Sunday, July 10, 2016

Draiman for Mayor of Los Angeles 2017


Draiman for Mayor of Los Angeles 2017

                          Los Angeles 2017



YJ Draiman for Mayor of Los Angeles 2017

YJ Draiman

Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles 2017
Integrity is a choice. It is consistently choosing the purity of truth over popularity

YJ Draiman for Mayor of Los Angeles 2017
Los Angeles Ethics commission lists YJ Draiman and Eric Garcetti (the current mayor) as Candidates for Mayor of Los Angeles 2017 both have filed the necessary documents to be listed as candidates for Mayor in the 2017 LA Mayoral elections and can start fundraising.
YJ Draiman for Mayor 2017 
9420 Reseda Blvd., United 274
Northridge, CA 91324
Telephone: (818) 3666999
Email: draimanformayor@msn.com
DOI: DOI Help 03/07/15 

Treasurer: YJ  Draiman
9420 Reseda Blvd., Unit 274
Northridge, CA 91324
Telephone: (818) 366-6999
http://draimanformayor2017.com

YJ Draiman is the Secretary of the Board & a fourth term Elected Council Member for the Northridge East Neighborhood Council – NENC, he is also the liaison between the NENC and LADWP. As an Energy Efficiency Advocate YJ Draiman is known for his advancement in implementing Energy efficiency, Renewable energy and Water conservation in the Los Angeles Area. YJ Draiman is promoting his platform of Made in America to bring back to the city of Los Angeles a strong industrial base, increase employment, strengthen education and reduce government and implement fiscal responsibility.
YJ Draiman ran for Los Angeles City Council in 2009 and for Mayor of LA in 2013. He was sworn in as an elected member of NENC, Los Angeles in April 2010 and was re-elected in 2012, 2014 and 2016. YJ Draiman brings to the NENC Office a unique combination of government, business and community leadership experience. He is also a member of The Northridge Vision Committee.

YJ Draiman is a former Real Estate developer with over 20 year’s experience; he has worked extensively in rehabing neighborhoods. YJ Draiman has vast experience in the deregulation of Utilities and implementing energy and water conservation. He is an Energy Efficiency expert for over 25 years as well as an Alternative Energy authority and a Telecommunications auditor. YJ Draiman has been working in the Energy and the Utility markets for over 20 years. In January 1996 he was asked to run for U.S. Senate, but he declined. YJ Draiman is currently working on his PHD in energy conservation.
YJ Draiman participated with the Utility Commission in protecting citizens from increased tariffs, where he championed projects offering opportunities for job creation, economic development, and social services for the less fortunate.


YJ Draiman lives in Northridge and is married to Miriam Draiman. They have two sons, David who is a professional singer with a popular rock band Disturbed and Benjamin who is a clinical researcher as well as vocalist/musician.
    YJ Draiman - The son of European immigrants, YJ Draiman was born in 1949. He was reared in Brooklyn, New York. After graduating from High School, he studied Engineering in New York City. In 1971, he got married and went to work as a Mechanical Engineer in the printing industry.


    In 1975, YJ moved to Chicago where he initially worked as an Administrator in a Healthcare facility. But for most of his adult life, YJ has been a businessman. He rehabilitated apartment buildings, he owned a Real Estate Office, he partnered in a Natural Gas Exploration venture and operated a chain of electronic stores. And in 1984, he started marketing Deregulated natural gas, natural gas futures hedging and Efficiency in Energy, Water, Telecom and Utility Services. He’s been active in this business ever since. He’s been recognized by the Illinois State Commerce Commission as a Utilities Expert.

   In 2005, YJ came to Los Angeles. He resides in Northridge and has lived there ever since. As a resident of Northridge, he developed an interest in the Northridge East Neighborhood Council (NENC). In 2010 he was elected as a Member of the Council’s Board of Directors. Today, he’s the Secretary and he serves on both the Executive and Finance Committees. Moreover, YJ also represents the NENC on the Northridge Vision Organization. In 2010 YJ was a candidate for Councilman in District 12th and in 2013 he ran for Mayor of Los Angeles.  YJ is currently working on his PHD in Energy conservation.
YJ Draiman wants to be your Mayor! He feels his successful business experience has given him the skills, abilities and insights needed to balance the interests of the City’s very diverse communities. In the end, YJ believes all Angelinos (himself included) expect City government to be effective and efficient—to provide excellent services at an affordable price.

   To achieve those goals, YJ is committed to an ambitious jobs program: he’ll bring back those businesses that were forced—by the City’s high tax rate—to leave Los Angeles. Moreover, he’ll actively support the creation of new businesses in renewable energy and energy conservation.
   YJ reminds Angelinos, “Don’t forget that our City normally gets more sunlight than any other city in America. That fact must be used to our advantage. We will determine if it’s feasible to call Los Angeles The Solar City.  We will explore the possibility of turning the whole City into  “The World Capital of Renewable Energy, Energy Efficierncy and Water Conservation." That would attract billions of investment dollars to Los Angeles. It would facilitate the start-up of many small, energy-related businesses. It would create jobs and generate tax revenues.”
   YJ is a family man. He and his wife, Miriam, have two adult sons, David 39 a lead singer for Disturbed and Benjamin, 36 a psychologist. He’s at a point in his life where he feels he can give something back to the country that has treated his family so well. He’d welcome comments/question from those who read this column, and can be reached by phone at: (818) 366-6999, or with an e-mail
yjdraiman@yjdraiman.org


Los Angeles Election Division certifies YJ Draiman as a Mayoral Candidate in the March 5, 2013 Elections.
News Bulletin - Draiman News Agency - Tuesday, Nov. 27, 2012
YJ Draiman is certified as LA mayoral candidate to be on the ballot in Los Angeles elections which will be held on March 5 2013 – http://yjdraimanformayor.org

YJ Draiman for mayor of LA TV Interview  - Dec. 24, 2012
 http://youtu.be/dAhC83qfFXg

Saturday, July 9, 2016

LA Mayoral candidate for 2017 YJ Draiman


LA Mayoral candidate for 2017 YJ Draiman


Los Angeles 2017

"Let us take back our city and make it Los Angeles governed by the people for the people"

                                                              

Y.J. Draiman. - Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles
YJ Draiman is a fourth term elected member of Northridge East Neighborhood Council, (NENC) Los Angeles originally elected in April 2010. 
YJ Draiman who ran last year for councilmen at District 12 in Los Angeles,
YJ Draiman ran for Mayor of Los Angeles in 2013.
YJ Draiman has formally filed paper to run for Mayor of Los Angeles – March 7, 2015.
Y.J. Draiman. - Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles 2017
YJ Draiman who is part of the executive committee of the NENC brings a unique combination of government, business and community leadership experience to the NENC office. YJ is also a member of the Northridge Vision Committee. YJ has over 20 years experience in Energy Efficiency & Utilities.  YJ is a former Real Estate developer, YJ has worked extensively in gentrifying neighborhoods.
YJ background includes a position as a healthcare administrator, managed the building of a 5 star hotel, an Alternative Energy & Efficiency expert, owned and operated a chain of electronic retail stores which included an electronics wholesale division.  YJ is currently working on his PHD in Energy Conservation.  YJ has been working and implementing his expertise in the Energy and the Utility markets for over 20 years.
In 1989 YJ was asked to run for a senate seat but declined. YJ worked with the Utility Commission in protecting citizens from increased tariffs, where he championed projects offering opportunities for job creation, economic development, and social services for the less fortunate.
YJ Draiman lives in Northridge with his wife of 41 years, Miriam. They have 2 children; a thirty nine year old son, David who is the lead singer of the musical group Disturbed, and a 36 year old son, Benjamin who is a Psychologist and a clinical researcher for several entities including Columbia University.

9420 Reseda Blvd., Unit 274, Northridge, CA 91324 Office: 818-366-6999   ID#1337783
 
We need honest government with integrity.
“Good leaders create a vision, articulate the vision, passionately own the vision, and relentlessly drive it to completion”

YJ DRAIMAN -INDEPENDENT MYORAL CANDIDATE
for the CITY of – Los Angeles – 2017


 
Change is inevitable. Change for the better is a full-time job.
Every age needs men who will redeem the time by living with a vision of the things that are to be.




What do you think is the single most important issue facing the City of Los Angeles today? As Mayor what would you do to deal with it?

Answer from YJ Draiman: 


Jobs and the economy, they are linked.

Jobs and the Economy + solutions + YJ Draiman r4 

As Mayor of LA, how would I create jobs? 

We have a tremendous amount of natural resources here in Los Angeles, which we need to develop. To put it succinctly, "You can not drill for American oil and natural gas in China, Saudi Arabia or anyplace else other than America." 
The more domestic energy we produce, renewable and non-renewable, the more domestic jobs we create. Moreover, jobs in the exploration and production of oil and natural gas pay more than twice the national average. At the same time, the domestic energy we produce will increase R&D in renewable energy sources, thus, increase efficiency. 
Just look how far we have come in the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency in the past 10 years. I intend to accelerate that trend, and to take advantage of every resource possible in technology and funding. As I stated many times; "Those who control the energy supply control whole continents"; "Those who control the water sources control life". 
Americans should demand products made in the USA. We can produce a better product with better quality at a competitive price. It is my intention to provide numerous incentives to retain businesses here in Los Angeles, and to offer those incentives to bring businesses back to Los Angeles. 
Employment creates revenues and saves the government money and resources by taking the unemployed off the government subsidy and social services. It also creates the "multiplier affect", which is a snowball of economic growth. 
One of my top priorities is to ensure that we continue to develop and promote renewable energy sources. Many in the natural gas industry believe the day when renewable energy dominates our energy landscape is far off. I disagree. With American ingenuity, innovation and determination, the dawn of renewable energy sources can be upon us now. 
What I propose is a "do-it-all strategy" in which we focus not just on developing renewable energy, but also on the development of our abundant fossil fuels. While further technology and innovation in building construction would need to be developed, such need would also provide more jobs. More importantly, our reliance on over-priced outside energy would be decreased resulting in positive economic growth. 
I would promote the design of a thermal solar system that provides energy, heat and hot water. In addition, I would initiate a new and advanced fuel technology for vehicles such as hydrogen, natural gas and ultra-capacitors for energy storage. Los Angeles wastes an enormous amount of energy and work hours due to traffic congestion. I plan on an expedient advancement of our public transit system and devise systems to reduce traffic congestion. 
In urban areas: roads, sidewalks, buildings and other structures prevent rainwater from being absorbed in the ground and replenishing the aquifers. It is time for us to compensate for that loss by collecting the rain runoff into retaining ponds. We need to implement the use of rainwater harvesting, gray water technology, collecting the billions of gallons of rain runoff into retaining ponds, desalinization projects powered totally by renewable energy (solar and wind combo systems) and other methods of conserving natural resources. As such, we would make existing renewable systems more cost effective and more efficient. 
The result of my programs would be the increase of jobs, the decrease of energy and operating costs, and a reduction of our reliance on foreign oil. That in turn would result in decreasing the deficit and creating permanent jobs. 
In short, the key to Los Angeles economic recovery is not an increase in taxes and fees. Rather, true long-term recovery will rely on the increase of efficiency and productivity; the reduction of bureaucracy; and the promotion of businesses and employment. All of which will instill confidence in our economy, generate greater revenues for the city of Los Angeles and other governmental entities. 
American confidence in government is at an all time low. We no longer have the same level of faith in our institutions and leaders that we once had. Consequently, we are seeing a continued erosion of our outlook on the future. This outlook must change by initiating a massive and sound education program that produces innovation and technology. 
We have an opportunity to jumpstart our economy, protect our environment and put our city on the path toward energy security through greater use of our domestic energy production such as natural gas. Our domestic energy production can serve as a foundation for our energy and economic independence. This path will enable us to develop the required innovation and production of other forms of energy sources. 
To realize a course toward energy and economic security we must do what is necessary to instill confidence in the responsible development of our energy sources. We can use natural gas as a solid foundation on which to develop extensive R&D in renewable energy sources, and the efficient means to operate and maintain the mechanisms needed for such use. 
Improving our educational system is the key to our economic survival. In a global, knowledge-driven economy, there is a direct correlation between engineering education and innovative progress. Our success or failure as a city will be measured by how well we do in providing the needed educational tools to promote innovation in all fields. 
Leadership is not a birthright. Despite what many Americans believe, our city does not possess an innate knack for greatness. Greatness must be worked for and won by each new generation. Right now that is not happening. However, we still have time. If we place the emphasis we should on education, research and innovation, we can lead the world in the decades to come. Nevertheless, the only way to ensure we remain great tomorrow is to increase our investment in science and engineering today. In addition, we must invest in trade schools to train our future workers in the new and old technology. 
We have to learn how to balance the need of the people vs. the need to protect the environment. Any extreme to either side is not good. 
In today's fast moving technologies, government as well as companies must learn to adjust and maneuver quickly to keep pace, or they will be out of business or incur deteriorating revenues and infrastructure. We must learn how stay competitive and resourceful to survive and thrive economically. 
I submit: Leadership by example. I plan to cut waste, maximize productivity, reduce bureaucracy, increase efficiency and conservation in all city departments and assets, eliminate duplicating tasks and reward excellent performance and innovative methods of job performance. These are hard economic times; we must all put our shoulder to the task. 
We must put all our differences aside and work together in harmony for the good of the people and the city of Los Angeles. Your vote for me will be one more step in this positive direction and it will be a win for all the people in LA. 

YJ Draiman 
http://www.smartvoter.org/2013/03/05/ca/la/vote/draiman_y/ http://bit.ly/draimanformayor2013 
YJ Draiman


YJ Draiman for Mayor of Los Angeles 2017 - Home

Thursday, July 7, 2016

FOUNDATIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE & THE STATE OF ISRAEL: IMPLICATIONS FOR A NEW PALESTINIAN STATE


FOUNDATIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE & THE STATE OF ISRAEL: IMPLICATIONS FOR A NEW PALESTINIAN STATE




Executive Summary

2012 - Dr. Cynthia Day Wallace, Ph.D. Presented by EUROPEAN COALITION FOR ISRAEL www.ec4i.org


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Translations available in French, German and Italian. Only this original English text is authoritative. 

PART I: FOUNDATIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THE STATE OF ISRAEL 

In international law, as in all law, there are always two sides to a question. If this were not the case, there would be little need for legal solutions. Moreover, both parties in any conflict believe the right is on their side, or at least that they have means to prove this to be so. Accordingly, no law is ever created in a vacuum; a law is created when a serious enough need arises. 

In 1917, owing to the events of World War I, a serious need was identified and a voice was raised. The need was that of the Jewish people, dispersed across the earth for some two thousand years, to have a national home. The voice was that of Lord Balfour, speaking on behalf of the British War Cabinet in defense of the Jewish people worldwide. This compelling need found official expression in the Balfour Declaration of 1917. 

The Balfour Declaration was a political statement with no legal authority; moreover, it was not international. Nonetheless it was a major turning point in the history of the dispersed Jewish people, giving them a future hope of eventually fulfilling their never dying longing for their ancient Holy Land. What it accomplished was to raise the profile, internationally, of the need of a stateless people to have a “national home” to which they could return. Of monumental significance was the official recognition of the all-important historic, religious and cultural links of the Jews to the land of their forefathers, the land that had come to be known under the Greeks and Romans as “Palestine”. 

Because the cause was just and the concept justified, there needed to be a way to elevate the content of this Declaration to the level of international law. Accordingly, the matter was taken up by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers (Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the United States) at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. The issue became more complex as submissions for territorial claims were presented by both Arab and Jewish delegations, as the old Ottoman Empire was being apportioned out to the victorious Powers; thus the matter was not able to be settled within the time frame of the Paris Conference. 

What did happen at the Paris Conference that factored into the progression of events we are considering here was the establishment of the League of Nations which, in Article 22 of its Covenant, provided for the setting up of a mandate system as a trust for the Old Ottoman territories. 

The next important milestone on the road to international legal status and a Jewish national home was the San Remo Conference, held at Villa Devachan in San Remo, Italy, from 18 to 26 April 1920. This was an ‘extension’ of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 for the purpose of dealing with some of these outstanding issues. The aim of the four (out of five) members of the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers that met in San Remo (the United States being present as observer only, owing to the new non-interventionist policy of President Woodrow Wilson), was to consider the earlier submissions of the claimants, to deliberate and to make decisions on the legal recognition of each claim. The outcome, relying on Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, was the setting up of three mandates, one over Syria and Lebanon (later separated into two mandates), one over Mesopotamia (Iraq), and one over Palestine. The Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain, as a “sacred trust of civilization” in respect of “the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people”. This was a binding resolution with all the force of international law. 

In two out of the original three Mandates, it was recognized that the indigenous people had the capacity to govern themselves, with the Mandatory Power merely assisting in the establishment of the institutions of government, where necessary. This was not true of Palestine, as Palestine was, under the Mandate, to become a homeland (“national home”) for the Jewish people. Although the Jewish people were part of the indigenous population of Palestine, the majority of them at that time were not living in the Land. The Mandate for Palestine was thus quite different from the others and set out how the Land was to be settled by Jews in preparation for their forming a viable nation in the territory then known as “Palestine”. The unique obligations of the Mandatory to the Jewish people in respect of the establishment of their national home in Palestine thus gave a sui generis (unique, one of a kind) character to the Mandate for Palestine. 

The boundaries of the “Palestine” referred to in the claimants’ submissions included territories west and east of the Jordan River. The submissions of the Jewish claimants specified that the ultimate purpose of the mandate would be the “creation of an autonomous commonwealth”, provided “that nothing must be done that might prejudice the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities at present established in Palestine”. The resulting Mandate for Palestine, approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922, was an international treaty and, as such, was legally binding. 

The decision made in San Remo was a watershed moment in the history of the Jewish people who had been a people without a home for some two thousand years. From the perspective of Chaim Weizmann, president of the newly formed Zionist Organization and later to become the first President of the State of Israel, “recognition of our rights in Palestine is embodied in the treaty with Turkey, and has become part of international law. This is the most momentous political event in the whole history of our movement, and it is, perhaps, no exaggeration to say in the whole history of our people since the Exile.” To the Zionist Organization of America, the San Remo Resolution “crowns the British [Balfour] declaration by enacting it as part of the law of nations of the world.” 

The policy to be given effect in the Mandate for Palestine was consistent with the Balfour Declaration, in significantly recognizing the historic, cultural and religious ties of the Jewish people to the Holy Land, and even stronger than the Declaration through the insertion of the fundamental principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people. It is particularly relevant to underline the inclusion in the terms of the Mandate (through Article 2) of the fundamental principle set out in the Preamble of this international agreement that “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”. 

The primary objective of the Mandate was to provide a national home for the Jewish people—including Jewish people dispersed worldwide—in their ancestral home. The Arab people, who already exercised sovereignty in a number of States, were guaranteed protection of their civil and religious rights under the Mandate as long as they wished to remain, even after the State of Israel was ultimately formed in 1948. Moreover, Trans-Jordan was meanwhile added as a territory under Arab sovereignty, carved out of the very mandated territory at issue, by the British, prior to the actual signing of the Mandate in 1922 (see below). 

When the Council of the League of Nations approved the Mandate for Palestine in July 1922, it became binding on all 51 Members of the League. This act of the League enabled the ultimate realization of the long cherished dream of the restoration of the Jewish people to their ancient land and validated the existence of historical facts and events linking the Jewish people to Palestine. For the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers, and for the Council of the League of Nations, these historical facts were considered to be accepted and established. In the words of Neville Barbour, “In 1922, international sanction was given to the Balfour Declaration by the issue of the Palestine Mandate”. 

The rights granted to the Jewish people in the Mandate for Palestine were to be given effect in all of Palestine. It thus follows that the legal rights of the claimants to sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem similarly derive from the decisions of the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers in San Remo and from the terms of the Mandate for Palestine approved by the Council of the League of Nations. 

In March 1921, in Cairo, Great Britain decided to partition the mandated territory of Palestine, for international political reasons of its own. Article 25 of the Mandate gave the Mandatory Power permission to postpone or withhold most of the terms of the Mandate in the area of land east of the Jordan River (“Trans-Jordan”). Great Britain, as Mandatory Power, exercised that right. 

For former UN Ambassador, Professor Yehuda Zvi Blum, the rights vested in the Arab people of Palestine with respect to the principle of self-determination were fulfilled as a result of this initial partition of Palestine approved by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922. According to Professor Blum: “The Palestinian Arabs have long enjoyed self-determination in their own state – the Palestinian Arab State of Jordan”. (Worth mentioning here, in a letter apparently written on 17 January 1921 to Churchill’s Private Secretary, Col. T.E. Lawrence (“of Arabia”) had reported that, in return for Arab sovereignty in Iraq, Trans-Jordan and Syria, King Hussein’s eldest son, Emir Feisal—a man said by Lawrence to be known for keeping his word—had “agreed to abandon all claims of his father to Palestine”.) 

After this partition, Churchill—British Colonial Secretary at the time—immediately reaffirmed the commitment of Great Britain to give effect to the policies of the Balfour Declaration in all the other parts of the territory covered by the Mandate for Palestine west of the Jordan River. This pledge included the area of Jerusalem and its Old City. In Churchill’s own words: “It is manifestly right that the Jews who are scattered all over the world should have a national centre and a national home where some of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in the land of Palestine, with which for more than three thousand years they have been intimately and profoundly associated?” 

Thus, in a word, the primary foundations in international law for the “legal” claim based on “historic rights” or “historic title” of the Jewish people in respect of Palestine are the San Remo decisions of April 1920, the Mandate for Palestine of July 1922, approved by the Council of the League of Nations and bearing the signatures of those same Principal Allied Powers but rendering it an international treaty binding on all Member States, and the Covenant of the League of Nations itself (Art. 22). 

PART II: THE QUESTION OF A UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF A STATE OF PALESTINE 

Many years passed from the adoption of the Mandate in 1922 to the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. An event that precipitated Israeli statehood was the vote by the UN General Assembly in 1947 for the partition of Palestine (Resolution 181 (II)), recommending the setting up of a Jewish and an Arab State in that territory. While UNGA resolutions are no more than recommendatory, with no legally binding force, the Jews accepted the partition plan, whereas the Arabs rejected it. The UK terminated its role as Mandatory Power and pulled out of the territory on 14 May 1948. On that date, to take effect at midnight, the Jews declared the State of Israel. 

The following day, the armies of five surrounding Arab nations attacked the new Jewish State (Israeli War of Independence). The Arabs unexpectedly met defeat, though Jordan illegally annexed Judea and Samaria. Israel regained control over its mandated territory in a war of self-defense, the Six-Day War, in 1967. Despite these intervening events that have since influenced its ongoing relevance, not least of which being the fulfillment of its primary purpose, the creation of a Jewish State, certain fundamental aspects of the Mandate remain valid and legally binding and are highly relevant for the determination of the “core issues” to be negotiated between the two parties on the “permanent status” (or “final status”) of Jerusalem and the “West Bank”. 

In order to get the proper perspective in considering the international legal framework surrounding the question of a unilaterally declared Palestinian State with the eastern part of Jerusalem as its capital, we may need to go beyond the law, per se, to consider the impact of public opinion on the formulation of both customary and codified international law. Accordingly, attention should be drawn to the degree to which equitable resolutions to the “core issues” of today’s Israeli / Arab Palestinian conflict can be exacerbated by linguistic hyperbole, factual distortion or pure political maneuvering and calculated rhetoric. Some of this rhetoric has a critical need to be subjected to the light of legal terminology and precision. Otherwise it can easily lead to gross distortions of truth, which can even result in ill-advised international legal responses. 

Take for example, the “Palestinian” identity. At the time of the San Remo decision and the resulting Mandate for Palestine, the territory then known as “Palestine” was designated expressly for the “reconstitution” of the “national home” of the Jewish people only. While care was taken to protect the rights of Arab inhabitants, the Jews alone were a people without a country. Indeed, this was the very purpose of the Mandate for Palestine and its predecessor the Balfour Declaration. At the time of the Mandate, it would have been more accurate to refer to “Palestinian Jews” and “Palestinian Arabs” (along with various other non-Jewish inhabitants). But because of the creation of the State of Israel, the Palestinian Jews retained their ancient name of “Israelis” while the non-Jews (mainly but not all Arabs) appropriated the name “Palestinians”, with the result that they are often erroneously viewed as being the rightful inhabitants of the Land. In actual fact, the Land called “Palestine” covers territory that the Jews have called the “Holy Land” well before the name “Palestine” was first used by the Greeks and Romans. The truth is that the territory known as “Palestine” has never—either since this name was applied or before—been an Arab nation or been designated to be an Arab nation. But this nomenclature carries great psychological impact with the inference that it is the former Arab inhabitants of Palestine that are the true “Palestinians” and that they alone belong in “Palestine”. 

As regards the refugee question, the legal definition of “refugee” is “a person who flees or is expelled from a country, esp[ecially] because of persecution, and seeks haven in another country” (Black’s Law Dictionary). The present plight of all those living in refugee camps is truly pitiable and rightfully arouses the compassion of the world; but most Palestinians identified as “refugees” are well over a generation away from the events that caused the foregoing generation to flee. Vast Arab lands were accorded statehood generations ago and could easily accommodate all these most unfortunate “refugees” who have been made a spectacle of for six decades instead of being integrated as productive members of society among their own people. In addition to the other San Remo mandated territories that gained statehood before Israel, and could well have absorbed their Arab brothers, Trans-Jordan was partitioned off specially for the Palestinian Arabs in the territory originally designated for the Jewish national home. This already furnished a legitimate ‘new State’ for the Arabs within the territory of “Palestine”. International law has never had to grapple with the question of the ‘inheritance’ of refugee status, such a situation being unique in human history. 

Concerning the “1967 lines”, as a point of reference for a potential new Palestinian State, there is constant mention of withdrawal to the “1967 borders”. Firstly, this terminology is legally incorrect. The word “borders” is generally used in international law to mean “national boundaries”, which the 1967 “lines” most decidedly are not. The definition of a “border” under international law is “a boundary between one nation (or a political subdivision [of that nation]) and another” (Black’s Law Dictionary). No such national boundaries have ever been established for the reborn State of Israel. The 1967 “lines” are purely military no-cross lines (“armistice demarcation lines”), from Israel’s 1948 War of Independence. These “lines” have been expressly repeated in numerous 1949 Israeli-Palestinian armistice agreements to neither represent national borders nor prejudice the future bilateral negotiation of same. These 1949 armistice lines remained valid until the outbreak of the 1967 Six-Day War. Linking them with the 1967 war – where lost territory was recovered by the Israel Defense Forces, under attack – by calling them “1967 borders” instead of 1949 armistice lines, fosters the erroneous notion that these are ill-gotten “borders”, thus highly prejudicing the issue and its outcome. Eugene Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in 1967 and one of the drafters of the 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242 on “safe and secure” borders, stated in 1990 that it and subsequent Security Council Resolution 338 “ . . . rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to ‘secure and recognized borders,’ which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949”. In a word, the 1967 lines are not “borders” at all, and this word should not be used to create and perpetuate the impression that Israel has illegally transgressed the borders of another state, when this is clearly not the case. 

Similarly, with regard to the disputed territories, the widespread use of the words “occupied territory” rather than “disputed territory” (which in fact it is) has a major psychological impact that can result in real and even legal ramifications. Furthermore, this language and what it tends to connote (“belligerent occupation”) totally ignores the international treaty language of “reconstituted”, as contained in the Mandate for Palestine. Reconstituted territory precludes “belligerent occupation”, even if permanent national borders have yet to be negotiated. A state cannot, by definition, be a “belligerent occupying power” in a territory that is being “reconstituted” in its name, according to the provisions of a legally binding instrument of international law. “[O]ccupation occurs when a belligerent state invades the territory of another state with the intention of holding the territory at least temporarily” (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law). The territory that Israel reclaimed in 1967 was never rightfully “the territory of another state”, nor did Israel obtain it by war of aggression. Indeed, it was territory that had been specifically designated for a Jewish national home, under the legally binding Mandate for Palestine in 1922. 

A close corollary is the question of settlements. The sensitivities surrounding this question are exacerbated by the very fact that the legality/illegality of such settlements is based on factors that may not follow prescribed international law norms but rather are complicated by the unique nature of the Israeli case. For example, while it is often claimed that such settlements violate Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (IV), the inclusion of this article in the Convention had a different purpose altogether than to govern circumstances such as those existing in present-day Israel. The drafters’ intent was that of protecting vulnerable civilians in times of armed conflict by creating an international legal instrument that would declare as unlawful all coerced deportation such as that suffered by over forty million Germans, Soviets, Poles, Ukrainians, Hungarians, and others, immediately after the Second World War. In the case of Israel, under international law as embodied in the Mandate for Palestine, Jews were permitted and even encouraged to settle in every part of Palestine; they were not deported or forcibly transferred. Accordingly, calling the “East Jerusalem”, Judea and Samaria Israeli settlements “illegal” is not an apt application of the Fourth Geneva Convention. 

The question of Jerusalem may be the most volatile of all. Owing to the sacredness of this city to so many, it has become evident that the positions of Israel and the Palestinians regarding the Old City are virtually irreconcilable. Evidence of this is the fact that it was not named in the Framework for Peace in the Middle East, agreed in the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt. In the latter case, Jerusalem was indeed on the agenda, but was left out of the actual Accords, owing to the inability of the two parties to resolve their fundamental differences on the highly loaded issue. The failure of the Camp David Summit of July 2000 again underlined the significance of the question of Jerusalem and its Old City. 

Coming to the role of the United Nations in the current debate, it must be recalled that, according to the UN Charter, the UN General Assembly does not have the power to create legally binding decisions. General Assembly Resolutions have only the power to recommend, with no legally binding force. Therefore, were there to be a Resolution “recognizing” the “Arab Palestinians” as a political/state entity, this would not, in and of itself, constitute the creation of a State of Palestine under international law, any more than the 1947 Resolution 181 (II) (the UN Partition Plan) created the State of Israel. 

Moreover there have been commitments on both sides to “permanent status” negotiations. The PLO leadership pledged in 1993 to commit virtually all the important issues of “permanent status” to resolution by negotiations only. Under the 1995 Interim Agreement (Oslo II), the parties undertook not to act unilaterally to alter the status of the territories prior to the results of permanent status negotiations. It was clearly stipulated and agreed that: “… neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations” (emphasis added). 

A unilaterally declared Palestinian State would therefore be in breach of commitments embodied in an international legal instrument as well in publicly declared and published official statements and documents. 

In sum, the conflict is not a traditional conflict over borders—that is not even really the issue, as demonstrated by the fact that national boundaries have gone so long undetermined. It is a conflict over historic rights and the internationally recognized need of a unified ‘people’ to have a place (and territorial space) to come ‘home’ to after some two thousand years of ‘statelessness’ and separation from the Land of their fathers—the only place that they call “holy” and the only Land they have ever called “home”

A corollary of the inalienable right of the Jewish people to its Land is the right to live in any part of Eretz Yisrael aka Palestine, including Judea and Samaria



Appendix F - Israel’s Government Position


Yehuda Z. Blum, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations. At the Louis D. Brandeis Award Dinner of the Zionist Organization of America. (Washington D.C., 11 June 1979)67
“A corollary of the inalienable right of the Jewish people to its Land is the right to live in any part of The Land of Israel aka Eretz Yisrael aka Palestine, including Judea and Samaria which are an integral part of Eretz Yisrael aka Palestine. Jews are not foreigners anywhere in the Land of Israel aka Palestine. Anyone who asserts that it is illegal for a Jew to live in Judea and Samaria just because he is a Jew, is in fact advocating a concept that is disturbingly reminiscent of the ‘Judenrein’ policies of Nazi Germany banning Jews from certain spheres of life for no other reason than that they were Jews. The Jewish villages in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza district are there as of right and are there to stay for eternity.
“The right of Jews to settle in the Land of Israel was also recognized in the League of Nations ‘Mandate for Palestine’ which stressed ‘the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and … the grounds for reconstituting’ - I repeat, reconstituting ‘their national home in that country.’
“The Mandatory Power was also entrusted with the duty to encourage ‘close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.’”


“A corollary of the inalienable right of the Jewish people to its Land is the right to live in any part of The Land of Israel aka Eretz Yisrael aka Palestine, including Judea and Samaria which are an integral part of Eretz Yisrael aka Palestine. Jews are not foreigners anywhere in the Land of Israel aka Palestine. Anyone who asserts that it is illegal for a Jew to live in Judea and Samaria just because he is a Jew, is in fact advocating a concept that is disturbingly reminiscent of the ‘Judenrein’ policies of Nazi Germany banning Jews from certain spheres of life for no other reason than that they were Jews. The Jewish villages in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza district are there as of right and are there to stay for eternity.
“The right of Jews to settle in the Land of Israel aka Palestine was also recognized in the 1920 San Remo conference implemented by the League of Nations ‘Mandate for Palestine’ which stressed the legal language of the law ‘the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and … the grounds for reconstituting’ - I repeat, reconstituting ‘their historical national home in that country (The Land of Israel aka Palestine).’**
“The Mandatory Power was also entrusted with the duty and responsibility to encourage and promote ‘close settlement by Jews on the land known as Palestine aka The Land of Israel, including state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.’” That would bring about a permanent National Home for The Jewish People with its own government. The British violated their duty and responsibility and in the 1930’s through 1948 restricted Jewish immigration into
Palestine aka The Land of Israel. This caused the deaths of millions of Jews trying to escape Nazi extermination camps and enter Israel aka Palestine. The British went as far as sending their agents to blow-up Jewish Holocaust refugee ships bound for Palestine under “Operation Embarrass”.
** Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the Balfour Declaration 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, 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; and
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; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations.



SAN REMO CONFERENCE April 1920

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 favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. It was also decided at San Remo that the Mandate for the government of Palestine should be entrusted to Great Britain. T

THE PALESTINE MANDATE

THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

WHEREAS by Article 132 of the Treaty of Peace signed at Sevres on the tenth day of August 1920, Turkey renounced in favor of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title over Palestine; and

WHEREAS by Article 95 of the said treaty the High Contracting Parties agreed to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the Administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as might be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers; and

WHEREAS by the same article the High Contracting Parties further agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favor of 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; and

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; and

WHEREAS the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

WHEREAS the terms of the Mandate in respect of Palestine have been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

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; Hereby approves the terms of the said Mandate as follows:

Article 1—His Britannic Majesty shall have the right to exercise as Mandatory full powers of legislation and administration, inherent in the Government of a Sovereign State, save as they may be limited by the terms of this Mandate.

Article 2—The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

Article 3—The Mandatory shall so far as circumstances permit encourage local autonomy.

Article 4—An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist Organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognized as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

Article 5—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.

Article 6—The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage in cooperation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4 close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

Article 7—1 The Administration of Palestine will be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

Article 8—The immunities and privileges of foreigners, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection as formerly enjoyed by Capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, are suspended in Palestine, but shall be revived immediately and completely upon the termination of the mandate regime, unless the Powers whose nationals were entitled on the 1st August, 1914, to such rights should agree, or have agreed by treaty to their suspension or modification.

Article 9—The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall safeguard (a) the interests of foreigners; (b) the law, and (to the extent deemed expedient) the jurisdiction now existing in Palestine with regard to questions arising out of the religious beliefs of certain communities (such as the laws of Wakf and personal status). In particular the Mandatory agrees that the control and administration of Wakf’s shall be exercised in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders.

Article 10—Pending the making of special extradition agreements relating to Palestine, the extradition treaties in force between the Mandatory and other foreign Powers shall apply to Palestine.

Article 11—The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country and, subject to Article 811 of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.

The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters !are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilized by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration.

Article 12—The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine, and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers. He shall also be entitled to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine when outside of its territorial limits.

Article 13—All responsibility in connection with the Holy Places and religious buildings or sites in Palestine, including that of preserving existing rights, of securing free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship while ensuring the requirements of public order and decorum, is assumed by the Mandatory, who will be responsible solely to the League of Nations in all matters therewith; provided that nothing in this article shall prevent the Mandatory from entering into such arrangement as he may deem reasonable with the Administration for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this article into effect; and provided also that nothing in this Mandate shall be construed as conferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Muslim sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed.

Article 14—A special Commission shall be appointed by the Mandatory to study and define the rights and claims in connection with the Holy Places, and the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine. The method of the nomination, composition and functions of this Commission shall be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval, and the Commission shall not be appointed or enter into its functions without the approval of the Council of the League of Nations.

Article 15—The Mandatory will see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, is ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief. 


The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language (while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose) shall not be denied or impaired.

Article 16—The Mandatory shall be responsible for exercising such supervision over religious or eleemosynary bodies of all faiths in Palestine as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government. Subject to such supervision, no measures shall be taken in Palestine to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of such bodies or to discriminate against any representative or member of them on the ground of his religion or nationality.

Article 17—The Administration of Palestine may organize on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defense of the country, subject, however, to the supervision of the Mandatory, but shall not use them for purposes other than those above specified save with the consent of the Mandatory. Except for such purposes, no military, naval or air forces shall be raised or maintained by the Administration of Palestine.

Nothing in this article shall preclude the Administration of Palestine from contributing to the cost of the maintenance of forces maintained by the Mandatory.

The Mandatory shall be entitled at all times to use the roads, railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed forces and the carriage of fuel and supplies.

Article 18—The Mandatory must see that there is no discrimination in Palestine against the nationals of any of the States members of the League of Nations (including companies incorporated under their laws) as compared with those of the Mandatory or of any foreign State in matters concerning taxation, commerce or navigation, the exercise of industries or professions, or in the treatment of merchant vessels or civil aircraft. Similarly, there shall be no discrimination in Palestine against goods originating in or destined for any of the said States, and there shall be freedom of transit under equitable conditions across the mandated area.

Subject as aforesaid and to the other provisions of this Mandate, the Administration of Palestine may, on the advice of the Mandatory, impose such taxes and customs duties as it may consider necessary, and take such steps as it may think best to promote the development of the natural resources of the country and to safeguard the interests of the population.

Nothing in this article shall prevent the Government of Palestine, on the advice of the Mandatory, from concluding a special customs agreement with any State the territory of which in 1914 was wholly included in Asiatic Turkey or Arabia.

Article 19—The Mandatory will adhere on behalf of the Administration to any general international conventions already existing or that may be concluded hereafter with the approval of the League of Nations respecting the slave traffic, the traffic in arms and ammunition, or the traffic in drugs, or relating to commercial equality, freedom of transit and navigation, aerial navigation and postal, telegraphic and wireless communication or literary, artistic or industrial property.

Article 20—The Mandatory will cooperate on behalf of the Administration of Palestine, so far as religious, social and other conditions may permit, in the execution of any common policy adopted by the League of Nations for preventing and combating disease, including diseases of plants and animals.

Article 21—The Mandatory will secure, within twelve months from the date of the coming into force of this Mandate, the enactment, and will ensure the execution of, a law of Antiquities based on the provisions of Article 421 of Part XIII of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey. This law shall replace the former Ottoman Law of Antiquities, and shall ensure equality of treatment in the matter of archaeological research to the nationals of all members of the League of Nations.

Article 22—English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscriptions in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew, and any statements or inscriptions in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.

Article 23—The Administration of Palestine shall recognize the holy days of the respective communities in Palestine as legal days of rest for the members of such communities.

Article 24—The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of Nations an annual report as to the measures taken during the year to carry out the provisions of the Mandate. •Copies of all laws and regulations promulgated or issued during the year shall be communicated with the report.

Article 25—In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold applications of such provisions of this Mandate, as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.

Article 26—If any dispute whatever should arise between the members of the League of Nations relating to the interpretation or the application of these provisions which cannot be settled by negotiation, this dispute shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice provided for by Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Article 27•—The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this Mandate.

Article 28—In the event of the termination of the Mandate conferred upon the Mandatory by this Declaration, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 18 and 14, and for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honor the financial obligations, legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the Mandate, including the rights of public servants to pensions or gratuities.

The present copy shall be deposited in the archives of the League of Nations and certified copies shall be forwarded by the Secretary General of the League of Nations to all members of the League.

MADE AT LONDON THE 24th DAY OF JULY, 1922.




Extracts from the
FIRST "WHITE PAPER"
of the British Government on Palestine
Issued June, 1922
No. 5
THE COLONIAL OFFICE TO THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION
Downing Street,
3rd June, 1922.

SIR,

I am directed by Mr. Secretary Churchill to enclose, to be laid before your Organization, copy of a statement which it is proposed to publish, dealing with the policy of His       Majesty's !Government in Palestine. The statement discusses in some detail the means by which it is intended to carry into effect the establishment of a Jewish National Home in the country. Under Article IV of the draft Mandate submitted to the Council of the League of Nations, a special position is assigned to your Organization ׳as an agency authorized to co-operate with His Majesty's Government in this respect. In these circumstances it appears to Mr. Churchill essential, not only that the declared aims and intentions of your Organization should be consistent with the policy of His Majesty's Government, but that this identity of aim should be made patent both to the people of Palestine and of this country, and indeed to the world at large. Mr. Churchill feels sure that you will appreciate this consideration and will be anxious to do all in your power to remove any misunderstandings that may have arisen. He would accordingly be glad to receive from you a formal assurance that your Organization accepts the policy as set out in the enclosed statement and is prepared to conduct its own activities in conformity therewith. I am, etc., J. E. SHUCKBURGH.


ENCLOSURE IN NO. 5 .

British Policy in Palestine.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies has given renewed consideration to the existing political situation in Palestine, with a very earnest desire to arrive at a settlement of the outstanding questions which have given rise to uncertainty and unrest among certain sections of the population. After consultation with the High Commissioner for Palestine the following statement has been drawn up. It summarizes the essential parts of the correspondence that has already taken place between the Secretary of State and a Delegation from the Muslim Christian Society of Palestine, which has been for some time in England, and it states the further conclusions which have since been reached.

The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is. Mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favoring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine. In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at the meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the up building of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the Organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its Government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status.

So far as the Jewish populations of Palestine are concerned, it appears that- some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920 and again in the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, is not susceptible of change.

During the last two or three generations the Jews have created in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organization for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious and social organizations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact "national" characteristics. When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a center in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.

This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.

For the fulfillment of this policy it is necessary that the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration. This immigration cannot be ׳so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals.
It is essential to ensure that the immigrants, should not be a burden upon the people of Palestine as a whole, and that they should not deprive any section of the present population of their employment. Hitherto the immigration has fulfilled these conditions. The number of immigrants since the British occupation has been about 25,000.

It is necessary also to ensure that persons who are politically undesirable are excluded from Palestine, and every precaution has been and will be taken by the Administration to that end.

It is intended that a special committee should be established in Palestine, consisting entirely of members of the new Legislative Council elected by the people, to confer with the Administration upon matters relating to the regulation of immigration. Should any difference of opinion arise between this committee and the Administration, the matter will be referred to His Majesty's Government, who will give it special consideration. In addition, under Article 81 of the draft Palestine Order in Council, any religious community or considerable section of the population of Palestine will have a general right to appeal, through the High Commissioner and the Secretary of State, to the League of Nations on any matter on which they may consider that the terms of the Mandate are not being fulfilled by the Government of Palestine.

With reference to the Constitution which it is now intended to establish in Palestine, the draft of which has already been published, it is desirable to make certain points clear. In the first place, it is not the case, as has been represented by the Arab Delegation, that during the war His Majesty's Government gave an undertaking that an independent national government should be at once established in Palestine. This representation mainly rests upon a letter dated the 24th October, 1915, from Sir Henry McMahon, then His Majesty's High Commissioner in Egypt, to the Sherif of Mecca, now King Hussein of the Kingdom of the Hejaz. That letter is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty's Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon's pledge.

Nevertheless, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to foster the establishment of a full measure of self-government in Palestine. But they are of opinion that, in the special circumstances of that country, this should be accomplished by gradual stages and not suddenly. The first step was taken when, on the institution of a civil Administration, the nominated Advisory Council, which now exists, was established. It was stated at the time by the High Commissioner that this was the first step in the development of self-governing institutions, and it is now proposed to take a second step by the establishment of a Legislative Council containing a large proportion of members elected on a wide franchise. It was proposed in the published draft that three of the members of this Council should be non-official persons nominated by the High Commissioner, but representations having been made in opposition to this provision, based on cogent considerations, the Secretary of State is prepared to omit it. The Legislative Council would then consist of the High Commissioner as President and twelve elected and ten official members. The Secretary of State is of opinion that before a further measure of self-government is extended to Palestine and the Assembly placed in control over the Executive, it would be wise to allow some time to elapse. During this period the institutions of the country will have become well established; its financial credit will be based on firm foundations, and the Palestinian officials will have been enabled to gain experience of sound methods of government. After a few years the situation will be again reviewed, and if the experience of the working of the constitution now to be established so warranted, ,a larger share of authority would then be extended to the elected representatives of the people.

The Secretary of State would point out that already the present Administration !has transferred to a Supreme Council elected by the Muslim community of Palestine the entire control of Muslim religious endowments (Wakf’s), and of the Muslim religious Courts. To this Council the Administration has also voluntarily restored considerable revenues derived from ancient endowments which had been sequestrated by the Turkish Government. The Education Department is also advised by a committee representative of all sections of the population, and the Department of Commerce and Industry has the benefit of the co-operation of the Chambers of Commerce which have been established in the principal centers. It is the intention of the Administration to associate in an increased degree similar representative committees with the various Departments of the Government.

The Secretary of State believes that a policy upon these lines, coupled with the maintenance of the fullest religious liberty in Palestine and with scrupulous regard for the rights of each community with reference to its Holy Places, cannot but commend itself to the various sections of the population, and that upon this basis may be built up that spirit of co-operation upon which the future progress and prosperity of the Holy Land must largely depend.

No. 7.

THE ZIONIST ORGANISATION TO THE COLONIAL OFFICE

77, Great Russell Street.
18th June, 1922.

SIR, With reference to your letter of June 3rd, receipt of which has already been acknowledged, I have the honor to inform you that the Executive of the Zionist Organization have considered the statement relative to the policy of His Majesty's Government in Palestine, of which you have been good enough to furnish them with a copy, and have passed the following resolution :•—•

"The Executive of the Zionist Organization, having taken note of the statement relative to British policy in Palestine, transmitted to them by the Colonial Office under date June 3rd, 1922, assure His Majesty's Government that the activities of the Zionist Organization will be conducted in conformity with the policy therein set forth."

The Executive observe with satisfaction that His Majesty's Government, in defining their policy in Palestine, take occasion once more to reaffirm the Declaration of November 2nd, 1917, and lay it down as a matter of international concern that the Jewish people should know that it is in Palestine as of right.

The Executive further observe that His Majesty's Government also acknowledge, as a corollary of this right, that it is necessary that the Jews shall be able to increase their numbers in Palestine by immigration, and understand from the statement of policy that the volume of such immigration is to be determined by the economic capacity of the country from time to time to absorb new arrivals. Whatever arrangements may be made in regard to the regulation of such immigration, the Executive confidently trust that both His Majesty's Government and the Administration of Palestine will be guided in this matter by the aforesaid principle.

The Zionist Organization has at all times been sincerely desirous of proceeding in harmonious co-operation with all sections of the people of Palestine. It has repeatedly made it clear both in word and deed that nothing is further from its purpose than to prejudice in the smallest degree the civil or religious rights or the material interests of the non-Jewish population. The Zionist Organization will continue on its side to spare no efforts to foster the spirit of goodwill to which His Majesty's Government have pointed as the only sure foundation for the future prosperity of Palestine. The Executive earnestly hope that the statement of policy which His Majesty's Government propose to issue will once and for all dispel such misapprehensions as may still exist, and that, loyally accepted by all
I have, etc.,

(Signed) CH. WEIZMANN.