Are Israeli “settlements” illegal under international law?


The Guardian refrain that Jewish communities across the green line (including “East” Jerusalem) represent ‘a violation of international law’ is repeated so often that even those who don’t possess even the slightest antipathy towards Israel could be forgiven for uncritically accepting this as fact.

Reports alleging the “illegality” of such settlements – in the Guardian, as well as in the mainstream media – often don’t even bother citing a source for such an international adjudication, as no such determination has ever been reached or definitively codified.

Eric Rozenman, the Washington DC director of CAMERA, in an essay published today, March 9, at the Washington Times, delves into the relevant legal precedents, as well as the pertinent historical background, and concludes that settlements are not, in fact, illegal under international law.  

Mandate for Palestine

Even those who passionately oppose the existence, and growth, of Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria should read and seriously consider Rozenman’s  thoughtful analysis, titled ‘Ban Ki-Moon is wrong about Israeli settlements‘. 

139 comments on “Are Israeli “settlements” illegal under international law?

  1. Well actually there is no argument about what the European Powers did through the League of Nations that was primarily colonial powers and European countries

    What they did gave to a group of Europeans a right to make another peoples land their own.

    • You should ask the same to the muslim imperialists that colonized vast territories through war, rape, pillaging, slavery and wholesale murder. They should go back to arab desert, don’t you think?

    • 51 Nations recognized Jewish sovereignty over Palestine. Take a look. It is not primarily European, nor is it primarily colonial powers. What of all the Latin American and Caribbean countries? Surely you don’t think they were all coerced by the “European Powers?” Why would European nations conspire to recognize the statehood of the Jews?

      Here is a list:
      Albania
      Argentina
      Australia
      Austria
      Belgium
      Bolivia
      Brazil
      British India
      Bulgaria
      Canada
      Chile
      Colombia
      Costa Rica
      Cuba
      Czechoslovakia
      Denmark
      El Salvador
      Estonia
      Finland
      France
      Greece
      Guatemala
      Haiti
      Honduras
      Italy
      Japan
      Kingdom of Serbs,
      Croats and Slovenes
      Latvia
      Liberia
      Lithuania
      Luxembourg
      Netherlands
      New Zealand
      Nicaragua
      Norway
      Panama
      Paraguay
      Persia
      Peru
      Poland
      Portugal
      China
      Romania
      Siam
      Spain
      Sweden
      Switzerland
      South Africa
      United Kingdom
      Uruguay
      Venezuela

      • This is regarding the partition plan, which exclude the west bank and have Jerusalem an international city.

                • @ SerJew
                  If you don’t like this blog, just clear off.
                  What I dislike about this blog is bigots like you.

                  And you are always hysterically worried about other people’s opinions. Incredible insecurity.

                  Worried? No. I simply marvel at such bigotry.

                  The hysterics and insecurity are all yours – oh, and the hate-induced ulcers. I’m just guessing you’re not a pretty puppy.

            • And I thought I naswered the question. Just google it if you really care San Remo conference 1922 , Leage of Nation and the Mandate for Palestine. I just wonder who the Idiot is really is?

              • I am well aware of the San Remo conference. But it did not confer Jewish sovereignty over Palestine – even if you wish it had.

                • Pretz, you say “I am well aware of the San Remo conference. But it did not confer Jewish sovereignty over Palestine …”

                  I am puzzled by your comment. If the agreements reached in San Remo 1920 did not confer Jewish sovereignty, what do you say did it confer, with regard to Palestine?

                • So what is the meaning of this :
                  “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.”

                • @ Joshua

                  You appear to be interpreting said clause as bestowing the entire land from the Jordan to the Med to the Jews.

                • Pretzelberg As you seem to have all the answers why don;t you tell us what did they mean in this resolution:
                  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,

                  I do hope you’ll answer this becasue you didn;t answer any of my question of similar contents.

      • Daniel, you are wrong. If you add up all the European countries with all those colonised by Europeans over the last 400 years or so (e.g. all the Latin American and Caribbean countries, NZ, Australia) there is a clear majority of “colonial” countries. But then again, Belgium is a colony of the French and Walloons, the UK has been colonised by the Saxons, Vikings, Romans, Normans etc, so that’s definitely a “colony”. Of course the Zhili clique believed their rival Fengtian clique was under the imperial Japanese yoke at the time, hence the two Zhili/Fengtian wars in the early 1920s. So if the League of Nations vote was cast by a Fengtian representative, you could say China was a “colony” too.

        In fact, if you go back far enough (100,000 years or so should do it) I believe current scientific theory is that all humanity began in modern-day Ethiopia, so all other countries are “colonies”.

        The point of course is that it is easy to shout “colonialism” to prove a point, but it is very convenient that only one country is seemingly guilty of such a heinous crime.

        • The term “colonialist” is applied in argument by Israel’s detractors like ashley george to delegitimise the State . What these detractors do not do in this context is to challenge the legitimacy of Iraq , Syria and Lebanon which came into existence during the same period between April 19 and 25 April 1920 at San Remo and all the other post-WW1 Treaties.Only when it comes to jews do these critics try to take a moral high ground in argument.

    • ashley,

      So nice that you want to accept the Jews as some sort of “European” people. Nice thought, though a bit late. The Jews are the Jews and Israel is their homeland, and it’s not in Europe. What the Arabs did was to try to through them out of their own homeland, but they lost. Get over it.

    • There were a number of other countries created and recognized under the same mechanism, including Iraq and Syria. Are they also illegal countries?

      • A simple point that the more vociferous of Israel’s critics conveniently overlook, of course.

      • “There were a number of other countries created and recognized under the same mechanism, including Iraq and Syria.”

        Pakistan comes to mind – absolutely huge population transfer in the millions, with no real historical claims. Is Pakistan legitimate Ashley?

    • “Well actually there is no argument about what the European Powers did”
      Ashley, there is much argument about this. Just because you make an assertion, doesn’t make it a fact.

      “What they did gave to a group of Europeans a right to make another peoples land their own.”

      Is that your take? Laughable. The Ottoman Turks were the undisputed rulers of the area you describe. Most of the land was state land. The Ottoman Empire is no more. The League of Nations voted unanimously for a trusteeship (mandate) to resettle Jews in their own country where they could live with their own people already in that historically jewish country and made Britain the trustee to carry out that mandate. There was never any Arab/Palestinian nation to replace.
      The local Arabs and their brethren from surrounding areas (newly formed Arab countries which themselves owed their existence to the very same mandate system) attacked the majority jewish areas of the mandate, because they objected to jewish rule in any part of the Jews own patrimony. They lost, and now there is a tiny jewish majority state on the mediterranean coast on a percentage of that historically jewish land, and you just can’t stand that, can you?

  2. I asked the Saudis they say we are already in an Arab desert. I asked the Palestinians and they said we would love to except somebody has taken our homes and would not let us return to our homes in the desert. The Bedouins claim there homes are regularly destroyed. Europeans have a lot to answer for do you not think?

    • Cool, so send all muslims back to Saudi Arabia and let they pay reparations for all the killings, slavery, looting of their colonial imperialism since 640 A.D.

      • Cool, so send all muslims back to Saudi Arabia

        No surprise to see SerJew come up with this call for ethnic cleansing – nor that it gets the thumbs up from the usual bigots.

        • Pretz, I am no fan of SJ’s histrionics, but his comment about muslims going back to SA is no more ridiculous than “ashley”‘s comment about “European” colonization of the Holy Land.

          The point is – if you believe that Israel is a European colonial enterprise, then why stop at that? Surely so are the USA, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina etc etc. Perhaps we should all go back to Ethiopia, where humanity apparently began, and start again.

          • his comment about muslims going back to SA is no more ridiculous than “ashley”‘s comment about “European” colonization of the Holy Land

            I absolutely agree. What’s your point re. my post?

            • Why would anyone want to or even bother to vote down that perfectly innocent post of mine?

              There sure are some sad bastards lurking around this website!

              • Pretz. Your comment was voted down because it was made by someone whose name begins with “p”, ends in “g” and has “retzelber” in between. I doubt those who did so even read it.

                The point I was making, by the way, was that I percieved SJ’s comment to have been a sarcastic retort rather than a genuine belief. I indeed gave him the benefit of the doubt on this occasion. You clearly did not. We therefore disagree. Fair enough! Only SJ can tell us what he really meant.

                • Oh, great. Now Lab and pretz established a self-styled blog-tribunal to decide who they will label a “bigot” or “racist” or “mental midget”. Talk about histrionics…

                • Sir Jew. Why should you have the right to call those you disagree with racist, or Nazi, or a troll, while suggesting that anyone criticising you has appointed themselves as “a self-styled blog tribunal”?

                  If you can’t take it, don’t give it.

                  And, by the way, I defended your post on this occasion. So what’s your beef?

                • My beef? Beef bourguignon? Listen, you seem to be bothered with my “histrionics” but are ok with the blogs Soviet commissar and hysterical PC little rants, where he accuses and call names. That’s your right to be inconsistent and hypocritical. But if you don’t like my posts, just don’t read them.

                • Sir Jew

                  As a vegetarian, I find your reference to beef bourguignon offensive and demand that it is deleted from this site immediately and its author branded a bovist – an abuser of innocent defenceless cows.

                  Yours (with tongue firmly in cheek, just in case it needs to be clarified)

                  Labenal

                • Pretzel. I am not going to pigeon-hole people. If you, Adam Levick, Sir Jew, Joshua, Jeff, cba, alexa or anyone else post something I agree with – I’ll say so. If they post something I disagree with – I’ll say so. I always try to give reasons why and I very rarely resort to name-calling (even when dealing with Nat, Sencar, Richard Armbach, Ashley George and their ilk). That’s the way I roll.

                  Sir Jew – that is consistency, and I won’t apologise for it.

                  Calling everyone that disagrees with you a “commissar” a “Nazi” or a “church warden” is also consistent too, I suppose.

                • Lab, I didn’t ask nor want your apology. Step down from your pedestal. And you keeps defending the blog’s biggest hypocrite, this pretz, the pathetic self-styled PC policeman, that keeps calling people “racist”, “bigots”, “idiots”, “scumbag”, “bastards” and “metal midgets” in every occasion his stupidity is exposed (or just when he needs to feel good as the paragon of politically correct pseudo-morality). Yes, you are a consistent hypocrite. And again, if you dislike my posts, just don’t read them.

                • “Why give a bigot like SerJew the benefit of the doubt?” pretzo

                  People have inklings that you are a complete moron.

                • Sir Jew – my last point on this silly conversation. I don’t know why you think I am “defending” Pretz. I’m not. His “histrionics” are sometimes just as embarrassing as yours! I am merely reserving the right to criticise or defend any bloody comment from any commentator I wish to..

                • Sure, Lab. No one is taking that right from you or pretzo-ball. Of course, people have the right to criticize YOUR histrionics and nonsense too.

        • I think he was being sarcastic rather than literal. He was turning the tables on Ashley’s inane comment.

    • “Europeans have a lot to answer for do you not think?”

      Yes, Ashley, they certainly do as do the Arabs, don’t you think?

    • You are not addressing the innate Jew-hatred of Islam, are you, which drives this mindless and perpetually unsuccessful sacrifice of Palestinians’ (note not Saudis’) lives for something their hate-riddled prophet demanded over a thousand years ago?

      What is it, do you think, that prevents these zombies from making a lasting peace (from which they and their children would profit) with their Jewish neighbour?

    • Yes ashley, that’s exactly what I think, and you’re a real chip of the old block with your imperial pretentions. That innate European sense of justice that would deny the Jews any sympathy as fellow human beings, or the historical right to a shitty sliver of land that offers them the only hope of empowerment over visceral bigots like yourself and your murderous, racist ancestors.

      • That innate European sense of justice that would deny the Jews any sympathy as fellow human beings

        I appreciate that emotions can ride high when facing the laughable likes of ashley – but steady on, there.

    • Israels a European colony?
      why are over half of its population Arab Jews then? The same Arab Jews who were violently thrown out of their home countries but have built Israel since the second Aliyah

    • Thats rather a stupid response for someone with such hardened views about a country he obviously knows little about. If you can’t recall yesterday what right do you have to spread propaganda about a manufactured Palestinian people who have no legal, historical, archeological rights in that land? Are you simply hell bent on spreading propaganda? What for? To justify that illogical age old Jew hatred?

    • “I hardly remember what happened yesterday let alone in 640 AD -”

      That’s because you’re “nat” in drag.

    • So you hardly remember Ashley? Maybe this is the difference between us, we remember very well what happened to us by the hands of your kind of trash during the last 2000 years, and we learned the lesson.

      • Peter de Hungarian: completely agree with your comment. Only want to add (so near Pesach) that we remeber from the last 4.000 years, AND don’t allow to change the historic texts (altough we change rules when needed, we don’t change the “originals”). What a difference, isn’t it?

  3. If I remember correctly, Foreign Secretary Wm. Hague described settlements as illegal in the House of Commons last week. I don’t think he was challenged by any MP present. I’ll email some Jewish MP’s and ask them whether they they would like to comment.

    • Lol. Just because some moron declares them illegal today doesn’t make them illegal. What were his reasons for declaring them illegal? Can you tell me?

    • Was he offering to all the settlements? Was he saying they are generally understood to be illegal?

        • I looked up Hansard: his words were “From what I have said many times about the illegality of settlement building on occupied land it will be clear to the hon. Gentleman where we stand on matters of international law”

          • Also: “Our condemnation of illegal settlement building and of demolitions on occupied land has been very clear across the House, as I have said”

    • Why should I e-mail him? I’m not selling crystal bowls and high end TV sets for MPs paying for them with taxpayers’ money. The only info what he could supply is the taste of Haniyeh’s arse…

  4. Arguing that the settlements are illegal is one thing – but how does this contstitute anti-Semitism and/or an assault on the legitimacy of Israel itself?

    • When you accuse the Jewish settlers of Yesha of doing something that Mankind has done since time immemorial–settle and work un-owned land (if the pals own it where are the deeds?) THAT my racist friend is anti-semitism.
      If you think that the Falklands ‘belong’ to the British because 90% of the 3000 population say it is, mustn’t you also concede that Judea and Samaria, Yesha, where 100% of the population, Jewish, would agree, ‘belong’ to Israel? THAT my bigoted friend is a double standard and anti-semitic .
      Finally, when you lay the blame for the settlements at the feet of the Israeli Government–and there is no proof at all of its encouragement or discouragement of the movement by the Government–you are blaming the Govt. for the actions of some Jews who happen to also be Israelis. THAT my racist, bigoted friend, is anti-semitic!
      Yesha, like the Falklands, and every other country in the world, belongs to those who POSSESS IT! We JEWS have taken possession. YOU will not remove us!

      • If you think that the Falklands ‘belong’ to the British because 90% of the 3000 population say it is

        I don’t.

        You assumed I did – and on that basis called me “racist”, “bigoted” and “anti-semitic”.
        Which leaves you looking like a complete idiot.

        From the language of your post, it seems it’s you who’s the bigot here.

    • Pretz, they are not “arguing” that the settlements are illegal, they are telling you that they are illegal, when they are clearly not illegal. A body of pseudo law won’t make this any better and if we accept pseudo law for one part of the land, what’s stopping anyone arguing that other parts of the land are not illegal too? Israel’s birth certificate dates back to 1920:NOT 1947, 1949 or 1967. It does not matter what your political beliefs are Pretz. Right or left, that is the legal position.Denying those facts is denying Israel’s legitimacy. And taking that argument to its logical conclusion one arrives squarely in the anti-semites’ camp applying antisemitic discourse to arguments.

      One can hand over land that belongs to you, but if you declare land you hold belongs to the enemy you are in effect legitimising a non-existant claim. Arab rights do subsist, but they are not sovereign rights. If there is a grievance about preventing a sovereign entity being established , it is against the Arab countries who chose war over a compromise and created this sordid mess and not Israel ,which has tried
      repeatedly to accomodate a 2 state solution and that makes no impression at all today.

      • Pretz, they are not “arguing” that the settlements are illegal, they are telling you that they are illegal, when they are clearly not illegal.

        So basically you are not arguing but telling us that the settlements – present and future – are legal.
        To again mirror your own choice of language:
        Taking that argument to its logical conclusion one arrives squarely in the no-state-for-Palestinians camp.

        • Pretz, if the area called the “west bank” does not belong to any Arab state and Balfour, San Remo, the League of Nations charter, the mandate, the UN Charter confers Jewish sovereignty over this territory – yes – they are legal. Read the piece by Eric Rozenan. if you disagree with that, tell us why he is wrong?

          And no, I don’t come to any conclusions and Palestinian sovereignty in a future where the arab world might just one day recognise Jewish sovereignty. Palestinian nationalism is largely an arab problem to solve through peaceful means. It does not change the legal position, unless you can enlighten us as to where i have misunderstood the law.

          • Pretz, if the area called the “west bank” does not belong to any Arab state and Balfour, San Remo, the League of Nations charter, the mandate, the UN Charter confers Jewish sovereignty over this territory

            No, it clearly does not.

            Do you genuinely believe it does?

            • Of course it does. That’s the whole point. Unless I have missed something blindingly obvious to change that position (and it is not my politics that blinds me), I don’t have an argument to support the contention that the settlements are illegal. I may not like it and it may, as some argue , be an obstacle to peace, but that’s the position.

              • The various charters/treaties referred to a home for the Jewish people IN Palestine. But Jewish sovereignty over the entire territory?

                • If I understand you pretz, you are trying to make the point, that since Balfour, San Remo etc is referring to a RE- constitutedJewish National Home IN Palestine, it could not have meant the whole of Palestine? Also you are also asking that since “National Home ” and not the word “State” is used, it cannot possibly mean that sovereign rights were acquired by Jews?

                  There is a detailed answer I can give, but I would ask you first to consider:

                  Since no document refers to any other peoples being given a national home at the time or intended to be given in future , how is it possible to infer that this was intended without any contemporanious evidence to support any other meaning. It does not. Secondly, reference to rights of non-Jews living there and as to their rights not being prejudiced deals with Arab inhabitants of Palestine to continue to have the rights to remain and to be protected. But it does not refer to creating another new polity.

                • I am very much a supporter of Israel (as regulars on this site will know), and I do not claim to be able to predict what the future holds for Israel, Israelis or the Palestinians, but Alexa and Joshua. It is simple use of language.

                  If I say I wnat to buy property “IN London” that clearly doesn’t necessarily mean I intend to buy ALL of London. I might have that intention, but the phrase is ambiguous. It can mean anything from a single studio flat to a concerted effort to buy everything I can get my hands on. If (as some had advocated) the JewishSimilarly, when the Balfour/San Remo docs referred to a Jewish homeland IN Palestine, it was indicating that the land would be somewher in that area as opposed to, say, in East Africa or in Scandanavia.

                  The Balfour/San Remo declarations did also make reference to the rights of others who lived in the mandated area.

                  As a lawyer, it is simply not credible to interpret a phrase “a home for the Jewish people IN Palestine” as guaranteeing sovereignty over ALL of that land.

                • We are not talking about buying flats IN anywhere Labenal and reducing the arguments to just words is not the way to view this issue at all. The way to view it is in context of one of the worst wars in history coming to its end with parties laying claims to territory after promises having been given by the Allied Powers for their support. The mandate was a Trust Deed (not a “framework,” as you say) in an exceptional set of circumstances in which the parties laying claims , firstly at the Paris Conference in 1919, in which each of the claimants agreed to support each of the other’s national national aspirations and concluding the terms at San Remo in which it was rights to the Palestine of Biblical and post-Biblical periods that was envisaged becoming one day, a state.for the Jews.

                  While I accept that the meaning of “IN Palaestine” began to change AFTER San Remo and after the setting up of the mandate, what was understood BEFORE the signing up of the agreements is clear enough.

                  As I say, I think you will find Grief’s book exceptionally clear as to how these various terms came in to play and the various participants who were involved played their roles and why i say that there can be no ambiguity whatsoever

                • Labenal
                  Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:11

                  PALESTINE
                  INTRODUCTORY.
                  POSITION, ETC.
                  Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

                  On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: –

                  North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

                  East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

                  South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

                  West. – The Mediterranean Sea.

                  See “Introductory,” Page 1 of the Report by the Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938.

                • Alexa. I know what the borders of Mandate Palestine were. The quote you have provided comes from an administrative report of 1938 – it does not signify the legal status of that land. It certainly doesn’t “designate this for the Jewish National Home” as you claim.

                  Look – I think there are very strong arguments for the legal basis of Israel’s claim to all/part of the “disputed territories”, but saying that the Balfour Declaration/Mandate/San Remo guarantees it is just not true, and weakens other arguments we make.

                • nternational law expert Professor Eugene V. Rostow, examining the claim for Arab Palestinian self-determination on the basis of law, concluded:

                  “… the mandate implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favor of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land

                • The “Mandate for Palestine” is a League of Nations document that laid down the Jewish legal rights in Palestine. The British Mandate, on the other hand, was entrusted by the League of Nations with the responsibility to administrate the area delineated by the “Mandate for Palestine.”

                • Thanks Alexa. I hadn’t seen that Rostow quote before. He seems like an authoritative source. I will look into this further.

                • Pretz and Labenal, in addition to Alexa’s comments, which I am in agreement with, I recommend Howard Grief’s exceptionally detailed and meticulously researched treatise on this particular subject: The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law.

                  Grief’s essay below preceded the book’s publication and is in quite enough detail to deal with a lot of the issues. The San remo resolutions make no immediate reference to the exact boundaries which were finally set in Franco-British Boundary Convention in December of that same year.Some of the documents are online. For pretz, who questions home and state, the minutes of the cabinet meeting in 1917 held before Balfour confirms what was understood then by the term homeland to mean state, and Grief precisely explains why the euphamism of homeland was adopted.
                  For Labenal, Grief explains “IN Palestine”:

                  “The phrase “in Palestine”, another expression found in the Balfour Declaration that generated much controversy, referred to the whole country, including both Cisjordan and Transjordan. It was absurd to imagine that this phrase could be used to indicate that only a part of Palestine was reserved for the future Jewish National Home, since both were created simultaneously and used interchangeably, with the term “Palestine” pointing out the geographical location of the future independent Jewish state. Had “Palestine” meant a partitioned country with certain areas of it set aside for Jews and others for Arabs, that intention would have been stated explicitly at the time the Balfour Declaration was drafted and approved and later adopted by the Principal Allied Powers. No such allusion was ever made in the prolonged discussions that took place in fashioning the Declaration and ensuring it international approval.

                  There is therefore no juridical or factual basis for asserting that the phrase “in Palestine” limited the establishment of the Jewish National Home to only a part of the country. On the contrary, Palestine and the Jewish National Home were synonymous terms, as is evidenced by the use of the same phrase in the second half of the Balfour Declaration which refers to the existing non-Jewish communities “in Palestine”, clearly indicating the whole country. Similar evidence exists in the preamble and terms of the Mandate Charter.

                  http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/02-issue/grief-2.htm

                • Joshua – Grief makes some non-sequitur leaps in logic that just don’t hold water, I’m afraid.

                  He says that because the Palestine “mandate state” was created at the same time as the “homeland for the Jews in Palestine” that they must be synonymous. This does not make logical sense.

                  I get the point that, if a partitioned state had been envisaged, this should have been made clear, but this can be mirrored by the suggestion that, if the whole of CisJordan and Transjordan (or even just CisJordan) were intended to be an independent Jewish state, surely the documents would have made that clear too.

                  He cites the Syrian and Iraqi examples as parallels, but if you look at the language of the Syrian and Mesopotamian Mandates, they are completely different to the Palestinian one. They explicitly call for the establishment of a state and provide for the end of the mandate when those states are ready to stand on their own. The Palestine mandate makes no such references at all.

                  I am still of the view that the mandate is ambiguous – it clearly set out the framework for the establishment of a Jewish homeland “in Palestine” but the extent and nature of that homeland are not specified, so are clearly open to debate.

                • @ Joshua

                  how is it possible to infer that this was intended without any contemporanious evidence to support any other meaning.

                  See Labenal’s post below.

  5. Under “international law” which is a self contradictorial notion.
    Not only because “it” consists of treaties, habits, conventions, cooperations, insitutions etc. which are open to all sort of interpretation, but because there is no unified international legislation which votes, edits und regulates “international law” and no international authority exists to apply, to control etc. “international law”.
    Besides the changes, amendments and so on which constantly keep “international law” in a flow.
    The different established courts/tribunals are dependent on the goodwill and financing of the member states, the cooperation of non-member states.
    The system of balancing institutions, as fpr example in a republic, is completely disabled in the forming of “international law”, nevertheless a lot of people allege “international law” would be the “democratic will of people, nations and state” and has to be obeyed. Well, looking into these cases obeyance is a case of interpretation, confounded with ommitting always those parts of “international law” which are contradicting.
    Take the case of Iran, IAEA and the NPT, It`s all about interpretation, while ii is obvious that the number of cascades exceeds the need for a civil production of nuclear energy, Iran defends its right of civil utilization while denying any effort for military developments. Iran has to maintain this assertion as long it is dependent on other countries for supply, Russia and others support this interpretation and supply Iran.
    If the IAEA decides that Iran`s assertion is rubbish, from then on it is forbidden for other countries to support Iran under the NPT, supply has to be stopped.
    The case of Noth Corea highlightens the problem. NC was member of the IAEA and was supported for a civil developemnt under the IAEA rules. As soon as NC has gathered enough knowledge, finance, technology and personal for the military development, it simply left the IAEA.
    Surreal.

  6. Saba you were the one who wanted to email a Jewish MP – Now Gerald Kaufman is Jewish. He represents Manchester the historic home of the Guardian. He will have something pertinent to say on the subject.

    • He’s busy with treating his OCD what caused him to steal from the taxpayers.
      He’s asJewish as Hamas is a department of the Chief rabbinate, the Guardian is “the leading liberal voice” and you are Albert Einstein.

      • Peter. Sorry, you can disagree with Kaufman – I certainly do – but you can’t say he isn’t Jewish just because of that. He clearly is Jewish, whether you agree with him or not.

        • Don’t be sorry Labenal but i don’t give a flying mezuzah whether he is Jewish or not according to halacha. That who is Jewish and who is not must be decided not by some rabbi but according to the involved person’s relation to other Jews, I consider the halachically absolute gentile Russian and Ethiopian comrades in arms and colleagues much more Jewish than a thousand tonnes of as a Jews like Gerald “my grandma didn’t die for” Kaufman.

          • Peter. You of course are free to consider what you like about who you like. But in my view you head down a very dangerous path when you decide who is a Jew and who isn’t on the basis of their views and opinions on a given subject. We will just have to agree to disagree.

            • Labenal I never would decide who is a Jew and who is not. What I said I don’t consider Jewish these kaufmanisque anti-Semitic scum who incidentally have born in a Jewish family and make political capital of this fact.
              It has nothing to do with opinions, there must be millions of Jews who I very strongly disagree with either politically or otherwise.

    • He also represents a constituency with a very high proportion of Muslim voters (whether legally or illegally) and is far too ready for comfort to whore his pride about his origins to satisfy them and get re-elected.

      A bit like David Ward, MP… and his motives are just as transparent.

  7. Daniel Oh dear o dear, How come British India is not European? Is it possible because it was a colony at the time?

  8. Peter I think Albert’s response, if he was alive today would have been the same as Gerald Kaufman. Now I hear you ask how do I know this?

    Peter you have answered this for me in your post.

    • “Ashley”. I would like to respond substantively to your posts, which are clearly coming from a position I disagree with, but I can’t. Why?

      Because that is the only thing that is clear about your posts. They are garbled and make no concrete points that I can decipher. Reading them is a little like hearing one side of a conversation. I sort of get the idea you think Israel is a European colonial enterprise and that this is BAD, but other than that, it’s all just noise.

    • Are you a clairvoyant Ashley that you know about Einstein’s supposed behavior?
      Did he say you that he would steal from his electorate too?
      You have many talents Ashley exactly like Kaufmann has……

  9. Of course Labenal You have deciphered my post correctly from all the noise you seem to be hearing.

    I think European Colonial enterprise has been devastating for most of the world particularly Africa, Asia and the Americas. In places, like the Americas, it caused almost the complete elimination of the local populace. Israel happens to be last enduring enterprise where the local populace are resisting the elimination process.

    Nothing should now prevent you from answering the substance if you so desire.

    • True, Israelis, the local populace, are resisting the elimination process of your Arab buddies, Natzie.

    • ” Israel happens to be last enduring enterprise where the local populace are resisting the elimination process.”

      Ashley, I would say that your argument is rubbish. But for the sake of argument, I think it’s an “interesting” place to be putting your foot down to say the least. Especially when one considers that Israel has been a jewish homeland for millennia, long before any of the nations you consider legitimate ever existed. I think it may be time for so-called “anti-racist,” “post-colonialist,” thugs like you to recognize that what you’re actually engaging in is the last legal form of racism.

  10. Israel happens to be last enduring enterprise where the local populace are resisting the elimination process.
    Not the Kurds in Turkey, Syria, Irak and Iran? Not the Baluchis in Pakistan?
    Not the Tibetians in China?
    Ashley your knowledge of geography and history is a perfect match to your moral and intelligence…

  11. Peter I did go on that demonstration for Tibet and I did tell Churchill not to bomb the Kurds even though he might think they are savages. As for the Balochis they resisted being colonized for a long time and are still fighting. That is why the US should not be arming the Pakistan Army that is fighting the Balochis. Perhaps you carry more influence over the US administration would you like to tell them the same it might help.

    • So you acknowledge that your statement that “Israel happens to be the last enduring enterprise where the local populace are resisting the elimination process” is complete bunkum?

      That is, not that I accept for a moment that the Palestinians are under threat of “elimination” (which is I think what you mean). You and your fellows constantly harp on about how powerful and well-armed Israel is, and how weak and defenceless the poor Palestinians are, and go on about the apparent Israeli policies of “ethnic cleansing” and “extermination”.

      You entirely fail to reconcile the relative might of Israel with its total failure to reduce the Arab population, either of Israel “proper” or of the disputed territories. Surely, if a mighty, mechanised army such as the IDF wanted to “exterminate” Palestinians, they would have killed many more than the 6,300 or so they have apparently killed since 1987? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Fatalities_1948.E2.80.932011

      Perhaps they might have adopted some of the tactics of, say the Syrian army (20,000 in a couple of years) or the Sudanese in Darfur (upto 300,000 dead in 7 years) or even the Turdkish army (who have managed to kill around 30,000 Kurds since 1983) or the Sri Lankan army (more than 30,000 dead Tamils in a decade)?

      Yes folks – it’s the IDF. The most incompetent exterminators in history.

    • Churchill? Bomb the Kurds? Not the favorite pet of Europe Erdogan? And you told him personally not to do it?
      Ashley, don’t hesitate call professional help immediately…

    • “I did tell Churchill not to bomb the Kurds even though he might think they are savages.”
      But why didn’t you tell Saddam Hussein not to kill Kurds in the hundreds of thousands? Why reserve your special ire for Churchill?

    • Perhaps you carry more influence over the US administration would you like to tell them the same it might help.
      Classic Ashley, really classic. But you must be correct; as everybody knows we Jews are holding the US government in our hands and they are doing everything slavishly what we tell them to do. thank you for your very interesting post.

  12. Labenal – I think the noise must be at your end because you are not hearing what people are saying you are putting words in peoples mouths – get your receiver checked out.

  13. Pingback: Rozenman is wrong about Israeli settlements | Avram Meitner

    • Avram, I have read your piece. I don’t wish to add much more than I and Alexa have already commented under the line on this blog save to say that it is replete with inaccuracies and assertions that are simply not true.
      The Sykes-Picot McMahon- Hussein Correspondence and the Balfour declaration were non-binding in international law at the time when they were made. Nor was Palestine was promised to the Sharif of Mecca as you assert, that there was any breaches of promise. At the end of WWI sovereignty of territories held by the Principal Allied Powers after the defeat of the Ottomans was transferred to the Arabs(Iraq and Syria),( the State of Hejaz already held by the Arabs), and Palestine – yes all of it- for the Jewish people. It could not be a state at the time as you say because the Jewish population was not of sufficient numbers to make a state, hence the mandate Article 6 clause to encourage settlement until there were sufficient numbers. Non-Jewish inhabitants civic and religious rights “in Palestine” (not sovereign) were not to be prejudiced. The minutes of the Cabinet session held before the Balfour declaration in 1917 makes this all very clear. It became legally binding in 1920 at San Remo and French Anglo Boundary Convention in that same year.
      Nor is it correct to say that the “indigenous” Arabs were ignored. They were loyal to Syria and represented by the Hashemites.They were consulted regarding who they wanted to be the mandatory. They chose Britain.

      Rozenan is more accurate that you can possibly want to accept Avram.

Comments are closed.