall I provoke them with a non-people, with a vile nation shall I anger them." (Deuteronomy 32:21)

In sum, the unending deluge of public declarations by the gentile nations (and by the international organizations through which they interact) that portions of the Land of Israel are actually the “Occupied Palestinian Territories”, as well as the general hostility and ostracism experienced by Israel in all manner of international forums, has nothing to do with international law and everything to do with international politics, which, in Israel’s case, is propelled by a toxic mixture of Jew-hatred and economic self-interest. In Israel’s case, international law has been so dismembered by international politics that its precepts have been habitually distorted in order to protect and reward the defeated Aggressors and to deter and punish the undefeated Victim. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that, in an attempt to adorn the ongoing War against Zionism with a veneer of diplomatic legitimacy, the international community willfully falsifies and thereby willfully subverts international law.

Accordingly, despite the layers of falsehoods, half-truths and distortions that have encrusted this subject matter over many past decades, international law remains Today as it was in 1920:

All of cis-Jordania (as well as the Golan Heights portion of trans-Jordania) collectively belongs exclusively to the Jewish people.

Consequently, in reality, it is the Arab population thereof -- being the descendants of the massive 7th Century colonialist Islamic invasion force emanating from ancient Arabia -- which is occupying Jewish Land.

However, if the World were to complain that Israel's possession of Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem (and formerly of Gaza), even if lawful, nevertheless deprives the “Palestinian” Arab population thereof of a separate independent homeland, then the World should be reminded that the modern State of Jordan (its precursor having been rendered Judenrein by the British Mandatory authorities in 1922) -- constituting 77% of former Mandatory Palestine and, in consequence thereof, overwhelmingly comprised of a “Palestinian” Arab population -- is already that separate independent homeland.

Then the solution is to ask Egypt and Saudi Arabia to give some land south of Israel to the Palestinian Arabs to have their own country. Those Arabs that shan't to leave Israel can and those who want to stay Israeli citizens can. Even ask Israel to move the Mosque in Jerusalem to their new country. Just leave Israel in peace!!!

Art Hecht The Palestinians already have their own country. It is called Jordan. However, if they want additional land, your solution may just well work. Then there will be two Palestinian countries, which is OK, if the Palestinians accept that as the final solution.

Article 26. The Liberation Organization cooperates with all Arab Governments, each according to its ability, and does not interfere in the internal affairs of any Arab State.
. . .
Since the P.L.O.’s original Covenant explicitly recognized the “West Bank” (i.e., Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount) and Gaza as belonging to other Arab states, even declaring that the P.L.O. “does not interfere in the internal affairs of any Arab State”, the only "Arab homeland" of "Palestine" which that organization sought to "liberate" in 1964 was the State of Israel within its 1949 armistice demarcation lines. However, in response to the Jewish people's reclamation in the 1967 Six Day War of those illegally-occupied areas, the Palestine Liberation Organization thereupon revised its National Covenant on July 17, 1968 to, inter alia, remove the operative language of Article 24 there from, thereby reversing its prior declaration that those areas did not belong to "Palestine" and thereby -- for the first time -- asserting a "Palestinian" claim of sovereignty thereto. Being indisputably based upon the changing status of Jewish territorial reclamation, the “Palestinian” renunciation of sovereignty and subsequent cancellation of that renunciation demonstrate that the “nationalism” espoused by the “Palestinians” has nothing to do with their professed desire to create a State for themselves, and everything to do with their desire to dismantle the preexisting Jewish State.

It bears reiterating that the ancient Philistines, after whom the “Palestinians” have named themselves, were not even Arabs. Moreover, in light of “Palestinian” claims to aboriginal status, it is ironic and noteworthy that the English-language cognate words “Palestine” and “Philistine”, as well as the Arabic-language word “Filastin”, are all derived (via Latin and, before that, Greek) from the biblical Hebrew-language word “Pelishtim” (“Philistines”), whose literal meaning is: “Invaders”. It is indeed telling that the “Palestinians” have created for themselves a faux ethnic identity whose very name originates, not from their own Arabic language, but rather from the Hebrew language.

Lastly, even the quintessential symbol of the "Palestinian" people, namely, former P.L.O. chairman and former Palestinian Authority president Yasser Arafat, serves to prove its nonexistence. Arafat was an Egyptian national born in Cairo in 1929 -- some four decades before any assertion of the existence of an ethnically distinct "Palestinian" people -- who continued to live in Egypt through the creation of modern Israel (i.e., he is neither a "Palestinian" nor a refugee). Moreover, the first P.L.O. chairman, Ahmed Shukeiry, was a Saudi Arabian national.

The Jewish right of settlement in the West Bank is conferred by the same
provisions of the Mandate under which Jews settled in Haifa, Tel Aviv, and
Jerusalem before the State of Israel was created. The Mandate for Palestine differs
in one important respect from the other League of Nations mandates, which were
trusts for the benefit of the indigenous population. The Palestine Mandate,
recognizing "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the
grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country," is dedicated to
"the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being
clearly understood that nothing should be done which might 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."

The Mandate qualifies the Jewish right of settlement and political development in Palestine in only one respect. Article 25 gave Great Britain and the League Council discretion to "postpone" or "withhold" the Jewish people's right of settlement in the Tran Jordanian province of Palestine-now the Kingdom of Jordan-if they decided that local conditions made such action desirable. With the divided support of the council, the British took that step in 1922.

The Mandate does not, however, permit even a temporary suspension of the
Jewish right of settlement in the parts of the Mandate west of the Jordan River. The
Armistice Lines of 1949, which are part of the West Bank boundary, represent
nothing but the position of the contending armies when the final cease-fire was
achieved in the War of Independence. And the Armistice Agreements specifically
provide, except in the case of Lebanon, that the demarcation lines can be changed
by agreement when the parties move from armistice to peace. Resolution 242 is
based on that provision of the Armistice Agreements and states certain criteria
that would justify changes in the demarcation lines when the parties make peace.

Many believe that the Palestine Mandate was somehow terminated in 1947, when
the British government resigned as the mandatory power. This is incorrect. A trust
never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is
dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or
otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose. Thus in the case of the
Mandate for German South West Africa, the International Court of justice found
the South African government to be derelict in its duties as the mandatory power,
and it was deemed to have resigned. Decades of struggle and diplomacy then
resulted in the creation of the new state of Namibia, which has just come into
being. In Palestine the British Mandate ceased to be operative as to the territories
of Israel and Jordan when those states were created and recognized by the
international community. But its rules apply still to the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip, which have not yet been allocated either to Israel or to Jordan or become an
independent state. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank in 1951, but that
annexation was never generally recognized, even by the Arab states, and now
Jordan has abandoned all its claims to the territory.

The State Department has never denied that under the Mandate "the Jewish
people" have the right to settle in the area. Instead, it said that Jewish settlements
in the West Bank violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949,
which deals with the protection of civilians in wartime. Where the territory of one
contracting party is occupied by another contracting party, the Convention
prohibits many of the inhumane practices of the Nazis and the Soviets before and
during the Second World War-the mass transfer of people into or out of occupied
territories for purposes of extermination, slave labor, or colonization, for example.

Article 49 provides that the occupying power "shall not deport or transfer part of
its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." But the Jewish settlers in
the West Bank are volunteers. They have not been "deported" or "transferred" by
the government of Israel, and their movement involves none of the atrocious
purposes or harmful effects on the existing population the Geneva Convention was
designed to prevent. Furthermore, the Convention applies only to acts by one
signatory "carried out on the territory of another." The West Bank is not the
territory of a signatory power, but an unallocated part of the British Mandate. It is
hard,  therefore,  to  see  how  even  the  most  literal-minded  reading  of  the
Convention could make it apply to Jewish settlement in territories of the British
Mandate west of the Jordan River. Even if the Convention could be construed to
prevent settlements during the period of occupation, however, it could do no more
than suspend, not terminate, the rights conferred by the Mandate. Those rights
can be ended only by the establishment and recognition of a new state or the
incorporation of the territories into an old one.

As claimants to the territory, the Israelis have denied that they are required to
comply with the Geneva Convention but announced that they will do so as a
matter of grace. The Israeli courts apply the Convention routinely, sometimes
deciding against the Israeli government. Assuming for the moment the general
applicability of the Convention, it could well be considered a violation if the
Israelis deported convicts to the area or encouraged the settlement of people who
had no right to live there (Americans, for example). But how can the Convention
be deemed to apply to Jews who have a right to settle in the territories under
international law: a legal right assured by treaty and specifically protected by
Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, which provides that nothing in the Charter shall be
construed "to alter in any manner" rights conferred by existing international
instruments" like the Mandate. The Jewish right of settlement in the area is
equivalent in every way to the right of the existing Palestinian population to live
there.

Another principle of international law may affect the problem of the Jewish
settlements. Under international law, an occupying power is supposed to apply the
prevailing law of the occupied territory at the municipal level unless it interferes
with the necessities of security or administration or is "repugnant to elementary
conceptions of justice." From 1949 to 1967, when Jordan was the military occupant
of the West Bank, it applied its own laws to prevent any Jews from living in the territory. To suggest that Israel as occupant is required to enforce such Jordanian laws-a necessary implication of applying the Convention-is simply absurd. When the Allies occupied Germany after the Second World War, the abrogation of the Nuremberg Laws was among their first acts.

The general expectation of international law is that military occupations last a
short time, and are succeeded by a state of peace established by treaty or
otherwise. In the case of the West Bank, the territory was occupied by Jordan
between 1949 and 1967, and has been occupied by Israel since 1967. Security
Council Resolutions 242 and 338 rule that the Arab states and Israel must make
peace, and that when "a just and lasting peace" is reached in the Middle East, Israel
should withdraw from some but not all of the territory it occupied in the course of
the 1967 war. The Resolutions leave it to the parties to agree on the terms of peace.

The controversy about Jewish settlements in the West Bank is not, therefore, about
legal rights but about the political will to override legal rights. Is the United States
prepared to use all its influence in Israel to award the whole of the West Bank to
Jordan or to a new Arab state, and force Israel back to its 1967 borders?

Throughout Israel's occupation, the Arab countries, helped by the United States,
have pushed to keep Jews out of the territories, so that at a convenient moment, or
in a peace negotiation, the claim that the West Bank is "Arab" territory could be
made more plausible. Some in Israel favor the settlements for the obverse reason:
to reinforce Israel's claim for the fulfillment of the Mandate and of Resolution 242
in a peace treaty that would at least divide the territory. For the international
community, the issue is much deeper and more difficult: whether the purposes of
the Mandate can be considered satisfied if the Jews finally receive only the parts of
Palestine behind the Armistice Lines-less than 17.5 percent of the land promised
them  after  the  First  World  War.  The  extraordinary  recent  changes  in  the
international environment have brought with them new diplomatic opportunities
for the United States and its allies, not least in the Middle East. Soviet military aid
apparently is no longer available to the Arabs for the purpose of making another
war against Israel. The intifada has failed, and the Arabs' bargaining position is
weakening. It now may be possible to take long steps toward peace. But to do so,
the participants in the Middle East negotiations-the United States, Israel, Egypt,
and the PLO-will have to look beyond the territories.

The goal of Yitzhak Shamir's election proposal is an interim regime of Arab
autonomy in part of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in accordance with the
Camp David Accords; the goal of the PLO is to establish a Palestinian Arab state in
the whole of the territories. It is hard to be sanguine about the possibility of
reconciling  those  positions  through  negotiations.  Establishing  a  cooperative
relationship between Israel and the Arabs who live in the occupied territories is a
crucial part of the Palestine problem, but it is not the whole of it, and surely not an
end in itself. The last thing Israel wants is an Arab Bantustan. If the status of the
occupied territories is viewed in isolation, negotiation will be excruciatingly difficult, and every item on the agenda will be a tense and suspicious haggle on both sides.

The prospects for peace would be less forbidding if the question were approached
as one element in a plan for achieving a larger goal: a confederation involving at
least Israel, Jordan, and the occupied territories. Membership could perhaps be
open to poor Lebanon as well, or parts of it. Even Syria, behind its ferocious words,
may be preparing to move toward peace. Syria and Israel have congruent interest
in Lebanon and elsewhere, and neither country wants a state dominated by the
PLO as a neighbor.

The idea of a Palestinian confederation has been the recommendation of every
serious study of the Palestine problem for more than fifty years. It was the essence
of the partition proposals of the Peel Commission in 1936, and of the General
Assembly's 1947 partition plan, at least for Israel and the West Bank. With
different boundaries, it was also the basic idea of Israel's 1967 peace offer, which
will always correspond to Israeli public opinion: Palestine divided into a Jewish
and an Arab state, united in a common market, with special arrangements for
Jerusalem and as much political cooperation as the traffic will bear. Before the
intifada  started,  it  was  the  notion  behind  the  de  facto  Israel/Jordanian
condominium for the West Bank, which was both effective and practical.

After the past year's events in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, who can say that progress in the Middle East is impossible?

"Occupation" Myth:

"OCCUPATION". How many times must we hear that again?! This harsh, loaded and damaging term has unfortunately

worked its way into the daily discourse about Israel to the point where people use it automatically and without considering its ramifications. Use of this expression serves the interests of Israel's enemies by not only de-legitimizing the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria (a.k.a. liberated "occupied territories") but by also weakening the Jewish claim to all of Israel, in its entirety. It throws into question the legality and morality of Israeli sovereignty over pre-1967 Israel no less than it denies Israel's right to the "West Bank". More so, actually. Because when you think about it, if the Jewish People have no claim to ancient Biblical Shechem (Nablus), the principal Samarian city intimately linked to Jewish history ever since the time of Abraham, then a fortiori they certainly cannot claim Tel Aviv, a modern day creation of no historical, national or religious significance. From a legal standpoint, both Tel Aviv and Shechem clearly belong to the Jewish People. Yet the moral Jewish claim to Shechem is arguably stronger. This is a subtle but crucial point consistently missed by the Left. By bashing the settlements, the Left is actually shooting itself (and all the rest of us) in the foot. Claiming Tel Aviv while renouncing Shechem, as they do, is illogical, misguided and harmful. In fact, there's no difference between Israel proper and the "West Bank". There never was. Both were recognized, by international agreements subsequently ratified into law, to comprise the Homeland for the Jewish People. Ironically, it is the rest of the world which recognizes this inconsistency, albeit unconsciously. They sense that Israel is not being true to herself. They feel she is not living up to her true potential, not fulfilling her true role in the world. Maybe that's the real reason why Israel is universally held in such low regard.

Bottom line: there is no and never was any "occupation" of "Palestine". This patently false charge has NO BASIS in either fact or law and has been hugely damaging to Israel's morale, self-image, sense of purpose and of course its public image. Here's a direct quote from Stephen Schwebel, former head of the International Court of Justice in the Hague:

"Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully [Jordan's 1948-1967 occupation of Judea and Samaria], the state which subsequently takes that territory [Israel] in the lawful exercise of self-defense [1967 War] has, against that prior holder, better title." - Stephen Schwebel, "What Weight to Conquest," American Journal of International Law, vol. 64 (1970) pp. 345-347

If you do nothing else, be sure to click here:http://www.amisraelchai-eretz.com/occupation.htm

for this required reading.

Wallace Edward Brand ·  Top Commenter · Harvard Law School

Since 1920 the political rights to Palestine claimed by both the Arab People and the Jewish people at the Paris Peace Talks have been recognized as belonging only to the Jewish People. At the time they were only a minority of the population and immediate sovereignty for them would have resulted in an antidemocratic government. So the language of the Balfour policy was used in which legal dominion over the political rights would be in the hands of the British as trustee until such time as the Jews had attained a population majority in the area they were to govern and had the capability of exercising sovereignty. In 1922 fifty three states recognized the Jewish People as having an equitable interest in the political rights to Palestine west of the Jordan River. On the demise of the League of Nations, these were saved in Article 80 of the UN Charter and by the legal doctrine of acquired rights now codified in International Law. In 1948 the British abdicated their trusteeship and by 1950 the Jews had met both standards -- a majority of Jews within the Green Line and the capability of exercising sovereignty by their unified control of the population within their territory. In 1967 they kicked out the Jordanian and Egyptian illegal occupiers of Palestine west of the Jordan. The Jewish People now have a majority of population in all of Palestine west of the Jordan when Gaza is excluded. Through the IDF, the Jews now control the entire population in this area. There is already a Jewish State. You can call it the sovereign state of Eretz Yisrael. If Israel adopts the Levy Report and annexes Judea and Samaria, you can also call it the Sovereign State of Israel.

VIETNAM REDDUX
Obama and Kerry are attempting to split the unity of the Jewish People. The Vietnamese were successful in splitting the unity of the American people during their war with Vietnam. This was the only war America had ever lost. Vietnam adopted a two state solution. Has anyone heard from South Vietnam recently?

The UN requires that other states not disrupt that unity. " Every State shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other State or country." Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations. (1970)

Obama and Kerry are claiming that Jewish building of homes in their sovereign state is illegal. Israel should tell him that splitting the unity of the Jewish People is what they are doing and that is illegal.

Dr. Kontorovitz, I have long wondered why Israel is so passive about its legal claims regarding the territories won and liberated in 1967. Why not press for a ruling by a recognized court of international law? For Israel has extremely strong arguments the most striking of which are generally not mentioned at all.

As I understand it, legal possession can be shown by 1: the legality of the means by which possession was obtained, and/or 2: the legality of the continued current possession. These demonstrate legal possession. But there is also the issue of 3: a legal title of possession. Israel can show all three conditions are fully met by its possession of the post-67 territories. Most arguments I have read for this legality seem solely to stress condition 3 (Howard Grief, the Levi Committee, Ronnie Sabel, etc., pointing to the San Remo Conference of 1992, the conditions set for the British Mandate in 1922, and the UN Partition Resolution of 1947, of which the Arab rejection both inside and outside Mandate Palestine lost them any legally grounded title to it). Those arguments however ignore the powerful and self-sufficient conditions 1 and 2. For 1: Israel won the territories in the course of a perfectly legal (in international law) war of self-defense, and 2: she continues to hold them pursuant to UN Resolution 242 until there is a final peace treaty between the contesting parties that establishes their legal borders and extent. Until then she is their custodian, and some portion of them may well be ruled part of Israel in the context of final peace negotiations, so they cannot be said to belong solely to the contesting party. Nor can "Palestine" be said to be the "illegally occupied" contesting party, since such a state has never existed before and its borders can only be legally determined and fixed by a final peace treaty with Israel.

San Remo's Mandate: Israel's 'Magna Carta'

JERUSALEM, Israel - This year marks the 91st anniversary of the resolution that transformed the Middle East and laid the groundwork for the formation of the modern state of Israel.

On April 25, 1920, delegations from the Allied nations that triumphed in World War I met in San Remo, Italy, to divide the Middle Eastern lands they had conquered.

That historical meeting transformed the Middle East because, for the first time in nearly 2,000 years, the world's nations called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the land that was then called Palestine.

That decision effectively answered a fundamental issue that still plagues the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks today: whether Israel is an occupying power or it has a rightful claim to the land.

Watch Gordon Robertson give a biblical perspective on Israel's claim to the land, following Chris Mitchell's report.

Dividing an Empire

In San Remo - England, France, Italy, and Japan, with the United States as an observer, divided the Ottomam Empire empire into three mandates: Iraq, Syria and Palestine.

Until its defeat in World War 1, the 400-year-old empire had spread itself throughout the Middle East. Now, France would oversee Syria, while Iraq and Palestine fell under Great Britain.

The resolution also included the Balfour Declaration, written by England's Lord Balfour in 1917. The declaration called for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." One British diplomat, Lord Curzon, called it Israel's "Magna Carta."

Arab's Lion-Share, Israel's Niche

Last year, on the 90th anniversary of the signing of the San Remo resolution, Tomas Sandell of the European Coalition of Israel helped organize an historic gathering.

Click here to watch expanded interviews and more with participants from this historic event commemorating the signing of the San Remo resolution.

"Chaim Weizman said, at the time, you can say that the Israeli state was born on the 25th of April in San Remo because that was the significance of it," Sandell said.

Howard Grief said the resolution, which was adopted by the League of Nations, established several important precedents.

In his book, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law, Grief explains that the resolution gave the Jewish people exclusive legal and political rights in Palestine. It also gave the Arabs the same rights for the remainder of the Middle East.

"The Arabs got the lion's share….I mean they got Syria, which was subsequently divided between Syria and Lebanon," Grief said.

"They got all of Mesopotamia and all of Arabia. This is what Balfour himself said. 'Why are you complaining? You are getting all these lands and we're granting a niche - he called it a niche - to the Jewish people who were going to get Palestine," he said.

Immutable Law

Grief also explained that the 1920 San Remo resolution supersedes later U.N. resolutions.

"There is a doctrine in international law," Grief said. "Once you recognize a certain situation, the matter is executed. You can't change it."

"The U.N. General Assembly exceeded its authority, exceeded its jurisdiction. It did not have the power to divide the country," he said.

Settling Contested 'Settlements'

But what about all those contested Israeli "settlements" in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) that many people - including U.N. Secretary-general Ban Ki-moon - say are illegal?

"Settlements are covered in Article 6 of the mandate for Palestine," Eli Hertz, president of Myths and Facts, explained to conference participants.

"Again the legal international document of the mandate for Palestine and [it] clearly says that not only [do] the Jews have the right to settlement, but the world has the obligation to help them to settle," Hertz explained.

This legal right of the Jews to build in Judea and Samaria or in east Jerusalem neighborhoods is little understood in the world today.

Sandell said he hopes to remedy that problem.

"We feel that we have an historical duty to just bring the facts to the table," Sandell said. "Because we are here dealing with historical facts and this should be known and this should be taken into consideration in the public debate."

Watch More:

Watch expanded interviews with some of the participants in this historic event commemorating the 90th anniversary of the San Remo resolution: 

§     Tomas Sandell, the founding director of the European Coalition for Israel, helped organize the 90th anniversary event.  ECI seeks to education European leaders "about the complex realities of the conflict in the Middle East by acknowledging the right for Israel, as the only democracy in the region, to exist within secure borders."  Click here for more from Sandell.  

§     Eli Hertz is the president of Myths and Facts, a research organization focused much on the Middle East. Hertz has written a short pamphlet on this subject called "This Land is My Land: Mandate for Palestine, Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights," an excellent primer and succinct explanation of the legal foundation of the Jewish state.Click here for more from Hertz. 

§     Salomon Benzimra is from Canadians for Israel's Legal Rights. Benzimra and Goldie Steiner of CILR played a pivotal role in organizing the anniversary. CILR believes "... that a just peace in the Middle-East cannot be achieved while crucial facts are ignored, hidden or distorted." Click here for more from Benzimra. 

§     Danny Danon is the only member of Knesset from Israel to attend the anniversary of the signing of the San Remo Resolution. Click here to watch his message to a seminar the day before the anniversary.

Even the Qur'an says that God gave the Land of Israel to the Jews !

Even the Qur'an says that God gave the Land of Israel to the Jews ! It [the Qur'an] "is a guide for the righteous, who have faith in the unseen and are steadfast in prayer"  [Qur'an: Sura 2, "The Cow", verse 2]  It [the Qur'an] is "a confirmation of previous scriptures" (i.e., the Bible)  [Qur'an: Sura 12, "Joseph", verse 112]  "We [Muslims] believe in that which was revealed to us [the Qur'an] and that which was revealed to you [the Torah]. Our God and your God is one. To Him we surrender ourselves".  [Qur'an: Sura 29, "The Spider", verse 47]  "Enter, My People, the Holy Land which Allah has assigned for you. Do not turn back, or you shall be ruined".  [Qur'an: Sura 5, "The Table, verse 21]  "We [Allah] settled the Israelites in a blessed land and provided them with good things".  [Qur'an: Sura 10, "Jonah", verse 93]  "Pharoah sought to scare them [the Jews] out of the land [of Israel]: but We [Allah] drowned him, together with all who were with him. Then We said to the Israelites: 'Dwell in this land. When the promise of the hereafter comes to be fulfilled, We shall assemble you all together [in the Land of Israel in the End of Days]".  [Qur'an: Sura 17, "The Night Journey", verse 103]  "it was Our [Allah's] will to favour those who were oppressed [the Jews] and to make them leaders of mankind, to bestow on them a noble heritage and to give them power in the land [of Israel]: and to inflict on Pharoah, Haman, and their army, the very scourge dreaded by their victims".  [Qur'an: Sura 28, "The Story", verses 5-6]  "We [Allah] gave the persecuted people [the Jews] dominion over the eastern and western lands which We had blessed [the east and west banks of the Jordan River]. Thus your Lord's gracious word was fulfilled for the Israelites, because they had endured with fortitude; and We destroyed the edifices and towers of Pharoah and his people".  [Qur'an: Sura 7, "The Heights", verse 137]  "To Moses We gave the Scriptures, a perfect code for the righteous, with precepts about all things, and a guide and a blessing, so that his people might believe in the ultimate meeting with their Lord".  [Qur'an: Sura 6, "Cattle", verse 155]  "tell of Our servants Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: men of might and vision whom We made pure with the thought of the hereafter. They shall dwell with Us among the righteous whom We have chosen".  [Qur'an: Sura 38, "Sad", verse 46]  "Glory be to Him [Allah] who made His servants [Muhammed and El Burak] go by night from the Sacred Temple [of Mecca] to the farther Temple [of Jerusalem], whose surroundings We have blessed, that We might show him some of Our signs. He [Allah] alone hears all and observes all. We [Allah] gave Moses the Scriptures and made them a guide for the Israelites, saying, 'Take no other guardian than Myself. You are the descendants of those whom We carried in the Ark with Noah. He was a truly thankful servant'".  [Qur'an: Sura 17, "The Night Journey", verses 1-3]  "We gave the Scriptures to the Israelites and bestowed on them wisdom and prophethood. We provided them with good things and exalted them above the nations".  [Qur'an: Sura 45, "Kneeling", verses 16-17]  "There is guidance, and there is light, in the Torah which We [Allah] have revealed. By it the prophets who surrendered themselves to Allah judged the Jews, and so did the rabbis and the divines; they gave judgement according to Allah's scriptures which had been committed to their keeping and to which they were witnesses".  [Qur'an: Sura 5, "The Table", verses 44-45]

Even the Qur'an says that God gave the Land of Israel to the Jews !

Even the Qur'an says that God gave the Land of Israel to the Jews !

It [the Qur'an] "is a guide for the righteous, who have faith in the unseen and are steadfast in prayer"

 [Qur'an: Sura 2, "The Cow", verse 2]

 It [the Qur'an] is "a confirmation of previous scriptures" (i.e., the Bible)

 [Qur'an: Sura 12, "Joseph", verse 112]

 "We [Muslims] believe in that which was revealed to us [the Qur'an] and that which was revealed to you [the Torah]. Our God and your God is one. To Him we surrender ourselves".

 [Qur'an: Sura 29, "The Spider", verse 47]

 "Enter, My People, the Holy Land which Allah has assigned for you. Do not turn back, or you shall be ruined".

 [Qur'an: Sura 5, "The Table, verse 21]

 "We [Allah] settled the Israelites in a blessed land and provided them with good things".

 [Qur'an: Sura 10, "Jonah", verse 93]

 "Pharoah sought to scare them [the Jews] out of the land [of Israel]: but We [Allah] drowned him, together with all who were with him. Then We said to the Israelites: 'Dwell in this land. When the promise of the hereafter comes to be fulfilled, We shall assemble you all together [in the Land of Israel in the End of Days]".

 [Qur'an: Sura 17, "The Night Journey", verse 103]

 "it was Our [Allah's] will to favour those who were oppressed [the Jews] and to make them leaders of mankind, to bestow on them a noble heritage and to give them power in the land [of Israel]: and to inflict on Pharoah, Haman, and their army, the very scourge dreaded by their victims".

 [Qur'an: Sura 28, "The Story", verses 5-6]

 "We [Allah] gave the persecuted people [the Jews] dominion over the eastern and western lands which We had blessed [the east and west banks of the Jordan River]. Thus your Lord's gracious word was fulfilled for the Israelites, because they had endured with fortitude; and We destroyed the edifices and towers of Pharoah and his people".

 [Qur'an: Sura 7, "The Heights", verse 137]

 "To Moses We gave the Scriptures, a perfect code for the righteous, with precepts about all things, and a guide and a blessing, so that his people might believe in the ultimate meeting with their Lord".

 [Qur'an: Sura 6, "Cattle", verse 155]

 "tell of Our servants Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: men of might and vision whom We made pure with the thought of the hereafter. They shall dwell with Us among the righteous whom We have chosen".

 [Qur'an: Sura 38, "Sad", verse 46]

 "Glory be to Him [Allah] who made His servants [Muhammed and El Burak] go by night from the Sacred Temple [of Mecca] to the farther Temple [of Jerusalem], whose surroundings We have blessed, that We might show him some of Our signs. He [Allah] alone hears all and observes all. We [Allah] gave Moses the Scriptures and made them a guide for the Israelites, saying, 'Take no other guardian than Myself. You are the descendants of those whom We carried in the Ark with Noah. He was a truly thankful servant'".

 [Qur'an: Sura 17, "The Night Journey", verses 1-3]

 "We gave the Scriptures to the Israelites and bestowed on them wisdom and prophethood. We provided them with good things and exalted them above the nations".

 [Qur'an: Sura 45, "Kneeling", verses 16-17]

 "There is guidance, and there is light, in the Torah which We [Allah] have revealed. By it the prophets who surrendered themselves to Allah judged the Jews, and so did the rabbis and the divines; they gave judgment according to Allah's scriptures which had been committed to their keeping and to which they were witnesses".

 [Qur'an: Sura 5, "The Table", verses 44-45]