|
The
legal title of the Jewish People to the mandated territory of Palestine in all of its
historic parts and dimensions was first recognized under international law on April 25,
1920 by a Decision taken at the San Remo Peace Conference by the Supreme Council of the
Principal Allied Powers to entrust Palestine to Great Britain under the Mandates System
for the purpose of establishing a national home for the exclusive benefit of the Jewish
People, in accordance with the terms of the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917.
The
Supreme Council of the Allies was made up of the top political leaders and officials of
Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan, and it was they in their meeting in the Italian
resort city who decided the future fate of all the Asiatic possessions which, as a
consequence of World War I, had ceased to be under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Turkish
Empire which formerly governed them.
These
possessions included all the area then called the Fertile Crescent, which originally
comprised Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia (whose name later became Iraq) as separate
territorial units, before any substantive changes were made to their boundaries. At the
San Remo Conference, it was decided that all three countries, whose exact borders had not
yet been delineated, would be administered by Mandatories under the newly-created Mandates
System, established by the Treaty of Versailles of 1919. The Mandates System did not come
into being until the ratification of this Treaty on January 10, 1920. It was established
simultaneously with the League of Nations whose duty it was to supervise the observance of
individual mandates through a body called the Permanent Mandates Commission. The actual
terms of those mandates and the powers exercised by the Mandatory were in each case
explicitly defined and confirmed by the Council of the League unless previously agreed
upon by the Members of the League.
British
determination and influence in the wartime group of nations officially called the
Principal Allied Powers in relation to Turkey excluded other areas under former Ottoman
rule in Asia from being part of the new system of mandatory government, particularly the
Hedjaz and the whole Arabian Peninsula.
This
was the global settlement that was made after World War I, that conferred enormous
benefits to the Arabic-speaking world. The “Arabs” received the lion’s share of the
territories that formerly belonged to Turkey. As a result of this munificence they hold
today lands equal to twice the area of the USA.
Other
peoples who were originally included in this global settlement fared badly. Kurds and
Armenians were supposed to get their own autonomous homelands or states, and the
Assyro-Chaldeans, who were a Christian community centered in Mosul, were also promised
protection and safeguards for their rights. However, in the final outcome, none of the
promises made to them were fulfilled, because their claims and aspirations, although
explicitly recognized by the Allies in the abortive Treaty of Sevres, were subsequently
discarded by both the British and French who turned over their designated areas to the
complete control of both Arabs and Turks who then cruelly deprived them of their vested
national rights and status within those areas.
When
the settlement and division of land was devised at the San Remo Conference, it was clear
to all concerned parties, Arab and Jew alike and to all European, American and Japanese
statesmen, that Palestine, within its historic frontiers according to the biblical
formula, from Dan to Beersheba, but which still needed to be marked out in a separate
agreement, was exclusively reserved for the benefit of the Jewish people all over the
world, of which only a fraction then actually lived in the ancient Jewish country. What
this obviously meant to one and all was an independent Jewish State in all of the historic
territory of Palestine.
Jewish
legal rights and title to all of historic Palestine, including Transjordan and Golan,
whose association with the Jewish People goes back to the earliest days of Jewish history,
was indeed then formally recognized in the Franco-British Convention of December 23, 1920,
even though no specific words were used to that effect but was well understood by the
parties, both from the negotiations that were conducted prior to the conclusion of the
Convention in consultation with Zionist leaders who pressed the British to obtain the best
possible frontiers for the Jewish National Home, and from the reference to the Mandate for
Palestine contained in the Convention itself. Some parts of historic Palestine were not
included in the final boundaries assigned to Palestine, especially in the northern and
north-eastern sections of the new lines.
Jewish
legal rights and title to the country of Palestine were founded on three basic pillars
which comprised the following sources of support:
The
historical connection of the Jewish People with Palestine in its entirety. Without this
acknowledgment of the country’s storied Jewish past, there would have been no Mandate
and no Jewish National Home. The historical connection dated back to the Israelite period
as described in the Jewish Bible, to the Hasmonean restoration and to the Herodian era and
also, in general, to the unbroken chain of links which Jews of every generation had always
maintained with the Land of Israel from the very first days of the Patriarchs, Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, right up to the present day, embracing a continuous history of
approximately 3800 years.
1.
The
right enshrined in Article 22 of the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 which provided for
national independence or self-determination for those peoples, inhabitants and communities
living in the colonies and territories formerly under Turkish and German sovereignty. This
principle of self-determination was also adopted for the benefit of the Jewish People by
the Principal Allied Powers when they created the Mandates System even though the vast
majority of Jews did not live in any of the territories described in Article 22 of the
Treaty of Versailles that were destined for eventual independence. That was the most
unique element of the Mandate for Palestine, different from all other Mandates that were
conferred, where the local inhabitants were designated the beneficiary of the Mandate.
Article 22 was placed in the First Part of the Treaty of Versailles, dealing with the
Covenant of the League of Nations, which emphasized its special importance. The same was
done in all the other Peace Treaties that were concluded after World War I, including the
unratified Treaty of Sevres with the Sublime Porte that was signed on August 10, 1920.
2.
The
right of the Jewish People to reconstitute their State of old in accordance with the
Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, as adopted by the Principal Allied Powers on
April 25, 1920 at the San Remo Conference. The Balfour Declaration was a declaration of
sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations as stated in the brief letter sent to Lord Lionel
Walter Rothschild which contained the text of the famous Declaration. It viewed with favor
“the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People” and the
British Government of Prime Minister David Lloyd George pledged itself “to use their
best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object”. This pledge was
subsequently transformed into a binding obligation under Article 2 of the Mandate for
Palestine and also by the wording used in the Preamble. The British Government was
thereafter responsible for putting into effect the Balfour Declaration under international
law and for establishing the Jewish National Home in Palestine.
The
“home” referred to in the Declaration was a euphemistic term for “state” already
used 20 years earlier by the Jewish leaders attending the World Zionist Congress convoked
by Theodor Herzl and held at Basel, Switzerland, in August 1897, so as not to offend
Turkish sensibilities on the projected loss of Palestine from their recognized sovereign
domains under international law. The word “national” was later appended to the word
“home” by Nahum Sokolow, the long-time Zionist leader at the time he participated in
the drafting of the Balfour Declaration with British officials. The addition of this word
was to make it even clearer what the ultimate goal of the Zionist Organization was, on
behalf of the scattered Jewish people. Strangely, what was evident by the words “national
home” then became muddled by the originator of the term, Sokolow himself, who, in a
display of inane and unnecessary deception, wrote in the introduction to his two-volume
monumental work, History of Zionism, published in 1919, that the word “home” as
used in the Basel Program of 1897, did not mean the creation of an independent “Jewish
State”, which was an interpretation he attributed to anti-Zionists who were opposed to
the revival of the Jewish People as an independent nation in its ancestral homeland. This
denial of the term’s true meaning was contrary to what both Balfour and Lloyd-George
themselves stated, both at the time the Balfour Declaration was approved by the War
Cabinet and in the years afterwards. It was also contrary to President Wilson’s own
pronouncement on the subject, influenced by the great American Supreme Court Justice,
Louis Dembetz Brandeis, both of whom had a major role in the approval of the Balfour
Declaration. The matter became further confused by Ahad Ha’Am, the pompous pseudonym
used by Asher Ginsberg, who stated erroneously in a deliberate trouble-provoking exegesis
that the words “in Palestine” did not mean that the whole country of Palestine would
become the Jewish National Home. Furthermore, he declared that Palestine was also the
national home of the Arabs who deserved the same rights as the Jews were obtaining in
ruling the country they both shared.
As
a result of Sokolow’s and Ginsberg’s unconscionable and unforgivable
misrepresentations which created heavy roadblocks on the way to Jewish independence, it
thereafter became easy for succeeding British Governments to exploit their false
interpretation of the Balfour Declaration and to change the policy embedded in the
Declaration to the great detriment of the Jewish National Home.
Despite
British backtracking, the Balfour Declaration did become in any case an act of
international law of supreme importance to the cause of Zionism, when it was officially
adopted by the Principal Allied Powers at the San Remo Conference. It is without doubt the
lynchpin or essential foundation of all Jewish legal rights to Palestine under
international law, upon which everything else depended. It was the exclusive basis for the
implementation of the Mandate for Palestine. It may be said without exaggeration that
almost every article of the Mandate for Palestine was only an extension or elaboration of
what the Balfour Declaration was meant to be in actual practice, including those
provisions not ostensibly thought to be dealing with the establishment of the Jewish
National Home.
The
foregoing three components of the Jewish legal title to Palestine were then rolled into
one comprehensive international instrument, the Mandate for Palestine, which thereafter
became the primary cited source for Jewish legal rights to the re-constituted Jewish
National Home that was called Palestine in English, a name originally chosen by the
Zionist leaders in the Basel Program of 1897, and translated into Hebrew as the Land of
Israel.
These
rights were included specifically in the first three recitals of the Preamble of the
Mandate Agreement, each one of the recitals being of great importance by itself. Recital
One refers to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which leads back to
Part I of both the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of Sevres. Recital Two refers to
the Balfour Declaration that was adopted by the Decision of the Principal Allied Powers at
the San Remo Conference which, four months later, was transformed into Article 95 of the
Treaty of Sevres. Recital Three then mentions the historical connection of the Jewish
People with Palestine and it also organically links together all three components of the
Jewish legal title when it further states that “recognition has thereby been
given… to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that
country”. The word thereby, together with the plural rendition of the word grounds,
provide the connecting thread for all three recitals. Furthermore, the word reconstituting,
as used here, is a direct reference to the State of Judea, since the only country with
which there was an historical connection by the Jewish People was Judea before its name
was changed to Palestine by the Roman Emperor Hadrian. The word Judea in Greek and
Latin actually connotes “the Jewish country”, further evidence of the Jewish
historical connection.
The
instrument containing the Mandate for Palestine is thus the final locus or resting place
of Jewish legal rights to all of Palestine. However, it should be remembered, that
although the Mandate for Palestine is also of the greatest importance for asserting these
rights, it is not the starting-point of Jewish sovereignty over all of Palestine. That
occurred on April 25, 1920, the exact date when Great Britain was appointed the Mandatory
and entrusted with a Mandate to implement the Balfour Declaration for the benefit of the
Jewish People, who were defined as World Jewry, rather than the Jews of Palestine. It was
then that Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant became intertwined and integrated
with the Balfour Declaration which together devolved sovereignty over Palestine to the
Jewish People to reconstruct the Jewish National Home.
This
constituted official recognition under international law of Jewish legal rights and title
to all of Palestine, which has never since been altered by any other binding act or
instrument of international law that has also met the test of legality.
In
this regard, it is worthwhile to assess the claim that Jewish legal rights and title to
the whole country including Judea, Samaria and Gaza, ceased to have effect with the end of
the Mandate for Palestine. This claim is wrong not only for the reason that the U.N.
Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947 failed to be accepted at the relevant time by
the concerned Arab parties, including the local Arab inhabitants, and was in any case only
a recommendation that was not self-executing. There is a more fundamental reason why
Jewish legal rights and title over all of Palestine continued after the end of Mandate
which relates to the doctrine of estoppel, which applies both in international law
as well as in the municipal or internal laws of nations. This doctrine affects three
distinct groups or parties. First, all the members of the League of Nations, over fifty in
number are debarred by virtue of this doctrine from denying what they had previously
assented to, at the time the Mandate for Palestine was confirmed by the League, i.e., that
the country in its entirety including Judea, Samaria and Gaza was exclusively reserved for
the Jewish People for the purpose of setting up its national home or state.
Second,
the doctrine of estoppel also applies with even greater force to the United States,
which had specifically accepted all the terms of the Mandate for Palestine in a treaty it
signed with Great Britain on December 3, 1924. The ratification of this treaty by the U.S.
Senate had the additional legal effect of making the Mandate for Palestine and the Balfour
Declaration which was its breath and essence, part of the domestic law of the country.
This is a fact of enormous importance, which has been conveniently forgotten today by the
American Government that wrongly calls legally established Jewish settlements in Judea,
Samaria and Gaza, "obstacles to peace”, and whose expansion it considers “inflammatory
and provocative”. By its previous approval of the treaty, the U.S. is estopped from
denouncing or taking any action against Jewish settlement activity in the Land of Israel.
Finally,
the doctrine of estoppel applies with equal validity to all Arab states whose own
creation under international law derived from the very same global settlement made by the
Principal Allied Powers at San Remo and Sevres which led to the establishment of the
Jewish State. The Arabs cannot gleefully accept national rights accorded them under this
settlement while at the same time denying them to the Jewish People. By doing this, they
are engaging in blind and willful disobedience of international law, which is also plainly
irrational.
One
additional note related to this matter is that it is unnecessary to base the continuation
of Jewish legal rights and title to all of former Palestine on Article 80 of the U.N.
Charter. This provision was designed as a stopgap measure until the new trusteeship system
set up by the Charter could replace the Mandates System and take full effect. However,
once the Jewish State came into existence, Article 80 ceased to apply to Palestine, since
the country could no longer be placed under the trusteeship system by means of a
trusteeship agreement.
Unfortunately
what was clearly established in regard to Jewish legal rights and title to all of
Palestine under international law both by the San Remo Decision on Palestine and the
Mandate for Palestine became almost immediately obscured and undermined by new events and
developments. This process began with the overthrow of the Turkish Sultanate by
revolutionary armed forces led by Mustafa Kemal, later called Kemal Ataturk.
After
taking complete control of the Turkish Government, Ataturk refused to accede to the loss
of any Turkish territories in Anatolia, as provided in the Treaty of Sevres. These
territories included Greek-speaking Smyrna and its surroundings, Cilicia or Little Armenia
and the Kurdish-inhabited parts of South-Eastern Anatolia. His sweeping military triumphs
forced the scrapping of the Treaty of Sevres which was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne
on July 24, 1923, ratified a year later on August 6, 1924. This development did not
directly affect the San Remo Decision on Palestine nor the status of the newly emergent
countries detached from the Ottoman Empire that became Arab states. The damage done was of
another order.
The
various provisions of the Treaty of Sevres which had clearly set out the new legal
structure for Palestine and that of Syria and Mesopotamia in an unambiguous way were not
repeated in the Treaty of Lausanne, but simply omitted altogether, replaced by a vague
clause (Article 16), which referred to the future of territories “being settled or to be
settled by the parties concerned” among which was Palestine, over which Turkey again
renounced all rights and title, as it had done previously when the Sultan’s
representatives signed the Treaty of Sevres.
The
change in regime in Turkey clouded the legal picture for Palestine in particular since the
clear-cut provisions in the Treaty of Sevres which applied to it and left no doubt about
Jewish legal rights and title to Palestine and the all-important date of their inception
under international law stemming from the San Remo Decision were no longer there.
As
a result, many renowned jurists have wrongly maintained that Turkey only lost its
sovereignty over Palestine and the rest of the Fertile Crescent when it agreed to the
Treaty of Lausanne of 1923, though the Treaty of Versailles of 1919, also recognized by
Kemal’s Turkey, expressly rebuts that incorrect contention, as does the first recital in
the Preamble of the Mandate for Palestine as well as Turkey’s earlier acceptance of
Wilson’s Fourteen Points, delivered in an address to the U.S. Congress on Jan. 8, 1918,
one point of which dealt specifically with Turkey limiting its control to its own peoples.
In any event, the provisions of the Treaty of Sevres still have great evidentiary value
despite its non-ratification, to show what the Principal Allied Powers actually intended
to do or had in mind when they adopted the Balfour Declaration as the only basis of the
Mandate for Palestine.
The
changes produced by Ataturk’s rise to power were also accompanied by a sudden American
intervention in the involved process then underway to confirm all the new mandates that
were allotted to Mandatories under the Mandates System. The United States unexpectedly
insisted on receiving for itself as well as for its nationals the same rights and benefits
that were being given to all members of the League of Nations and their nationals, which
would have been granted to them in any event. This new demand unduly held up the pending
confirmation of the Mandate for Palestine that had already been submitted by Balfour on
behalf of the British Government to the Council of the League of Nations on December 7,
1920, and was on the verge of being acted upon.
The
American maneuver produced very deleterious effects for Jewish legal rights and title to
all of Palestine. Not only did it prevent the immediate confirmation of the Mandate for
Palestine by the Council of the League of Nations, but, more importantly, the irritating
delay gave more time to the British Government to play around with the provisions of the
Mandate for Palestine that had already gone through numerous drafts under the guiding hand
of the British Foreign Minister. The American Government never acknowledged the damage
their unnecessary demands caused the Jewish National Home, even if done unwittingly.
The
damage done soon became evident enough. Thanks to the unwelcome American intrusion, the
British deviously sneaked in a new provision into the Mandate, that of Article 25, using
as a lame excuse Abdullah’s threatened advance into Syria to protest his brother’s
eviction by the French, which had no chance of succeeding but amounted to mere bluster and
feigned action. This additional provision to the Mandate for Palestine provided for a
different administration of Transjordan from the rest of Palestine west of the Jordan
River that led over the course of time, by various illegal steps additionally taken by the
British to the complete loss of Transjordan from the Jewish National Home. The loss of
that territory, once considered absolutely essential even by Hayim Weizmann and Nahum
Sokolow for Palestine’s future economic prosperity, deprived Palestine of a great
reserve of land that was intended for Jewish
settlement and development, as in the olden days when Jewish life flourished there.
The
British engaged in other shady maneuvers and artifices whose combined effect was to
distort the true legal meaning of the Mandate for Palestine and put in doubt Jewish legal
rights and title to the whole country.
In
a research paper presented by the writer to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure in
the Shamir Government (1990-92), he detailed some of the methods or devices employed by
Britain to falsify the explicit provisions of the Mandate for Palestine that were meant to
secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home and hence the Jewish State.
However,
these methods or devices were so skillfully contrived and artfully executed, they fooled
most people at the time. And because they were also based on Zionist antecedents provided
by the likes of Nahum Sokolow and Asher Ginsberg and supported to a certain extent by the
statements of Hayim Weizmann himself, the British were able to get away with their brazen
undermining of the Jewish National Home until it became obvious what they had done. By
that time, it was already too late to do anything to reform the situation and execute the
Mandate according to its original true meaning. The
British methods or devices included the following acts of sabotage of the Jewish National
Home:
Changing
the meaning of the words “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the
Jewish People” to connote not the establishment of an independent Jewish State, but
rather a cultural or spiritual center, as earlier advocated by both Ahad Ha’Am and Nahum
Sokolow.
Misrepresenting
the Mandatory’s solemn obligations under the Mandate to include not only obligations in
favour of the Jewish People, but also undertakings of equal weight designed to satisfy
Arab aspirations for self-government in Palestine. In truth, there were no British
obligations towards “Arabs”, in a national or collective sense, which were contained
in the Mandate for Palestine, since their claims for nationhood had already been amply
satisfied in the neighboring countries. It is true that the Mandate contained a specific
provision making Arabic an official language, but since that was also done for English, it
can in no way be deduced that Arab national rights were recognized under that provision
alone.
Introducing
the illegal principle of partition into the Mandate Agreement, which was expressly
forbidden by Article 5 of the text of the Mandate. Here the British showed great
ingenuity, using all their brilliant grammatical skills to find a mother lode of new
meaning from the simple phrase “in Palestine”. They turned what was an innocuous
expression originally used by the Zionists in the Basel Program of 1897 into a weapon to
cut down the size of the Jewish National Home, which was always meant to cover the entire
territory comprising historical Palestine.
Administering
Palestine in such a way as to bring about the establishment of an independent Arab
Government for Palestine, which was, of course, the complete opposite of what was required
to be done under the Mandate’s provisions. This British policy of converting a Jewish
Palestine into an Arab Palestine reached its outrageous apex in the infamous White Paper
of May 17, 1939, presented by Colonial Secretary Malcolm Macdonald on behalf of the
British Government led by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. That constituted an
unrivaled act of diabolical treachery that will be remembered for all time because it
prevented the rescue of millions of Jews trapped in the Holocaust who could have found
refuge in Palestine, had the British truly implemented the Mandate as they were legally
required to do.
Those
British figures who were chiefly responsible for tearing asunder the definitive peace
settlement reached at San Remo and Sevres and concomitantly with obfuscating Jewish legal
rights and title to all of Mandated Palestine are among the most revered personages in
British and Zionist history, specifically George Nathaniel Curzon, Herbert Samuel and
Winston Churchill.
Curzon
was a leading member in Prime Minister Lloyd George’s War Cabinet, who became Foreign
Secretary upon the retirement of Arthur James Balfour. He was placed in charge of
Palestine’s affairs during the critical formative years of the Mandate when it was in
the midst of being drafted. He displayed a very negative attitude to the task he was
assigned. He detested (and this is not too strong a word) the whole idea of creating a
Jewish State and did his utmost to weaken its legal basis and to slow it down. He was ably
aided by his officials who were much less hostile to Jewish aspirations, notable among
whom were Eric Forbes Adam, Robert Vansittart and Hubert Young. What Curzon managed to do
was to detrimentally change many of the original clear-cut provisions of the Mandate for
Palestine designed to secure its establishment as a Jewish State, which had already been
approved earlier by Balfour when he was in charge of overseeing the actual drafting of the
Mandate for Palestine.
Despite
Curzon’s best attempts to prevent a Jewish state from being seen as the real and most
important objective of the Mandate for Palestine, he did not fully succeed. That job was
left to two others, Herbert Samuel and Winston Churchill, who were put in charge of
Palestine’s affairs, when jurisdiction over colonies and mandated territories was taken
away from the Foreign Office and transferred to the Colonial Office early in 1921.
The
nefarious work begun by Curzon was ironically taken over and completed by the erstwhile
Zionist, Herbert Samuel, who just before his appointment as British High Commissioner in
Palestine worked closely with Hayim Weizmann in the Zionist Organization and helped to
prepare the Zionist proposals submitted to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Samuel’s
subsequent undermining of what was the true intent of the Mandate for Palestine was
recorded in the anti-Zionist “Churchill White Paper” of June 3, 1922, which he wrote
with the blessing and connivance of Winston Churchill, then the Secretary of State for the
Colonies, and which was accepted under ominous circumstances by the official Zionist
leadership just prior to its release.
It
was this White Paper of June 3, 1922 which was a turning point which caused all the future
difficulties in Palestine and wrecked the original plan for establishing an independent
Jewish State under British tutelage. The reason is simple enough. After publication of
this White Paper, all British Governments which followed over the years implemented not
the actual terms of the Mandate for Palestine but the interpretation or policy contained
in the White Paper as to what the British responsibility and role was to be under the
Mandate. The latter required a Jewish State, while the Churchill White Paper negated it,
despite Churchill’s false claim that such a state was not precluded, made fourteen years
later in his testimony before the Peel Royal Commission. His White Paper also elevated
Arab pretensions and aspirations to such an extent that everything thereafter became
muddled and unclear, subject to continuous disputes as to what was really intended by the
Mandate for Palestine.
The
British circumvention of the Mandate for Palestine continued apace during the entire
period of Mandatory rule, which lasted from July 1, 1920 to May 14, 1948.
The
question now arises in light of what occurred in the past just what Israel can do today to
rectify the British legacy of betrayal and the consequent widespread ignorance surrounding
Jewish legal rights and title to all of former Palestine. The answer is to first learn
what the rights granted to the Jewish People under international law were (i.e., under the
San Remo Decision adopting the Balfour Declaration on April 25, 1920 and its projected
implementation in the Mandate for Palestine), and then behold how true international law
was perverted and sabotaged by the British. This is extremely important because everyone
today cites “international law” in favour of a fictitious nation called the “Palestinians”
whose land is being “occupied” by the Jewish nation of Israel which is highly ironic
and even laughable in view of the fact that this land that is called “occupied” was
always meant under Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine to be “closely settled” not
by Gentile Arabs, but by the Jews of the world who would become Palestinian and then
Israeli Jews in the course of time. What true international law is on the subject is
neither discussed nor exposed nor really known by hardly anyone.
Next,
Israel must act according to what that law truly presupposes, namely a Jewish State in the
whole Land of Israel, including both sides of the Jordan. Present circumstances, of
course, do not allow for the fulfillment of all Jewish rights to our country, particularly
as regards those parts of Transjordan which comprise the Land of Israel such as Gilead and
Bashan, but we should never renounce those rights, which, lamentably, is exactly what has
been done, illegally of course, by all Governments of Israel since 1993.
|
|