web analytics
July 30, 2015 / 14 Av, 5775
At a Glance
Sponsored Post

Home » InDepth » Op-Eds »

‘Don’t Confuse Me with the Facts': Israel and International Law

Some of the winners of WW1 in a 1920 group picture in front of the Castello Devachan in San Remo, where they met to discuss the fate of the new world – and the Jews.


We’re all aware of God’s biblical covenant with Israel. What isn’t so well recognized is Israel’s legal right to the land aka Palestine.

The name Palestine was given to the former land of Israel by the Romans. The Roman objective was to erase any Jewish history within the region and to humiliate them further by associating it with the Philistines, a long extinct people and Israel’s ancient nemesis. In fact, there has never been a country or independent state of Palestine and it remained only a territory that has been conquered and re-conquered by various Empires.

The first recorded mention of a Palestinian-Arab entity was in 1911, when a newspaper named Filastin was published in Jaffa. Like most of the Palestinian movement, it was strictly a reaction to the Zionists’ return to Eretz Israel.

PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat cleverly adopted the name Palestinian for the Arabs, despite there being no P in the Arabic alphabet, rendering it unpronounceable in their language. Traditionally, the Arabs had preferred to be called Southern Syrians. The purpose of Arafat’s broad political adoption of the term “Palestinian” was to create an Arab association with the land. Consequently, the Jews’ identification with their ancient homeland was stolen.

The last entity to have domain over Palestine after the Ottoman Empire, was the British Empire. After WWI, the allied countries began to divide the conquered Ottoman Empire. The British decided to endorse the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

This is why the Balfour Declaration from 1917 by lord Arthur James Balfour and the subsequent Declaration and Ratification that build on this document, are so vitally important to Israel’s legal right to their land.

The Balfour Declaration and beyond

“His Majesty views with favor the establishment the establishment in Palestine of a National home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this objective, 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 country.”

This laid the foundation for the San Remo Conference, in April 1920. The countries attending were the League of Nations members at that time Britain, Italy and France and representatives from Japan, Greece and Belgium. The Balfour Declaration was ratified giving the Jews the legal right to re-create their homeland within the British ruled territory of Palestine. It was considered to be a binding resolution of International Law.

The Mandate for Palestine was constructed on the basis of the San Remo Resolution and was given over to Britain on the condition that Britain facilitate the implementation of the Balfour Declaration. That is, to bring into existence the formation of a Jewish State. Furthermore in 1922 The League of Nations enshrined into International Law the principle of Palestine being the National Home of the Jewish people and this was reconfirmed when the United Nations replaced the League of Nations.

Although San Remo gave Israel legal rights to the land, Sir Winston Churchill altered the agreement to appease the Arabs. He dedicated the land east of the Jordan River to the Hashemite Kingdom, as Transjordan, later to be renamed Jordan. The land west of the Jordan River was to be the Jewish homeland. Consequently, 77% of the land was taken away from the Jews. His decision was illegal and the San Remo Agreement is still legal and binding today.

The “1967 border” marks the armistice line where the Israeli and Jewish armies laid down their weapons in 1949, in accordance with the Rhodes ceasefire. In the 19 years that followed, the Arabs living in the area known as “West Bank” never requested nor were offered a Palestinian state by His Majesty King Hussein. Indeed, the only country to even recognize Jordan’s sovereignty over the “West Bank” was the U.K., which also trained and equipped the Jordanian Legion. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, this was—and remains, in terms of international law—a no man’s land.

About the Author: Leslie-Ann Stoffel is a social media pro-Israel activist. Between Facebook and Twitter, she has more than 8,000 followers.




20 Responses to “‘Don’t Confuse Me with the Facts': Israel and International Law”

  1. Quand la ville syrienne de Doura-Europos a été trouvé et fouillé les archéologues ont trouvé des exemples de nombreux païens temples / sanctuaires : grec , romain , parthe / Persan / Araméen ainsi une église chrétienne antérieure à 312 conversion de Constantin par plus de 75 ans et un énorme S. .. ynagogue avec des fresques de couleurs vives représentant l'Ancien Testament . ( Je suppose que beaucoup d'images taillées ) Questions pour le croyant musulman , si le Coran et l'islam ont été autour avant le christianisme et le judaïsme pourquoi ont- il trouvé dans Dura- Europos parmi tous les autres temples de diverses confessions aucun Mosquées pratiquées à l' temps : grec , romain , parthe , Araméen , païen de Perse , le christianisme et le judaïsme ?

    Si l'Islam est correct , pourquoi les scènes bibliques représentées sur les murs des fresques trouvées dans la synagogue des Juifs et l'église chrétienne indiquer une version très différente de celles présentées dans le Coran ?

    Si l'islam est la vérité et pré- existait les autres religions alors , la logique de base indique que la mosquée aurait également été trouvé dans les fouilles de Doura Europos ? Peut-être un parchemin du Coran ou Hadith ? Nan .

    Si les musulmans et l'islam sont corrects sur les Juifs molester la Torah et que leur présence historique dans la Terre Sainte – rebaptisé «Palestine» – alors pourquoi ces masses de fresques éclatantes indiquant la relation entre le Juif en Israël et toute la synagogue de Dura- Europos être aujourd'hui dans le Musée de la Syrie à Damas ?

    Ne serait-ce l'affichage reviendrait à les mensonges tordus éparpillés dans tous les pays musulmans qui mettent leurs efforts en effacer l'existence de l'histoire juive , surtout que les rapportant à la "Palestine" bien avant il y avait toute Arabes là-bas?

    Un autre exemple historique de l'énorme fraude a-historique " palestinien " et la mythologie tordue de l'Islam lui-même.

    Voici la synagogue de Doura-Europos (notez le " Arche ", où la Torah serait allé .. avec des masses d'autres photos de Dura- Europos via le lien ci-dessous …

  2. If you check with God in the Talmud or Christian Bible you will see Israel actually owns most all of the middle east.

  3. Bob Flores says:

    Israel has the right to defend itself with WHATEVER means is necessary

  4. The truth never caused any harm, nor the acquaintance with historical facts.

  5. Barbara Gilor says:

    Just the facts, just the facts.

  6. Lawrence Fisher says:

    Under international law, the UN had no legal right to partition Israel. Under international law, the Arabs, who are mostly migrants to the area, have no rights to this area.

    Jordan was created by Winston Churchill as Arab Palestine. The area was not called Transjordan until about 1929. Before that it was the Arab Government of the East.

    It was not Arafat who made the Palestinians into an entity, although it was under his watch. It was his Russian handlers!

  7. Whenever I express frustration — why doesn't the world understand? My husband always says, "Don't confuse people with the facts." Well — here are the facts! One question, though, regarding the history lesson on film, following this article, is why did the British prevent the Jews from entering "Palestine" during their mandate? Up until 1935 they had quotas, and then they didn't let Jews, escaping Europe, enter Palestine. Was this because they didn't want to upset the Arabs, like today? And if the Remo Resolution was bnding why did the UN have to vote again — why was there even a Partition Plan?

  8. Excelent article. God Bless…..

  9. Yechiel Baum says:

    it was not Arafat who made the name but the British in mockery to the Jews since they knew historically Israel always had problems with the philistines from Gaza.

  10. anti Israel is anti semitism

  11. Joe Khoury says:

    Excellent presentation of facts …. Mr Obama should be educating himself on these historical legally binding facts. Presuming that the powers that are pushing for a force fed treaty, then it stands to reason that this treaty only serves political ambitions of powers outside Israel. I trust Netenyahu will remain resolute and not give in to US presuure/

  12. Anonymous says:

    Thanks Leslie, great article. The Brits have always hated their Jews, it goes back to early Christianity. When you ask a Brit what he think of us Jews, and the issue of anti Semitism, he will unabashedly tell you that he hate Jews no more than is absolutely necessary. One can never forget that the Brit's hatred and disgust for us led to the deaths of countless thousands of good Jewish souls. Am Hisrael Chai. Deborah bee

  13. Donna Silver says:


  14. PeterJ says:

    I am a big supporter of Israel and I believe that Israel was grounded in international support through Balfour, League of Nations and United Nations resolutions. On the other hand this article is disengenious if it tries to argue that these bodies had the legal right to create a country in Palestine. Are you saying that the UN today could similarly decide by binding legal resolution that Jerusalem belongs to Jordan or to Iraq or whoever it wishes by majority resolution? Would Israel today accept as binding a resolution of the conflict imposed by the UN? Of course not. Don’t let all these so called legal arguments cloud the fact that the land of Israel was created on land 75 percent inhabited by Arabs ( whether they constituted a nation or not) and their grievances are legitimate and need to be addressed. A more balanced view of history will help to achieve peace. Of course, as the Arab world becomes more radicalized Israel may not have a partner for peace but it does no-one any good to present one sided arguments. As Jews we need to take the moral high ground.

  15. hmmmmm .. Both San Remo and the League of Nations mandate defined a new entity called Palestine. The Jewish nation was to be allowed to re-establish a Jewish home WITHIN Palestine, but the Jewish nation was not granted either sovereignty, hegemony or exclusivity in Palestine by either of those acts.

  16. Donna Silver says:

    Kenneth Hammond ISRAEL WON THE 1967 WAR … THAT IS THE LAND OF ISRAEL … !!!!!!!!!

  17. Donna Silver says:


  18. @ Hmmm Out of all the countries (which for some unknown reason people like you never talk about) of the former Ottoman Empire (Turkey) Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon And Israel. Turkey only accepted one in 1949 , “ ISRAEL” .. AND if Israel if so illegalment, then so is Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon

  19. You are correct Stephen!

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
PUG Meeting
Latest Indepth Stories
Rabbi YY Rubinstein




Rabbi Yaakov Spivak














More Articles from Leslie-Ann Stoffel
palestinians climbing


kerry pushing bibi

Israel would find its major population areas within rocket launching range if Judea and Samaria are relinquished


A brief history of Israel’s legal right to the land under international law.

Jews are specifically targeted for pogroms and genocide.

The US wants a state more than the Palestinian’s do.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/dont-confuse-me-with-the-facts-israel-and-international-law/2014/01/05/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: