WHY JUDEA AND SAMARIA?

BS”D

This article was originally developed as, and is available as, a PowerPoint presentation.

The theme of this article is that Judea and Samaria ARE the Heart of Israel, that as G-d’s gift to them, they belong to the people of Israel, and that Israeli sovereignty over them (and the Jordan Valley) only makes sense, both biblically, militarily, and even politically.

Each of us learned as children that the heart pumps the blood that maintains life in our human body.  Scripture relates to that, Leviticus 17:11.  The heart is also the conduit of love as commanded in Deuteronomy 6:5.

The Left Anterior Descending artery of the human heart bears a striking graphical similarity to the Biblical artery of Israel, the Path of the Patriarchs, the very heart land of both Biblical and modern Israel.

As background, let us remember a bit of orientation about the current Land of Israel.  Some of her enemies lie close by.  Others are farther away, e.g. Europe.  Some even in the United States.

A little geography of Israel. The Jordan Rift is a segment of the Great Rift, 6,000 km long, which runs from Beqaa Valley in Lebanon through the Dead Sea, the Red Sea, and into Africa. From Dan (in the North) to Beer Sheva (in the South). Shfela = Judean foothills.

Texas is 31 times the size of Israel. The narrowest distance of the currently sovereign land is 9 miles, from Tel Aviv is 11 miles. (Apologies for the term “West Bank” on the copied map.)

The heart of Israel has always been Judea and Samaria. They were the heartland; they are the heartland.  Even if neither modern Israel nor the rest of the world even considers them as part of Sovereign Israel. More on that momentarily.

How ironic! How ironic, that the very heartland of Biblical Israel is not part of Sovereign Israel today!

A larger map of the area. For orientation, note the Dead Sea. In red, then yellow, Avraham’s journeys from Ur of the Chaldees, to Haran, to Shechem, to Beer Sheva, to Egypt, to Beer Sheva. The path from Shechem to Beer Sheva is known as the Path of the Patriarchs. Genesis 12:6, 21:33 “Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem. Abraham planted a tamarisk tree at Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the L-rd, the Everlasting G-d.” Note Ur in current Iraq; again, note the size of Israel.

Abraham’s son Isaac also walked up and down the mountain ridge. You shall go into my country and to my kindred and take a wife for my son Isaac. Genesis 24:4 So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took . . . with him Isaac his son . . . and went to the place of which G-d had told him. 22:3 So Isaac lived in Gerar. 26:6 . . . as Rebekah approached with Abraham’s servant, Now Isaac had come from going to Beer-lahai-roi for he was living in the Negev. 24:62

Patriarch Jacob was also familiar with the mountain ridge known as the Path of the Patriarchs. Now therefore, my son, obey my voice, and arise, flee to Haran, to my brother Laban! Genesis 27:43 Then Jacob departed from Beersheba and went toward Haran. 28:10 He came to a certain place . . . and he had a dream . . . and he called the name of that place Bethel . . . the name of the city had been Luz.28:11, 12, 19 then [Laban] took his kinsmen with him and pursued him a distance of seven days’ journey, and he overtook him in the hill country of Gilead. Genesis 31:23, 25 So Israel set out . . . and came to Beersheva . . . G-d spoke to Israel . . . And said “I will go down with you to Egypt.” 46:1 – 4

Weighty evidence that Judea and Samaria have been the heartland of the Jewish People for near 4,000 years.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Rachel, Joseph, . . . Patriarchs and Matriarchs. were up and down throughout the heartland of Israel.  Now Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem.Gen 33:18  Then the whole congregation of the sons of Israel assembled at Shiloh, and set up the tent of meeting there. Joshua 18:1 Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, to the oak of Moreh12:6 Take now your son, . . . Isaac, and go to . . . Moriah. 22:2 . . . far as Bethel, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning 13:3 . . . the cave of Machpelah 23:19 So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem). 35:19 Abraham planted a tamarisk tree at Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the L-rd, the Everlasting G-d.  21:33

Note the obvious similarity between the Path of the Patriarchs and Highway 60 today.  Both running through the center of Judea and Samaria.

Portions of the Path of the Patriarchs are open to foot traffic today. Other portions of the Path of the Patriarchs are covered with asphalt.  Others are covered by dwellings and villages, and Jerusalem.

The so-called West Bank is up to 75 km wide. Does it make sense to call a mountain range the bank of a river? 75 km wide?

So clearly, G-d spoke to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob and to Joshua giving (not promising) the land to the sons of Israel. Genesis 13:14; 26:24; 35:12; Joshua 1:1

How many times must God prove himself to be true before man will believe him?
Deuteronomy 1:30

Repeating, how many times must G-d prove himself to be true before man will believe him?

In 1993 and 1995, Israeli administrators signed the “Oslo accords” which abrogated G-d’s multiple statements that the land belongs to the sons of Israel. The Oslo Accords created the PLO, whose functions are the limited self-governance over parts of the so-called West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza; and, it acknowledged that the PLO is now Israel’s partner in permanent status negotiations about the remaining issues.

One of the messes resulting from the Oslo Accords, agreed to by the Israeli Civil Administration.  Judea and Samaria are divided into a mishmash of territories, into what I call the chicken pox map.

Area A is off limits to Israeli citizens, within the areas given to us by G-d our Creator!

Now for a bit of recent history.

“The right of the People of Israel to the Land of Israel was recognized by the League of Nations in 1921 with the end of the First World War. This international organization determined the partition of states that was necessitated as a result of the changes in the Ottoman Empire and in Europe. Within the framework of this assemblage it recognized the right of the People of Israel to the Land of Israel.” This recognition was achieved with the international adoption of the Balfour Declaration, which, until then, had only been accepted by the British government and from this moment on, became accepted by all of the nations. “This decision was unanimously taken in San Remo by all of the 52 countries that were members of this organization”.

“After the People of Israel had been in exile for so many years, its right was recognized to return to its Land. The practical translation of this recognition of the right of the Jewish People to its land was expressed in the text of the British Mandate for the Land of Israel, within which framework, Britain was named to be the executor of the plan to establish a national home for the People of Israel,” Shochetman explains.

The way to implement this international decision was to add to it several clauses, which also dealt with increasing Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel, the Jewish People being a small minority in the Land, faced with an absolute Arab majority. “In addition to this, in order to assure that the government of Britain would indeed carry out this plan, a specific clause was defined in the text of the Mandate in which it was stated that the government of Britain was forbidden from transferring any of the territory of the Land of Israel to a foreign sovereignty.

“This decision did not differentiate between the western part of the Land of Israel and the eastern part. Actually, every necessary step was taken in the framework of the text of the Mandate to assure the establishment of a national home for the Jewish People in the Land of Israel.

Britain governed Palestine and Jordan from 1922 – 1948. Then the state of Israel began.

The very next day, the fledgling nation was attacked by all 5 of her neighbors, threatening to destroy her.

After cease-fire agreements with other Arab armies, the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement was signed on April 3, 1949.

The territorial result:

• The border with Egypt was restored to its previous line, with the exception of the Gaza Strip where Egypt continued in control.
• The border with Lebanon was restored to its previous line.
• The border with Syria was restored to its previous line.
• Jordan retained control of the hill country, Judea and Samaria.
• Jordan controlled the Old City of Jerusalem.
• The “1949 Armistice Line” has become known as the “Green Line”

The Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement was abrogated by Israel on 5 June 1967.  Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields following the mobilization of Egyptian forces along the Israeli border in the Sinai Peninsula. Syria and Jordan joined in.

Tremendously successful, by 10 June Israel had taken control of Sinai, Gaza, Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria.

The Yom Kippur War, Ramadan War, or October War (מלחמת יום כיפור  MilẖemetYom Kipur), also known as the 1973 Arab–Israeli War, was a war fought by the coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria against Israel from October 6 to 25, 1973. With the exception of isolated attacks on Israeli territory on 6 and 9 October, the military combat actions during the war took place on Arab territory, mostly in the Sinai and the Golan Heights. Egypt’s stated goal for the war was the expelling of the Israeli forces occupying Sinai.

The 1978 Camp David Accords that followed led to the return of the Sinai to Egypt and normalized relations—the first peaceful recognition of Israel by an Arab country.

Three major wars by the new nation: 1948 (Independence), 1967 (6-day), 1973 (Yom Kippur).  Many historians believe Israel decided it would never dominate the Arab nations; Egypt decided its army could not defeat the Israelis, so both agreed to sign peace treaty 1979 – Begin, Sadat, Carter.

Life is a series of questions.  What do I wear today?  Do I date that girl?  Is it time to get up?  Do I fight or run?

Military & political leaders must also make decisions.

So, let me ask you a simple, basic question.

What nation in history has taken an area militarily, and not declared sovereignty over it?

• US, UK, USSR > Germany. But they relinquished control to sovereignty of both states (1955) and to a reunified Germany. (1990)
• US > Japan. But we rebuilt their economy and ended occupation (1952), yielding to Japan’s independence.

Does the current map of Israel make sense when, The L-rd said to Abram. . . “Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward; for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever.. . . Arise, walk about the land through its length and breadth; for I will give it to you.”

Does this make sense when G-d said, “The land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, I will give it to you [Jacob], and I will give the land to your descendants after you.”

Does this make sense when . . . the L-rd spoke to Joshua . . . saying, “ . . . Cross . . . to the land which I am giving to them, to the sons of Israel. Every place on which the sole of your foot treads, I have given it to you . . . From the wilderness and this Lebanon, even as far as the great river, . . . and as far as the Great Sea. . . will be your territory. No man will be able to stand before you all the days of your life. . . . I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you. Be strong and courageous, for you shall give this people possession of the land which I swore to their fathers to give them.

Yitzhak Rabin, Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat

Again, does this make sense?

No, but in the Oslo accords 13 Sept 1993:

• PLO recognized Israel
• PLO relinquished all forms of terror
• Israel recognized PLO as representing Palestinian people
• Democratic elections for P Legislative Council agreed
• Accords to be a precursor to final peace agreement
• So-called West Bank divided into 3 zones
• Hevron was left an exception
• Because of large Jewish community
• January 1997
• Security part Israeli; part Palestinian

Camp David Summit July 2000 failed to reach so-called permanent agreement.

Next question.  If the mix of Areas A, B and C do not make sense, what does?

Why should Israel not declare sovereignty over Judea and Samaria?

Those who say notoffer these “reasons,” or excuses, why Israel should not declare sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.

But not everyone!
Zionism: A social, political and religious movement among Jews and Jewish culture which holds that the Jews are a nation, and as such need to establish and maintain a national homeland in the territory defined as the historic and biblical Land of Israel.

Zionists find many reasons to respect, but not to fear failure, to respect, but not to fear the United States, to respect, but not to fear world opinion, and to have confidence in the future and in our G-d.

Forgetting or neglecting the promises of HaShem, civil and political authorities “quake in their boots” and admit to fear of failure, fear of the United States, fear of world opinion, and fear of the unknown.  The Jokerman font of Yes is intended to connote trembling.

Israeli political and civil authorities have for years, until today, feared US and world opinion on declaring sovereignty in Judea and Samaria to the extent of destroying villages, homes and synagogues built even in Area C, some with and some without a building permit.  The spirit that HaShem commanded of Joshua is absent from their bones, their heart and their spirit.

The Civil Administration on Monday night (13 April 2015) evicted and demolished the Hazon David synagogue, located near Kiryat Arba.  Hazon David was built in 2001, in memory of David Hacohen and Chezi Muallem, who were killed by terrorists, and has been destroyed by the Civil Administration some 34 times, usually just before a visit by a U. S. representative trying to arm twist the Israeli government.

Like thieves in the night, armed with heavy equipment, the destruction contractor and a tight chain of policemen managed within two hours to leave the place as a heap of rubble.

Walls had been added after May 2011 photo; 18 April 2015 Shabbat worship in initial reconstruction.

Worshipers do not fear, are not dismayed, are strong and courageous, with dedication and tenacity.  They gathered to worship four days later as they began to rebuild.

But this time, the civil authorities prohibit rebuilding .  Note military troops standing guard.

The question all the world needs to ask, but doesn’t know how to ask.

Good question! Logical question! Being well answered by Women in Green.

Nadia Matar, Yehudit Katsover, Renee Lambert

My favorite organization in all of Israel is Women in Green. They are strong; they are courageous; they are very Biblical. They are rallying national leaders around the concept of Sovereignty.

For example of their efforts to encourage Sovereignty, 1 July 2014, “As a Zionist answer to the despicable murder of our three boys, a pioneering group of Jews headed by Women in Green went up to Givat Oz – a hilltop overlooking Tzomet HaGush – in order to create a new Jewish presence in the area. Since the beginning of Zionism, the land of Israel is sometimes built with blood and tears. The hill is adjacent to the historical community of Migdal Eder, which was dismantled in 1927, in a forest near to Bet Fajjar, on approved State land. The pioneers cleaned out an abandoned structure on the site and settled it, calling upon the government to immediately apply sovereignty,starting with Hevron and Gush Etzion. This call was made by the Women and Green, together with the Professors for a Strong Israel, headed by Aryeh Eldad and Matot Arim.

Four conferences have been addressed by Members of the Knesset, by rabbis, by administrative ministers, by lawyers, and by professors addressing the issues of Judea and Samaria, and Sovereignty. The central theme of the conferences, best stated by then Economy and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett (Bayit Yehudi), now Minister of Education:  “The central problem is the failure of the Israeli leadership to simply state that the land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel.”

As an outgrowth of the Sovereignty Conferences, Women in Green have developed a journal dedicated to the principle of sovereignty.  Five issues, the fifth just before the March 2015 elections, provide excellent and convincing background material to justify sovereignty.

 As an example of the Biblical comments published in the Journal, “Our teacher, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda ZT’’L, taught us that it is our right by inheritance, the right of the People of Israel for all its generations. That is why no Israeli government has the right to trade our land, which belongs to all the People of Israel, past, present and future.  The current Israeli governments are temporary and fleeting in comparison to the eternity of Israel and they do not have the authority to give up the eternal promise. ‘and to your descendants have I given this land.’ ” Rabbi Gideon Perl, Gush Etzion Regional Rabbi

Other Biblical comments are:

♦ “The essential reason for our presence in Judea and Samaria is not security, but rather the fact that we belong to this place by merit of the biblical promise of thousands of years …” MK Naftali Bennett
♦ “Application of Sovereignty is a Positive Command-ment.”  Rav Haim Druckman
♦ “The Right and the Left can be unified in striving toward sovereignty that will benefit the residents, Jews and Arabs.” Eran Bar-Tal

And “The application of sovereignty must be done with consideration and respect for the residents there. The Arabs of the area will be able to integrate into the life of the country and live well, if only they would recognize the fact that it is a Jewish state. If national identity is more important to any one of them, he would need to find a different country, just as Jews in the countries of the world do not aspire to establish a Jewish state within the United States, Canada or any other place.” Eran Bar-Tal

Legal opinions expressed in the Journal include:

♦ “Occupied Territories? There is no historical or legal basis for that.” Alan Baker
♦ “There Already Exists a Palestinian State – in Jordan.” Former MK Prof. Arie Eldad, M.D
♦ “Israel has implemented the Israeli ‘One-State’ Plan twice – in Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. And both experiences were successful.” Caroline Glick
♦ “The Jerusalem Law forbids the transfer of sovereignty in Jerusalem into foreign hands, but this is what is happening in practice.” Aryeh King
♦ “International law is on our side.” Prof Eliav Shochetman

And from economic considerations:

♦ “The application of Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria carries enormous economic implications, to which both the Left and the Right can relate.
♦ Unfreezing the building and opening the market for building, according to ordinary demand, will bring tens of billions of shekels into the state’s coffers.
♦ If we look at the issue purely from an economic point of view, we will understand that we are obligated by the reality to apply sovereignty – it is the only solution that will grant a better quality of life to the Arabs and the Jews alike.” Eran Bar-Tal

From a nationalist viewpoint come strong statements, e.g.
♦ “Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria will end an ongoing injustice.”
♦ “The Leftist vision is not the only one.”
♦ “Demography works in our favor.”  Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger
♦ “The 25-year Gradual Plan-’Annexation – Naturali-zation.’ ”  MK Hotolevy
♦ “The world has no respect for the weak and for those who make concessions, but it respects those who have self respect.”  MK Bennet
♦ “There is no people in the world that would surrender their homeland.” MK Ofir Akunis

From a diplomatic standpoint,
♦ “Explaining the Right’s alternative to the world.”  Caroline Glick
♦ “Millions of people understand that the ‘Two-State‘ solution is a disaster.  They are just waiting for someone to tell them that they can abandon it.”  Caroline Glick
♦ “The world will not recognize our declaration? It did not recognize previous declarations either.” MK Bennet
♦ “The changes that have been taking place in the Middle East lead to the sober conclusion – a Palestinian state would be a disaster.”  Dr Guy Bechor

And regarding the United States,
♦ “If we do not say these things, do not expect members of Congress to say them.” D Dayan
♦ “The world is beginning to become interested in an alternative on the Right.” MK Yoel Edelstein, Fmr Head of Knesset
♦ “We do not need to change direction because of some dependence or other on a friend like the United States.”  Prof Moshe Arens
♦ “In discussions with members of the American Congress it is absolutely clear to them and they ask us why our government does not say these simple things.” Gershon Mesika, head of the Samaria Council

A major goal of Rabbis, of thinking MK’s, of Zionists, and of Bible believers: Reclaim, redeem the Land that HaShem gave to us.  What a mitzvah to redeem the Heart of Israel!

Put in practical language, to redeem the Land that HaShem gave to us is to erase the Green Line, so that Eretz Israel extends from the Great Sea to the Jordan River, so that Judea and Samaria (and the Jordan Valley) are fully a part of the nation of Israel.

Each of us can help.  How?

• Love Eretz Israel!
• “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.” Psalm 122
• Visit our brothers and sisters!
• Visit Samaria!  Visit Gush Etzion!
• Be a mensch!
• Speak up for Israel!
• Buy Israeli products!
• Visit LoveIsrael.World!

MODERN SOURCES OF ISRAEL’S INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS IN JERUSALEM

Jerusalem, in short, has been the focal point of the idea of Jewish national self-determination. Ernst Frankenstein, a British-based authority on international law in the inter-war period, made the case for arguing the legal rights of the Jewish people to restore their homeland by stating that they never relinquished title to their land after the Roman conquests. For that to have happened, the Romans and their Byzantine successors would have had to be in “continuous and undisturbed possession” of the land with no claims being voiced. Yet Jewish resistance movements continued for centuries, most of which were aimed at liberating Jerusalem.2

From the standpoint of international law, the fact that the Jewish people never renounced their historic connection to their ancestral homeland provided the basis for their assertion of their historical rights.3 This came to be understood by those who wrote about the Jewish legal claim to the Land of Israel, as a whole. In the Blackstone Memorial, which was signed by Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Melville Fuller, university presidents, and members of Congress before it was submitted to President Benjamin Harrison in 1891, Palestine is characterized as “an inalienable possession” of the Jewish people “from which they were expelled by force.”4 In short, they did not voluntarily abandon their land or forget their rights. is was most fervently expressed through centuries of lamentation for Jerusalem’s destruction and their constant prayer for its restoration.
Jerusalem was the focal point for the historical connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel.

That is why it is essential to understand Israel’s rights in Jerusalem, as they were known once before.
That is also why it is necessary to identify the arguments that have been employed in recent years with the aim of eroding those rights, and the conviction that once underpinned them, in order to protect Jerusalem for future generations. In addition to the historical rights of the Jewish people to Jerusalem that were voiced in the nineteenth century, and were just brie y reviewed, there is a whole new layer of legal rights that Israel acquired in modern times that need to be fully elaborated upon.

MODERN SOURCES OF ISRAEL’S INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS IN JERUSALEM

In 1970, three years after the 1967 Six-Day War, an article appearing in the most prestigious international legal periodical, The American Journal of International Law, touched directly on the question of Israel’s rights in Jerusalem.5 It became a critical reference point for Israeli ambassadors speaking at the UN in the immediate decades that followed and also found its way into their speeches. The article was written by an important, but not yet well-known, legal scholar named Stephen Schwebel. In the years that followed, Schwebel’s stature would grow immensely with his appointment as the legal advisor of the U.S. Department of State, and then finally when he became the President of the International Court of Justice in the Hague. In retrospect, his legal opinions mattered and were worth considering very carefully.

Schwebel wrote his article, which was entitled “What Weight to Conquest,” in response to a statement by then Secretary of State William Rogers that Israel was only entitled to “insubstantial alterations” in the pre-1967 lines. The Nixon administration had also hardened U.S. policy on Jerusalem as reacted in its statements and voting patterns in the UN Security Council. Schwebel strongly disagreed with this approach: he wrote that the pre-war lines were not sacrosanct, for the 1967 lines were not an international border. Formally, they were only armistice lines from 1949. As he noted, the armistice agreement itself did not preclude the territorial claims of the parties beyond those lines. Significantly, he explained that when territories are captured in a war, the circumstances surrounding the outbreak of the conflict directly affect the legal rights of the two sides, upon its termination.

Two facts from 1967 stood out that influenced his thinking:

First, Israel had acted in the Six-Day War in the lawful exercise of its right of self-defense. Those familiar with the events that led to its outbreak recall that Egypt was the party responsible for the initiation of hostilities, through a series of steps that included the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and the proclamation of a blockade on Eilat, an act that Foreign Minister Abba Eban would characterize as the ring of the first shot of the war. Along Israel’s eastern front, Jordan’s artillery had opened fire and re-pounding civilian neighborhoods in Jerusalem, despite repeated warnings issued by Israel.

Given this background, Israel had not captured territory as a result of aggression, but rather because it had come under armed attack. In fact, the Soviet Union had tried to have Israel labeled as the aggressor in the UN Security Council on June 14, 1967, and then in the UN General Assembly on July 4, 1967. But Moscow completely failed. At the Security Council it was outvoted 11-4. Meanwhile at the General Assembly, 88 states voted against or abstained on the first vote of a proposed Soviet draft (only 32 states supported it). It was patently clear to the majority of UN members that Israel had waged a defensive war.6

A second element in Schwebel’s thinking was the fact Jordan’s claim to legal title over the territories it had lost to Israel in the Six-Day War was very problematic. The Jordanian invasion of the West Bank – and Jerusalem – nineteen years earlier in 1948 had been unlawful. As a result, Jordan did not gain legal rights in the years that followed, given the legal principle, that Schwebel stressed, according to which no right can be born of an unlawful act (ex injuria jus non oritur). It should not have come as a surprise that Jordan’s claim to sovereignty over the West Bank was not recognized by anyone, except for Pakistan and Britain. Even the British would not recognize the Jordanian claim in Jerusalem itself.

Thus, by comparing Jordan’s illegal invasion of the West Bank to Israel’s legal exercise of its right of self-defense, Schwebel concluded that “Israel has better title” in the territory of what once was the Palestine Mandate than either of the Arab states with which it had been at war. He specifically stated that Israel had better legal title to “the whole of Jerusalem.”

Schwebel makes reference to UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 22, 1967, which over the years would become the main source for all of Israel’s peace e orts, from the 1979 Egyptian Israeli Treaty of Peace to the 1993 Oslo Accords. In its famous withdrawal clause, Resolution 242 did not call for a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the territories it captured in the Six-Day War. ere was no e ort to re-establish the status quo ante, which, as noted earlier, was the product of a previous act of aggression by Arab armies in 1948.

As the U.S. ambassador to the UN in 1967, Arthur Goldberg, pointed out in 1980, Resolution 242 did not even mention Jerusalem “and this omission was deliberate.” Goldberg made the point, reacting the policy of the Johnson administration for whom he served, that he never described Jerusalem as “occupied territory,” though this changed under President Nixon.7 What Goldberg wrote about Resolution 242 had added weight, given the fact that he previously had served as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Indeed, among the leading jurists in international law and diplomacy, Schwebel was clearly not alone. He was joined by Julius Stone, the great Australian legal scholar, who reached the same conclusions. He added that UN General Assembly Resolution 181 from 1947 (also known as the Partition Plan) did not undermine Israel’s subsequent claims in Jerusalem. True, Resolution 181 envisioned that Jerusalem and its environs would become a corpus separatum, or a separate international entity. But Resolution 181 was only a recommendation of the General Assembly. It was rejected by the Arab states forcibly, who invaded the nascent State of Israel in 1948.

Ultimately, the UN’s corpus separatum never came into being in any case. The UN did not protect the Jewish population of Jerusalem from invading Arab armies. Given this history, it was not surprising that Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, announced on December 3, 1949, that Revolution 181’s references to Jerusalem were “null and void,” thereby anticipating Stone’s legal analysis years later.8

There was also Prof. Elihu Lauterpacht of Cambridge University, who for a time served as legal advisor of Australia and as a judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Lauterpacht argued that Israel’s reunification of Jerusalem in 1967 was legally valid. 9 He explained that the last state which had sovereignty over Jerusalem was the Ottoman Empire, which ruled it from 1517 to 1917.

After the First World War, the Ottoman Empire formally renounced its sovereignty over Jerusalem as well as all its former territories south of what became modern Turkey in the Treaty of Sevres from 1920. is renunciation was confirmed by the Turkish Republic as well in the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923. According to Lauterpacht, the rights of sovereignty in Jerusalem were vested with the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, which transferred them to the League of Nations.

But with the dissolution of the League of Nations, the British withdrawal from Mandatory Palestine, and the failure of the UN to create a corpus separatum or a special international regime for Jerusalem, as had been intended according to the 1947 Partition Plan, Lauterpacht concluded that sovereignty had been put in suspense or in abeyance. In other words, by 1948 there was what he called “a vacancy of sovereignty” in Jerusalem.

It might be asked if the acceptance by the pre-state Jewish Agency of Resolution 181 constituted a conscious renunciation of Jewish claims to Jerusalem back in 1947. However, according to the resolution, the duration of the special international regime for Jerusalem would be “in the first instance for a period of ten years.” The resolution envisioned a referendum of the residents of the city at that point in which they would express “their wishes as to possible modifications of the regime of the city.”10 The Jewish leadership interpreted the corpus separatum as an interim arrangement that could be replaced. They believed that Jewish residents could opt for citizenship in the Jewish state in the meantime. Moreover, they hoped that the referendum would lead to the corpus seperatum being joined to the State of Israel after ten years. 11

Who then could acquire sovereign rights in Jerusalem given the “vacancy of sovereignty” that Lauterpacht described? Certainly, the UN could not assume a role, given what happened to Resolution 181. Lauterpacht’s answer was that Israel filled “the vacancy in sovereignty” in areas where the Israel Defense Forces had to operate in order to save Jerusalem’s Jewish population from destruction or ethnic cleansing. The same principle applied again in 1967, when Jordanian forces opened fire on Israeli neighborhoods and the Israel Defense Forces entered the eastern parts of Jerusalem, including its Old City, in self-defense.

A fourth legal authority to contribute to this debate over the legal rights of Israel was Prof. Eugene Rostow, the former dean of Yale Law School and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson administration. Rostow’s point of departure for analyzing the issue of Israel’s rights was that the Mandate for Palestine, which specifically referred to “the historic connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” providing “the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

These rights applied to Jerusalem as well, for the Mandate did not separate Jerusalem from the other territory that was to become part of the Jewish national home.

Rostow contrasts the other League of Nations mandates with the mandate for Palestine. Whereas the mandates for Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon served as trusts for the indigenous populations, the language of the Palestine Mandate was entirely different. It supported the national rights of the Jewish people while protecting only the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities in British Mandatory Palestine.12 It should be added that the Palestine Mandate was a legal instrument in the form of a binding international treaty between the League of Nations, on the one hand, and Britain as the mandatory power, on the other.

Rostow argued that the mandate was not terminated in 1947. He explained that Jewish legal rights to a national home in this territory, which were embedded in British Mandatory Palestine, survived the dissolution of the League of Nations and were preserved by the United Nations in Article 80 of the UN Charter.13 Clearly, after considering Rostow’s arguments, Israel was well-positioned to assert its rights in Jerusalem and fill “the vacancy of sovereignty” that Lauterpacht had described.

19th Century Paintings of Jerusalem Found in the Ottoman Imperial Archives

19th Century Paintings of Jerusalem Found in the Ottoman Imperial Archives Posted: 05 Sep 2016 10:42 PM PDT We pay tribute again to archivists and librarians who digitize their historical treasures. Pictures of these two paintings were found in the Ottoman Archives. The first painting is by German artist Johann Martin Bernatz (1802-1878) who traveled in the Holy Land in 1836. Jews Praying at the Wailing Wall by Johann Martin Bernatz. The Ottoman Archives provided a date of 1868. (Author's digital photograph collection) The second painting is by another German artist, Gustav Bauernfeind (1848-1904).  Jews Praying at the Wailing Wall by Gustav Bauernfeind. The Ottoman Archives provides a date of 1888. (Author's digital photograph collection) Bauernfeind moved to Jerusalem in 1898. He is buried in the German Templar Cemetery in Jerusalem. In 2007, his oil painting of the Wailing Wall sold for 4.5 million Euros at Sotheby. Israel's History - a Picture a Day (Beta) Jordan River Water Was Shipped to the U.S. in 1906 and May Have Flushed an Anti-Semitic U.S. Diplomat Out of His Job Posted: 06 Sep 2016 01:06 PM PDT The International River Jordan Water Company was launched by Col. Clifford E. Naudaud of Covington, Kentucky, in 1906.  He secured "the sole right of shipping the water of the Jordan River from the banks of the stream in Palestine to all parts of the world for baptismal and other purposes," according to a Kentucky newspaper, The Bee, published in Earlington, KY.  The water was "shipped in casks bearing the seals of the Turkish Government and the American Consul," according toThe Bee. "The water will be bottled in the United States in bonded warehouses." The American Consul granting his seal for the commercial venture may have cost the veteran diplomat his job. His departure was a blessing for the Jews of Palestine. The Consul-General was undoubtedly the nastiest anti-Semite to ever hold that post. Details on the U.S. diplomat and his legacy in the American foreign service are discussed in the forthcoming book, American Interests in the Holy Land Revealed in Early Photographs.  Order it here now. Who Was the 19th Century American Preacher Mendenhall John Dennis? Actually, He Was a Jerusalem Watchmaker Named Mendel Deniss, Jerusalem's First Photographer Posted: 02 Sep 2016 07:18 AM PDT Mendenhall John Dennis in the center surrounded by his family in 1885. After 1860 he lived in Ohio, Massachusetts and Washington. Before 1860 he was Mendel Diness of Jerusalem  (With permission of Special Collections, Fine Arts Library, Harvard University) In 1988, John Barnier visited a garage sale in St. Paul, Minnesota.  There he found and purchased eight boxes of old photographic glass plates.  Fortunately, Barnier is an expert in the history of photographic printing. He had little idea that he had uncovered a historic treasure. Later, he viewed the plates and saw that they included old pictures of Jerusalem.  He contacted the Harvard Semitic Museum in Cambridge, Massachusetts, known for its large collection of old photographs from the Middle East. On some of the plates they found the initials MJD. Until then the name Mendel Diness was barely known by scholars.  It was assumed that with the exception of one or two photos his collection .... Thank you for your interest in Mendel Diness. The full article is available in the forthcoming book.  Order it now here. Sift Through the Storied History of Ancient Israel Discover Israel’s most fascinating sites with our FREE eBook Israel. The very name means different things to different people. It is a geographic place: the ancient land of the Israelites as well as a modern Mediterranean nation. It is a people: practitioners of Judaism who see themselves as descended from Biblical Jacob. It is a hot-button political topic, a homeland, a vacation destination and—perhaps most significantly—it is the place where three of the world’s major religions converge, creating a palimpsest of history that is one of the richest and most complex in the world. Our FREE eBook Israel: An Archaeological Journey examines key archaeological sites from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament eras in Israel. Archaeological discoveries shed light on places of sorrow and joy, from Roman prisons to seaside entertainment districts. Explore the religion and history of ancient Israel from the Babylonian destruction through the New Testament era in this collection of articles from Biblical Archaeology Review. Israel: An Archaeological Journeyprovides a close look at life and religion at the heart of the Holy Land. We are delighted to offer you this journey into archaeology, Israel and the Biblical world. Download Israel: An Archaeological Journey today » E6C902