Grief comes to Grief

There is a theory being propagated by some Zionists that three historical documents, taken together, show that, in international law, the Jewish people have sovereignty over all of the area of Mandatory Palestine (present-day Israel, West Bank and Gaza). This idea originates with the author Howard Grief, and is expounded in his recent book The Legal Foundation And Borders Of Israel Under International Law: A Treatise on Jewish Sovereignty over the Land of Israel.

The three documents are:

There is a subset of this theory, associated with Professor Eugene Rostow, that makes a lesser claim: that all Jewish people have a right to migrate into any part of former Mandatory Palestine. I will consider them together as the Grief-Rostow (G-R) theory.

The theory can easily be proved to be wrong by the following arguments. This is not an accumulation of evidence: each one of these arguments individually disproves it.

I introduce two new legal documents into the analysis:

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE G-R THEORY

Argument 1.

The concept of a dispersed people (the Jews) having sovereignty over a defined territory (Palestine) is meaningless. Sovereignty implies rule, or at least the right to rule. How could the Jews rule over a territory where most of them are not resident? There is no ‘government of all the Jews’ that could exercise such authority, nor could there be. It is an impossible concept.

Argument 2.

Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant introduces the concept of a Mandated territory:

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations… …and should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

The Mandatory system is directed towards the well-being and development of the inhabitants of the mandated territory, not to anyone outside the territory. At that time, Jews were a small minority in Palestine. To give sovereignty over the majority of the inhabitants to the minority, or to world-wide Jewry, would conflict profoundly with that sacred trust accepted by the Mandatory power.

Argument 3.

The Mandates are temporary arrangements designed to lead to independent states. Any legal rights they grant expire at the end of the Mandate, to be replaced by the law of the successor state.

Argument 4.

The San Remo Conference in April 1920 was a meeting of the Allied Powers who had conquered the Turkish Ottoman Empire in the first world war. In the Same Remo Resolution it specified how it would implement Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant in the conquered territories. It agreed that Syria and Mesopotamia (now Iraq) should be provisionally recognized as independent nations. With respect to Palestine it said the following:

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 8, 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 declaration of 1917 is the Balfour Declaration, the words of which I have emphasised.

The resolution does not explain the term ‘national home’, which has no defined legal meaning. This was left up to the British (to whom the Mandate was given). They were to implement their own policy, though acting under supervision of the League.

The Resolution ‘favours’ the idea of a Jewish national home in Palestine, and asks the Mandatory to put it into effect. It does not recognise an inherent right, or create a legal right, for a Jewish national home in Palestine.

Argument 5.

The San Remo Resolution is an agreement between the Allied Powers. It is not a legal instrument of international law.

Argument 6.

The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine is the primary document of international law concerning the Mandate and the Jewish national home. The Preamble repeats the words of the Balfour Declaration emphasised above.

Some Zionists, seeing the phrase “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”, noting that it does not mention political rights, conclude that political rights are being removed from the non-Jewish inhabitants, and that the Jews are to become sovereign. This is wrong for two reasons: there is no accepted distinction between civil and political rights; and ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ – the failure to mention political rights does not mean they do not exist. Furthermore in Article 6, with respect to Jewish immigration, a stronger formula is used. The Administration is to ensure that the rights and position of the existing population are not to be prejudiced.

Argument 7.

The Preamble goes on to say:

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 historical connection ‘gives grounds’ for reconstituting the Jewish national home in Palestine but it does not recognise an inherent right, or create a legal right, for such reconstitution.

Argument 8.

The phrase ‘Jewish national home IN Palestine’ was introduced by the First Zionist Conference in Basle, Switzerland, 1897; occurs in the Balfour Declaration, and is repeated in the San Remo resolution, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, and the Declaration of Establishment of the State of Israel. None of these documents use the phrase ‘Palestine IS the Jewish National Home.

Some Zionists fail to see the difference. I use a simple example. Compare the two phrases: there is a bathroom IN my house; my house IS a bathroom. The phrase Jewish national home IN Palestine admits the possibility of there being something else in Palestine.

This can be understood geographically. It is possible that the Jewish national home could be established in only part of Palestine. In which case, rights, if any, to Jewish sovereignty or immigration would be limited to a part of Palestine.

In fact, this happened in the early days of the Mandate, when the British administration split Palestine into two parts: Transjordan to the east of the river Jordan, with the west side of the Jordan remaining as Palestine. The Jewish national home was limited to being in the new Palestine, west of the river. But that area was still not specified AS the Jewish national home, further subdivision was still possible. So it is not possible to say that the Mandate could give any sovereignty or immigration rights in the whole of Palestine (west of the river).

Argument 9.

The phrase Jewish national home IN Palestine can also be understood abstractly: it allows for the possibility of another national home in Palestine, namely the national home of the people already living there, the Palestinians. To say that Palestine would no longer be the national home of the existing inhabitants would clearly be incompatible with Article 22.

Examination of the Articles of the Mandate shows that this is indeed the nature of the Palestinian state that the Mandate was intended to create. The Articles making specific references to Jews are the following:

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.

The grammatical structure of this Article is complex, and some wishful-thinking Zionists jump to the conclusion that the physical closeness of the phrases ‘Jewish national home’ and ‘self-governing institutions’ imply that only Jews are to participate in the ‘self-governing institutions’. This is wrong, as can be illustrated by breaking down the sentence as follows:

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions  as will secure: (1) the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble; and (2) the development of self-governing institutions. The Mandatory shall also be responsible for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitant of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

Article 4. An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating 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

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 co-operation 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. The Administration of Palestine shall 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.

These articles show that the means by which the Jewish national home was to be established in Palestine was by facilitating Jewish immigration and by helping the migrants to settle, with a view to them joining the existing Jewish and non-Jewish inhabitants as citizens of Palestine. There is no prohibition on non-Jewish immigration in the document.
There is not the slightest hint anywhere in the document that Jews were to have any privileged position in Palestine. It does not give any sovereignty to the Jews.

Argument 10.

Article 6 encourages Jewish immigration under suitable conditions. It does not say that immigration is to be unlimited in numbers or in time. Article 22 of the Covenant says the primary purpose of the Mandate is the development and well-being of the existing inhabitants. Certainly Jewish immigration from Europe could contribute to both of these. The immigrants brought capital, and technical skills. But the sudden influx of large numbers of foreigners (from far away and a from a very different cultural background) could lead to social unrest and conflict, which would not contribute to the well-being of anyone. The British Government decided, sensibly and humanely, to restrict immigration to the rate at which the migrants could be economically absorbed. In 1939 they also decided to further restrict the rate of immigration, and to stop the process when Jews numbered one-third of the population.

The Mandate did not give an unlimited right for Jews to migrate to Palestine, the Mandatory was to allow it only under suitable conditions; and there was no suggestion that Jewish immigration should continue until Jews dominated the country, as some Zionists claim.

Argument 11.

At the end of World War 2 in 1945, the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations, and the Mandatory system was replaced by the concept of United Nations Trusteeships, described in Chapter XII of the Charter. However, the Mandates in the former Turkish Empire were not converted into Trusteeships, because they were coming to an end. Lebanon and Syria had already achieved independence by 1943 and 1944 respectively and Transjordan became independent in 1946.

Article 80 of the Charter, from Chapter XII, says:

Until such agreements [Trusteeships] have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.

Palestine was in no state to become independent, because of conflict between Arabs and Jews, and as far as I am aware there was no discussion (before 1947) of replacing the Mandate with a Trusteeship. So the only relevance of Article 80 to Palestine is to confirm that the Mandate continued unchanged.

Because of the ongoing conflict in Palestine, Britain gave up on the project of creating an independent Palestine incorporating the Jewish national home, told the UN that it wanted to end the Mandate, and asked the UN to take over ‘The Question of Palestine’. The UNGA recommended a plan to partition Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jewish side accepted the Plan, but the Arab side rejected it.

At 24:00 on 14 May 1948 the Mandate terminated, and at 00:01 on 15 May the Declaration of Establishment of the State of Israel became effective. Israel was declared with its sovereign borders as specified in the UN Partition Plan. (See my article ‘The borders of Israel‘ for more on this.)

The Jewish national home in Palestine vanished into history with the end of the Mandate, to be replaced by a Jewish State in part of Palestine. Nothing in the Mandate has any relevance today to anything outside the sovereign borders of Israel.

Argument 12.

No government, court or international organisation has ever supported the G-R theory.

Supporting Documents

The concept of the Jewish national home in Palestine derived from the Articles of the Mandate is entirely in agreement with the British government’s explanation of the policy given in the Churchill White Paper of 1922. Also of note is the resolution of the Zionist Congress of 1921 quoted by Churchill, which expresses the concept perfectly.

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.” HMG 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 the 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 upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development.

During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community now numbering 80,000… …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 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 is the first document where the word ‘right’ is used in connection with the Jewish national home in Palestine. The grounds for facilitating Jewish immigration into Palestine were based on the historic connection with the land, and Jews who legally migrated into Palestine to join the native Jews and contribute to the community were there by right. I use the word ‘legally’ because in the latter years of the Mandate there were many illegal Jewish entrants, who managed to evade the British controls.

Comment

I believe the propagation of the G-R theory is designed to support the program of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and eastern Jerusalem. I know from conversations with some of the settlers that they are using these theories to reassure themselves that they can continue to live in their homes following a peace agreement with the Palestinians. They are being deceived, and need to be told the truth, so they can prepare for a future in which many may have to return to Israel.

Shortlink: religion-science-peace.org/?p=700

About David Gerald Fincham

Retired academic scientist.
This entry was posted in Israel / Palestine. Bookmark the permalink.
  • john

    This is not the theory at all and those are not the claims; Dr Jacques Guthier’s, which is an expert in International Law thesis basically goes over everything you’ve stated here.
    https://books.google.co.il/books/about/Sovereignty_Over_the_Old_City_of_Jerusal.html?id=AEbtSAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
    The same about Dr Cynthia Wallace
    https://www.amazon.com/Foundations-International-Rights-Jewish-People-ebook/dp/B008TQOH7Y
    May I ask what is your education in law?

    • http://religion-science-peace.org/ David Gerald Fincham

      Dr. Guthier says “At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, the Zionist Organization presented its claim for recognition of the historical and national rights of the Jewish people to Palestine including Jerusalem and its Old City. In San Remo, in 1920, the Allied Powers, holding the power of disposition over Palestine, decided to recognize the Jewish historical claim converting it into a binding international law claim. It was incorporated into the Mandate for Palestine approved by the League of Nations in 1922.”

      That statement is fiction. I do not need to be a legal expert to come to that conclusion, I only need to read the words of the documents. Nowhere in Balfour, San Remo or the Mandate does it say that the Jews of the world have a legal right to sovereignty over Palestine.

      • joe

        I don’t think you understand the claim; Let me clear things up:

        TREATY OF SERVES:
        ARTICLE 95: … “, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers” … ” The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 November 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”…

        San Remo Resolution – 25 April 1920

        It was agreed –
        (a) “To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine”

        It only takes a quick reading on the Palestine Mandate to understand why they do:
        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…”

        ARTICLE 4
        “…The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty’s Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.”

        http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp

        Dr Jacqeus had included 300 footnotes to back his claim, by the way.

        • http://religion-science-peace.org/ David Gerald Fincham

          You cannot determine truth by counting footnotes.

          My post clearly explains twelve arguments which each show the falseness of the Grief-Rostow theories. You have not been able to contradict any of them. You are wasting your time and mine.

          • jon

            I do not currently have time to go over all of your 12 claims, But I am going to focus on 2 and explain you why you are wrong.

            Claim: Argument 3

            Truth:
            In fact, Article 28 of the mandate says otherwise:
            “ Any legal rights they grant expire at the end of the Mandate” NO
            **ART. 28.**
            In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, 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 13 and 14,** and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour 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.

            Claim: Argument 5

            Truth:
            The agreement between the Arabs [Faizell] and the Jews[Weizzman] had written, inside of it, that:

            * The boundaries between an Arab State and Palestine should be determined by a Commission after the Paris Peace Conference.
            * The parties committed to carrying into effect the Balfour Declaration of 1917
            This was signed by both parties – the arab parties, – faizzel , and the jewish party – weizzman.

            Therefore – both the Arabs and the Jews gave their confirmations for the Allied Powers to decide WHAT to do with the land. Furthermore, the Allied Powers also created the Mandates for Iraq and Syria – do they ‘not count in law’ too?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal%E2%80%93Weizmann_Agreement

          • http://religion-science-peace.org/ David Gerald Fincham

            ARTICLE 28 preserves the security of the Holy places and access to them beyond the end of the Mandate: and also continues the financial obligations of the Palestine government. I accept that Argument 3 is flawed. Consider it deleted.

            All the Mandates are part of international law. Britain was required to use its best endeavours to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine, develop the country, and create self-governing institutions, without prejudice to the rights of the non-Jewish inhabitants. They were unable to achieve the latter, as explained in their report at the end of the Mandate. http://www.religion-science-peace.org/2015/06/19/british-government-statement-on-the-end-of-the-palestine-mandate/

          • joe

            I understand your point, but the fact that Britian failed to do it’s mandatory obligations does not remove it from International Law.

            It is more than obvious that Britian strongly failed to imply their mandatory obligatons; I agree; especially with the illegal 1939 white paper. But that does not delete the rights from International Law. If you look at what happened, at the same day when Britian’s Mandate was terminated, the Jewish State was declared.

            But I do not understand the logic of “If the Mandate Failed, the Legal Obligations get removed” etc. Sure, I agree, again, it failed – but why would the legal obligations be removed? Let’s draw a parallel to the Oslo Accords – they had failed on every possible term, but they are still binding under international law.

          • joe

            correction: the legal rights under international law, not legal obligations*
            it is holidays now, so i’ll have time to write points about all of the 12 arguments you make soon enough and i’ll share ^^

          • http://religion-science-peace.org/ David Gerald Fincham

            1. The 1939 decision by the British Government to restrict Jewish immigration into Palestine was NOT illegal. ARTICLE 1 of the Mandate gave them FULL POWERS OF ADMINISTRATION. Article 6 of the Mandate says that: “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. It was up to them to determine whether conditions were suitable for mass immigration, and whether it was prejudicing the rights and position of other sections of the population.

            2. In their report at the end of the Mandate (link above) the British Government said that “The Arabs were critical of many of the provisions in the White Paper but it seemed probable that they would eventually acquiesce in their application. The Jews, on the other hand, were bitterly opposed to it and its publication was immediately followed by an outburst of Jewish violence which continued until the beginning of the war.” From 1942 onwards the Zionist Jews carried out a campaign of “wholesale terrorism” against “Britons, Arabs and moderate Jews”. It was this terrorism which forced Britain to abandon the Mandate.

            3. I have no idea what “legal rights” you are talking about.

          • joe

            1. Your whole claim is based on the fact that Britain can ‘over-power’ the League of Nations. This is equivalent to claiming that current day America could make a law stating they’re allowed to take over Mexico and annex it; and think it’d catch anywhere.
            Article 1 also states – “, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.”
            But heck, It’s not even me who claims it, Britain themselves admitted that they were breaking the mandate terms:
            Even the mandate commission agreed, on a split vote I must admit, that it was contrary to the mandate. the mandate itself didn’t have the operative effect in Palestine legitimately. It had to be supported by an order in council which was passed in 1922. and article 18 states specifically that ‘THE PALESTINE LEGISLATOR HAS FULL POWERS OF LEGISLATION, SUBJECT TO THE CONSTRAINED CONTAINED WITHIN THE MANDATE’. Britian SPECIFICALLY amended its ordering council and deleted article 18 sub paragraph 2 which stated that the legislators could not act legislation contrary to the mandate. so they said to the legislators at the time ‘you can legislate everything even if its contrary to the mandate’. so the fact that britain deleted sub paragraph 2, it is only obvious that BRITIAN HERSELF RECOGNISED THAT SHE WAS ACTING CONTRARY TO THE MANDATE.

            2. Again – it does not matter if the Mandate was abandoned or not – and why – at the end of the day it was terminated – the legal rights do not just disappear…

            3. The same rights that were granted to Syria and Iraq with the creation of the mandate. If you do not understand what legal rights were given you do not understand the fundamental basis of the argument. You are attempting to take a topic which requires you, and required me, two read 1000~ page long books, put it in 2 sentences and try to explain why they’re wrong.

            No offence, but the things i’m writing are straight out of the book… You don’t have to be an expert to understand you’re not making a point

          • http://religion-science-peace.org/ David Gerald Fincham

            You are not being clear. What actions of the British Government do you think violated the terms of the Mandate? What specific legal rights granted in the Mandate do you think endure beyond the end of the Mandate?

          • joe

            All actions that restrict any sort of Jewish immigration. Especially the 1939 white paper. All of the legal rights which were given to the Jews by the Mandate were preserved after the Mandate’s termination.

          • http://religion-science-peace.org/ David Gerald Fincham

            1. As I said before, Articles 1 and 6 clearly give authority to the Administration to control immigration.

            2. What specific rights were given to the Jews in the Mandate? I can see none apart from a right to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine, “subject always to the control of the Administration” (Article 4). Only Articles 4 and 6 mention Jews specifically. All other Articles treat all citizens on an equal basis.

          • joe

            You did not read my answer, did you?

            the decision – It had to be supported by an order in council which was passed in 1922. and article 18 states specifically that ‘THE PALESTINE LEGISLATOR HAS FULL POWERS OF LEGISLATION, SUBJECT TO THE CONSTRAINED CONTAINED WITHIN THE MANDATE’. Britian SPECIFICALLY amended its ordering council and deleted article 18 sub paragraph 2 which stated that the legislators could not act legislation contrary to the mandate. so they said to the legislators at the time ‘you can legislate everything even if its contrary to the mandate’. so the fact that britain deleted sub paragraph 2, it is only obvious that BRITIAN HERSELF RECOGNISED THAT SHE WAS ACTING CONTRARY TO THE MANDATE.

            To put it in simpler words: Britian had NO right to “over-power” the decision in San Remo. They themselves admitted they were “over-powering” it.

          • http://religion-science-peace.org/ David Gerald Fincham

            Again, it is not clear what you are trying to say. The Order in Council clearly says that “No Ordinance shall be passed which shall be in any way repugnant to or inconsistent with the provisions of the Mandate.” Was there some intermediate stage in the drafting in which this sentence was omitted? If so, it was put back, with no harm done. Please answer my previous question? Did the British Administration of Palestine ever do anything repugnant to or inconsistent with the provisions of the Mandate?

            The San Remo Resolution was two years earlier. It was an agreement between the Allied Powers as to how they would divide up the Mandates. It did not specify how the territories were to be administered, did not mention a Legislative Council and it was not a document of international law- the legal documents are the Covenant and the Mandates. What on earth do you mean by saying Britain over-powered it?

  • Ezra Gilbert

    Walk Tall Hang Loose AKA Dr. David Gerald Fincham retired physicist –
    In your reply to my post here (http://www.timesofisrael.com/after-un-vote-bennett-plans-to-bring-annexation-bill-to-knesset/?fb_action_ids=10155551738234908&fb_action_types=og.comments) you stated, “It is up to judges to decide what the law is” so why does a physicist presume he knows better than a lawyer who is an expert on the topic?

    Granted Howard Grief is a Jewish Zionist but you yourself are a self-proclaimed and ardent supporter of the Palestinians. It is no surprise being that both you and your wife lived in countries with Muslim majorities. One need only peruse your articles and posts to The Palestine Chronicle, Electronic Intifada, and your own blog to get a glimpse of your bias.

    I am all for self-taught amateurists and having hobbies but, not being a physicist myself, I would not presume to argue with you about absorption models, inelastic processes, or damped oscillations. In my eyes that would be both presumptuous and arrogant. And if the topic was not physics but rather legal or judicial, for me to spout off (or blog) my opinions as “truth” would also be immoral and unethical. Should someone who is not a Medical Doctor claim to know the best way to conduct surgery?

    For example, in your entire blog post you do NOT ONCE mention the legal term “de jure sovereignty” or the “doctrine of estoppel” which are major components of Attorney and International Law Expert Howard Grief’s proof that the Jewish people and the State of Israel as her agent have legal rights and title of sovereignty to the Land of Israel and Palestine under international law.

    After reading some of your postings I see you are a rational, serious, and generally respectful individual. As such I would expect you to understand why it is both honest, ethical, and fair to leave it up to legal experts – not physicists, bloggers, politicians, or diplomats – to decide what the law is.

    In his 600+ page treatise Howard Grief discusses at length why Israel has as yet not made use of all her legal rights. That, and the fact that a particular composition of the Israel Supreme Court decided not to deal with Grief’s petition are irrelevant when considering the legal rights and title the Jewish people and the State of Israel have to the Land of Israel and Palestine under international law. It is not too late to right past wrongs and there is a true legal status that expert JURISTS knowledgeable in law, history, and the relevant documents and agreements can and should determine. May we merit seeing it speedily in our days.

    • Ezra Gilbert
    • http://religion-science-peace.org/ Walk Tall Hang Loose

      1. Howard Grief was not an expert in international law. He was a Canadian attorney practicing civil and commercial law for 23 years. When he moved to Israel he became a notary. He says that he was appointed as an advisor on international law at the ministry of Energy in 1991, but I have not been able to confirm that. He had no publications in respected academic journals. He never argued a case before an international tribunal, and never worked for the Foreign Ministry, where the real experts are, who never supported his ideas. As far as international law is concerned, he was an amateur hobbyist.

      2. He bases his claim of Jewish sovereignty over Palestine on the Balfour Declaration: “His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

      It says nothing about Jewish sovereignty, but giving sovereignty over the Palestinian people to immigrant Jews from Europe would certainly prejudice their civil rights.

      The term “National Home in Palestine” was first defined by the World Zionist Organization in the 1921 Carlsbad Resolution where they said that Palestine should be the common home of two nations, Arab and Jewish, with perfect equality between Jew and Arab in all matters. It is this understanding of the Jewish National Home policy that became international law in the Palestine Mandate. This is all explained in great detail in my article “Understanding the Jewish National Home” on Mondoweiss.net which includes the text of the documents.

      3. When the State of Israel was declared it limited the area of its sovereignty when it said that it was proclaimed “as an independent republic within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ (that is, the UN Partition Plan) and it was recognized by other states on that basis. That unilateral action prevented the establishment of a bi-national state in all of Palestine as envisaged in the Mandate, replacing it with a Jewish state in part of Palestine, and the possibility of the establishment of an Arab state in the rest of Palestine. Israel’s Declaration called for the in-gathering of the exiles into Israel, not into Palestine.

      4. The State of Israel is not the representative of the Jewish people. Only Israeli citizens can vote in its elections.

  • Ezra Gilbert

    Walk Tall Hang Loose aren’t you being a bit presumptuous and arrogant by claiming that your blog post is “the truth” and other arguments are deceptions?
    I am not a retired academic scientist like you, but do you really think a 3,000 word blog post is enough to “comprehensively disprove” 25 years of research and a 600 page legal and historic treatise written by a recognized expert on international law and the Land of Israel?
    Why do you hide behind a pseudonym? Why don’t you make known your area of academic expertise? Do you really have the background and requisite knowledge to even attempt to disprove anyone on this topic let alone an expert such as Howard Grief who dedicated his life to understanding the legal foundation and borders of Israel under international law?

  • http://www.energysavers2.com/ Israel Draiman

    Israel must be steadfast in protecting its rights and its people

    Many nations and people are questioning Israel’s control of its liberated territory.

    No one is mentioning that the Arab countries had ejected about a million Jewish people and their children from their countries, confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and Real estate. Many of the Jews ejected from Arab countries died while their forced departure from Arab countries, due to hardship, famine and starvation. 650,00 Jewish people and their children of these expelled Jewish people and their
    children were resettled in Greater Israel. The Land the Arab countries
    confiscated from the Jewish people 120,440 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles, which
    is over 5-6 times the size of Israel, and its value today is the trillions of dollars.

    The Jewish people and their children during the over 2,000 years living in Arab countries have suffered Pogroms, Libel claims, beheadings, beatings, false imprisonment and extreme hardship as a second class citizens. They had their businesses and homes pillaged, their wives and daughters raped, sold them as slaves, their houses of worship pillaged and burned, forced conversion to Islam and many were beheaded.

    Today over half of Israel’s population are Jews expelled from Arab countries
    and their children and grandchildren.

    The Audacity of the Arab countries in demanding territory from the Jewish people in Palestine after they ejected over a million Jewish people and their children who have lived in Arab land for over 2,000 years and after they confiscated all their assets and Real estate 5-6 times the size of Israel (120,440 sq. km. – 75,000 sq. mi.), valued
    in the trillions of dollars.

    Now the Arab nations are demanding more land and more compensation.

    The Arab countries have chased the million Jews and their children and now the want to chase them away again, from their own historical land.

    Israel must respond with extreme force to any violent demonstration and terror. Israel’s population must have peace and tranquility without intimidation by anyone.

    The Jewish people have suffered enough in the Diaspora for the past 2,500 years. It is time for the Jewish people to live as free people in their own land without violence and terror.

    It is time to consider that the only alternative is a population transfer of the Arab-Palestinians to the territories the Arab countries confiscated from the Jewish people and settle this dispute once and for all. Many Arab leaders had suggested these solutions over the years.

    YJ Draiman

  • Chris Berel

    How can you state that this theory started with Grief in 2008? In actuality, the theory has been around for decades. Additionally, most of your argument seems to confuse de jure and de facto.

    Further, your arguments are based on your specific definition of the terms. I had no idea that international law was to be determined by private interpretation.

    However, the settlements that are not included in the peace treaty as a part of Israel will certainly be abandoned. No one with any sense, especially with the example of the Palestinian treatment of the property bequeath them in Gaza, would remain in the area.

    • http://religion-science-peace.org/ Walk Tall Hang Loose

      1. I did not mention 2008. Grief claims to have originated the theory. I gave the title of his most recent book.

      2. “Most of your argument seems to confuse de jure and de facto.” I have no idea what you mean. My argument is all about international law. De facto does not come into it.

      3. “Your arguments are based on your specific definition of the terms.” I have no idea what you mean. Which terms do I specifically define?

      4.The definitive interpretation of international law is that given by the judges of the ICJ. They have never ruled on the G-R theory because no-one has put it to them. Nor has it been put to the Israel Supreme Court. That is because the Government of Israel sees no merit in the theory. My private interpretation is based on the plain words of the documents. Grief and Rostow’s private interpretations try to read meanings into the words that are simply not there, because their judgment is clouded by their strong personal commitment to the Zionist ideology.

      If you think any of my arguments are wrong, then please explain your thinking, and we might have a sensible discussion.

      5. As to Gaza and the greenhouses, you might like to read the contemporary news report from the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/international/middleeast/15mideast.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&

      Personally I hope that some of the settlers will stay in Palestine as dual citizens. The more Arabs there are in Israel, and the more Jews in Palestine, the better the chances for real ‘good neighbourliness’.

      • Chris Berel

        There are 1.5 million Arab citizens of Israel. That has not bettered any chances.

        The NYT did the same thing you do; gave a personal interpretation in the headline. The headline screams “demolished.” The facts state “dismantled” (they only dismantled 1/2 according to the report). Big, big difference.

        You cannot interpret a legal document based on the definition of words by Merriam-Webster.

        • http://religion-science-peace.org/ Walk Tall Hang Loose

          Your comments are completely useless. You say I confuse de jure and de facto, but you can give no examples. You say I ‘specifically define terms’ but you cannot explain what this means. You say I wrongly interpret legal documents by using dictionary definitions of words, but give no examples.

          • Chris Berel

            I stated “your arguments are based on your specific definition of the terms.” Not “‘specifically define terms'” as you retorted. If you are going to quote, do so correctly, if not, just paraphrase.

            Legal terms require legal definitions, not common sense. Britain, as the legal owner of the Palestinian territories via conquest, just as the ottoman’s had been, had the legal right to bequeath the territory to whomever they chose.

          • http://religion-science-peace.org/ Walk Tall Hang Loose

            “Britain had the legal right to bequeath the territory to whomever they chose.” Maybe, but they didn’t ‘bequeath’ it to anyone. The Allied powers resolved at San Remo to follow Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant and set up the Mandatory system, incorporating, in the case of Palestine, the British policy of establishing in Palestine a Jewish national home. The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine explains in detail how this was to be achieved. Essentially, by making it easy for Jews to immigrate ‘under suitable conditions’ and join the existing population as Palestinian citizens. There is no hint in any of these documents that Jews were to have sovereignty over non-Jews, or that Jews had a right to immigrate into Palestine which extended indefinitely into the future. (Which is what Grief and Rostow respectively claim.)

            Do you agree with this? If not, why not?

          • Chris Berel

            There is nothing in the Balfour declaration or Article 22 restricting Jewish immigration. Without any restrictions, the implication is that it is to be indefinite. However, after the establishment of the state of Israel, it is then up to its citizens to determine immigration rules and regulations.

            While there may be no hint of Jewish sovereignty over non-Jews, the sovereignty exists only because Jews are the overwhelming majority in Israel, just as Sinhalese are the overwhelming majority in Sri Lanka. As such, it is impossible Tamils as being the ruling political party in Sri Lanka.

          • http://religion-science-peace.org/ Walk Tall Hang Loose

            “Without any restrictions, the implication is that it is to be indefinite.” Every country has a right to control immigration. The Mandatory is to facilitate immigration of Jews ‘under suitable conditions’. From 1922 they restricted the rate of immigration because of economic conditions. From 1939 they further restricted the rate of immigration because of political conditions i.e the Arabs were in revolt against Jewish immigration and the country was becoming ungovernable.

            If this is the only quibble you have with my article, then we are in agreement. Just to confirm: do you think the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel?

          • Chris Berel

            We are certainly in agreement that the Gaza Strip belongs to Hamas, the elected legislative body of the Arabs living there, regardless of their place of origination. As for the West Bank, I would agree that Jerusalem lost its status as an international city, as it was annexed by Jordan. Subsequently, Jordan lost the city to Israel. Thus, it is Israeli.

            As for the rest of the area on the west bank of the River Jordan; the largest contiguous Israeli cities should be annexed into Israel. My understanding is that that is approximately 6% of the land. Hebron, despite its tremendous religious significance, should be abandoned. The same treaty that will allow Palestinians passage to Jerusalem to worship at their mosques should cover Jews passage to Hebron.

          • http://religion-science-peace.org/ Walk Tall Hang Loose

            1. Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza. Legally, Gaza is part of the declared territory of Palestine, which has been recognized by over 130 other states.

            2. Jerusalem was intended to be an international city in the Partition Plan, but that was never put into effect. In the 1948-49 war West Jerusalem was captured by Israel, which there applied Israeli law, making it de facto part of Israel. The situation in East Jerusalem has been the same since 1967: Israel has de facto control. The status of Jerusalem as a whole is one of the final status issues to be decided. Since both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as their capital, the best solution in my view is joint sovereignty.

            As for your idea of absorbing whole West Bank cities into Israel: are you sure their residents will want to be absorbed, and that Israelis will welcome them?

            I would appreciate it if you could look at my article on the two-nations, one-state solution: religion-science-peace.org/2012/08/19/rethinking-israelpalestine-the-two-nations-one-state-solution/
            I would welcome your comments.

          • Chris Berel

            I stated: “the largest contiguous Israeli cities should be annexed into Israel. My
            understanding is that that is approximately 6% of the land.”

            As these cities are situated in the disputed territories and the residents are all Israeli citizens, I see no reason to consider that those residents would not want the border of Israel to include them. Additionally, they are all Israeli citizens, they would merely be welcoming themselves. It is a non-issue.

            I do not see any possibility of a one state solution. This is not Germany where both populations wanted unity in spite of the obvious fiscal calamity, which was eventually but only partially overcome. There was a deep historical and cultural need for such unity. That does not exist in the M/E except among the Arab states.

          • Nick

            You seem to be saying that its alright to move borders by force and to steal people’s land.

            Israel begged to join the dispute-resolution process of the UN – so why does it persist in announcing “my way or the highway”?

            You seem to be defending the very breaches of the peace that Israel claimed it wanted to avoid!

          • Chris Berel

            No borders between Israel and the disputed territories exist. The armistice line is just that, a truce line between Jordan and Israel. Jordan is now transJordan again. There are no truce lines between the Palestinian and the Israelis.

            There is no peace to breach.

            Israel begged for nothing. Israel demanded, and received, its due based on being an independent state and a liberal democracy. The Arabs refused to comply with agreements, so those agreements are null and void.

          • Nick

            You’re running away from the question I’ve posed before – what are the borders of Israel that everyone has to recognise?

            When did Israel announce those borders?

            You’re refusing to answer the question because you know that Israel has declared borders and they do not include the West Bank.

            In other words, the claim to sovereignty in the West Bank that you’re making is the same one that the man with the funny moustache made in Poland.

            And the whole weight of moral and legal argument is even more totally against that interpretation than it was in Sept 1939 when it triggered a World War!

          • http://www.israelinitiative.com/ Yishai_Kohen

            We’ll announce the borders when we feel like it. We already have vis-a-vis all neighboring states. For any other entity, we don’t have to.

            But we WILL continue to live where we please. We won’t tolerate Arab apartheid here in OUR land.

          • Nick

            You told the world what your borders are and then confirmed them several times. They are the partition lines of UNGA 181.

            Can we not trust anything you say?

          • http://www.israelinitiative.com/ Yishai_Kohen

            We accepted 181. The Arabs rejected UN 181- violently. They lost the war they insisted on having.

            The 181 train left the station in 1948 and isn’t coming back. That’s what we say.

            The Arabs are like the guy who murders his parents and then cries for mercy from the court on the grounds of being an orphan.

            Life doesn’t work that way.

            Oh well.

          • Nick

            UNGA had no legal authority – only the power to send a recommendation to the UNSC, the only body with law making powers.

            The UNSC refused to consider the partition, instead passing resolutions that, effectively, forbade it. (The neighbours also tried to mount a legal challenge, putting any partition move in limbo).

            Nothing you can say can justify the attack on and massacre of Deir Yassin – which took place far outside of the partition area, and before any Arab army had moved.

            Just as nothing you can say justifies stopping the residents of Deir Yassin returning home – nobody would tolerate the Jews being barred from returning to Germany and every possible legal and moral code requires the return of the villagers.

            Nor is there anything you can say that justifies Israel ruling for 65 years and by force, areas outside of its declared borders.

            Essentially, breaches such as this render Israel a rogue nation, a threat to the peace – and, by far, the worst such nation in the world.

          • http://www.israelinitiative.com/ Yishai_Kohen

            So sorry. That wasn’t even what the Arabs claimed. They claimed that NOBODY had the authority, so they chose war and lost. Oh well.

            Deir Yassin was a lie. Arabs who were there admitted it. Game over.

            As to declared borders, since the Arabs didn’t recognize them, they didn’t exist. Again, they’re like the guy who murders his parents and then cries for mercy from the court on the grounds of being an orphan.

            Life doesn’t work that way.

          • Nick

            The Arabs claimed that the UNSC couldn’t give one people’s lands to another either – but that did not arise, because the UNSC passed a series of resolutions that forbade Israel going ahead and declaring Independence.

            Only $400,000 handed to Truman on his whistle-stop tour campaigning led him to recognise Israel’s Independence – but the letter requesting him do so refers to the partition resolution, the lines of 181.

            Why did Israel say one thing and do another?

            If it wanted the extra land, why did it never claim to have annexed them?

            Answer, we’re not talking about a nation that has an army, this is a rogue army that has a nation.

          • http://religion-science-peace.org/ Walk Tall Hang Loose

            Nick, what are the UNSC resolutions you are talking about?

          • http://www.israelinitiative.com/ Yishai_Kohen

            The Arabs rejected ANY Jewish state- no matter which body made the decision. And it wasn’t giving one people’s land to another. It was never theirs to begin with.

            As to Truman, you really should read up on it besides the tinfoil hat web sites. From the Truman library:

            May 25, 1939: Senator Harry S. Truman inserts in the Congressional Record strong criticism of the British White Paper on Palestine, saying it is a dishonorable repudiation by Britain of her obligations.

            August 24, 1945: The report of the Intergovernment Committee on Refugees, called the Harrison Report, is presented to President Truman. The report is very critical of the treatment by Allied forces of refugees, particularly Jewish refugees, in Germany.

            August 31, 1945: President Truman writes British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, citing the Harrison Report and urging Attlee to allow a reasonable number of Europe’s Jews to immigrate.

            May 8, 1946: President Truman writes to Prime Minister Attlee, citing the report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, and expressing the hope that Britain would begin lifting the barriers to Jewish immigration.

            October 4, 1946: On the eve of Yom Kippur, President Truman issues a statement indicating United States support for the creation of a “viable Jewish state.”

            October 28, 1946: President Truman writes to King Saud of Saudi Arabia, informing the king that he believes “that a national home for the Jewish people should be established in Palestine.”

            August 31, 1947: The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine issues its report, which recommends unanimously (all 11 member states voting in favor) that Great Britain terminate their mandate for Palestine and grant it independence at the earliest possible date; and which also recommends by majority vote (7 of the member nations voting in favor) that Palestine be partitioned into Jewish and Arab states.

            October 11, 1947: Herschel Johnson, United States deputy representative on the United Nations Security Council, announces United States support for the partition plan of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine.

            October 17, 1947: President Truman writes to Senator Claude Pepper: “I received about 35,000 pieces of mail and propaganda from the Jews in this country while this matter [the issue of the partition of Palestine, which was being considered by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine from May 13, 1947 to August 31, 1947] was pending. I put it all in a pile and struck a match to it — I never looked at a single one of the letters because I felt the United Nations Committee [United Nations Special Committee on Palestine] was acting in a judicial capacity and should not be interfered with.”

            February 22, 1948: President Truman instructs Secretary of State George Marshall that while he approves in principle a draft prepared by the State Department of a position paper which mentions as a possible contingency a United Nations trusteeship for Palestine, he does not want anything presented to the United Nations Security Council that could be interpreted as a change from the position in favor of partition that the United States announced in the General Assembly on November 29, 1947. He further instructs Marshall to send him for review the final draft of the remarks that Warren Austin, the United States representative to the United Nations, is to give before the Security Council on March 19, 1948.

            February 27, 1948: President Truman writes to his friend Eddie Jacobson, refusing to meet with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization.

            March 8, 1948: Counsel to the President Clark Clifford writes to President Truman, in a memorandum entitled “United States Policy with Regard to Palestine,” that Truman’s actions in support of partition are “in complete conformity with the settled policy of the United States.”

            March 22, 1948: President Truman writes to his brother Vivian Truman regarding Palestine: “I think the proper thing to do, and the thing I have been doing, is to do what I think is right and let them all go to hell.”

            The main fear among some in the US government was that the Jewish state would increase Soviet influence and power in the Middle East and endanger the oil supply to the US.

            Clearly this didn’t happen.

            As to 181, again, Israel accepted it. The Arabs rejected it, and then all bets were off. Again, the Arabs are like the guy who murders his parents and then cries for mercy from the court on the grounds of being an orphan.

            Life doesn’t work that way.

          • http://religion-science-peace.org/ Walk Tall Hang Loose

            Yishai, please do not copy and paste large amounts of irrelevant material on my site. We know Truman recognised Israel. That is the only point relevant to my article.

            The Zionist leadership voluntarily took the decision to declare the state of Israel on the basis of the Partition Plan Borders, and it was recognised on those borders. Yes, from that point ‘all bets were off’, because the sovereign borders of a state can only be changed by legal annexation. That is, by agreement with its neighbours, and a referendum of the people whose citizenship will be changed as a result. This has never happened with the borders between Israel and Syria, Lebanon or Palestine. The State of Israel has no business doing anything outside its legal borders, except that which is authorised under Chapter XI of the UN Charter in the case of administration of the territory of a non-self-governing peoples, and/or the Geneva Conventions in the case of military occupation. This is all clearly explained in my article.

            If you have any relevant, rational and evidence-based arguments concerning the topic of the article, please provide them. Otherwise, please refrain from commenting. I reserve the right to delete repetitive or irrelevant comments.

          • http://religion-science-peace.org/ Walk Tall Hang Loose

            “As to declared borders, since the Arabs didn’t recognize them, they didn’t exist.”

            International law does not work that way.

            A state exists when at least one other state recognizes it. Israel, within its declared borders, has existed since 00:10 on 15th May 1948 when it was recognized by the USA.

          • Chris Berel

            As for the immigration restriction, the economic restriction was ridiculous and the 1939 restriction was part of the death warrant of European Jewry.

            Those that entered “illegally” (the Nazi laws made certain actions illegal so it was morally correct to violate those laws) still had the right to enter and settle.

          • http://religion-science-peace.org/ Walk Tall Hang Loose

            The economic restriction was based on the rate at which immigrants could be economically absorbed. This is applied by almost all countries. Otherwise, you get either unemployed immigrants, or unemployed natives, because the immigrants are doing their jobs for lower pay. This is recipe for conflict.

            I understand your point about the 1939 restrictions. But you could say the same about the restrictions imposed by the USA from the mid-1930s onwards. And neither the Administration of Palestine nor the US Government anticipated the full horror of the forthcoming Holocaust.

            On illegal Jewish immigration into Palestine, I am not talking about the violation of Nazi laws, but of the restrictions imposed by the British Administration of Palestine. You may think that violating those restrictions was morally justified, and I may well agree with you, but it was not legally justified.

          • Chris Berel

            The law imposed by the British was immoral, just as the Nazi laws were immoral. As such, violations were certainly illegal but readily excusable. Both Britain and the US knew what was going on in 1939 in Germany. At that point, any restriction of refugees attempting to exit Germany was inexcusable.

            The full horror occurred from 1942 onward. And the Allied powers knew then. At that time, any restriction places blood directly on the hands of those administrations and anyone had the moral obligation to violate those laws. Those laws after 1942 became “just following orders” laws.

          • Chris Berel

            ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’

            Indeed, but it does imply an intention to not do anything about it. The documents state that Jewish immigration shall be assisted. It states nothing about any other group immigration. However, by notable absence, the statement implies that there is no concern to assist any other groups migration.

            Take “National Home.” You claim there is no legal meaning. However, I believe Churchill’s definition is quite sufficient:

            “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 centre 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.”

            Winston Churchill

            British Secretary of State for the Colonies

            June 1922

          • http://religion-science-peace.org/ Walk Tall Hang Loose

            A British White Paper is a discussion paper, not a legal document. However, I agree that Churchill’s statement expresses very clearly what is meant by Jewish national home, which is why I quoted it. But to understand what is meant by a Jewish national home IN Palestine you need to read the rest of his remarks as well, which is why I also quoted the parts directed at the Arab population. The statement confirms the understanding of the ‘Jewish national home’ that I derived from the Mandate.

            It is expressed even more clearly in the 1921 resolution of the Zionist National Congress, quoted above: a flourishing common home for Jews and Arabs assuring to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development.

            Do you agree with that interpretation? If not, why not?

          • Chris Berel

            I do not see the same quote in your writing.

          • http://religion-science-peace.org/ Walk Tall Hang Loose

            Sorry about that, I did not quote the full paragraph, I will correct that.