The San Remo Resolution

Folks, the areas of Judea and Samaria and the area of the Gaza Strip have been held by Israel since the Six Day War, a war started by Arabs.

Judea, Samaria and the area of the Gaza Strip are territories that belonged to no recognized sovereign power before 1967, and therefore the correct way to describe the situation in the territories in legal terms is that all of Palestine is Jewish by virtue of Mandate (“The Jewish Right to Live in Western Palestine: The Irrelevancy of ‘Belligerent Occupation’ and the 4th Geneva Convention,” Think-Israel, May-June 2005, supra n. 5, http://www.think-israel.org/shifftan.belligerentoccupation.html).

According to international law, Israel has full right to try to populate the entire Land of Israel with dense Jewish settlement, and thus actualize the principles set by the League of Nations in the original Mandate Charter of San Remo in 1920.

The mandate’s introduction clearly identifies it as being “based on the international recognition of the historic ties between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel.”

Clause II of that mandate charges Britain with ‘ensuring the existence of political, administrative, and economic conditions that will guarantee the establishment of the Jewish national home in the Land of Israel.'”

Even the 1947 UN Partition Resolution does not necessitate the creation of an Arab state west of the Jordan River. The often overlooked fact that the “resolution states specifically that it is merely a recommendation and nothing more.”

The Arab states’ rejection of the resolution voids the recommendation on any legal basis.

UN resolutions 242 and 338, which make up the cornerstone of efforts to create a Palestinian Arab state, fall under Chapter VI of the world body’s charter, meaning they too are mere “recommendations.”

The last legally binding document to be adopted regarding the areas in question remains the 1920 San Remo resolution, which deeds full sovereignty to the Jewish people.

Article 6 of the British Mandate for Palestine declared the right of the Jews to settle anywhere in Palestine, including, of course, Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

Despite the fact that the British mandate to Palestine was terminated in 1948 the rights that it gave to the Jews to build settlements in Palestine remain intact.

Under the principle of acquired legal rights, though the international instrument upon which those rights were founded did indeed expire, the rights themselves conferred on the Jewish People remained in force. This principle of international law is now codified in Article 70(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.”

It must be crystal clear that the decision of the Israeli government to automatically extend its sovereignty to any patch and parcel of Palestine as soon as it falls under the IDF’s controls was absolutely intentional. The Israeli Declaration of Independence explicitly mentions the entirety of Eretz Yisrael as the Homeland of the Jewish people. Therefore it is not surprising that the most important law of the Jewish state – The Law of Return – gives to the Jews the opportunity to exercise their right of return to any place in Eretz Yisrael.

The Law of Return speaks not about the return of the Jews to the State of Israel but about the return to the Land of Israel, i.e. Eretz Yisrael, not Medinat Yisrael. Medina means “the state”.

Anyone who is fluent in both languages can easily notice the substantial discrepancy between the original and the translation. While the First paragraph of the Law of Return states: “Any Jew has a right to perform aliyah to Eretz Yisrael”, the English version lacks a proper translation of the word “artza”. It uses instead of the correct wording “Eretz Yisrael” the term “this country.”

The Fourth paragraph of the Law of Return makes it abundantly clear that the word “artza” was used deliberately. The paragraph explains that any Jew who lives or was born in Eretz Yisrael before the emergence of this Law is considered to have made aliah. (We stress again that it is in Eretz Yisrael and not only in the territory that became the State of Israel).

In summary, there are three major laws that are the three pillars that are holding the reinstated Jewish statehood. These are the international law regarding Jewish settlement rights, accepted in San Remo and still enforceable, Israeli Law #29, the “Area of Jurisdiction and Power Ordinance,” and the Law of Return. All of them unequivocally confirm the inalienable rights of Jews to settle in any part of Eretz Yisrael. That means that with his actions directed towards expelling the Jews from Gaza and northern Samaria, Sharon blatantly violates the fundamental laws of the Jewish state.

Read more about the San Remo resolution: Gov’t says Yesha under belligerent occupation – Jerusalem Newswire

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *