Judea and Samaria is Israel by YJ Draiman

Judea and Samaria is Israel.

It is Jewish land since the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

They, the Arab-Palestinians have the right to return to the Arab countries where they originally came from. (Face it it is the Arabs who illegally occupy Jewish land). The Arab countries forcefully expelled over a million Jewish families (after living in those countries for over 2,800 years and confiscated all their assets valued in the trillions of dollars) who now resettled in Israel and turned the desert into green pastures. The Arabs received after WWI over 6 million sq. miles of territory with a wealth of oil reserves, those territories are 70% vacant. The Jewish people were allocated their historical land which is all of Palestine aka The Land of Israel about 47,000 sq. miles. The Arabs in Jordan are occupying Jewish land; they expelled all the Jews and confiscated all their assets and not permitting Jewish people to live in Jordan.

YJ Draiman

Reminder ...There is NO such thing as any 'illegal Jewish settlements' located anywhere, in the Judea and Samaria area. Still-valid established International laws in the early 1920's at San Remo in April, confirms that at the Treaty of Sevres Article 95 August 1920. The 'League of Nations Mandate' (was suppose to enforce established international law) ratified on July 24th, 1922 by the Council of the League of Nations, entrusted Britain as trustee for the Jewish people to assist in re-establishing a Jewish State in the ENTIRE area west of the Jordan river ('Judea'). Article 6 of that Mandate ENCOURAGES, Mandates and ALLOWS and promotes 'Jewish settlement' all throughout the Judea and Samaria area. That Mandate was specifically dedicated only to 'Jewish National Rights' and exclusive political rights in all of the land between the Jordan River and Mediterranean sea. That's a well-documented FACT, of 20th century 'established international law'.

THE FIRST PARTITION OF PALESTINE/The Land of Israel 1920

At the time of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference there was no haggling over the size of the Jewish territory. The American Commission took it for granted that "the new State would control its own source of water power and irrigation, from Mount Hermon in the east to the Jordan." 8 As conceived at the time by the Plenipotentiaries, Palestine aka The Land of Israel was to comprise a minimum of some sixty thousand square miles, bounded on the north by Syria, on the southwest by Egypt, on the east by Iraq and Saudi and on the southwest by Egypt, on the east by Iraq and Saudi and on the south by Saudi and the Hejaz. The English viewpoint, embodied in British Peace Handbook No. 60 on Syria and Palestine, even contended that Damascus itself could very well be included, asserting that the whole "portion of the center of Syria that lies to the east of Jebel esh-Sharki may easily be separated from northern Syria and associated with Palestine." To the east it was understood that the Zionists could have any part of the great desert they wanted; and that the southern boundary was to be established at the historic line, the "River of Egypt." 9

Let this sink in for a moment: before the San Remo conference of April 1920 there did not exist a single Arab independent nation state. Not one. All 22 Arab states that exist today (as part of the Arab League) became nation states either as a direct result of the 1920 San Remo conference, or much later. Therefore, the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state is exactly equal or greater to the legitimacy of any of the Arab nation states.

Indeed, World-War I is considered the dawn of most modern nation-states. Four massive empires crumbled in its aftermath and were divided up into nation-states: The German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires. At that time, nations that had aspirations for self-determination stepped forward and presented their claims for independence to the League of Nations (the precursor to the United Nations). The Arabs stepped up as one single unified nation, and the Jews stepped up as another.

As you can see from eyewitness reports in the video above, the Arabs of Palestine viewed themselves as Syrian and as pan-Arabs. They had no aspirations for independence. Only later, once they secured all the rest of their Arab lands, did the Arabs change their story and put the Land of Israel under the microscope, redefining the conflict as Jews against Arab Palestinians within that small territory, rather than what it originally was: returning a small patch of Ottoman empire land to its rightful owners, the Jewish people, about 120,000 sq. km., while dividing 99% of the land among the Arabs, which is about 13 million sq. km. with a wealth of oil reserves. Furthermore, the Arabs received against Jewish protest over 77% of the Jewish and which became Jordan and now what is left west of the Jordan River, the Arabs what to take another part of Jewish Land. Enough is enough of taking Jewish Land. It time for us to stand firm and retain all our territory West of the Jordan River as the sovereign territory of Israel.

The results of the Paris (1918) and San Remo (1920) conferences and of the League of Nations was the Mandate for Palestine, granted to the British government as trustee for the Jewish people for the sole purpose of establishing a Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel:

Fifty-one member countries – the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:

“Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

There are two key legal points in the above statement (as pointed out by Dore Gold in the video at the end of the blog) which establish the Jewish people as the indigenous people of Palestine, and shatter the “Zionists are Colonialists” fallacy.

1. It recognizes that the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” is a pre-existing right (“grounds for“), not a newly-granted right.

2. It calls for “reconstituting” their national home, not building a new national home from scratch.

In 2003, Attorney Howard Grief brought the minutes of the San Remo Conference and the text of the San Remo Resolution out of the dusty British Archives. Grief addresses the 99th Anniversary commemoration of the San Remo Conference of April 1920 about the importance the Conference and Resolution as the legal foundation of the modern State of Israel under International Law.

The Mandate as issued in San Remo in April 1920 included both sides of the Jordan river for the Jewish home.

It was unanimously adopted by the League of Nations (thereby ratifying the Balfour Declaration as much more than a British document).

In 1922, with no international debate or resolution, Britain unilaterally exercised Article 25 of the Mandate (which is in violation of previous Treaties), cut off the east bank of Palestine - Israel and named it Trans-Jordan. This was not based an any explicit League of Nations decision or any explicit mandate to create an Arab state in Jordan.

Trans-Jordan, more than 3 times the size of Israel, was handed over by Britain to about 300,000 Hashemite nomadic beduins, who originated in Saudi Arabia, in gratitude for their help against the Ottomans (The Arab Revolt as romanticized in the film Lawrence of Arabia).

Furthermore, Britain did not allow any Jews to settle or buy lands in Trans-Jordan, but allowed Arabs to continue and increase the rate of settling in Palestine – Israel west of the Jordan River. Thus, Jordan became the only country in the history of the world that was judenrein by design, and Palestine - Israel (from the Jordan to the Sea) became the only area in dispute between Jews and Arabs. Here is the text of Article 25, and you can see that there was no intention there to create a permanent Arab state in Jordan:

“In the territories lying between the Jordan river 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 application 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”

On June 30, 1922, The US senate adopted Lodge-Fish Resolution [Joint Congressional Resolution (360)]: using stronger language than the Balfour declaration favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people:

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.” .

On September 21, 1922, President Warren G. Harding signed the joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine. For more details, please see this link.

The formal recognition of Israel as the Jewish national home became binding international law not in 1947 or 1948, but in April 1920, when the resolutions of the San Remo conference were included as part of the Treaty of Sèvres Article 95 (August 1920), and were adopted and signed unanimously by all 51 countries of the League Of Nations:

ARTICLE 95.

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

Here is one more video that explains in more detail why the San Remo resolution of 1920 is even more important than the UN partition plan of 1947 (which was only a recommendation with no legal standing): The UN Resolution cannot supersede international Agreements and Treaties.

Treaty of Sevres Article 95 - the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people - August 1920

Treaty of Sevres Article 95 - the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people - August 1920

SECTION VII.
SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE - ISRAEL.
ARTICLE 94.

The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22.

Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognised as independent States subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

A Commission shall be constituted within fifteen days from the coming into force of the present Treaty to trace on the spot the frontier line described in Article 27, II (2) and (3). This Commission will be composed of three members nominated by France, Great Britain and Italy respectively, and one member nominated by Turkey; it will be assisted by a representative of Syria for the Syrian frontier, and by a representative of Mesopotamia for the Mesopotamian frontier.

The determination of the other frontiers of the said States, and the selection of the Mandatories, will be made by the Principal Allied Powers.

ARTICLE 95.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour 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.

The Mandatory undertakes to appoint as soon as possible a special Commission to study and regulate all questions and claims relating to the different religious communities. In the composition of this Commission the religious interests concerned will be taken into account. The Chairman of the Commission will be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations.

ARTICLE 96.

The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.

ARTICLE 97.

Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article 132, to accept any decisions which may be taken in relation to the questions dealt with in this Section.

SECTION VIII.
HEDJAZ.
ARTICLE 98.

Turkey, in accordance with the action already taken by the Allied Powers, hereby recognises the Hedjaz as a free and independent State, and renounces in favour of the Hedjaz all rights and titles over the territories of the former Turkish Empire situated outside the frontiers of Turkey as laid down by the present Treaty, and comprised within the boundaries which may ultimately be fixed.

ARTICLE 99.

In view of the sacred character attributed by Muslims of all countries to the cities and the Holy Places of Mecca and Medina His Majesty the King of the Hedjaz undertakes to assure free and easy access thereto to Muslims of every country who desire to go there on pilgrimage or for any other religious object, and to respect and ensure respect for the pious foundations which are or may be established there by Muslims of any countries in accordance with the precepts of the law of the Koran.

ARTICLE 100.

His Majesty the King of the Hedjaz undertakes that in commercial matters the most complete equality of treatment shall be assured in the territory of the Hedjaz to the persons, ships and goods of nationals of any of the Allied Powers, or of any of the new States set up in the territories of the former Turkish Empire, as well as to the persons, ships and goods of nationals of States, Members of the League of Nations.

SECTION IX.

EGYPT, SOUDAN, CYPRUS.
1. EGYPT.
ARTICLE 101.

Turkey renounces all rights and title in or over Egypt. This renunciation shall take effect as from November 5, 1914. Turkey declares that in conformity with the action taken by the Allied Powers she recognises the Protectorate proclaimed over Egypt by Great Britain on December 18, 1914.

ARTICLE 102.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in Egypt on December 18, 1914, will acquire Egyptian nationality ipso facto and will lose their Turkish nationality, except that if at that date such persons were temporarily absent from, and have not since returned to, Egypt they will not acquire Egyptian nationality without a special authorisation from the Egyptian Government.

ARTICLE 103.

Turkish subjects who became resident in Egypt after December 18, 1914, and are habitually resident there at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty may, subject to the conditions prescribed in Article 105 for the right of option, claim Egyptian nationality, but such claim may in individual cases be refused by the competent Egyptian authority.

ARTICLE 104.

For all purposes connected with the present Treaty, Egypt and Egyptian nationals, their goods and vessels, shall be treated on the same footing, as from August I, 1914, as the Allied Powers, their nationals, goods and vessels, and provisions in respect of territory under Turkish sovereignty, or of territory detached from Turkey in accordance with the present Treaty, shall not apply to Egypt.

ARTICLE 105.

Within a period of one year after the coming into force of the present Treaty persons over eighteen years of age acquiring Egyptian nationality under the provisions ofArticle 102 will be entitled to opt for Turkish nationality. In case such persons, or those who under Article 103 are entitled to claim Egyptian nationality, differ in race from the majority of the population of Egypt, they will within the same period be entitled to opt for the nationality of any State in favour of which territory is detached from Turkey, if the majority of the population of that State is of the same race as the person exercising the right to opt.

Option by a husband covers a wife and option by parents covers their children under eighteen years of age.

Persons who have exercised the above right to opt must, except where authorised to continue to reside in Egypt, transfer within the ensuing twelve months their place of residence to the State for which they have opted. They will be entitled to retain their immovable property in Egypt, and may carry with them their movable property of every description. No export or import duties or charges may be imposed upon them in connection with the removal of such property.

ARTICLE 106.

The Egyptian Government shall have complete liberty of action in regulating the status of Turkish subjects in Egypt and the conditions under which they may establish themselves in the territory.

ARTICLE 107.

Egyptian nationals shall be entitled, when abroad, to British diplomatic and consular protection.

ARTICLE 108.

Egyptian goods entering Turkey shall enjoy the treatment accorded to British goods.

ARTICLE 109.

Turkey renounces in favour of Great Britain the powers conferred upon His Imperial Majesty the Sultan by the Convention signed at Constantinople on October 29, 1888, relating to the free navigation of the Suez Canal.

ARTICLE 110.

All property and possessions in Egypt belonging to the Turkish Government pass to the Egyptian Government without payment.

ARTICLE 111 .

All movable and immovable property in Egypt belonging to Turkish nationals (who do not acquire Egyptian nationality) shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Part IX (Economie Clauses) of the present Treaty.

ARTICLE 112.

Turkey renounces all claim to the tribute formerly paid by Egypt.

Great Britain undertakes to relieve Turkey of all liability in respect of the Turkish loans secured on the Egyptian tribute.

These loans are:

The guaranteed loan of 1855;
The loan of 1894 representing the converted loans of 1854 and 1871;
The loan of 1891 representing the converted loan of 1877.

The sums which the Khedives of Egypt have from time to time undertaken to pay over to the houses by which these loans were issued will be applied as heretofore to the interest and the sinking funds of the loans of 1894 and 1891 until the final extinction of those loans. The Government of Egypt will also continue to apply the sum hitherto paid towards the interest on the guaranteed loan of 1855.

Upon the extinction of these loans of 1894, 1891 and 1855, all liability on the part of the Egyptian Government arising out of the tribute formerly paid by Egypt to Turkey will cease.

Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria is Jewish territory – No Annexation is required – Just apply sovereignty

Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria is Jewish territory – No Annexation is required – Just apply sovereignty

If anything it may need to be re-incorporated or re-patriated and sovereignty applied and treated like any other territory in Israel.

Let me pose an interesting scenario. If you had a country and it was conquered by foreign powers over a period of time. After many years you have taken back you country and land in various defensive wars. Do you have to officially annex those territories? It was always your territory and by retaking control and possession of your territory it is again your original property and there is no need to annex it. The title to your property is valid today as it was many years before.

Annexation only applies when you are taking over territory that was never yours to begin with, just like some European countries annexed territories of other countries.

YJ Draiman

Jews hold title to the Land of Greater Israel even if outnumbered a million to one.

The fact that more foreigners than Jews occupied the Land of Israel during certain periods of time does not diminish true ownership. If my house is invaded by a family

Which is ten times larger that mine does that obviate my true ownership? The Jewish people have a continuous habitation of the Land of Israel for over 3,500 years.

Jewish roots and rights to all the land of Greater Israel are stronger than ever!
“If I am turned out of hearth and home and remain outside one night, I am legally entitled to return the following day. If I suffer for ten, twenty, five thousand or fifty thousand nights, does my right of return stand in inverse relationship to the length of my exile? Quite the contrary; my right to return and recover my freedom becomes stronger in direct proportion to what I have endured, not by virtue of some abstract arithmetic, but because of the nights spent in exile, and because I want my children, to be spared a similar experience.”
YJ Draiman

Pakistan, Jordan and Israel's legitimacy

Pakistan, Jordan and Israel's legitimacy

Whenever I have received an email, letter or a call challenging Israel's legitimacy, I have asked these people if they ever called or asked any other Media sources to challenge any other country's legitimacy. In particular, I ask, have they ever questioned the legitimacy of Pakistan or Jordan?

The answer, of course, is always "no." In fact, no one ever understood why I even mentioned Pakistan and Jordan.

There are a few reasons for this.

First, of all the 200-plus countries in the world, only Israel's legitimacy is challenged. So mentioning any other country seems strange to an individual. Second, almost no one outside of India and Pakistan knows anything about the founding of Pakistan or Jordan.

After the British decided to abandon its obligation to the Palestinian Mandate in 1947 and help reconstitute The Jewish Homeland in Palestine – Israel on its historical territory and only months before the U.N. adopted a proposal to partition Palestine (which is a recommendation only with no legal standing) into a Jewish and an Arab state in 1947, India was partitioned into a Muslim and a Hindu state. The Hindu state was, of course, India. And the Muslim state became known as Pakistan. It comprises 310,000 square miles, about 40,000 square miles larger than Texas.

In both cases, the declaration of an independent state resulted in violence. The Jewish State of Israel was established by International Treaties in April 1920 with assignment to the British as trustee for the Jewish people to establish a Jewish State in all of Palestine. After the British violated the Treaties, taking 80% of Jewish land and giving it as an Arab State to Jordan (which today has over 75% Arab-Palestinians as the countries population) and restricting Jewish immigration from 1939-1948, which caused the deaths of millions of Jews who tried to escape German concentration camps. The British secret service also blew up Jewish refugee ships under operation Embarrass. As soon as the newly re-established state of Israel was declared in May 1948, it was invaded by six Arab armies. And the partition of India led to a terrible violence between Muslims and Hindus.

According to the final report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission from Dec. 28, 1949, the 1948 war of Israel's independence created 626,000 Arabs refugees. Many sources put the figure at about 300,000 less. A roughly higher number of Jewish refugees – over one million Jewish families -- were created when the million Jewish peoples and their children were forcibly expelled from the Arab countries where they had lived for countless generations (over 2,800 years, the Arabs also confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and Real estate property, 47,000 sq. mi. which is 6 times the size of Israel and is valued in the trillions of dollars). In addition, approximately 10,000 Arabs were killed in the fighting that ensued after the Arab invasion of Israel. (Most of the Arabs in Greater Israel came in from neighboring Arab countries).

Now let's turn to the creation of Pakistan. According to the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees, the creation of Pakistan resulted in 14 million refugees -- Hindus fleeing Pakistan and Muslims fleeing India. Assuming a 50-50 split, the creation of Pakistan produced about seven million Hindu refugees -- at least 10 times the number of Arab refugees that resulted from the war surrounding Israel's creation. And the Middle-east war, it should be recalled, was started by the Arab nations surrounding Israel. Were it not for the Arab rejection of Israel's creation (and existence within any borders) and the subsequent Arab invasion, there would have been no Arab refugees.

And regarding deaths, the highest estimate of Arab deaths during the 1948 war following the partition of Palestine is 10,000. The number of deaths that resulted from the creation of Pakistan is around one million.

In addition, according to the Indian government, at least 86,000 women were raped. Most historians believe the number to be far higher. The number of women raped when Israel was established is zero. From all evidence I could find.

Given the spectacularly larger number of refugees and deaths caused by the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan, why does no one ever question the legitimacy of Pakistan's existence?

This question is particularly valid given another fact: Never before in history was there a Pakistan. It was a completely new nation. Moreover, its creation was made possible solely because of Muslim invasion. It was Muslims who invaded India, and killed about 60 million Hindus during the thousand-year Muslim rule of India. The area now known as Pakistan was Hindu until the Muslims invaded it in A.D. 711.

On the other and, modern Israel is the third Jewish state in the geographic area known as Palestine. The first was destroyed in 586 B.C., the second in A.D. 70. And there was never a non-Jewish sovereign state in Palestine - Israel.

So, given all these facts, why is Israel's legitimacy challenged, while the legitimacy of Pakistan, a state that had never before existed and whose creation resulted in the largest mass migration in recorded history, is never challenged? Furthermore, for that matter why Jordan's legitimacy is not challenged.

The answer is so obvious that only those who graduated from college, and especially from graduate school, need to be told: Israel is the one Jewish state in the world. So, while there are 49 Muslim-majority countries and 22 Arab states, much of the world questions or outright only rejects the right of the one Jewish state, the size of New Jersey, to exist.

If you are a member of the Presbyterian Church, send these facts to the leaders of the Presbyterian Church USA who voted to boycott Israel. If you are a student in Middle Eastern Studies -- or for that matter, almost any other humanities department -- and your professor is anti-Israel, ask your professor why Pakistan is legitimate and Israel isn't.

They won't have a good answer. Their opposition to Israel isn't based on moral considerations; it is based on pure anti-Semitism etc.

YJ Draiman

The British objectives in ‘mentoring the revival of a national home for the Jewish people’ under the Mandate for Palestine

The British objectives in ‘mentoring the revival of a national home for the Jewish people’ under the Mandate for Palestine were not based solely on the 1917 Balfour Declaration. 

While international support for the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine – Israel was set in motion by this landmark British policy statement, international intent rested on a solid consensus, expressed in a series of accords and declarations that reflected the ‘will’ of the international community, hardly the product or whim of a colonial empire with its own agenda.

(Napoleon in 1799 offered the Jewish community in Palestine aka The Land of Israel to reconstitute the Jewish State in Palestine - Israel as a French protectorate)
The Mandate itself notes this intent when it cites that the Mandate is based on the agreement of the Principal Allied Powers and declares:
“Whereas recognition has therefore been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine - Israel and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country” [italics by author]. There was also the January 1919 Faisal Weizmann Agreement.
A June 1922 letter from the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, Winston Churchill, reiterated that:
“…the [Balfour] Declaration of 1917 [was] re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo in April 1920 and again in the Treaty of Sevres Article 95 in August 1920… the Jewish people … is in Palestine - Israel as a right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine – Israel should be internationally guaranteed and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historical connection.”
In the first Report of The High Commissioner on the Administration of Palestine - Israel 1920-1925 to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, published in April 1925, the most senior official of the Mandate for Palestine, the High Commissioner for Palestine - Israel, underscored how “international guarantee[s]” for the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine aka The Land of Israel were achieved:
“The Declaration was endorsed at the time by several of the Allied Governments; it was reaffirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo in April 1920; it was subsequently endorsed by unanimous resolutions of both Houses of the Congress of the United States; it was embodied in the Mandate for Palestine approved by the League of Nations in 1922; it was declared, in a formal statement of policy issued by the Colonial Secretary in the same year, ‘not to be susceptible of change’; and it has been the guiding principle in their direction of the affairs of Palestine aka The Land of Israel of four successive British Governments. The policy was fixed and internationally guaranteed.”
**It is also important to note that after WWI the Arabs/Muslims received over 13 million sq. km. of territory with a wealth of oil reserves. At the same times the Jewish people were allocated about 120,000 sq. km. please note today they have about 21,000 sq. km. The world at large also ignores that the Arab Muslim countries terrorized and expelled over a million Jewish families who lived there for over 2,800 years and confiscated all their assets, including personal property, businesses, homes and over 120,000 sq. km. of Jewish owned Real Estate for over 2,500 years (which is 6 times the size of Israel and valued in the trillions of dollars, they also took Jewish territory east of the Jordan River which is Jordan). Most of the million expelled Jewish families were resettled in Israel, and today comprise over half the population.
YJ Draiman

The Beginnings of the State of Israel in 1920 – by Luke Hilton

Have you ever heard of the April 1920 San Remo conference? If you have, do you know much about it? I know I didn’t. 

Saturday, April 25th, 2020 marks a very special date. It is the 100th anniversary of the San Remo conference and subsequent resolution. On this day, after great deliberation, the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers adopted a 500-word resolution which would change the political landscape of the Middle East forever. They mandated that a piece of territory historical land of Israel should be re-established as a homeland for the Jews in a small area called Palestine (about 120,000 sq. km.). 

Many people credit the Balfour Declaration of 1917, or maybe the UN partition vote of 1947 (which is only a recommendation with no legal standing) for the birth of the state of Israel. As Chaim Weizman said however, “One can say the Israeli state was re-born on the 25th of April, 1920 in San Remo.”

On April 19th, 1920, Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and the U.S. met in San Remo, Italy to decide what to do with the territory of the now defeated Ottoman Empire that had crumbled during World War 1. The result of the seven-day conference was three mandates. 

The first two mandates created what we now know as Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. 

The third mandate called to establish Palestine as a homeland for the Jewish people in their historical land. The territory was to include all of what is known today as Israel, the Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, and Jordan. Great Britain was given the mandate as trustee for the Jewish people to establish the territory and govern the area and people. 

Two years later, the League of Nations (precursor to the UN), composed of 51 members, approved the mandate. The body unanimously declared: 

“Whereas recognition has 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 Balfour Declaration that was published in 1917 was thought of by many to be only a letter of intent and not a binding document. However, it became the basis for the April 1923 San Remo Conference, which resulted in the mandate for Palestine – an undisputed legal document under international law. 

Even though the area east of the Jordan River was originally meant to be part of the new Jewish territory, the British violated Agreements and Treaties and quickly transferred it to the Hashemite Dynasty, and a new state Jordan, as we know it today, was born. 

Unfortunately, the new state of Palestine did not exactly flourish as a national homeland for the Jewish people under British rule. In the nearly thirty years that passed between 1920 and the re-birth of Israel in 1948, six million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.

Does this mean that if the April 1923 San Remo resolution had been enacted fully, and the British had taken their mandate seriously, the Holocaust could have been prevented? It seems entirely very possible.

The original mandate for the Jewish state that was published in April 1923 San Remo called for a much larger territory than what Israel retains today. First, the area east of the Jordan River became what we know as Jordan today, compliments of the British. Then, when Israel became a state in 1948, the Arabs were not satisfied with 96% of the territory of the Ottoman Empire they obtained starting at 1923 San Remo and therefore went to war against the tiny Jewish state. When the smoke cleared, the fledgling state of Israel began with very slim borders. Then, in 1967, Israel miraculously liberated the Judea and Samaria aka West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula, and Golan Heights in a war of self defense. 

Since then, the world has slowly been pressuring Israel to chip away at its land, piece by piece. Since the war of 1967, Israel has given away more than 90% of the land that they held after the liberation. This was all done in a desperate attempt for peace with their Arab neighbors, who will never be satisfied unless the Jewish state gives up 100% of their land and drowns itself in the Mediterranean Sea. Even today, the world is still pressuring Israel to allow the Arabs to establish yet another state in East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. The April 1920 San Remo never meant for the Arabs to have any of this territory, let alone Gaza, the Sinai, or even Jordan! 

Luke Hilton
Originally published April 24, 2020 on israelheartlandreport.com.

---

As we commemorate 100 years to the San Remo conference to establish Palestine as a homeland for the Jewish people, we should make a resolve not to accept any other “Peace plan” presented by the USA, UN or any other nation as a reaction to Arab aggression towards Israel.

We should, in fact, make our Cry heard to exercise full Jewish sovereignty on the Temple Mount and all of Judea and Samaria, which is at the very heart of the Jewish ancestral homeland.

#CryForZion