The “Deal of the Century” & “Close Jewish Settlement”

The right to “Close Jewish Settlement” is perfectly legal under Article 6 of the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924. This is the Supreme Law of the USA and is American Public Policy since the right is an Acquired Legal Right under Treaty Law (e.g. the San Remo Resolution and the Treaty of Versailles).

Lest the American (Trump) Administration forget, political rights for Arabs were granted through the Mandates for Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria and Lebanon via the Treaty of Versailles; while political rights within “Palestine” (Eretz Yisrael) were granted exclusively to the Jewish People!

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution labels treaties as the “Supreme Law of the Land” and instructs judges to enforce the performance of the specific obligations of the Nation’s treaties:”…all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”Though the 1924 Anglo-American Convention expired when the Mandate for Palestine was terminated midnight May 14/15, 1948, the principle of “Acquired Legal Rights,” as defined in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 70(1)(b), dictates that rights recognized and protected under a treaty do not expire or terminate when the legal instrument recognizing the rights is terminated. In other words, rights continue without end.

Moreover, Article 80 of the UN Charter provides:

Article 80

  1. Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements 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.
  2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.

Article 80 has been defined as the “Jewish People’s Clause”

After World War II, Benzion Netanyahu, along with Irgun activist Peter Bergson, nephew of Mandatory Palestine Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, and liberal American Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, drafted an article for inclusion in the United Nations Charter that could yet save the Jewish state.
The article became known as the “Palestine clause” for the protection it afforded to the right of Jewish settlement throughout the Land of Israel west of the Jordan River. Article 80 extended the guarantees to Jews afforded by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine following World War I. The Mandate had recognized “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and “the legitimacy of grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” Jews were guaranteed “the right of close settlement” throughout Palestine.
But where was “Palestine”? According to the Mandate, it comprised the land east and west of the Jordan River, stretching from Iraq to the Mediterranean. Jewish settlement rights in Palestine were limited only in one respect: Great Britain, the Mandatory Trustee, was empowered to “postpone” or “withhold” the right of Jews to settle east — but not west — of the Jordan River.

An Open Letter: MK Smotrich

MK Smotrich:

Shalom.
You should present a Bill before the Knesset to amend the Law of Return to
“Collectively Naturalize” all Jews of the Diaspora. Please see my case for doing so in my below forwarded email to Rav Netanyahu.
Also, as to why I oppose a Palestinian state and the return of the Arabs of Palestinian extraction to Eretz Yisrael, see below wherein I posit that they were collectively naturalized and acquired national autonomy in December 1948-49!
The so called Palestinians cannot acquire “national autonomy” in Judea and Samaria because within the meaning of International Law they all-ready have Jordanian citizenship; they are classified as belligerent nationals of Jordan due to their POLITICAL STATUS vis-a-vis the Hashemites, (“Black September” and their militant opposition to Zionism and M’dinat Yisrael). See: Bishop, International Law, Cases and Materials, Second Edition, Little, Brown & Co. 1962 @pp. 338-39.
Unlawful enemy combatant, or Mercenaries status might apply to some of their populous, but whatever the case, they acquired “NATIONAL AUTONOMY” at the Jericho Conference December 1948 within the meaning of international law!
It can be easily argued that the Kingdom of Jordan was established in violation of Treaty Law ( See: <https://johnmhummasti333455225.com/2018/09/05/the-hashemite-kingdom-of-jordan/> and that Treaty Law requires the Hashemites to cede to M’dinat Yisrael the Eastern Territories of Gad, Reuven and Manasseh as per the Faisal-Weissman Agreement/Map!

In closing, When the time comes for a Plenum Vote on Palestinian Statehood in the Knesset, Vote No for Palestinian Statehood and declare Oslo null and void or dead!!! Additionally, See Article 20 Charter, Tzionist Liberation Organization.
Kol tov,
Yochanan Ezra ben Avraham
(John Mauritz Hummasti)

antisemitism, amending the the Israeli Law of Return, the Diaspora and UNGA Resolution 194(11)

B”H

Rabbi (Et. Al.) –

 

My thoughts on the rise of antisemitism, amending the the Israeli Law of Return, the Diaspora and UNGA Resolution 194(11) :

First, “Anti-Semitism has become mainstream – from the halls of Congress to the leader of the opposition in Britain,” Ya’acov Berman, Chabad Activist, NY.

In order to counter “antisemitism” and the [Palestinian] Arab’s claim for a right of return based on UNGA Resolution 194 (11); the State of Israel should amend the Law of Return and collectively naturalize (viz “PATRIATE”) all Jews of the Diaspora (e.g. Orthodox, Conservative and Reform) under the Law of Return – In this way, all Jews would be provided Israeli Consular Services and “enhanced protection services” at Synagogues and Jewish Community Centers would be ensured  and Jews would outnumber, that is, hold a demographic majority over the Arabs even if all Arabs of Palestinian extraction were absorbed by M’dinat Yisrael (the State of Israel)!
Second, UNGA Resolution 194(11) is premised on two conditions: the “return of Palestinians to Eretz Yisrael at the earliest practicable date, & on those wishing to live at peace with their neighbor” – Given the rise in antisemitism in the Arab world it does not appear that the Palestinians wish to live at peace with their Jewish neighbor.
The earliest practicable date at which the Palestinians could have “returned to Eretz Yisrael” is any time before they were “collectively naturalized” by King Abdullah I which is December 13, 1949. See my argument below for why they chose their status in international law; whether or not that decision was a good one or a bad one is not my concern. The Palestinian’s case is one against the Hashemites, not the State of Israel.

According to wikipedia – the total number of people who hold or are eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return — defined as anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent, and who does not profess any other religion — is estimated at around 23 million, of which 6.6 million were living in Israel as of 2015. Figures for these expanded categories are less precise than for the core Jewish population.

Based on these 2015 figures, there are an estimated 17 million Jews in the Diaspora who are eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return. This number may not include the number of converts to Judaism or those Anusim (descendants of Jews forced to convert to a non-Jewish religion) who might be eligible under the Law of Return.

****

King Abdullah I of Jordan collectively naturalized all Arabs of Palestinian extraction.
The subject of collective naturalization is discussed at length in Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135, (1892) and many cases cited and illustrations given.

Collective Naturalization can occur by legislation or by treaty.

In the case of Jordan –

On December 13, 1949, King Abdullah of Jordan passed a law amending the Law of Nationality of 1928. Accordingly, Jordanian citizenship was granted to all persons who were holding Palestinian citizenship and were habitually residing in Transjordan or in the “western area that [was] administered by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” (i.e., Jerusalem and the West Bank). (Of note is that this law excluded Jews from possessing Jordanian citizenship! But of course the Jews were ethnically cleansed from Jordan and Judea and Samaria by the Hashemites in violation of Article 15 of the Mandate for Palestine and the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 –

Talk about APARTHEID….)

(On the matter of why the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was established in violation of Articles 5, 15, and 25 I can make a clear argument on each point but that is not the purpose of this –  Article 15 states, “No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.” The ethnic cleansing of Jews from “Palestine” was an official act of antisemitism. No different than that of the ethnic cleansing of the rest of the Jews of the “Middle East Diaspora”…! The Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 while it replicated the Mandate for Palestine, and has expired; the right guaranteed under it to the Jewish People [see Article 80 of the UN Charter] do not expire. This is particularly true since that Treaty became the Supreme Law of the Land (USA) under our Constitutional law system, [enshrining the Mandate for Palestine and the Balfour Declaration into the official PUBLIC policy of the USA] see Howard Grief’s Book: The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law (9789657344521).)

On April 11, 1950, parliamentary elections took place in Jordan, covering both the East Bank and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Following these elections, the Jordanian House of Commons approved the amended law and parliament’s decision concerning the “unification of the two Banks.” Thus, Palestinians who were living in East Jerusalem and the West Bank became Jordanian citizens [by collective naturalization].
The recent de-naturalization of Jordanian citizens of “Palestinian Extraction” by King Hussein and by King Abdullah II has been found to violate the Jordanian Nationality Law. See HRW Report “Stateless Again” – The act of “disengagement” from Judea and Samaria by the Hashemites and declaring those Arabs of Palestinian Extraction (who have been de-naturalized) as Palestinian Citizens can not confer “Palestinian citizenship” on them as Palestine is not a state under the criteria of “Statehood” and must be viewed as a political stratagem designed to demographically destroy the State of Israel! (See Joel Gilbert’s documentary, “Farewell Israel” – Bush, Iran and the Revolt of Islam.) His attempt to cede Judea and Samaria in 1988 to the PLO is null and void as he renounced all claims to “the West Bank” and “what was not his to begin with was not within his power to cede!”
King Hussein explained his decision as one of deference to Palestinian wishes for national autonomy.
This statement flies in the face of the Jericho Conference of December 1948 led by Sheik Muhammad Ali Ja’abari, Mayor of Hebron and the April 1950 Parliamentary Elections wherein the Arabs of Palestinian Extraction exercised political independence and elected King Abdullah as their Sovereign!
Thus, the Palestinians acquired national autonomy when their duly elected representatives voted at the Jericho Conference in December 1948. Within a year all “non-Jewish Palestinians” were all “collectively naturalized” with the consent of the people through their elected Monarch, Abdullah I.
Just because the Hashemites have suspended the rights of the Arabs in the Lower House of Deputies and de-naturalized them should not place the onus on the State of Israel to accommodate them with a “right of return” under UNGA Res. 194(11) as they have exercised “self-determinism” under the Jericho Conference and the April 1950 Parliamentary Elections.
The US Dept. of State 1950 Report states the Jericho Conference determined the political status of the Arabs of “Central” Palestine “which took place as a result of a free expression of the will of the people.” Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume V, Page 1096
How many times do the “Palestinians” get to decide their political status? It is evident that they chose their status (as monarchists) and are barred by the doctrine of estoppel in pais from asserting a claim of the “right of return” (to wit, a claim of Palestinian Citizenship) based on inconsistent “political” positions.
Anyways, these are my thoughts on the subject of Collective Naturalization.
Be well, blessed and a success,
Yochanan Ezra ben Avraham

Sign the Petition: Jerusalem Material Claims Conference Against the Arab League

“We, the undersigned desire to be participants of the conference “Jerusalem Material Claims Conference Against the Arab League”, and hereby declare that we fully support the rights of Jews, Christians and Muslims displaced, expelled or who fled Arab countries, or from Eretz Yisrael (Palestine) to justice, rights and redress. [….] As the organizing body in the Arab world and the organization which drafted legislation against the Jewish communities in 1947, we hold the Arab League responsible for the exodus of Jews from Arab countries.”

Furthermore, we the undersigned hereby Petition the World Jewish Congress to hold a “material claims conference” in Jerusalem patterned after the 1952 Luxembourg Reparations Agreement, the UN Compensation Commission and Fund, together with the Canadian Treaty Land Entitlement Agreements to effect a just and lasting peace for the Indigenous Peoples of the Middle East that land reserves for “close Jewish and Arab settlement” in historical “Eretz Yisrael” (Palestine) be “set aside” under a trusteeship agreement to secure reparations and restitution against the Arab League for the 1947 Draft Law of the Political Committee of the Arab League and expulsion of the Jews from Arab Countries, North Africa and the Persian Gulf as documented by Justice for Jews from Arab Countries; and for the refusal of the Arab League states to patriate by collective naturalization “Arabs of Palestinian extraction” and the recent denaturalization of Arabs of Jordanian Nationality who were collectively naturalized by King Abdullah on December 13, 1949.

/s/ Yochanan Ezra ben Avraham

The Hashemites – A Foreign Power

The Hashemites are a “foreign power” having their origins in Mecca, [Saudi] Arabia.

Since it is alleged that Schizophrenia is a gene trait of the Hashemites; and abdication runs in the family; (Talal abdicated the throne due to Grandiose Schizophrenia and Hussein bin Ali abdicated the throne of the Kingdom of the Hejaz after claiming to be Caliph of All Muslims;)  and it is admitted that the Hashemites are descended from Muhammad (a schizophrenic pedophile) and the establishment of the Hashemite kingdom of trans-Jordan by the United Kingdom of Great Britain violated Articles 5, 15 and 25 of the Mandate for Palestine in the following points; we demand the abdication of Abdullah II King of Jordan and a dissolution of the Hashemite Monarchy:

No establishment of a foreign power in Eretz Yisrael (the Mandate Territory);

Freedom of Immigration to Eretz Yisrael without respect to religion – No Apartheid

In the Eastern Territories of “trans-Jordan” the Articles of the Mandate were withheld as a temporary measure – Article 25’s clause to “postpone or withhold provisions of the mandate” did not contemplate the establishment of a permanent foreign power, (the Hashemites, a Muslim foreign entity) ruling over territory allocated to the Jews.

The clause “the administration of the territories” in Article 25 of the Mandate does not contemplate political independence or territorial sovereignty for the Hashemites in Eretz Yisrael. The Hashemites were given political independence in the Kingdom of the Hejaz, and in Iraq and Syria!

Political independence was guaranteed to the Arabs by the Treaty of Versailles in the Mandates for Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Syria, and as agreed upon in the Faisal- Weizmann Agreement; while political independence was guaranteed to the Jews of Eretz Yisrael and of the Diaspora in the Mandate for Palestine by Treaty Law in the San Remo Resolution of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.

(5) The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

(15) No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.

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

 

“Uti possidetis juris” & Eretz Yisrael

 The rights that the Jewish Community acquired under the Mandate for Palestine did not terminate upon expiration of the Mandate as per Article 80 of the UN Charter. There is a principal in international law that “emerging states acquire the territory of their former administrative district(s)” – As well, Uti possidetis (lit. “as you possess”) is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict.
Since the Hashemite Kingdom of [trans-]Jordan was established as “a [temporary] administrative power” under Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine and trans-Jordan illegally annexed and ethnically cleansed Judea and Samaria; at the end of hostilities (in this case at the conclusion of a treaty of peace in 1984) territorial sovereignty reverts back to the beneficiary of the “sacred trust” under which it was held (per Article 80 of the UN Charter and Article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine) – the Jewish People – terra nullius does not apply as these [“disputed”] Lands are “Liberated Lands” under the principal of Uti possidetis; now that Israel possesses peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan these Liberated Lands are “Treaty Lands” (It might be argued that since Israel is still in a state of war with Lebanon, Syria and Iraq in a defensive posture, terra nullius could never apply due to the Treaties of Sevres and the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924).
One might invoke the principal of Uti possidetis per the 1969 Convention on the Laws of Treaties, as relevant to the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, the Franco-British Boundary Convention and the rights acquired under the Mandate, now reserved in Article 80 of the UN Charter and as acquired under the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 (e.g. Jewish territorial integrity, self-determinism) and demand recognition of past acts of Arab (“Palestinian”) self-determinism (the December 1948 Jericho Conference) (estoppel and laches) as no Trusteeship Agreement has been made under emerging or developing international law with respect to these Treaty Lands.
More recently, the principle has been used in the modified form “Uti possidetis juris” to establish the frontiers of newly independent states by ensuring that the frontiers followed the original boundaries of the old territorial entities from which they emerged.

The Jericho Conference and Palestinian Self-Determinism

The 1948 Jericho Conference and Palestinian Self-Determinism –

Why is the Arab “Palestinian” case any different from all other cases of political expression? For instance, is Kurdish Independence entitled to special treatment (a special referendum) or like all other bodies politic do they require a simple “Declaration of Independence” to gain independence?

I posit that because Delegates from “Western” Palestine attended the Jericho Conference in December 1948 and voted for King Abdullah I of the Hejaz as their independent sovereign, they fulfilled the terms of UNGA Res. 181 (Chapter 3, [1]).

Why should Arab refugees from Judea and Samaria be treated any differently than other refugees since all Arabs of “Palestinian extraction” have Jordanian Citizenship based on Jordanian collective naturalization in February 1949?

Collective Naturalization by Annexation

“When territory is transferred to a new sovereign by conquest or cession the inhabitants become nationals of the new government only by their own consent, express or implicit. …. If the inhabitants remain within the territory their allegiance is transferred to the new sovereign.” American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, I Pet. 511, 542, 7 L. Ed. 242.

The subject of collective naturalization is discussed at length in Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135, (1892) and many cases cited and illustrations given.

The case before us, however, is not one of a treaty of cession, but that of collective naturalization before a treaty of cession transpired!

Since All Arabs of Palestinian extraction were “collectively naturalized” as Jordanian Citizens in February 1949 and all West Bank Palestinian hold Jordanian Passports; there is no need for an independent “State of Palestine,” a [Palestinian] right of return under UNGA Resolution 194,  UNRWA or the PLO!!!

The Islamic Kingdom of Jordan is Eastern Palestine.

Should the Arabs of Palestinian extraction be held to their exercise of self-determinism at the 1948 Jericho Conference or are they entitled to a second vote for a new sovereignty as an independent body politic at a new “conference” based on the 1993/95 Oslo Accords?

Was King Hussein entitled in 1988 to ceed to the PLO Judea and Samaria; or, what was not his to ceed based on his illegal Islamic Occupation could not be ceeded to the PLO since by terms King Hussein and the Jordanian Administration relinquished all claims to “the West Bank;” the PLO is not an independent sovereignty and Judea and Samaria (“Western Palestine”) are Treaty Landsin situ by virtue of the 1919 Faisal-Weizzman Agreement, the San Remo Resolution, the Treaty of Sevres and by virtue of the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924!

King Hussein could not ceed what was not his to occupy!!!

The right of self – determinism for the Arabs of Palestinian extraction were given under treaty law by the Mandates for Syria, Lebanon and Mesopotamia (Iraq)…, while the right of self-determinism for Jews were given to the Jews by the Mandate for Palestine!

Election of Jordanian Citizenship and Independent Sovereignty by the Arabs of Palestine was the “free expression of the will of the people” and, absent the 1948 Israeli War of Independence; fullfilled the terms of Chapter III (1) of the UNGA Resolution 181 (notice of intention, option of Citizenship and election of an independent sovereign).

Lest we forget, the Jordanian Kingdom’s Civil War of September 1970 (Black September) determined the fate accompli of the PLO; preventing the establishment within the Islamic Kingdom of Jordan of an independent “Eastern [non-Islamic] Palestine”….

Under the terms of Article 25 (postpone or withhold) of the Mandate for Palestine, the Mandatory (the UK) illegally established trans-Jordan in violation of Article 5 of the Mandate since the HaShemites are a foreign Islamic power having their origins in Mecca and Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine only allowed for the [temporary] administration of Eastern Palestine during the time while the terms of the rest of the Mandate were withheld or postponed within that territory!!!

Moreover, by virtue of Article 80 of the UN Charter, the rights granted to the Jews under the Mandate for Palestine did not terminate merely because the Mandate had expired since no trusteeship was established for Eastern and Western Palestine.

 

OBVIOUSLY if one Palestinian party to UNGA Resolution 181 exercised “the free will of the [Jewish] people” before war broke out, and the other Palestinian party to 181 after the cessation of hostilities exercised “the free will of the [Arab] people” then both parties have expressed their “Political Will” and nothing except recognition of the facts on the ground and within our history books needs to be done.

The fact is when King Hussein abolished the Jordanian Lower House of Deputies in 1988 he sequestered the Palestinian Arabs right to self-rule as a strategem of war in collusion with the PLO and the Arab League!

To answer our question, Why is the Arab “Palestinian” case any different from all other cases of political expression? I think there is no unique difference, the Arab Palestinians have been afforded self-determinism as an expression of the free will of the people at the December 1948 Jericho Conference!

Doesn’t the fact that Jews of “Palestinian extraction” (under the Mandate) when give the opportunity to exercise political will, having exercised those political rights May 1948; lend credence to our answer?

****

The Jericho Conference was held in December 1948 to decide the future of the portion of Palestine that was held by Jordan at the end of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, led by Sheikh Muhammad Ali Ja’abari.

Pro-Jordanian personalities called for the annexation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, to Jordan.

History

In October 1948, King Abdullah began a series of steps in order to effect the annexation of those parts of Palestine that his army and other Arab forces had captured and held during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. He did this while the cease-fire line was settled or agreed in February 1949.

The first step was a congress session in Amman, convened upon the initiative of the Transjordanian government, in which King Abdullah’s representatives and a large number of Palestinian refugees called for a wider Palestinian congress to declare Palestinian unity and acknowledge King Abdullah as King of Palestine. On 1 December 1948, a conference in Jericho called for the annexation of what was left of Palestine under the Hashemite crown in light of the reality that the remaining Palestinian territory was effectively administered by the Jordanian authority. The Conference was attended by numerous delegations including the mayors of Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah, the Arab Legion Military Governor General, military governors of all the districts, and other notables. The audience was estimated at several thousand.

Six resolutions were proposed but only four were adopted. They contained the following provisions:
1. Palestine Arabs desire unity between Transjordan and Arab Palestine and therefore make known their wish that Arab Palestine be annexed immediately to Transjordan. They also recognize Abdullah as their King and request him proclaim himself King of new territory.
2. Palestine Arabs express gratitude to Arab states for their efforts in behalf of liberation of Palestine. (The delegates indicated that the object of this was to hint to the Arab states that their job was done).
3. Expression of thanks to Arab states for their generous assistance and support to Palestine Arab refugees.
4. Resolve that purport of first resolution be conveyed to King at once.

The Transjordanian cabinet and parliament agreed within the following two weeks.

Reactions to the resolution

Support

A Palestinian conference in Ramallah personally attended by King Abdullah on 26 December 1948 declared its support for the Jericho Conference resolution, as did a subsequent Nablus conference, calling for unification of the two banks of the Jordan under the Hashemite crown.

The termination of the Palestine Mandate gave the Arabs of Palestine the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination. That meant they could determine their own political status and form or dissolve unions among themselves or with other states.

In December 1948 the Secretary of State authorized the US Consul in Amman to advise King Abdullah and the officials of Transjordan that the US accepted the principles contained in the resolutions of the Jericho Conference, and that the US viewed incorporation with Transjordan as the logical disposition of Arab Palestine

The United States subsequently extended de jure recognition to the Government of Transjordan and the Government of Israel on the same day, 31 January 1949.

The 1950 State Department Country Report on Jordan said that King Abdullah had taken successive steps to incorporate the area of Central Palestine into Jordan and described the Jordanian Parliament resolution concerning the union of Central Palestine with Jordan. The report said the US had privately advised the British and French Foreign Ministers that it had approved the action, and that “it represented a logical development of the situation which took place as a result of a free expression of the will of the people.” (Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume V, Page 1096)

The major problems of concern to the United States were the establishment of peaceful and friendly relations between Israel and Jordan and the successful absorption into the polity and economy of Jordan of Arab Palestine, its inhabitants, and the bulk of the refugees now located there.

Opposition

The Arab League condemned the Jericho Conference, and the Syrian press considered its resolution a violation of self-determination. Iraqi prime minister Nuri as-Said called upon King Abdullah to hold his moves towards annexation which succeeded in delaying the implementation of the Transjordanian plans of unity for a year and a half. Hajj Amin al-Husseini protested against King Abdullah’s measures, declaring them null and void and calling to boycott them, but his voice was ignored.

Unification

Notables from Ramallah and Jerusalem in particular were reluctant to give King Abdullah a carte blanche. Although they were prepared to recognize him as monarch, they were unwilling to give up their claim to the whole of Palestine, and refused to endorse his policy of consolidating the partition.

The Transjordanian government gradually assumed the civil functions of the West Bank, paying the salaries of civil servants and absorbing local governors into what was henceforth called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. In February 1949, the Jordanian Nationality Law was amended to grant every Palestinian Jordanian citizenship.

****

SOURCE: Wikipedia Jericho Conference

‘We tell Europe: Israel is legal sovereign in Jerusalem’

Arutz Sheva

Israel National News

Arutz Sheva spoke with Chairman of the Jerusalem and Heritage Ministry, Ron Yishai, about his ministry’s visit to the European Parliament to present the case that Jerusalem is Israeli according to international law.

“This is the first time Israel is expressing its clear position as pertains to the international law regarding Jerusalem and Israeli sovereignty regarding Jerusalem. We say to the Europeans for the first time in this forum: Israel is the legal sovereign in all parts of Jerusalem by international law.

“Sovereignty was given from the Turks after World War I to the League of Nations, which was the legal organ authorized to decide what to do with this sovereignty, and they gave it to the Jewish people. Israel, as representative of the Jewish people, received it from the League of Nations through the British Mandate, and this is how the title to this land passed from the Turks to the Jewish people – fully legal, and fully authorized by the League of Nations. That has been the situation until today.

Yishai described how these facts have been met with surprise in Europe, “because they never imagined that this was the situation.” From here, he explained, “It’s divided between those who want to know more about the truth and those who don’t care what’s right and what’s wrong, but only care that Israel is wrong.”

“We don’t deal with these people,” he said, referring to the latter group. “We deal with the majority who want to hear more about it.”

‘Send Waqf back to Jordan’

MK Yehuda Glick says Israel should respond to Jordan cancelling part of peace treaty by kicking Wafq out of Temple Mount.

 

Arutz Sheva – Israel National News
Hezki Baruch, 23/10/18 18:55

 

Yehuda Glick

Yehuda Glick

Yoni Kempinski

MK Yehuda Glick (Likud) called Tuesday afternoon for a response to the Jordanian announcement of the cancellation of the annex to the peace treaty between the two countries which leases regions of the Arava and Naharayim to Israel.

“Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman al-Safadi announced yesterday that the Jordanian government had decided not to renew the annexes to the 1994 peace agreement in accordance with their wording and the law,” Glick said at the start of his speech.

Glick quoted the Jordanian minister as saying that “the move serves the Jordanian interests, and if there is pressure on Jordan, the king will be able to deal with them. We acted according to the law and have the tools to defend our interests.”

“Indeed, Jordan has laws and interests,” Glick noted. “The State of Israel is an independent state and has laws and interests.”

“I called upon the Prime Minister today to act in accordance with our interests and to inform the King of Jordan that if they act independently in accordance with their interests, we will act in accordance with those of our own. We will send the Waqf people that Israel generously allows to move around the Temple Mount back to Jordan, and we will apply full Israeli sovereignty to the Temple Mount,” Glick concluded.

WHO OWNS JERUSALEM?

The Case Under International Law – Dr. Jacques Gauthier

Published on Aug 28, 2018

Dr. Jacques Gauthier has devoted the last 20 years of his life to reminding the world of the historical truth of the rights granted to the Jewish People under international law, to a piece of land that is actually much larger than what the State of Israel is today. In light of much current controversy over who owns Jerusalem, from the Palestinian claim that there never was a Temple in Jerusalem, to President Donald Trump moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, much of Dr. Gauthier’s work has also been devoted to proving the legitimacy of the Jewish claim to Jerusalem as its eternal Capital under international law, as is demonstrated in this video “Who Owns Jerusalem?” Dr. Jacques Gauthier, a Canadian lawyer and an expert in international law, received his PhD in Political Science from the University of Geneva. His Dissertation was titled “Sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem”. He is a highly sought after speaker around the world.
Dr. Gauthier can be reached at jgauthier@gauthierassociates.on.ca