It has been 101 years since the historic San Remo conference took place in the country of a great ally, Italy. Without a doubt, Israel would not be the country it is today were it not for the unprecedented agreement that was reached in San Remo by the Allied Powers. A seed was planted back then, which would turn into a mighty tree, bearing luscious fruit. 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

The San Remo conference was a key milestone in making the Zionist dream a reality and restoring the Jewish people's sovereignty over their land. The mandate over our territories was given to Britain, which representatives determined, would be "responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917 ... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

If the Balfour Declaration constituted the first formal recognition of the Jewish people's right to their land, then the San Remo conference was the first time this recognition was incorporated into international law, requiring the superpowers to take action and fulfill their promise to the Jewish people. The significance of the conference, which established the legal right of a Jewish state in the land of Israel, is unparalleled. 

The paramilitary organizations that fought against the British did so out of the same belief that the mandate over Palestine was entrusted to Britain for the sole purpose of fulfilling the commitment to the Jewish people. In their efforts to establish a national home for the Jews, not only did they rely on historical justice, but also international law, which affirmed our right to self-determination in our homeland. 

Had it not been for the dedication of the founding fathers, the sacrifice and courage of soldiers and others who fought and defended our country, we might have never seen the establishment of a sovereign Jewish state. The San Remo conference laid the international foundation for such an event to occur, as well as the foundation for Zionism in Europe, the United States, and others parts of the world. 

Israel's sixth Prime Minister, Menachem Begin used to say that sometimes even that which is obvious has to be said. The San Remo conference, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration, affirmed the establishment of a Jewish state with the understanding 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."

These words, including the promise of guaranteeing full rights to all citizens of the country and all Jews worldwide, are the fundamental values on which the future State of Israel would be built. 

Israel, a Jewish and democratic state, is committed to the rights of all its citizens, and whoever tries to undermine or question this is threatening the Zionist dream. As it has done all along, Israel continues to support all who live here and believe that we are all meant to live in unity. 

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories! 

The post Part and parcel of Zionist history appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

At first glance, Villa Devachan in San Remo, Italy, looks like an unusual choice for statesmanship. It is a modest castle, built of local Italian quarry, whose design combines the English Art Nouveau and Neo-Gothic styles. 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Its name – Devachan – comes from a Tibetan term for a state of consciousness in which the mind is separated from the body. There used to be a park around the building decorated with statues of Asian idols and lions. 

It is there that the Allied Powers gathered after World War I to hold a debate – several of them –  to remap the Middle East. And it is there, at the San Remo conference of 1920, that Zionist history took place: the representatives affirmed the Jewish people's right to re-establish their homeland in the land of Israel and made it part of international law. 

Zionist leaders were not present at the conference with prime ministers from Britain, France and Italy, and ambassadors from the United States and Japan. But their spirit was evident from the conference transcripts. In a reasoned and restrained discourse, both in English and French, the representatives clarified how powerful the Zionist argument was – both ancient and contemporary. And the question of whether the leaders' words stemmed from uplifting Christian sympathy or cold political considerations is undoubtedly a secondary one. 

The San Remo conference took place on the Italian Rivera 101 years ago and shaped the fate of the then-desolate land of Israel. That same unusual mix of contrasting elements reflects the unique character of the Zionist enterprise. In the long scroll of Jewish longing, Jewish hope, Jewish revival, and Jewish defense, there is prose – no less than poetry, there is secularity – no less sacredness, and pragmatism – no less than heroism.

The prayer for a miracle from heaven was supported by the daily work of these officials. Much ink has been poured into the biblical promise to Israel, as well as the many negotiations concerning the founding of the modern Jewish state. And as Jewish fighters defeated enemies and created borders through short and brilliant war systems, its representatives invested decades of quiet effort to gain international recognition for those borders. 

It took 28 more years of struggle following the San Remo conference for the Jewish state to be established. The same Britain, which took it upon itself to establish a national home for the Jews, ended up battling the settlement efforts until it could no longer. 

Without a doubt, the San Remo conference marked a new chapter in the epic story of Zionism. More than 4,000 years ago, God promised Abraham the inheritance of the Land of Israel, which 101 years ago the San Remo conference helped fulfill. 

In 2020, we were supposed to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the conference, which, unfortunately, the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic halted.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories! 

A year later, now that Israel – in a typical demonstration of Zionist daring and resourcefulness – has managed to overcome the crisis, we can now give the San Remo conference the attention it deserves. It is a decision that has withstood the test of time and has changed the lives of millions of Jews all over the world.

May we merit to learn, enjoy, appreciate and love the heart of our return to the land, a Jewish state in the land of Israel. 

The Adelson family owns the company that is the primary shareholder in Israel Hayom. Dr. Miriam Adelson is the publisher of Israel Hayom.

The post A miracle between the lines appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

Exactly 101 years ago this month, the victorious Allies gathered in San Remo, Italy, to discuss the future of the Middle East after the break־up of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. It was at San Remo that the Balfour Declaration was implemented. This was the letter written by Arthur James Balfour in which the British foreign secretary expressed His Majesty's government's support for a Jewish home in Palestine.

After World War I, a whole slew of new or reborn nations emerged across the map, none of which could trace their roots back to ancient times as did the Jews – the People of the Book – who gave the world monotheism, law and jurisprudence. Now suddenly, Jews, a people displaced for over 2,000 years, would be seen in the same terms as Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.

This was precisely the dream of Theodor Herzl, who died 16 years earlier. After San Remo, the nascent Zionist movement began its first steps from a dream to a reality that would need a government, infrastructure and an army to defend it, just like every other country on earth. In Eastern Europe, Jews were embroiled in a struggle to ensure their rights as a national minority. San Remo was a final and ringing declaration that Jews were, indeed, indigenous to the Land of Israel.

At San Remo, the identity of the Jewish people received international recognition. The Jews, it was finally agreed, were not merely adherents of religion but were actually a nation deserving of a national home, a territory in which their national aspirations could be realized and their culture developed. And it wasn't just any territory in which this could be achieved, but the Land of Israel, which was the eternal venue for the reconstitution of the Jewish commonwealth. At the same time, one cannot miss the irony that the Allied governments were deciding the fate of a Jewish homeland, when it was all spelled out several thousand years earlier with none other than G־d as the real estate agent, who signed, sealed and delivered the decision in a document called the Bible, probably read by every member of the conference.

The other anniversary this month is less positive, but, I think no less important: Holocaust Remembrance Day. No one at San Remo could foresee the rise of Adolf Hitler just 13 years later, the growth of Nazi Germany, World War II and the Holocaust. Because the Jewish State of Israel had not yet been established, millions of European Jews were left to the horrors of the gas chambers because practically every other country on earth would not take them in. Because there was no Israel, there was no refuge for the Jewish people and, thus, no escape.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Exactly 60 years ago this month, a trial began in Jerusalem, the capital of the Jewish people. One of the chief architects of the world's largest mass murder, Adolf Eichmann, stood in an Israeli court, in a Jewish nation, tried by Jewish judges and Jewish prosecutors. The entire world was fascinated by this trial. Over 400 foreign correspondents reported on it. I believe the fascination came from the world's obvious understanding of the sublime justice of this event, and isn't justice one of the main tenets of our religion? Here was a top member of what his fellow Nazis referred to as the "master race," a small man with an ill־fitting suit and a nervous tic, in a glass booth, guarded by Jewish soldiers.

Had the Sam Remo Conference moved forward to establish a Jewish State in 1920, there would have been no Eichmann trial in 1961 because there would have been no Eichmann and no Holocaust. But both anniversaries remind us – as if we need reminding – of the miracle of Israel, the need for Israel, and our absolute commitment to ensure its eternal survival.

Ronald Lauder is president of the World Jewish Congress.

The post A total commitment appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The San Remo conference is one of the most significant events in the Jewish people's journey back to their land after they were scattered across the world following the destruction of the Second Temple by the Roman Empire. 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

We were scattered among the nations of the world, seeking a place to reside for a generation or two before fleeing persecution or being expelled again. 

In the 18th century, Torah scholar Rabbi Eliyahu Ben Shlomo Zalman, better known as the Vilna Gaon, described living in the Diaspora as follows: "And so we are in an exile … because from the time the Temple was destroyed our spirit has left us … and we were left alone … a body … without a soul."

In the 19th century, American writer Mark Twain visited the land of Israel when few Jews were living in it and described it as a "desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds – a silent mournful expanse ... A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action."

The land of Israel, he wrote, "sits in sackcloth and ashes. Over it broods the spell of a curse that has withered its fields and fettered its energies."

Some 50 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, the Jews revolted against the Roman Empire in the Bar Kokhba revolt and managed to gain control of Jerusalem and Judea, albeit for a short time. 

The Roman Empire sent a large-scale force to crush to revolt, which resulted in the extensive depopulation of Judean communities. 

Emperor Hadrian renamed the land from Judea to Syria Palaestina in the hopes that within a generation or two, the Jewish people would forget their land. 

What Hadrian did not know is that exiled Jews had promised never to forget Jerusalem, "If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither, let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy." 

Indeed, we did not forget. We did not give up. When we ate bread, we always prayed for the rebuilding of our sacred city. Our sages taught us that just like a person cannot survive without sustenance, so too the Jewish people cannot survive without Jerusalem. 

The truth is that we were never allowed to forget where we came from and where we wanted to return. No other nation in history contributed to humanity as much as the Jewish people, yet in return, we were humiliated, murdered, gassed, and exiled. 

When we wandered the world, we were told: Jews, go back to Palestine. Now that we have returned home, they tell us: Jews, leave Palestine. Antisemitism has changed but has not disappeared. 

The Balfour Declaration and afterward the San Remo conference were attempts on behalf of nations to resolve this disgrace and help the Jewish people return to their national homeland. The initiative was supported by those among the nations who believed in the Biblical prophecy of returning to Zion. For them, it was a duty to help the divine plan come true. 

On February 27, 1919, Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann appeared before the victorious Allies at the Paris Peace Conference to secure the nation's recognition of the Jewish people's right to their land. He only had one request: allow the Jewish people to rebuild their homeland. 

The Allies could not decide on the matter at the Peace Conference, and to that end, the Supreme Council convened in April 1920 at Villa Devachan in San Remo.

The Covenant of the League of Nations had been signed previously, giving all those in the villa full authority to decide the future of the territories they gained after the abolition of the Ottoman Empire. 

They accepted the Arabs' demands, and the vast majority of the Ottoman Empire territory was given to them, which now includes Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. 

They discussed Palestine at the end of the week, and on April 25, the leaders decided to accept the Jews' claims. A decision was made to integrate the Balfour Declaration into the charter. They recognized our right to Palestine and agreed to the request to "reconstitute" what had once been ours. 

In effect, for the first time since the destruction of the first century CE, the nations of the world had recognized the Jewish people as a legitimate claimant to its ancient land. 

Few Jews lived in their homeland 1850 years after the destruction of the Second Temple. The majority dispersed across the globe. That is why the mandate over Palestine was so unique. 

The decision's other beneficiaries - Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon - were local residents, whereas the beneficiaries of the Palestine mandate were all the Jews of the world, even if they did not reside in the land at the time. 

British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, who led the meeting at the villa, was asked what the borders of the future State of Israel would look like. 

"From Dan to Beersheba," he answered and pointed to the Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land by Scottish theologian George Adam Smith, which showed the map of the land at the time of King David and King Solomon. 

After the conference, at the Treaty of Sèvres, Turkey relinquished sovereignty over much of the Ottoman Empire and transferred ownership of the territory to the Allies. Article 95 of the treaty incorporated the terms of the Balfour Declaration, which officially became part of international law. 

The same was stated in the mandate that Britain received from the League of Nations. Britain vowed to help establish our national homeland. All of this was written and signed in the document. The 80th article of the UN Charter states that the rights given earlier by the League of Nations must be upheld. What had been granted could not be taken away.

Weizmann understood how momentous an occasion the San Remo conference was. He said, "The San Remo Resolution, that recognition to our rights to Palestine, which was included in the charter with Turkey and became part of international law – is the biggest political event in the history of our movement [the Zionist movement] and possibly  – it would not be an exaggeration to say  – the entire history of the Jewish people, since the exile."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

One last observation: I went to check the Hebrew date of the conference. I discovered that it began on the first day of Eyar, and lasted a week. The discussion about the Land of Israel took place on the last two days, the 6th and 7th days of Eyar. Thus far, we knew that the State of Israel was established on the 5th of Eyar, and Jerusalem was liberated on the 28th of Eyar. On the 18th of Eyar, we celebrate Lag Ba'omer, which is also linked to the war for our people's freedom. To these three dates of celebration, we can definitely add the 7th of Eyar, the Hebrew date of the San Remo decision, which 28 years later led to the revival of the state of Israel.  

This piece is a short overview of one of the most significant events in Jewish history, and I encourage you to learn more about the San Remo conference. It is due to its significance that we, the Israeli embassy in Italy, work hard to research the subject and hold events in San Remo to educate about it. There is a direct connection between studying this part of history and ensuring our future on this land. 

Dror Eydar is Israel's ambassador to Italy.

The post Returning to our homeland appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In the history of Zionism, the small Italian resort town of San Remo holds a place of honor. It was there, 101 years ago, that the Jewish people's right to self-determination in their ancestral Land of Israel was officially recognized.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Twenty-three years before the San Remo Conference, which was convened by the nations that won World War I, the flame of Zionism that Benjamin Zeev Herzl lit began to burn. After the First Zionist Congress, Herzl wrote, prophetically, that "In Basel, I founded the Jewish state." At that time, 1897, he knew that such a statement would cause laughter. But Herzl added that in another five years, or 50 at the most, everyone would recognize the state. And it indeed happened.

Two decades after the World Zionist Congress was founded, the British government published the Balfour Declaration in November 1927, as our people were exerting themselves to help the British army win the Great War. When then-Foreign Secretary of Britain Arthur James Balfour signed the declaration stating that Britain would support the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, Zionism secured public international support from a leading world power.

Jews throughout the Diaspora were excited. Zionism had paved the way to the family of nations. Our ancient, daily connection to our land, which cannot be detached from the Bible, received a new life. My grandfather, Rabbi Nathan Milikovsky-Netanyahu, wrote movingly about the Balfour Declaration: "Suddenly, there was a flash of light that tore apart the dark sky of the Jewish people, lifted our spirits, strengthened us, and gave us new life. This is our 'Magna Carta,' this is the same call as was heard in the time of King Koresh."

Our fate is once again in our hands

Three more years went by, and in 1920, we reached the final stop on the route to the success of political Zionism. At San Remo, the world powers legally adopted the Balfour Declaration. They gave Britain the Mandate over the Land of Israel so it could implement the decision to found our national home. It was no longer merely a "declaration," it had become a tangible step to implement our national aspirations in the land of our forefathers.

Given the unusual diplomatic success, the Jewish Yishuv felt uplifted. A few weeks after Yosef Trumpeldor and his comrades fell defending Tel Hai and the rioting by Arab hordes in and around Jerusalem, the gloom was replaced by great joy. When the news of San Remo reached the Jerusalem synagogue where Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Kook prayed in Jerusalem, those present recited the "Sheyechyahnu" blessing, with tears of joy in the eyes, and sang Psalm verses. Shofars were blown.

The historian and literary researcher Professor Yosef Klausner, who was my father's great teacher, listed three standout achievements of the "San Remo event": First, that Zionism was continuing to make its way out of the fringes of the international arena. The Zionist idea had stopped being a matter for the Jewish people only and was being discussed in every country. Second, it was a signed commitment from one of the leading world powers to bring the Jews out of exile into an era of redemption. Third, it returned to us control over our own fate. The decisions at the San Remo Conference recreated the Jews' sense of ownership, in the positive sense of the world. A right greater than any other allowed us to plant roots in the Land of Israel and lead a fitting life there.

Of course, we needed to take a serious approach even in the moments of joy over the decisions by the San Remo Conference, which were approved by representatives of the League of Nations. We knew that we must not sit idly by. The opposite: that we had to develop the land quickly, make the desert bloom, bring masses of new immigrants, establish a defense force, build and create – both physically and spiritually.

Thanks to the efforts of generations, we were able to renew the independence of the nation of Israel 28 years after the San Remo Conference. Since then, we have marched forward, secure in the strength of our state, turning it into a world-class success story in many fields. The San Remo decisions concluded with the assumption that the Jews would be able to meet the challenge of returning to their land. We are fulfilling those expectations far beyond anything that could have been imagined.

We are not foreigners in our land

Sad to say, there are some who even today deny the historical truth declared in the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Resolutions. The root of the conflict with the Palestinians lies in their consistent refusal to recognize Zionism, the legitimacy of the Jewish people's national home and the state of Israel along any borders. Palestinian spokespeople call the memos published 100 years ago a "crime" and a "tragedy," while exempting themselves from any accountability for their calls to destroy Israel.

The intention of the International Criminal Court in The Hague to investigate Israel for actions our soldiers and officers carried out to protect Jewish communities from attacks by terrorist organizations is a complete perversion of justice. We are here by right, not as foreigners in our own land. We will fight our enemies with determination, as well as any attempt to slash the thousands of years-long thread that ties us to the homeland.

On the other hand, the positive developments in our region give a great deal of hope for the future of the Middle East. The peace and normalization agreements we reached last year with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco represent a major change in the Arab world's attitude toward Israel. These countries and others see Israel as a strong ally in the fight against radical Islam. A hundred years ago, the Emir Faisal, one of the most prominent Arab leaders of the time, took a moderate line when he backed cooperation between Arabs and Jews. We are continuing this movement by promoting security and peace, progress and prosperity, for our peoples and our nations.

We will etch the San Remo resolutions into the nation's consciousness as a major milestone on the way to fulfilling the vision of Israel's establishment.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post A victory for political Zionism appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The first thing I asked Dr. Jacques Gauthier in this special interview is what, in essence, was the significance of the legal basis for the establishment of the State of Israel. "This is a crucial question. For Israel and the Jewish people, it is extremely important to know today, and not to forget, what was given to this people as part of important events in the past," Gauthier replied.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

"Because this is the question: Are the Jews living today in East Jerusalem, or as settlers in Judea and Samaria, or in Hebron, or even within the Green Line – are they legal? Are they thieves? Invaders? Do land and property not belong to them? This is the claim – that Jews are not allowed to be, and are not allowed to live, in certain areas within the land of Israel. So the question of law and sovereignty in the territories of the country is crucial and vital. If the right granted over the entire territory of Palestine-Israel exists within the framework of international law – then the Jews are not deviating from the scope of the law."

Over the last generation, Gauthier has become the greatest living expert on the topic of the San Remo Conference. From a legal viewpoint, the Jewish state was born in San Remo. The importance of this lies in the fact that, for once, this event was about the purely legal issue of international law. We live in a time when the legal field has become a propaganda arena, on the one hand, and on the other a political arena. For the past 20 years, there has been talk of what is called 'Lawfare' ie "legal warfare".

Gauthier spoke to me on the phone from Toronto, Canada, which has been under lockdown for a long time. The weather was pleasant there, around 20 degrees, and only the behavior of the coronavirus was deceiving the Canadians. Surprisingly, right after extensive lockdowns and the start of the vaccination campaign, suddenly came an incomprehensible outbreak.

Gauthier is a lawyer who has been researching his doctorate for about 20 years, actually under the guidance of Marcelo Cohen, who often represents legal cases in favor of Palestinians. The result is a 1,300-page book on the entire legal issue of the San Remo Conference, making him, as noted, an expert on the subject.

"Natan Sharansky gave me his book with a dedication, and there he thanked me for my work that helps strengthen Jewish identity," says Gauthier. According to him, one of the serious problems in the national Jewish identity – which causes internal divisions – stems from a disagreement based on a lack of knowledge in Israel about the basic legal rights of the Jewish people over all of the western Land of Israel. The right also existed, of course, in the eastern Land of Israel, which is controlled by the Hashemite family, but Israel waived its right to that under the peace agreement with Jordan.

Bible-based territory

"In 1921, when Churchill was the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he took part in a meeting held in Cairo on the division of the land," says Gauthier. "Later he visited the Land of Israel and said to the Jews – you are here by right. We have just cut two-thirds of Palestine-Land of Israel and created an Arab country [in Jordan]. But you have a full right to the whole country. These are the things he said."

Q: In the Israeli consciousness, there mainly exists the decision of the partition, on November 29, 1947, and the declaration of the state a year later. San Remo does not really exist in this consciousness. Why is this conference so important?

"You have to understand what the decision was. San Remo – this is the decisive moment. Why? There were then the five victorious powers [in World War I] that were given the power and authority in law to deal with the issues dealing with the defeated nations. The Allies dealt with the question of sovereignty. Britain, the US, Italy, Japan and France. From January 1919, they dealt with the results of the war in relation to Germany and Turkey. From the point of view of sovereignty, they received authority from the defeated powers in Versailles, who gave up their territories.

"A legal proceeding began in which the allied powers were the judges. On February 27, 1919, the Zionist delegation led by [Haim] Weizmann and [Nahum] Sokolow arrived, and as usual in a legal proceeding, they filed their case: First – and this is related to what is happening today – they demanded recognition of the historical right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and the right to re-establish their national home. This is what they demanded. They did not ask the powers for the right, but the recognition of the right. They presented a map that is very important – the territory of the right that includes all of the western Land of Israel and a strip of land on the east side of the Jordan up to the Hejazi railway. The Jews did not want to interfere in this railway. All these territories are identified within the Bible. They wanted historical recognition and the definition of the area that has a biblical foundation.

"The second thing they asked for was sovereignty over the territory of the Land of Israel and that it be recognized by the League of Nations [the organization that preceded the UN] and that the British be the ones to preserve these rights. Sovereignty was actually passed to the Jewish people; the request was – give us free immigration and when we become a majority, give us independence."

Q: Where are the Arab demands in all this?

"An Arab delegation arrived in Paris on February 6, 1919. They were accompanied by Lawrence of Arabia. They presented the claims, and what they achieved – both sides presented claims over Ottoman territory. Both sides want states. And the Arabs won a lot of territory. But in presenting the claim they created a distinction: Everything except the Land of Israel. They do not claim the Land of Israel as part of the Arab territory, and that is because Weizmann and [Emir] Faisal reached an agreement between them earlier."

In the following years, during wars and internal struggles between the Hashemite and Saudi tribes and monarchies, the Arab territory was divided. Similarly, the hostile relations between the Arabs and the French, who were given a mandate over Syria, led to the expulsion of King Faisal from Syria.

These developments, which are not related to Zionism, created complications that have had an impact throughout the 20th century. "It is impossible to understand the San Remo Conference, which convened in April 1920, without understanding the background to the Balfour Declaration on Nov. 2, 1917, through Versailles and Paris in 1919. When the British gave the Balfour Declaration, they still had no authority [over Israel and the Middle East]. It's like talking about an egg. What's inside? In 1920, they turned the Balfour Declaration into international law. They turned it into a 'Jewish state'. Everyone understood the concept of a national home as a state."

Q: Were the Arabs actually done an injustice?

"In San Remo, the decisions were very much in favor of the Arabs. They should celebrate this conference every year. At one point Lloyd George, in order to recognize the historical right, speaks of the biblical phrase 'from Dan to Beersheba'. French Prime Minister Melran says, 'What do you mean?' And Lloyd George replies: 'I want to rely on a map', and he pulls out a historical atlas of the Land of Israel. Inside he chooses map number 34. It shows the kingdom of David and Solomon. The map is enshrined in international law. The French presented a map according to which the claim of the Mandate for the national home goes too far north. Anyway, the boundaries were recognized. This was supposed to be the land given to the Jews."

Legal definitions

In recent years, propaganda noise has constantly infiltrated the issue of rights over the land. The International Criminal Court has repeatedly attacked Israel, and according to Gauthier, the San Remo Conference is of crucial importance in this issue. "It took me 20 years to put this puzzle together until I finished the job in 2007," he says, "then I started appearing and speaking in Parliament in Brussels, in the House of Lords, in the US Congress. Most people listened as I presented firm facts. There is a process that began from San Remo in April 1920 to August of that year, from the Treaty of Sevres to the 1922 ratification of the mandate in the League of Nations. This is about transferring the right to the Jewish people to re-establish their national home.

"I began to study the issue of Jerusalem, and from there I realized that the entire Holy Land should be explored. The Green Line is irrelevant to the question of the rights of the Land of Israel. There is a special clause in the armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan in 1949 which states that nothing in the agreement will be considered as a source of rights or obligation under international law. In terms of international law, the agreement says nothing on the question of sovereignty. What is important in this agreement is the statement that Jordan or Israel will not resort to violence. The Line is relevant with respect to the armistice. In 1967, the Jordanians were on the aggressive side. There is no question about that."

The draft British Mandate was submitted by Balfour to the League of Nations on December 7, 1920. It is worded as a legal contract, which includes several "whereas..." clauses until it comes to the issue of determining the role of the British Mandate. Then, it reads "WHEREAS by Article 132 of the Treaty of Peace signed at Sevres on the tenth day of August, 1920, Turkey renounced in favor of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title over Palestine…" and so on.

The draft underscores the Balfour Declaration adopted by His Majesty's Government and subsequently signed into peace agreements by the allied powers to establish a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. One of the "whereas..." states that "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…," and three sections later defines the mandate, whose function is to "secure the establishment of the Jewish national home."

The problem of status versus rights

Nazi Germany, in cooperation with the Arab National Movement led by the Mufti and Rashid Ali al-Gaylani, prompted a change in direction and worked to destroy the Jewish settlement and thereby erase the Jewish right. Gauthier says that Ben-Gurion and the Zionist leadership's consent to the Nov. 29 decision was simply a result of the Holocaust when, out of weakness, they agreed to accept whatever they were given.

For decades, Israelis have been dragged into a defensive discourse against Palestinian rights and the Nakba question. Although the UN has accepted the resolutions of the League of Nations as existing international law, this institution has become a hothouse of anti-Israeli resolutions. Over the years, Arab states, the PLO and the Soviet Union have turned it into an anti-Zionist and antisemitic propaganda center, and the basic rights on which the Jewish state was established under the law of nations have been covered with the radioactive fallout of Third World theories, Palestinianism, and propaganda definitions such as "occupation".

In a world of propaganda, editorials, and tweets of false narratives and the terrorism of revolutionary liberation organizations, it is difficult for us to grasp the values of Western civilization and international law that were represented by a few diplomats and heads of state wearing top hats and ridiculous bow ties who gathered at Villa Devachan in San Remo. Their guiding principle was Article 22 of the earlier League of Nations Declaration, which refers to peoples who cannot stand on their own as a result of the war: "...there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization…".

The British Mandate was just such a sacred trust, eroded by the British themselves. Because of the Holocaust, people forget that at the same time as the top hat meetings took place, a "small" genocide was perpetrated against the Jews in the territories of the Soviet Union. More than one hundred thousand were killed in the civil war that followed the October Revolution, after the Russian defeat in World War I.

"When I arrived in Jerusalem a few years ago, most of them did not know what I was presenting," says Gauthier. "Foreign Ministry staff were not present. In 2017, a conference was organized, and that was eventually put together by the Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Justice. The person who introduced me was the Foreign Ministry's legal adviser, Tal Becker." Becker introduced Dr. Gauthier as the best man for presenting the historical fundamental rights recognized in San Remo.

"Now they are aware of the great importance of being able to answer legal arguments. If you do not know your rights, you also do not know how they're acting against you. By being in a state of ignorance, the Jews begin to believe false narratives, which results in a divided and polarized nation. You must at least have knowledge of the rights you received."

This is one of the most interesting historical cases where on the one side you have a violent claim for rights while totally denying the rights of another people, the Jews, whom the Palestinians insist on not recognizing at all as a nation, and on the other, a recognized right enshrined in international law. The history of recent generations shows that jurists are also swept away by the defendant's right to violence, while the legal right enshrined in every law and in international contracts is pushed aside.

Q: How did you come to research this particular topic?

"I'm a lawyer. I studied in Canada, in The Hague, I studied in Geneva. For a few years, I was looking for a doctorate in international law. That's how I got to the topic of Jerusalem. I didn't understand how complicated it was. But to understand Jerusalem, you must study all of the Holy Land. I wanted to work on a complex subject. It took me 20 years, but with the support of my family, I continued.

"The doctoral director in Geneva was Marcelo Cohen, whose views are different from mine. He told me we will work on it together. Thanks to him, the work was extended by ten years. It came out in a book 1,300 pages long, but I could have written 5,000 pages on this. In 2006 I defended the thesis, and it was finally recognized. I am not connected to a particular religion. But when I travel to Israel I connect to the beauty of the land and I also connect to the trinity of God, the land and the people."

Q: How is this reflected in the political-legal problems that Israel is embroiled in today?

"Israel's legal rights are on solid ground. The problem has been Israel's status in the territories since 1967. It has not annexed most of the West Bank. By adopting Security Council Resolution 242, Israel has said it is willing to part with some of the territory in favor of a Palestinian state. What causes confusion regarding these rights is precisely the actions of Israel. If you are the sovereign, you can hand over part of the territory [in favor of a diplomatic settlement], it does not stand in contradiction."

Q: There is no doubt about the question of sovereignty.

"I'll try and explain what clouded the water on these issues. If tomorrow Israel annexes Area C - it will not do anything contrary to the rights over the land. From a diplomatic viewpoint, it was a mistake not to annex [it] in 1967."

Q: There is constant talk of the "occupation." What is the meaning of this concept, if Israel actually controls the territory that is its right, and not just because it occupied it in military action?

"UN resolutions repeat the mantra that sovereignty cannot come as a result of occupation. I agree with that. The problem is that if you control an area where you already have rights – you do not lose the rights because you are in the area as a result of occupation. The [1947] partition decision does not change the situation. The partition was the result of a desperate situation and a lack of choice, as a result of which they were willing to make concessions. Ben-Gurion then thought it was better to get something after the Holocaust. The Arabs did not accept this and went to war."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Here, of course, a typical Israeli failure of thought was born: in order to justify control of territories occupied in 1967, it is claimed that the Arabs did not accept 1947 and started the war. Rights are claimed only in the context of the Arabs' aggression against the State of Israel, while the right has existed since before 1947. Part of the problem comes from Israel's advanced level of education, which is uncomfortable with the fact that it is the biblical right that lead to the diplomatic and legal rights of 100 years ago.

Q: You have no problem with the term "occupation"?

"'Occupation' is defined as a situation in which there is no decision concerning sovereignty in a particular territory. Despite its right – Israel has not applied its sovereignty. Therefore, it is an occupation. Israel itself considers the situation as occupation. But I am not worried about that. What worries me is the use of the phrase 'Occupied Palestinian Territory'. This is not Palestinian territory. It is an 'occupied' territory due to the lack of a final diplomatic decision. This is an intermediate stage. In the end, it is an occupation of territory previously given to the Jews."

The post 'Lack of knowledge about your rights to the land causes internal division' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

This month, 101 years ago, the San Remo Conference, considered one of the founding events in the history of Zionism, closed in Italy, paving the way for the establishment of the State of Israel and essentially formed the geographical base of the modern Middle East of the 20th century.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

In the decision of the conference on the issue of the Land of Israel, the connection between the historical rights of the Jewish people to their land was recognized and they were granted legal rights over the entire Land of Israel. The decision was expressed by supporting the establishment of a Jewish home in the Land of Israel, based on the famous Balfour Declaration.

The inclusion of the Balfour Declaration in the conference summaries regarding the Land of Israel turned it from a non-binding British political declaration (expressing sympathy for the goal of Zionism to establish a Jewish state), into a binding document with international legal validity. The fulfillment of this goal was entrusted to Britain, which became the owner of the Mandate for the Land of Israel.

To understand the background to the San Remo Conference, it is important to go back to some of the events that preceded it. In 1916, during World War I, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was signed – a secret political agreement between Britain and France. The aim was to organize and divide the areas of control of the territories of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East at the end of the war, which ended about two years later in the occupation of the region by the treaty countries, led by Britain and France.

In the summer of 1917, Chaim Weizmann (at the time one of the leaders of the Zionist movement) submitted a political proposal that he formulated with Nahum Sokolow. The proposal raised a request to recognize the right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and the right of Jews to immigrate to it and realize their national aspirations. On November 2, 1917, the historic document was signed by British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour, known as the Balfour Declaration.

The document said: "I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors 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."

In January 1919, about a month after the official end of World War I, the Paris Peace Conference opened, bringing together the allies who had won the war led by Britain, France and the United States, mainly to discuss peace agreements with the defeated.

During the conference's discussions regarding the future of the Land of Israel (in which they laid the foundation for the future British Mandate for Israel), a delegation of the "Committee of Jewish Delegations" headed by Weizmann also participated.

The delegation presented to the conference a map that included the territorial demands of the Jewish people, including territories from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Sinai Peninsula. In addition, a memorandum was attached "to recognize the historical right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and the right of the Jews to re-establish their national home in the Land of Israel." It was also proposed in the document that sovereignty over the Land of Israel would be entrusted to the League of Nations, and the governing of the area would be handed over to Great Britain as a mandate.

A year later, in February 1920, a conference led by Britain, France and Italy was held in London. At the conference, disagreements arose between the British and the French regarding the Land of Israel. French Prime Minister Alexandre Millerand, who took office about a month earlier, was not sympathetic to the Zionist movement and tried to oppose the Balfour Declaration and the British government's intention to establish a national Jewish home in Israel.

Instead, he proposed reviving the Sykes-Picot agreement, under which Palestine would be under international rule. The British vehemently opposed it and British Prime Minister Lloyd George reinforced his position by reading to the French a telegram from US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, a Zionist leader in America and close friend of President Woodrow Wilson.

The letter came out against the implementation of the Sykes-Picot Agreement on the Land of Israel, which would in fact "defeat full realization of [the] promise of [a] Jewish [National] Home" with the only way to fulfill the Balfour Declaration which had been "subscribed to by France as well as other Allies and Associated Powers," was to concede the proposed Zionist boundaries.

'A general consensus'

On April 19, 1920, the leaders of the victorious powers met again for a week. The gathering place this time was Villa Devachan in the Italian city of San Remo, and the goal of the heads of these powers was to complete the work and ratify the resolutions of the London Conference.

The talks were attended by British Prime Minister Lloyd George, Foreign Secretary George Curzon, French Prime Minister Alexandre Millerand, French Foreign Secretary Philippe Berthelot, Italian Prime Minister Francesco Nitti, the Japanese representative, Japan's Ambassador to France Keishirō Matsui, and US Ambassador to Rome Robert Johnson, as well as representatives from Belgium and Greece.

At the end of that week, in the final two days of the conference, discussions focused on the issue of the future of the countries in the Middle East, and Palestine in particular. The delegates reaffirmed the terms of the Sykes-Picot agreement between France and Britain for the division of the region, and stipulated that the Land of Israel (Palestine) would be under British Mandate rule (which also included part of the Golan Heights and Trans Jordan), while Syria and Lebanon would be under French mandate, despite the opposition of the Arabs.

On the question of border locations between Israel, Syria and Lebanon, arguments arose between the British and the French. At the end of the discussions, the British managed to move the border as far north as possible, in order to ensure vital water resources and to include the Hula Valley, the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River in the territories of the Land of Israel.

In addition, the establishment of a British mandate in the territory of the former Ottoman provinces – Baghdad, Mosul and Basra – to be called the British Mandate for Mesopotamia was also approved.

The next day, discussions focused on the future of Palestine and the question of the Balfour Declaration. On this issue (as happened earlier at the London Conference) the French expressed reservations about the declaration and its inclusion in the agreement, and as a result there was a harsh exchange between the two foreign secretaries of the countries.

Curzon demanded that the Balfour Declaration, adopted by the victorious powers earlier, be included in the Mandate for the Land of Israel "in the exact wording in which it was originally given." But Berthelot flatly rejected the idea, and although he acknowledged that the countries of the world did support the Jewish aspiration to establish a national home in the Land of Israel, including France itself, he suggested reconsidering it.

Berthelot argued that instead of including the Balfour Declaration in the Mandate, the issue of Israel should be discussed in the League of Nations, if only because "I do not remember that any general agreement was ever given to Mr. Balfour's declaration by the powers."

Curzon did not shy away from his remarks and replied, "Mr. Berthelot was possibly not fully acquainted with the history of the question," stressing that the terms of the Balfour Declaration were approved about two years ago by former Foreign Secretary Pichon, as well as US President Wilson and many other countries, including Italy, China and Greece, so he was "quite justified in saying that Mr. Balfour's declaration had been accepted by a large number of the Allied Powers."

During the debate between them, Italian Prime Minister Nitti intervened, saying: "It is useless to go into past history." He added that in his opinion "the Powers were generally in agreement as to the desirability of instituting a national home for the Jews."

Eventually, the French leadership withdrew its position regarding the Balfour Declaration and other issues, including the civil and political rights of the French community in the Land of Israel and the status of the holy places.

Beginning of the mandate period

In the closing statement approved at the end of the conference regarding the situation of Palestine and other countries in the region, and the status of the Balfour Declaration, the conference decided to include in the mandate the Balfour Declaration and impose on Britain, as the mandatory power, responsibility for implementing the declaration.

Among other things, it was agreed to "accept the terms of the mandates article with reference to Palestine on the understanding that there was inserted in the process-verbal an undertaking by the mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine.

"The high contracting parties agree to entrust … the administration of Palestine ... to a mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8 November 1917, by the British Government and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favor 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."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

On July 1, 1920, following the decisions of the conference, Britain transferred to a civilian government in the Land of Israel headed by High Commissioner Herbert Samuel, inheriting the powers of the military government. About a month later, a peace treaty was signed between the Ottoman Empire and the treaty countries in Sevre, France, which officially included the decisions of the San Remo Conference.

Two years later, on July 24, 1922, the Council of the League of Nations approved the wording of the mandate, thus becoming a binding international document.

The importance of the San Remo Conference can be learned from the words of Chaim Weizmann, President of the Zionist Organization, and first president of the State of Israel. "The conference actually marked the birth of the State of Israel," he said. "The decision in San Remo, this recognition of our rights in Palestine which was included in the treaty with Turkey [the Sevre Treaty] and became part of international law – is the biggest political event in our movement [the Zionist movement]. And maybe, it would not be an exaggeration to say – in the entire history of the Jewish people since the diaspora."

The post 'The birth of the State of Israel' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

During Napoleon's failed campaign to conquer the Land of Israel in 1799, an impressive proclamation was issued from his general headquarters to the Jewish people, in which he declared his desire to establish a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. And lo it read: "Bonaparte Napoleon's statement to the legal heirs of the Land of Israel! Israelites, unique nation, whom, in thousands of years, lust of conquest and tyranny have been able to be deprived of their ancestral lands, but not of name and national existence! Arise then, with gladness, ye exiled! A war unexampled In the annals of history, waged in self-defense by a nation whose hereditary lands were regarded by its enemies as plunder to be divided, arbitrarily and at their convenience ... avenges its own shame … and also, the almost two-thousand-year-old ignominy put upon you ... and now it offers to you at this very time, and contrary to all expectations, Israel's patrimony.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

"Lawful heirs of the land, this great nation [France] calls out to you: herewith calls on you not indeed to conquer your patrimony; nay, only to take over that which has been conquered and, with that nation's warranty and support, to remain master of it to maintain it against all comers. Arise! Now is the moment, which may not return for thousands of years, to claim the restoration of civic rights among the population of the universe which had been shamefully withheld from you for thousands of years, your political existence as a nation among the nations, and the unlimited natural right to worship Jehovah in accordance with your faith, publicly and most probably forever..." (Merhavia, "Zionism: The Treasure of Political Certificates", pp. 17-15).

This impressive document and the rumors about it left a strong impression and inspired both the press in Europe and the Jews, many of whom joined the Napoleonic armies in its wake. For example, exactly one hundred years later, when Herzl turned to German Emperor Wilhelm II to support Zionism, he wrote to him: "What could not be fulfilled under the reign of Napoleon I, can be fulfilled by Wilhelm II."

Ideas for the renewal of the Jewish state made the rounds in Napoleon's circles even before he set out on the journey, and were proposed both by Jews and by Millinerianist Christians, but their meaning cannot be understood without first clarifying the roots of the Christian prophecy of the return of Jews to Zion. This is an idea, deeply rooted in the ancient Christian concept of the "millennium", which describes a period of a thousand years in which Jesus will rule after his second coming. Only afterwards will the war of Gog and Magog take place, the dead will live and the New Jerusalem will be founded. Belief in the millennium was already rooted in the early writings of Christianity, and diverse groups of Christians have been influenced by it in various ways throughout history.

Jews in the most literal way

Some Christians understood the significance of the millennium to require the return of the Jews to Zion, for their future sake and for the realization of the Christian prophecy. Some even tied this vision to a political-sovereign revival of the Jews. Author Barbara Tuchman, in her book "Bible and Sword", demonstrates the power of Millinerianist unrest in 17th-century Europe through the story of Sir Finch.

In 1621, Henry Finch, a legal officer of the King of England, wrote an essay in which he predicted that in the near future the Jews would return to establish their kingdom, which would function as a worldwide empire, and to which the other kingdoms would be subordinate. He was soon imprisoned by King James I, who disliked the idea of the potential violation of the absolute sovereignty of the English king.

One of the main reasons for this awakening was the return of Protestant Christianity to literal reading of the Hebrew Bible. In contrast to Catholic Christianity, which forbade the masses to read the Holy Scriptures on their own, the Protestants encouraged the masses to read the Bible regularly and without mediation, including the "Old Testament". Returning to the texts of the Bible was not a purely technical matter, and had very significant consequences. One of them concerned with understanding the future of the Jews. Classical Catholic reading used to read the verses of prophecy dealing with the return of the Jews to Zion at the time of redemption in an allegorical reading. This is why "Zion" was interpreted as the church's faith, and "Bnei Yisrael" (children of Israel) was interpreted as the church's believers, who are "the new Israel". However, when the Protestants re-read the Bible literally, the Millinerianist Messianic faith re-emerged with great power.

Thus, for example, Finch wrote: "Where Israel and Judah and Zion and Jerusalem are mentioned, the Holy Spirit does not mean a spiritual Israel ... but an Israel descended from Jacob ... We did not use the language of allegory in earthly images, but meant Jews in the most real and literal way."

From the 18th century onwards, a topical interpretation of current events in connection with the processes of Millinerianist redemption intensified in England and France. The French Revolution provoked tremendous Millinerianist unrest among vast populations of Christians, who saw it as the first step of a Messianic era. For many years, the Protestants saw the Catholic Church and the kings of France as an anti-Christ, meaning, a satanic factor that showed wickedness to the representative of the kingdom of heaven.

With the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of the French Republic, the prophecies of the Millinerianists seemed to come true. Essays dealing with contemporary redemption became extremely common, and an important part of them was instilled with the hope of "paving the way for the return of the Jews and preparing mankind for greater blessings than ever before."

The destabilizing of the Pope's status by the Revolutionary Army following the conquest of Italy in 1796, and in particular Napoleon Bonaparte's campaign in Egypt and the Land of Israel (1798-1799), strongly confirmed the identification of the process and provoked sharp controversy in England over the subsequent stages of Jewish return. One British writer was certain, based on the verse in Isaiah (60:9) - "Surely the islands look to me; in the lead are the ships of Tarshish, bringing your children from afar", that this "does not so explicitly apply to any nation as to the British nation, which will probably be joined by the Dutch states".

In contrast, some apocalyptic thinkers were certain that France was destined from heaven to lead the Jews to their land. So much so that when Napoleon's army was preparing to invade Britain in the early 19th century, there were Englishmen who refused to take part in the war against the invading army, as they perceived it a sin to fight the divine army designed to redeem the people of Israel and return them to Zion.

At the same time, a large part of the population in France also interpreted the events of the revolution in relation to apocalyptic calculations and Millinerianist beliefs regarding the return of the Jews to Zion. As the historian Jonathan Frankel concluded ("The Damascus Affair", 1997, p. 287): "The French Revolution and Napoleonic wars once again transformed eschatology in general and restorationism in particular, from the esoteric pursuits that they had become in the 18th century into an issue of major popular concern."

Messianic-Christian beliefs that saw the establishment of the Jewish state as part of the Christian redemption continued to interest broad circles in Britain throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, and even influenced British policy during this period, and at least indirectly, even the fate of Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel.

'Unbeatable tenacity'

The important influence on England's foreign policy can be seen in the long and crucial reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901). The "Jewish Restoration" movement was established in London in the late 1830s and carried the banner of the return of the Jews to the Land of Israel in order to return their independent state to them. This was due to the vigorous activity of Lord Shaftesbury, an evangelical Anglican, who in those days dared to prophesy in unequivocal language: "Jerusalem will regain its place among the families of the Gentiles, and England will be the first kingdom to remove from it the burden of bondage."

A body called the "London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews" held rallies attended by thousands, even led by Queen Victoria herself, who was very close to these circles. Lively discussions took place regarding the stages of redemption of the Jews, the time when they would convert to Christianity, and the question of whether equal rights in Britain or the right to be elected to parliament promote the redemption of the Jews, or vice versa. Evidence of messianic unrest among the Jews themselves, for example around 1840, also greatly increased the hope for imminent redemption.

Throughout this decade, Lord Shaftesbury worked hard to promote Britain's hold on the Land of Israel, and in particular to prepare the path for it to become the patron for the return of the Jews. His closeness to Palmerston, the Foreign Secretary who later became Prime Minister, enabled him to have real influence on British policy regarding the future of the Land of Israel. Shaftesbury's continued activity pushed forward the appointment of a British Deputy Consul in Jerusalem in 1838, and with his direct encouragement his jurisdiction in Jerusalem and Palestine was defined as "within its ancient borders."

Shaftesbury interpreted the appointment as meaning that the deputy consul was "empowered to be what was the kingdom of King David and the 12 tribes". After his appointment he wrote enthusiastically about this step, in which he saw as the first stage in the process of the return of the Jews: "What a wonderful event ... the ancient city of the people of God is about to take its place among the nations, and England is the first gentile kingdom to 'stop trampling it' … What Napoleon planned through violence and pretension, we may exploit for the existence of our empire."

This mindset also had diplomatic implications. Muhammad Ali, who started off as a representative of the Ottoman government but eventually became an independent governor, conquered the territory of the Land of Israel and Syria a few decades later, in 1831, and ruled it to the displeasure of most European powers, except the French. This invasion provoked an international debate as to the future of the region, and to this end the Great Powers convened in 1840 in London.

Among other things, the idea arose to establish new Christian sovereignty or independent churches under Ottoman rule. Britain's stance against the establishment of independent Christian sovereignty stemmed from the efforts of Shaftesbury and his colleagues, who argued that the option of establishing a future Jewish state in the Land of Israel should remain.

The main editorial in the Times of London of 17 August 1840 stated: "A sustainable solution to the crisis in the East" should not be expected without "restoring the Jewish state". Despite the great diversity of languages and customs among the Jews, they still "continue to adhere with unbeatable tenacity to all distinct national characteristics," and therefore can "serve as an effective instrument for advancing the interests of civilization in the East."

Christian ideas about the return of the Jews to Zion, and even ideas about the establishment of a Jewish state, have been an integral part of the religious and cultural discourse in Europe since the French Revolution and were associated with seeing Jews as a nation with a glorious political past and present national vitality. These ideas also had an impact on the political sphere, and in particular with regard to Britain's policy on the "Eastern Question", the question of the future of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East.

These currents of thought were integrated into the political interests of leading statesmen, and they incorporated them in rhetoric and sometimes even in their judgment, whether it was Napoleon, Queen Victoria, or Foreign Minister Palmerston. These currents were part of the background that led to the Balfour Declaration. Despite his skeptical nature, Lord Balfour was saturated with biblical education and sympathy for the cause of the Jews and their return to Zion, as evidenced by the following remarks: "The position of the Jews is unique. For them race, religion and country are inter- related, as they are inter-related in the case of no other race, no other religion, and no other country on earth." Only in light of this can Balfour's determination at the end of his life be understood: what he did for the Jews in the Balfour Declaration was the most worthwhile and worthy act in all his life's endeavors.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Familiarity with the Bible and the story of the Jewish people in the Christian world and hopes in various Christian currents for the establishment of a Jewish state as part of the Christian redemption, were, therefore, an integral part of the cultural background within which the Balfour Declaration, San Remo resolutions and the League of Nations mandate recognized the historic connection of the people to the Land of Israel and its political significance.

Assaf Malach is founding director of the Jewish Statesmanship Center and head of the Committee for Citizenship Studies in the Education Ministry.

The post From Napoleon to Balfour appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

One hundred and one years have passed since the international community met in Paris and San Remo to establish a post-imperial world order founded on independent nation-states. In San Remo, Jews were promised a "national home" in Palestine – as it was then referred to – and an explicit right to settle in all parts of the country, which included Judea and Samaria. But the international community did nothing to implement this promise, given the reluctance of the Mandate government to act on the one hand, and growing xenophobia against Jewish immigrants by local Arabs on the other.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

The Jews are the ones who translated the international promises into facts on the ground. In 1948 they did so in part because much of the territory, including the holy sites, fell into Jordanian hands. After Israel regained control of these territories in 1967, a large part of the international community pretended that previous promises had not been given at all. Not only that, all areas that were "clean" of Jews in 1948 must remain such indefinitely, even if Israel actually controls them.

Despite this, more than a century after that conference, one leader arose who was willing to fulfill the old commitments of the League of Nations. It was President Trump, who recognized a united Jerusalem, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who declared that Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria was not a crime but represented an understanding of the legal significance of those promises by the League of Nations. The two are perhaps the first leaders to refuse to bend Israel's legal rights and allow for political blackmail by Arab states.

The post-World War I peace arrangements, which began in Paris in 1919 and culminated in San Remo the following year, gave birth to the countries of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan and Israel, as well as the borders of those countries.

It is easy to criticize the artificiality of the countries established by the League of Nations. But in the world – and especially in an area where ethnic and religious groups are mixed and live without separation – there is no escape from the arbitrary setting of boundaries. In any area ruled by the Mandate, it was determined that an unfortunate minority will live among a majority: Muslims with Christians in Lebanon, Kurds with Arabs in Iraq, and Syria on the whole is an inexplicable mix. The process was not perfect, but the alternatives that existed in the past – a vast pan-ethnic empire, or one group trying to take over others – eventually made countries look like the Syria we have known in recent years.

This is why the post-World War I borders were widely accepted as the binding sovereign borders of the countries established in the territories of the British Mandate. Neither the Kurdish separation nor the Syrian annexation of Lebanon as a protégé receive international support, because such support would call into question the same Mandatory borders.

There is one place in the Middle East where the international community takes a completely opposite position regarding the borders of the Mandate. This is happening, of course, in Israel. Although Pompeo's statement during the previous US administration did not deal with borders, it did put back on the agenda the principle established in San Remo, according to which Jewish settlement is not illegal.

Pompeo rejected the conclusions of a memorandum authored by former Legal Adviser of the Department of State in 1978, Herbert Hansell. The conclusions of the memorandum were rejected by President Ronald Reagan 1981, but never officially. The four-page memorandum dealt with new decisions, issues that according to its author were never resolved. In the decades since its formulation, the legal analysis of the occupation and the settlements has not changed, and Israel has always been treated in a special way.

That memorandum had two main conclusions. The first was the definition of Israel as an "occupying power in the West Bank". Its author clings to an unknown clause in the Geneva Convention, one that has never been applied to any country. The same Herbert Hansell, who held almost no consultations, stated that Israel should prevent Jews from living in areas that Jordan had "cleansed from Jews" years before.

Under international law, occupation occurs when a state takes over territory subject to the sovereignty of another state. This is, for example, the reason why Russia is considered an occupying power in the Crimea, even though most of the island's population is made up of Russians and historically the peninsula is considered part of Russia. In terms of international law, there is ultimately clear Ukrainian sovereignty in place, even against the backdrop of opposition to the self-determination of a local ethnic majority.

But Judea and Samaria were never part of Jordan. On the contrary, Jordan only took control of this territory in 1949.

Moreover, a state cannot occupy territory in which it is sovereign. Israel has the strongest sovereign claim to the territory. In international law, a new state inherits the boundaries of the previous geopolitical unit in this area. In this case, that unit was the mandate of the League of Nations for Palestine. Hansell preferred to ignore all of this.

The memo that Hansell has failed the test of history. The U.S. State Department did not apply the definition of "occupation" to Western Sahara controlled by Morocco, Dutch New Guinea, nor any other situation in which the territory that had not changed hands in war had no previous sovereign power.

And there is another matter: Hansell's conclusions are irrelevant. This is because he explicitly stated that the state of occupation will not exist if Israel enters into a peace agreement with Jordan, since the law of occupation is part of the law of war; It does not apply in times of peace. Jordan signed a full and unconditional peace agreement with Israel in 1994 and rendered the memorandum irrelevant.

And the claims that the occupation creates an impenetrable demographic bubble around the territory have no basis in history or international conventions. Even the attempt to tie it to the Geneva Convention is a lie. Neither the United States nor the United Nations have ever claimed this in any case of similar conflicts.

As we celebrate the 101st anniversary of the San Remo Conference, we must also remember the boundaries that it set. But nothing determined then will be preserved if Israel does not claim its sovereignty itself and insist on it loud and clear in the international arena.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Israeli governments have largely failed to state forthrightly their rights over all parts of the country, leaving their opponents in the international community free to make statements and carry out measures, such as the disengagement from Gaza by the late Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, as an ax to grind.

Israel is the sovereign in Judea and Samaria, and this territory belongs to it. It is not enough that this was decided in San Remo. State leaders must speak loud and clear so that the whole world understands that this is the reality, and there is no alternative.

Eugene Kontorovich is a professor at George Mason's Antonin Scalia School of Law, specializing in constitutional and international law.

The post Sovereignty is claimed, not awarded appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

101 years ago, on April 26, 1920, an international conference ended in the town of San Remo on the Italian Riviera that made historic decisions, which had a tremendous impact on the establishment of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. Last year, we had plans to produce a big event in San Remo to mark the centenary of the conference, but we had to cancel it because of the pandemic.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

It's important to me to do historical justice to the San Remo Conference. The "Mandate for Palestine" document approved in San Remo and adopted by the League of Nations is the founding document of the State of Israel. This was the historic event in which the nations of the world restored to the Jewish people the right to their sovereignty over the western Land of Israel in its entirety. Unfortunately, the San Remo Conference is less well known than the historic events of the Balfour Declaration and the UN vote on November 29, 1947, whose legal value is small compared to the San Remo conference's resolutions. In 1920, the leaders of the Allies who won World War I (Britain, France, Italy, Greece, and Japan) gathered in San Remo to discuss how to divide the territories of the former Ottoman Empire. They decided not to annex territories, but to establish a new system of government called a "mandate", as a tool to control underdeveloped countries until they developed an independent governing capacity.

The states agreed to divide between themselves the mandates for control over India, Syria, Iraq, as well as Palestine. France was given a mandate to control Syria and Lebanon, and Britain was given a mandate over Iraq and Palestine. The mandate for Palestine includes the Land of Israel on both banks of the Jordan and the Golan Heights. The San Remo Conference decided that the administration of the Land of Israel would be temporarily entrusted to the British Mandate, in order to establish a national home for the Jewish people in due course. But the British violated the mandate given to them in 1946, when they gave King Abdullah 77 percent of the land allotted to Jews at the San Remo Conference.

We did conquer

The World Zionist Organization, which I currently chair, was involved in the San Remo Conference. Dr. Chaim Weizmann, head of the World Zionist Organization, influenced the San Remo Conference to ratify the Balfour Declaration on the exclusive national rights of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. The preamble to the conference resolutions and Article 2 state that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country ... and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

Two years later, in July 1922, the League of Nations unanimously approved the "Mandate for Palestine" document from the decisions of the San Remo Conference. Thus, the document became part of international law, and is valid to this day.

The League of Nations was disbanded after World War II, and was replaced by the United Nations on the basis of the United Nations Charter. Article 80 of the UN Charter forbids changing decisions concerning areas over which the League of Nations imposed a mandate, except with the consent of all parties. Therefore, the UN vote on November 29, 1947 on the partition of the Land of Israel was done in violation of Article 80. Thus, Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 were passed without authority, because the UN Charter has the validity of an international contract, which is also part of international law. The Oslo Accords, which granted the Palestinian Authority sovereignty over about 90 percent of Judea, Samaria and Gaza territories, were also in violation of international law.

The relevant meaning today is that international law supports Jewish settlement also in the Golan Heights and in Judea and Samaria. We cannot be accused of illegally "conquering" Judea and Samaria during the Six-Day War, because according to international law these territories are part of the national home of the Jews. This legal argument also suits our defense for the International Court of Justice's indictments in The Hague, and is also a triumphant response to the BDS movement and our enemies trying to sever the legal connection between Jews and their historical homeland.

A legitimate political entity

The resolutions of the San Remo Conference were made 101 years ago, and are valid and relevant to this day. This important chapter in our history has been forgotten. Sometimes I wonder if political elements in Israel have deliberately forgotten it, because it deals with the Greater Land of Israel and both banks of the Jordan River.

I am honored to sit today in the chair and position of Chaim Weizmann at the time, chairman of the World Zionist Organization. I am determined to continue his path, including on the San Remo Conference. I am working to ensure the history of the San Remo conference is properly included in the national school curriculum so that everyone will know that the existence of the state is based on international law. I vow to ensure it is added into the Israeli ethos in rallies and youth movements, as I did when I was the director-general of the Beitar movement.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

I intend to act to launch a global information campaign on our legal situation. In the first stage, I am working to bring this legal information to the attention of all politicians and officials of the Ministry of Justice and employees of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In the next stages of the campaign, we will also bring the information to everyone involved in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, and then all over the world.

I regret that many in Israel do not recognize the enormous significance of the San Remo Conference. It is written in the Torah that before the entry of the children of Israel into the land of Canaan, Moses tells them: "You have now become the people ." with "[on] this day, you have become a legitimate political entity."

Yaakov Hagoel is the chairman of the Executive of the World Zionist Organization.

The post Historical justice appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.