April 24-25 of this year was the 90th anniversary of the San Remo Conference which took place in 1920 and established the right of the Jews of Israel to settle (hear that? SETTLE) anywhere in the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
A statement issued following the commemoration ceremony included the following declarations:
“Emphasizing that the San Remo Resolution of 1920 recognized the exclusive national Jewish rights to the Land of Israel under international law, on the strength of the historical connection of the Jewish people to the territory previously known as Palestine.
“Recalling that such a seminal event as the San Remo Conference of 1920 has been forgotten or ignored by the community of nations, and that the rights it conferred upon the Jewish people have been unlawfully dismissed, curtailed and denied.
“Asserting that a just and lasting peace, leading to the acceptance of secure and recognized borders between all States in the region, can only be achieved by recognizing the long established rights of the Jewish people under international law.”
I have observed that both individuals and nations possess the faculty of “selective memory.” I will bet a pound to a penny that every Israel-bashing individual who claims that by possessing and settling Yehudah and Shomron Israel is violating “international law” is unaware that the San Remo Conference’s agreement has never been legally superseded, and that despite the current UN’s — and President Obama’s — unwillingness to recognize the Jewish people’s ancient claim to this land, the entire League of Nations, on 22 July 1922 declared, “Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”
Those in the world so deeply concerned with international law (who, I would add, are NEVER able to cite me the laws that Israel is allegedly breaking) would do well to learn one or two of them.
(And also take note of the map above: “Palestine,” yes. Green Line? No. From the Jordan to the Mediterranean: “Area Remaining for Jewish National Home.”)
Shimshonit 
I had never heard of this conference. Thanks for pointing it out.
1) I was looking for the text of the “San Remo Resolution”, but I could not find it. Could you help me? All I could find was the “San Remo Convention” as displayed here. Is this the document you meant? Or is there a separate resolution and where can it be found?
2) “who, I would add, are NEVER able to cite me the laws that Israel is allegedly breaking)”
Well, here is one example:
4th Geneva convention, article 49, last line: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
The settling of civilians in occupied territories is forbidden according to the Geneva convention.
3) Did you also read this passage?
“The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour 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, ”
4) Well, the truth is that you completely agree with the fundamentalist palestinians. They also want just one state. My proposition: Make it one state for everyone, grant everyone (including palestinian refugees and their descendents) voting rights, and let there be democracy.
5) Oh, and stop this fighting and shooting around and blowing each other up.
Ilana-Davita: My pleasure.
fille: I took the liberty of combining your four comments into one. It makes it easier to respond to them.
1) Looks like you found it without my help. Well done.
2) Despite the media’s and Arabs’ fondness for the word “occupation,” Israel does not “occupy” Yehudah and Shomron. It won them in a fair fight. Before that, Jordan occupied them after the war in 1948, an occupation that was never recognized, even by your beloved UN. And before that, the Arabs refused the Partition Plan (also proposed by the UN), so they didn’t have it either. And before that the British, who wouldn’t take this place back if you offered it smothered in baluga caviar. So forget “occupation.” It’s the wrong word.
3) Arabs have full religious and civil rights in Israel. It’s in our declaration of independence, and it’s enforced as much as possible, given the fact that it’s usually Arabs (including those with Israeli citizenship) who are trying to kill innocent civilians.
4) I do not agree with Arabs who want a single state. Anyone with half a brain can see that a single, democratic state would become an Arab, Muslim state in a couple of generations. We have enough of those already. It’s not in the Jews’ interest, and it’s not in yours (unless you enjoy seeing Jews persecuted, humiliated, and murdered–which a surprising number of liberal-minded people seem to do, actually).
5) Yes, MA’AM! Can I go out and play now?
1) No. I found a CONVENTION. You spoke about a RESOLUTION. That’s something else.
So do you call the San Remo convention San Remo resolution or is there a separate paper called San Remo Resolution that I could not find?
4)”I do not agree with Arabs who want a single state. Anyone with half a brain can see that a single, democratic state would become an Arab, Muslim state in a couple of generations. ”
Well, then, what exactely is your concept?
fille: The convention resulted in a binding statement. If you don’t like the word “resolution” (which I admit sounds too much like something the UN would pull out of the air), then come up with your own word.
And my idea is that if the Arabs are ever prepared to accept a Jewish state in the Middle East (I stress IF, because right now very few of them are, and no governments except Jordan and Egypt even pretend to be), to grant them a small land gift (as small as Gaza, or as large as part of Yehudah/Shomron, not including any settlements) in which to establish a state. If they want theirs with no Jews, we get to transfer all our Arabs to the Arab state. Simple. But as of now, unreachable until Arab schools and Muslim clergy stop teaching and preaching Jew-hatred, and the cult of death embodied by Hamas and Hizbullah is destroyed. A few more things would have to happen, too, but those things would be a significant start.
A convention is an agreement between two parties.
A resolution is a one-sided declration.
But this is not reason why I asked the question. I just wanted to make sure that the “San remo convention” is indeed the document you are referring to.
As far as I can see, the San Remo Convention does not “recognize the exclusive national Jewish rights to the Land of Israel under international law”
Nowhere did I find a reference stating that the jewish state should comprise the whole part of Palestine that runs from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river.
So I am a bit at a loss…
fille: Allow me to clarify.
According to Wikipedia’s page on the San Remo Conference, “The San Remo Resolution adopted on 25 April 1920 incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were the basic documents upon which the Mandate for Palestine was constructed.” The map above was the result of the British apportionment of land for Jews v. Arabs.
And the conference was represented by Britain, France, Italy, and Japan–four parties, by my count. Their statement, issued 25 April 1920 is called a “resolution.” This resolution, however you choose to define it, was one of several steps which led to the promise of a Jewish homeland.
Allow me to make one further point here. I have had several visitors to my blog who seem to want to argue whether Israel has the right to exist or not, based on the historical record. I’m all for examining the historical record, but at the end of the day, the UN chose to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation, and allow it membership in the organization. If that isn’t good enough for people who otherwise value what the UN does, I really don’t think I can help.
“the UN chose to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation, and allow it membership in the organization. If that isn’t good enough for people who otherwise value what the UN does, I really don’t think I can help.”
This is exactely the reason why I warn against denigrating the UN. If Israel says that the UN is not worth anything (“vote, shmote”), they ultimately question their own legitimation.
The UN voted a partition plan and favoured the creation of jewish and an arab state on the palestinian territory between Mediterranean and Jordan.
So if you say that Israel draws its legitimacy from the UN, you cannot say “Oh, now we decided to keep it all, and we will not listen to the UN, they have nothing to tell us”.
The french wikipeadia article on the san remo conference has a link dubbed “résolution” that refers to the same text as the one I found under the titel “San remo convention” in the english Wiki article of the same name. It was apparently written/drafted on April 24, 1929 in San Remo and adopted by the responsable LN comittee on July 24, 1922 in London.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/britman.htm
Nowhere does this text mention that the whole of palestine from the Mediterranean sea to the Jordan river should become a jewish state.
Article 22 of the covenant of the League of Nations just kind of defines the word “Mandate”. It does not mention the establishment of a jewish state at all.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art22
The Balfour declaration says
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours 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”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917
It does not say that the jewish state will comprise all of palestine from the mediterranean sea to the Jordan.
So I still do not understand from where you got this information.
In 1920, the ca. 80 000 jews in “Palestine” (from Mediterranean to Jordan) represented about 11% of the total population of this piece of land.
So there was no way jews could have a state on all the territory without being outvoted by other groups…
fille: Israel does not draw its legitimacy solely from the UN. It draws it from other sources, which I include in this post. The UN can vote all it wants on things, but rarely does it do anything to back them up. It has been useless at keeping Hizbullah from rearming in southern Lebanon, despite its promise to do so. It does very little that I can see to make and maintain peace in the world, which is its purpose. As for Israel, it voted to make two states, but did nothing to force the Arabs to accept the plan, instead opting to stand by and watch as the Arabs attempted to finish Hitler’s work. How can I possibly hold the UN in high esteem? And more to the point, how can you?
So if you say that Israel draws its legitimacy from the UN, you cannot say “Oh, now we decided to keep it all, and we will not listen to the UN, they have nothing to tell us”.
You’re wrong. I can say exactly that, and do. Because the UN had nothing to do with the Six Day War.
The map you are having trouble with can be found at the Myths and Facts website, here. The Balfour Declaration calls for the support for a Jewish state in Palestine; the map shows you what was meant by Palestine at the time. If you can find a text that states that Palestine was smaller than the area shown on the map (the map dating from ca 1920), I’ll be happy to read it. I suspect the 1947 UN Partition Plan map is what is making it hard for you to accept the legitimacy of the Palestine you see above.
I followed your link, I found your map, but I could not find any hint as to the source of the map… i.e. the only source I found was “Israel ministry of foreign affairs.” But I could not find any source confirming the claim you make.
“I can say exactly that, and do.”
Of course you can say exactely that. I just want to point out that by saying this you undermine Israel’s legitimacy in the eyes of the world.
Therefore, I do not think it is a good idea to do so.
fille: Now we get to the crux of the matter. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not a reliable mapmaker? They don’t know the history of the region? They have a history of falsifying information? You know this to be true?
I undermine nothing. If the only legitimacy to be obtained on the planet comes from the UN vote (and not from the nations of the world recognizing Israel in 1948, which is a LOT more legitimate in my book), then you live in a dream world where the seats on the Human Rights Council are held by noble defenders of human rights, where sovereign nations have no need to defend themselves (because Islamic terrorists can do no wrong), and where the Arab Palestinian refugee problem is one to perpetuate rather than solve.
Sweet dreams, fille.
[…] up instantly accessible information.” A year ago, I had an exchange with a reader following a post in which I commemorated the 90th anniversary of the San Remo Convention which established […]