The Legality of the existence of the State of Israel -then, as now

Map of the Jewish National Home as determined by the San Remo Conference of 1920 (Jewish Virtual Library)

The following article by “Alan in Australia” is a thorough and excellently researched piece about the legal basis for the foundation and existence of the State of Israel as the Jewish homeland.

There is so much delegitimization of the very existence of the State of Israel that sadly, even over 70 years after Israel gained its independence, it is still necessary to reiterate these important facts, not only to put the antisemites in their place, but also to educate the ignorant, of whom there are too many, about the righteousness of Israel’s cause and existence.

Go and read.

C.R.A.P - Countering Racist Anti-Israel Propaganda

Ninety nine years ago this April, on April 24 1920, at San Remo, the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers, consisting of Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan, agreed to approve the Balfour Declaration of Nov 2, 1917.

The San Remo Conference thus changed what had been only a statement of British intent, into a binding legal document.

This was accomplished by significantly changing the wording of Britain’s pledge from using their “best endeavours” to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine, to one which made Britain legally responsible for “putting into effect” this objective.

And it was solely for this objective that the Mandate was conferred on the land aggrandizement of the shattered Ottoman Empire.

In other words, post San Remo, the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine meant two important things:

  1. Creation of the state and country of Palestine which till that time officially did not…

View original post 503 more words

This entry was posted in Antisemitism, Incitement, indigenous rights, Lawfare and Delegitimization and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Legality of the existence of the State of Israel -then, as now

  1. Brian Goldfarb says:

    Okay, spoiler alert: I’m with “Alan in Australia” here (and Anne, and myself, of course).

    Alan’s logic is impeccable, but will be dismissed by the nay-sayers as something along the lines of “what would you expect from a bunch white colonialist imperialists immediately after a successful war?”

    After all, that’s how they regard us Jews and the whole of the State of Israel, despite the presence of all those Mizrachi Jews (“Jews from Arab ands”), as well as Ethiopian Jews, Yemeni Jews…and, of course, that 20% of the population (and citizenry) is Arab &Moslem, to say nothing of the Christians, the Bahai, the Druze, the Bedouin…

    But of course they don’t count, because if they were allowed to, then Israel would HAVE to be redefined as a multi-cultural/multi-ethnic state, and that would totally undermine the BDS antisemites.

    That that is an outcome devoutly to be wished is another matter.

    • anneinpt says:

      Well said. Isn’t it incredible how the hypocritical bigots (nay-sayers is MUCH too polite!) can get away with such twisting of the facts to suit their own prejudices. It infuriates me.

  2. Earl says:

    Agree with Goldfarb.

    This hearkens back to Aridog’s (RIP) frequent references to the San Remo Conference, which put me on to Canadian lawyer Howard Grief’s work on the subject. Rather than Israel, it is Jordan’s creation which was of dubious legality. Coincidentally, i came across this pithy reduction in a comment I read somewhere yesterday:

    Elisheva Flink • an hour ago
    The entity of sovereignty, territorial contiguity and economic viability [errr… quaere!– ed.] already exists in 76% of the Palestinian Mandate and is called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. There is no logical reason for the anti-Semitic European countries to continue to pay and advocate for another “Palestinian” Arab state.

    • anneinpt says:

      It was Aridog z”l who put me on to the San Remo Conference. I’m ashamed that he, a non-Jewish American, knew more about my country’s history than I did. Once you know about the Convention, Israel’s argument is made for her.

      That’s a great quote you brought here. Ms. Flink writes “there’s no logical reason for the anti-Semitic European countries to continue to pay and advocate for another “Palestinian” Arab state.”. But since when did logic enter into the equation of Jew-hatred?

      I guess for the curious but uninformed person it’s a very important fact. But so many of the uninformed keep themselves that way deliberately, because they don’t want to confused by facts.

      And one more thing: You and Brian agreeing with each other??? I think the Messiah is just around the corner. 😀

  3. Earl says:

    Heh. Settle down, Anne! We may disagree on nuance and detail, but broad-strokes I suspect we are virtually ad idem

    /check your PM for evidence of my commitment to “that shtty little country”. LOL

  4. Brian Goldfarb says:

    As Anne knows full well, I often note (elsewhere) that Anne is as conventionally right-wing as I am conventionally left-wing (i.e., both of us “sane left/sane right). BUT, when it comes to Israel, we’re in agreement (as we are with Earl and so many others). Thus, we get along just great – all of us.

    We just need the occasional nutcase (such as Linda de Vaux – remember her?) to put us on our mettle and really get our act(s) together.

    Where are the idiots when you need them?

Comments are closed.