Judge Levy and his committee pointed out that the generally accepted theory that Israel was an occupying power in Judea and Samaria was false and that Jewish settlement there was not contrary to international law.
Are Jewish settlements beyond the 1949 armistice lines contrary to international law? You would think that would be easy to determine. But just compare the theories that have been proposed on this issue to the decades-long search for the elusive Higgs boson. The first seems to be in the realm of speculation; the other finally has been nailed down after painstaking research.
Now experiments conducted at the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva have confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson. Scientists had searched for this elementary particle for years – it was the missing particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. First predicted based on theoretical considerations by Professor Peter Higgs and other physicists in 1964, its existence has now been confirmed. The Standard Model seems to be in good shape for the time being.
As for the right of Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria, the conventional wisdom for many years has been that this is contrary to international law. However, the theoretical model that postulated that Israel is an occupying power in Judea and Samaria – and therefore obligated to behave there in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention – received a body blow with the release of the report drafted by the committee headed by Judge Edmond Levy, which stated the contrary.
Almost universally accepted in recent years, this model of Israeli “conquest” and “occupation” was based on an implicit assumption that was, at first view, invalid – namely, that Judea and Samaria, prior to 1967, had been territory under Palestinian sovereignty and had come under Israeli control as a result of Israeli aggression.
Now here is the difference between the exact sciences and the “soft” social sciences. One requires painstaking research and proof beyond a shadow of a doubt before a proposition can be accepted as valid; the other often involves jumping to conclusions that have more to do with wishful thinking than logical deductions.
The missing part in the “occupied territory” model is the Palestinian state. The proponents of the two-state solution believe so fervently in the need to establish this state and thus “solve” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that they have in effect conjured this state into existence prior to 1967, thus turning Israeli control over Judea and Samaria into occupation of Palestinian sovereign territory.
Conveniently forgotten is the fact that, prior to 1967, Judea and Samaria was territory that had been occupied by the Jordanian army in 1948 in Jordan’s war of aggression against Israel, and that Jordan lost control of this territory due to its renewed aggression against Israel in 1967.
The legal rights, by international law, of the Jewish people in all of Palestine were defined in 1922 by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which recognized “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” Furthermore, it called on the Mandatory power to “encourage close settlement by Jews on the land.” The Mandate for Palestine was also endorsed that same year by a resolution passed unanimously in both Houses of the U.S. Congress.
Those who claim that the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine of 1922 has in the intervening years been superseded by events and by the UN Partition Resolution of November 1947 ignore the United Nations Charter (Chapter XII, article 80 ) which states that “nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be partners.” This clearly precludes arbitrary changes to the rights of the Jewish people in Palestine as defined in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, and confirms the legality of Jewish settlements in all of Palestine in accordance with international law.
Judge Levy and his committee pointed out that the generally accepted theory that Israel was an occupying power in Judea and Samaria was false and that Jewish settlement there was not contrary to international law.
Visceral antisemitism bias the legal world experts against Israel.
IL has two options: concede and never see the end of it or annexes J & Sand wait and see.
Premising that the state of Israel is not the repository of world Jewish rights acquired through the international law process that culminated in the Mandate of Palestine, or alternatively, by it’s suppression of those settlement rights has forfeited such authority, the Jews of YS should unit as Bernard suggests to reconstitute the ancient kingdom of Judea and assert their rights in defiance of Israel. As Bernard correctly points out, this would be a countervailing voice to bogus Pally claims which Israel does not properly address. The moribund World Zionist Organization could be revitalized by joining this initiative and like minded Jewish organizations could be enlisted to the cause as well. The outcome should be seen as encouraging Israel to join ranks with the new initiative rather than, G-d forbid the establishment of a second Jewish state in YS. But even if such a second state results, it would be several magnitudes preferable to a Pally state in YS.
Wallace Brand Said:
I think it would be a good idea for an organization to form for this purpose. It would also help GOI by creating a legal pressure which it can show to the world that it is required to respond. In this regard there would be 2 peoples in YS being squeaking wheels whereas now there is only the pals. The Jews in YS are considered by the world to be an internal Israeli matter to be suppressed, bound and delivered. If they were to unite with global Jewish organizations a 3rd focus might be created. The Levy report is a good first step by raising the issue, I think BB feels he must move slowly while the new paradigm is being absorbed. Even now the report is being presented as being separate from his govt. which is what I am suggesting as a pragmatic approach to a new organization. It is not easy to move in a different direction regardless of its correctness.
Wallace Brand Said:
The prime right of world jewry was settlement west of the JOrdan River. By not facilitating or “encouraging”, and in fact obstructing the right of settlement it is violating its duty. However, you are correct that it has not entirely abandoned world jewry in that it retains control over the west bank, but appears to have trashed jewish settlement rights in gaza without consultation of the beneficiary and appearing to be a whim of the scandal ridden Sharon. Perhaps the reason for the withdrawal was personal blackmail/extortion by foreign intelligence services against his family.
@ Bernard Ross:Has the Government of Israel received a directive from World Jewry notifying it of its desires, in the nature of a demand letter — “do what is required or we will rely on other remedies?” The Government of Israel has not entirely abandoned the rights of World Jewry in that it has annexed East Jerusalem and is currently maintaining a military control over the area in dispute. The only indication of abandonment is its willingness to bargain for a two state solution but the two state solution it is willing to bargain for is very close to the one Jewish state solution based on San Remo I have been recommending with annexation of Judea and Samaria and reconquest of Gaza and proffering it Home Rule. Israel should of course, keep authority over who and what parties may run for office in Gaza so that it may keep out terrorists as required by the UN. I have said that this remedy would suffice to meet the requirements of the process verbal in the Mandate for Palestine. It would also be a defense in the court of world opinion to admit to citizenship in Judea and Samaria those who would swear fealty to the Jewish State and offer compensation to leave to those who would not. And also to let the Gazans establish policy in Gaza until such time as the Jewish population is big enough to swallow all the Arabs there who would be willing to swear fealty to the Jewish State and not make a big dent in the Jewish population majority overall. According to Yoram Ettinger, the Jewish birth rate is now significantly higher than the Muslim birth rate and the Jewish law of return favors Jewish immigration as did the Balfour policy adopted by the League of Nations and the US. .
@ Wallace Brand:Thank you for your views on 85.
Wallace Brand Said:
I thought the Jewish Agency was the agent of global jewry? Is it not for the beneficiary to decide on his agent? If agents have resigned or abandoned there agency then what is the recourse when an agreement of Jewish settlement is not fulfilled? Obviously Israel is not representing global jewry and did not pursue global jewry’s interest in the west bank. Does this mean that global Jewry’s rights disappear in law? The one definite directive in law was the encouragement of jewish settlement west of the Jordan river. This has been obstructed and unfulfilled. What remedies exist in law to restore justice? Can it not be inferred that as the directive remains unfulfilled and is capable of being fulfilled, as there is no state on the west bank, that whoever is administrating the area becomes the defacto trustee and is legally obligated to execute the directive. Do rights disappear because trustees and agents abandon their beneficiaries?
Wallace Brand Said:
I agree, I have been reading these and I thank you all for your contribution as you appear to be the only ones trying to inform Jews of these facts and more importantly how Jews have been manipulated and swindled in spite of these relevant agreements. It is my view that all this should be required education in all Israeli schools. Knowledge of the truth can lead to the repudiation of the acceptance of continuing swindles. After all is said and done the simple principle of law agreed was the “encouragement of Jews to settle west of the Jordan River”. This was not fulfilled and it is a reasonable expectation of the Jewish people of Israel and the global community. If this reasonable expectation is not met then extra judicial avenues should be postulated in order to correct the perversion.
Article 85, in my view, refers to “trusteeships” created by the UN that are still ongoing. The UN now calls these arrangements “trusteeships” apparently preferring to abandon the baggage of the “Mandate” language of the League of Nations. In any event, the British Mandate for Palestine has been concluded in 1948 when they abandoned it, and in any event in 1950 when the tacit condition of Jewish population reaching a majority in Palestine took place. England has no political rights left in Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem because it abandoned its trusteeship.
I have not formed a conclusion about the relationship between the Government of Israel and World Jewry. To find that relationship I would likely look at the documents establishing the relationship between the Zionist Organization and the Government of Israel. But I have not studied those as yet so I have not formed any conclusion. World Jewry clearly was entitled to the political rights over CisJordan. To my aging recollection, the Zionist Organization may have agreed to give up Transjordan in the 20s. But clearly World Jewry was entitled to all of CisJordan at one time. Whether it has transferred all its rights to the Government of Israel is an interesting subject that I will study. So far I have not studied it because the subject is purely theoretical as the Zionist Organization, to my knowledge, has no practical means for exercising sovereignty currently.
It appears that my last post is being moderated. I must have violated some rule I was not aware of. But in it I discussed the former legal dominion of England, its temporary sovereignty and the beneficial rights of World Jewry commencing in 1920. The Government of Israel did not exist until 1948 to my knowledge.
@ Yidvocate:An old truth is right. Before Levy, Jacque Gautier, Howard Grief, Salomon Benzimra and I all related the history and law leading to that truth. See my two part op ed in Artuz Sheva a few weeks before the Levy Report Part 1: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11408
Part 2: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11412
Debunking the Palestine Lie” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9UAnd Isaiah Friedman, in the last chapter of his book, “The Question of Palestine 1914-1918 lists many contemporary sources which referred to the Balfour policy as reestablishing or reconstituting a Jewish State. It was to be a two step process with first a Jewish National Home, and then when the Jews had built it up and brought back in many from the Diaspora, so as to attain a population majority in all of Palestine, the beneficial rights they were granted would turn into legal dominion and the right to exercise sovereignty. In 1920 there was only the recognition of beneficial ownership of political rights because to give the Jews immediate sovereignty was deemed antidemocratic. It was likely a good idea too because the French mandatory gave the Alewite population minority and for the last 4 decades we first had a bloody massacre by Hafez Assad, and now one by his son. This method was foreshadowed by the British Foreign Office in a memo of September 19 by Arnold Toynbee and Lewis Namier. It noted the opposition of many to the proposed Balfour policy on the grounds that to give a 10% minority population of Jews immediate sovereignty would be antidemocratic. The BFO agreed with that in concept but as to be applied it said the grounds for opposition were imaginary because they were going to recognize exclusive political rights to Palestine in trust of the UK or the US so that sovereignty would not vest in the Jews until they had attained a population majority. The Declaration was executed a few weeks later. After the war, Churchill, Lloyd-George, and others confirmed this course was taken.
@ Bernard Ross:
Yes. Just what courageous Jews are doing everyday by settling Judea and Samaria in defiance of Ehud Barrack and the Israeli government in exercise of the rights accorded to the Jewish people (not the state of Israel which didn’t exist at the time of the Mandate)by the Mandate of Palestine. The state of Israel does NOT represent world Jewry but only the state of Israel.
If Israel keeps refusing to take sovereignty over the west bank then is there another route for global jewry to claim settlement rights and proceed to settle?
@ Wallace Brand:Is israel the successor agent to the jewish people, is it a succesor to the mandate trust?
Wallace Brand Said:
If Israel refuses to take sovereignty or trusteeship obligations over the west bank then has it not abandoned its presumed authority to represent global Jewry or be a trustee? How can the mandate be considered concluded or fulfilled when Jews are not settled west of the JOrdan? UK and Israel appear to have abandoned mandate obligations. However, Israel is still in a position to exercise the mandate in YS. However, would this call article 85 into question?Wallace Brand Said:
What about art. 85
Bernard Ross Said:
It appears that GOI is stalling for fear of enfranchising arabs , but why not settle jews and fulfill the mandate as trustee; what is it afraid of in this regard?
@ Bernard Ross:According to Lee, the League of Nations did not keep any residual authority so there would be no basis for the UN to assert authority.
The Mandate was a trust agreement placing the political rights to Palestine in trust. See: Lee, The Mandate for Mesopotamia and the Principle of Trusteeship in English Law: -1921 D.Campbell Lee, a Barrister at Law at the Middle Temple and a member of the New York Bar. He lectured on this subject, defining “the mandate as a trust” at University College, London University on May 23, 1921, just over a year after the San Remo meeting. His lecture was later published as a short 21 page book. ” A copy is available online http://archive.org/stream/cu31924052878265#page/n3/mode/2up You can download the pdf at http://archive.org/details/cu31924052878265 It is also available in hard copy as a reprint from Amazon.com at http://www.amazon.com/Mandate-Mesopotamia-Principle-Trusteeship-English/dp/B008XDMDBA/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1350743749&sr=8-3-fkmr0&keywords=The+Mandate+for+Mespotamia+Lee
I agree with Lee with one exception. He says that sovereignty was “in suspension” during the period of the mandate. But he also says at page 16: “Legal dominion would vest in the Mandatory until the Mandate is fulfilled, until the beneficiary assumes the trust. I do not see how the League of Nations can possess sovereignty in its present state of development but it is highly probable that from the view-point of International Law the proper conclusion is that the Allied Powers, by creating the Mandatory system, have placed the sovereignty of all Mandated areas in suspense during the operation of the respective Mandates.” [Here I depart from the views of Mr. Lee. Logic would tell us that by giving the Mandatory Power legal dominion over the political rights it has recognized for the Jews, it has authorized the Mandatory to exercise a temporary sovereignty over Palestine so long as it remains the trustee. For how else can one assert legal dominion over an intangible such as political rights? “The important and practical consideration is that the Mandatory must possess legal dominion. This is conferred on him by his selection as a Mandatory and by the approval of his Mandate by the Council of the League. So long as he fulfils [sic] an unrevoked Mandate, he has legal dominion within the compass of his powers.” [So he has a temporary limited sovereignty.] “He has no rights of sovereignty beyond this limit. Full sovereignty will come in due time to the territory, but only when its people assume the dignity of an independent State.” So the trustee may not block the immigration of Jews into Palestine — as it did in 1939.
Of course full sovereignty would never come to the British Mandate for Palestine, for World Jewry was limited by the savings clause saving the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities. But when the British abandoned their trusteeship, it is only logical that the beneficiary get legal dominion over the trust res, and a short two years later they had attained a population majority that was the tacit condition for the transfer of legal dominion to World Jewry and their representative, the Government of Israel.
I hope that someone would publish the few pages of the last chapter of Isaiah Friedman, “The Question of Palestine 1914-1918 that shows a plethora of contemporary sources at the time of the Balfour declaration that believed that the Jews would be reconstituted as a state in Palestine. That became International Law at San Remo, and when confirmed by the League of Nations and perpetuated by Article 80 of the UN Charter — the Jewish Article. Finally, if one reads Leonard Stern, The Balfour Declaration, on will find that at San Remo France’s Bertholot tried to get the assembled group of WWI Allies to amend the Mandate to add “political rights” to the savings clause of “civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities. This was not adopted. The French got instead, what basically was a side agreement, the French process verbal, that said that the savings clause meant that the Arabs would not have to surrender any of their existing rights. They never had any political rights. Except for the Jewish state, Palestine was always ruled from afar. For the 400 years prior to the Mandate, it was occupied by Colonial Turkey and ruled from Constantinople. From 1920 to 1948 it was ruled by the British from London, and from 1948 to 1967 it was ruled by the Jordanians from Amman. Since 1967 it has been ruled by the Jews from Jerusalem but by military rule that should be changed to civil rule.
as YS is not a territory under Israel soveriegnty it was presumably still a mandate trust territory
was the agreement concluded by UNGA 181 which was not accepted by the parties concerned and was abandoned by UN with invasion of JOrdan? Was it not concluded because it was not fulfilled wrt its prime directive to settle Jews?
Did UNGA have authority to conclude mandate before the directive was fulfilled? If the mandate is unfulfilled and still in force due to lack of extension of Israeli authority over part of mandate territory then is the UNGA in authority over its terms and administration(above the mandate trustee)? It can be argued that the UN concluded or abandoned its mandate authority, with UNGA181 or lack of enforcement during Jordanian occupation, and that Israel is currently operating as defacto administrator with the intent to fulfill the mandate obligations in principle the “encouragement to settle Jews” It appears to be a legal messs with all parties who make their own conclusions avoiding the premises upon which their respective conclusions are based. For Israel, if the mandate exists then UNGA can claim authority, if sovereignty is extended then resident arab “rights” problem obtains. In the worst case scenario, legally, I cannot see any reason for not bringing area C under Israel sovereignty in order to facilitate Jewish settlement, as mandate directed, without any impediment to arab rights as stipulated in UN charter. Arabs can have no rights in areas in which they do not even reside. Israel can maintain occupancy over remaining areas in order to secure the continuing rights of Jewry to settle west of jordan river and fulfill intent of mandate, reasonably relied on by world jewry,which was unenforced and abandoned by the UN.
@ Salomon Benzimra:
Wasn’t there also a specific reference to mandate trusts of the LON in the UN Charter?
@ Salomon Benzimra:
Very good point. Most people assume that the UN Charter was the initial and primary source for Jewish rights to the land. Obviously, it goes back further and the passage you quoted goes to show that Article 80 wasn’t meant to supercede previous international laws or even the intent of the international community years earlier as expressed in the San Remo conference and the Mandate two years after that.
There was an inadvertent omission in quoting Article 80 of the UN Charter; see correction in bold:
The reference to “peoples” was specifically introduced with the Jewish people in mind when the Charter was drafted in 1945.
@ Yidvocate:
Very well put. Why no mention of San Remo in the article, though. Isn’t that the basis of the League of Nations Mandate two years later. Doesn’t it go to the “intent” of the international community at the time even before the Mandate?
Actually, it merely recognizes an old truth.