Settlements, US policy and the Geneva Convention
Date: Saturday, December 05, 2009 @ 20:29:34 EST
Topic: Hebrews

Ted Belman

Hillary Clinton recently said,

“And the Obama Administration’s position on settlements is clear, unequivocal. It has not changed. And as the President has said on many occasions, the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

That may well be his position but it has not always been the position of the US and its presidents.

In 1995, The Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine and Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies co-hosted a June 2 symposium on “Settlements and Peace: The Problem of Jewish Colonization in Palestine.”

Geoffrey Aronson of the Foundation for Middle East Peace traced the history of changing U.S. policy toward the settlements. Until 1980, American policy was based on four principles, not all of which were mutually compatible, Aronson noted. First, Washington declared that the Israeli settlements were illegal and violated international law. Second, settlement construction prejudiced the eventual outcome of future negotiations on the status of the occupied territories, according to the U.S.

At the same time, Washington agreed that once the settlements were built, they were not easily removed. Finally, American policymakers declared that the final disposition of existing settlements should be decided by the parties to the conflict, and was therefore a subject for negotiations.

Under Ronald Reagan, however, American statements ceased to refer to settlements as “illegal,” calling them merely “obstacles to peace.” Aronson said that despite his strained relations with then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, George Bush also refrained from declaring the settlements illegal under international law.

Bush’s secretary of state, James Baker III, agreed to delay discussion of Israeli settlements until final status negotiations in order to coax Shamir to the 1991 Madrid Conference, and even during the battle over U.S. loan guarantees did not demand a halt in settlement construction. Aronson noted that the loan guarantee arrangement worked out between Bush and incoming Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, designed to limit settlement activity, paradoxically sanctioned for the first time Israeli construction in the territories by allowing for the “natural growth” of existing settlements.

Bill Clinton has followed his predecessor’s lead in allowing additional construction within existing settlements, while also permitting the establishment of new settlements so long as they are “privately funded.” In addition, the Clinton administration has taken to calling the settlements a “complicating factor in the peace process,” in the words of Ambassador Robert Pelletreau, further weakening Washington’s historical criticism.

Two years later

In an interview with Matt Lauer on NBC’s The Today Show on October 1, 1997, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright related to building in Yesha and said: “I wasn’t happy.I felt that going forward with those kinds of buildings was not helpful. Mr. Lauer pressed her and stated: ” It’s legal. “, and Albright admitted: “It’s legal.”

The only basis upon which anyone can claim the settlements in Judea and Samaria are illegal is based on a tenuous interpretation of the Geneva Conventions. But according to the late Eugene Rostow, the Geneva Convention does not apply and thus the settlements are legal.

In 1992, Eugene V Rostow wrote the following letter to the NYT.

To the Editor:

I apologize for an error in “Agreements Don’t Bar West Bank
Settlements” (letter, March 18), on the legality of Israeli
settlements in the West Bank, which states that “international
lawyers differ on whether the 1949 Geneva Convention applies to
the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, because Israel is not a
signatory.” Both Israel and Jordan did sign and ratify the
convention, Israel with a reservation.

The error does not affect my argument, however. Article 2 of the
convention provides that the agreement applies “to all cases of
partial or total occupation of the territory of a high
contracting party.” Thus the convention cannot apply because the
West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip have never been
generally recognized as territories of Jordan. Jordan
administered them as a belligerent occupant between 1948 and 1967
after a war of aggression against Israel in 1948. Jordan’s
attempt to annex these areas in 1950 was recognized only by
Britain (except for Jerusalem) and perhaps by Pakistan.

In any event, Jordan has formally renounced whatever claims it
may have had to the territory, which is a residual part of the
Palestine Mandate and therefore subject to the rights of “the
Jewish people” to make “close settlement” on the land. I regard
this aspect of the controversy as legally more important than
arguments based on the Geneva Convention.

Distinguished Fellow,
United States
Institute of Peace
Washington, March ! 23, 1992

The Harvard Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (HPCR), in a Jan. 2004 policy brief entitled “The Legal Status of Israeli Settlements Under IHL,” contained the following:

“The Israeli government has been engaged for more than 35 years in the relocation of Israeli nationals to the territories it occupied as a result of the 1967 war through various programs facilitating, supporting, encouraging and enabling the establishment of Israeli settlements in the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territories]. The legality of these settlements has been challenged by the other parties to the conflict…

Israel argues that the Geneva Conventions are not applicable to the OPT, but that even if they were applicable, the settlements would not violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. According to the Israeli interpretation, Article 49 does not prohibit the voluntary transfer of the population from the occupying state to the occupied territories.

The international community at large and the Palestine Liberation Organization, on the other hand, hold that Israeli settlements in the OPT do violate IHL [International Humanitarian Law], and in particular Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, since Israel’s policies of promoting and facilitating the transfer of population have been instrumental in the creation and expansion of Israeli settlements in the OPT. In addition, the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention together prohibit any transfer of the Occupying Power’s population, even voluntary transfers, that would alter the demographic composition of the occupied territory…”

There is no court that could make a determination of this issue. So Israel’s position has been and is,that the territories are “disputed”. In 2001 the Israel MFA published a position paper entitled, Israeli Settlements and International Law

“The settlements themselves are not intended to displace Arab inhabitants, nor do they do so in practice. Repeated charges regarding the illegality of Israeli settlements must therefore be regarded as politically motivated, without foundation in international law… Politically, the West Bank and Gaza Strip is best regarded as territory over which there are competing claims which should be resolved in peace process negotiations.”
When Obama came into office he made an attempt to overturn decades of understandings including even, the understandings contained in the Bush letters of 2004. He did not succeed, but according to Hillary Clinton, hasn’t given up.




The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law (Justice Now!) sent a letter to U.S. Special Middle East Envoy George Mitchell demanding the U.S. representative honor a treaty signed by the United States regarding the recognition of the Jewish Home’s national borders.

The letter reminds Mitchell that as a Senator he swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the supremacy of treaties as stated in Article VI which calls a treaty the “Supreme Law of the Land,” and that Senators and representatives are “bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution.

The treaty in question is the 1924 Anglo-American Convention. In this treaty the United States accepted upon itself the Mandate for Palestine, verbatim. The Mandate includes the borders of the Jewish National Home, which comprise all Israel, Judea, Samaria, the entire city of Jerusalem, and much more. The Mandate, which is an act of international law, states that Jews have the right to settle anywhere within the recognized borders, and prohibits the ceding of any Jewish National territory to a foreign authority.

The U.S. envoy was reminded in the letter that any demands on Israel to freeze construction within the Mandated borders or to surrender territory to the Palestinian Authority violates the doctrine of estoppel and is illegal under U.S. law.

Estoppel is a legal doctrine that prohibits a party from either taking action by deed or verbally that contradicts a prior agreement.

The OFICL will send a similar letter to President Barack Obama in the next couple weeks. The Obama administration will then have thirty days to respond or a class action lawsuit will be filed in the U.S. District court demanding the U.S. Government stop violating the rights granted through this treaty.

The United States also adopted the Mandate for Palestine as international law when the Mandate was adopted by the United Nations in 1945.

The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law (A.R.) is a registered Israeli non-profit organization.

Media Contact:

The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law (R.A.) Justice Now!

Web site:

Mark Kaplan, Media Relations Director

Email: Justice

Phone: + 972-52-831-9938

Comment by Aline — November 3, 2009 @ 8:11 pm



October 30, 2009

The Honorable George Mitchell, Special Middle East Envoy
Embassy of the United States
Hayarkon Street 71
Tel Aviv 63903

Dear Mr. Mitchell:

Since taking office in January, the Obama Administration has placed great focus on achieving a just solution to the Arab-Israel conflict. Our organization, the Office for Israeli Constitutional Law and the people we represent, Jewish Americans in Israel, would like to express our appreciation for your sincere efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israel and all her neighbors and inhabitants.

At the same time, we would like to express our concern that in pursuing these objectives, the United States is violating its signed agreements and treaties, and thus the oath of office, when you, as a senator, and President Obama swore to uphold the Constitution.

The current U.S. policy is leading the State of Israel farther and farther from the Jewish National Home as set forth under international law. Furthermore, it appears that you are in violation of the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924.

The British Government made a promise to the Jewish People in 1917, known as the Balfour Declaration. Thereafter, the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers of World War I agreed to “entrust the Mandate for Palestine” to “His Britannic Majesty” (Great Britain), as Mandatory, under the Mandates System authorized in Article 22 of the Covenant of the “League of Nations.” The Jewish People were the sole beneficial recipients of both the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine.

Thereafter, the United States of America ratified a treaty a with the British Government known as the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which included by reference the aforementioned Balfour Declaration and includes, verbatim, the full text of the Mandate for Palestine.
“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…”

By doing so, the United States of America is legally bound to the principles contained in the “Balfour Declaration,” and the “Mandate for Palestine.”

More specifically:

Article 5 states: “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign power.”

Suggesting a two state solution within the Mandated borders of Palestine is “ceding” land and is a violation of the Treaty.

Article 6 states, in part: “The Administration of Palestine … shall facilitate Jewish immigration … close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”

Suggesting that settlements or Jewish housing anywhere within Mandated Palestine is illegal or must be stopped is a violation of the treaty.

In law we call these “rights,” and there is a fundamental principle in law that “where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy.” (Sir William Blackstone).

Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution says, in part: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby…”

In 1783, the Treaty of Paris was the end of the American Revolutionary War, and the rights you enjoy as Americans today stand on this document. What keeps the English from canceling this treaty and giving the land to someone else is the principle of Estoppel. Once the rights are given, they simply can’t be taken back, and so it is with the Mandate for Palestine and the rights that the United States accepted, and committed itself to uphold, in this 1924 treaty, ratified by the Senate and proclaimed by President Calvin Coolidge on December 5th, 1925.

Article 7 (page 426) of the instant treaty states: “Nothing contained in the present convention shall be affected by any modification which may be made in the terms of the Mandate, as recited above, unless such modification shall have been assented to by the United States.”

Notwithstanding the fact that there were no provisions for “modification” within the Mandate for Palestine, thereafter, Britain violated this provision repeatedly. Not only did they make changes when none were permitted, but they failed to ask for the approval of the United States when making unauthorized changes. All of this was repeatedly called to the attention of the State Department and the full listing of these failures has been documented in the deliberations of the House of Representatives, Seventy-Eighth Congress, Second Session on House Resolutions 418 & 419, as printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Wherein we read:

“We desire to point out to the members of the House and to call to the attention of the State Department that Americans have invested over 100-million dollars in Palestine, relying upon the treaty between Great Britain and our Government, and upon which treaty they had a right to rely. It is the duty of the American Government to protect these rights by proper protest and to see to it that the treaty is carried out in good faith.”

It appears that in eighty years, the situation has not changed.

The previous duplicity of the Executive and/or the United States State Department in failing to move Great Britain to adhere to the Mandate, or the failure of the United States itself to honor the commitments it made, does not release the current United States Administration from its obligations to the Jewish National Home or the Jewish People.

It is not too late to do the right thing. The time has come to honor the signed agreements and the commitments made by the United States and other countries to the Jewish People. The record of deliberations in the Joint Sessions of Congress, along with President Coolidge’s Proclamation, leave no doubt that all the problems were well known, discussed, deliberated upon, and solutions found.

What has been sorely lacking in the United States is simply the political will to do the right thing. The situation is much like the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Bill, which has become a global joke, with Israel the only State without the embassy in its capital city. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any nation other than Biblical Israel.

The Supreme Allied Powers of World War I, in the shadow of President Wilson’s Fourteen Point Plan, did something entirely new: Rather than dividing the spoils of war between the victorious Allies, they created, from the ashes of the Central Powers, what are today, in the Middle East and North Africa, thirty-one Arab/Islamic/Muslim nation states, one Christian state (Lebanon), and one Jewish state (Palestine). Then, as the United States and the world looked on, Britain, in violation of Article 5, ripped away 78% of the Jewish National Home and called it Jordan. And now you want to make yet another Arab State from the 22% we have remaining? We say “No,” and if necessary, the courts will confirm this and more.

How much longer will the poor Arab refugees be left in squalor before someone does the right thing and finds them new homes? How long must Jews be told they are unwanted or have no rights on the very lands they were promised and given rights to ninety years ago?

New plans, or new negotiations, are not necessary, because every problem has already been addressed and answered, discussed, and resolved, and is available, within the signed documents in our possession. We are here to assist you in understanding this treaty and the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine. We are available to answer your questions on every issue at any time that you need answers—by phone, fax, or e-mail.

The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law (Justice Now!) is an Israeli non-profit legal action organization. We are requesting that you move immediately to cease activities that are in violation of your treaty obligations under the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 (Exhibit “A”). We are requesting your immediate assistance in moving forward with the provisions of the treaty using the primary documents and where support is needed, the records of the Joint Sessions of Congress, etc.

What we want—and what we deserve—is justice, nothing more, nothing less. We will also be sending this letter to President Barack Obama in the next couple weeks. If there is no progress on this issue within 30 days, we will file a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court.

Thank you for your kind attention to the content of this letter.

Respectively submitted,

Michael T. Snidecor, Ph.D.
Michael T. Snidecor, Ph.D., Chairman of the Board
Phone: +972-54-435-2805
Fax: +972-72-231-4778
E-mail: msnidecor at JusticeNow4israel dot com

Attached Exhibits

Exhibit A: The Anglo American Treaty of 1924
Exhibit B: Map of Mandate for Palestine
Exhibit C: Lodge-Fish Resolution (Joint Congressional Resolution 360)
Exhibit D: Deliberations of the House of Representatives, Junde 30, 1922 House Resolution 360 (Rept. NO. 1172)

Note: Jerusalem Attorney, Mr. Howard Grief has now completed his work: The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law (ISBN 978-965-7344-52-1)

Comment by Aline — November 3, 2009 @ 8:13 pm


Aline you can forward this argument to “jusiceNow4israel”

Aboriginal Rights to Israel
By Allen Z. Hertz ·

For over sixty years, there has been a bitter dispute over the unwillingness of most Muslims and Arabs to accept the legitimacy and permanence of Israel as an independent Jewish State in the Middle East. In this connection, Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have denied that the Jews are a People within the context of the modern political and legal doctrine of the self-determination of Peoples. However, there is an enormous body of archaeological and historical evidence demonstrating that the Jewish People — like the Greek People or the Han Chinese People — is among the oldest of the world’s Peoples.

Thus, it is well known that the Jewish People has more than 3,500 years of continuous history, with a subjective-objective national identity that, in each century, has kept a link to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. For example, the Jewish Bible, the Christian Gospels and the Koran all specifically testify to the connection between the Jewish People and its historic homeland.

Like other Peoples, the Jewish People has a right to self-determination. Though the self-determination of the Arab People is expressed via twenty-one Arab countries, Israel is the sole expression of the self-determination of the Jewish People, which of all extant Peoples, has the strongest claim to be considered aboriginal to the territory west of the Jordan River.

Thus, the Jewish People is aboriginal to Israel in the same way that, in Canada, certain First Nations are deemed aboriginal to their ancestral lands. And, it is noteworthy that the Supreme Court of Canada has decided that, where aboriginals maintain their historical connection with the land, aboriginal title can survive both sovereignty changes and influx of new populations resulting from foreign conquest.

In this regard, it is essential to recognize that the Middle East has always had a significant Jewish population, including some Jews who, in each century, continued to live west of the Jordan River. Today, many of the sons and daughters of these Middle Eastern Jews are citizens of Israel, where they have been joined by Jews from many other countries. Though some Western thinkers are now uncomfortable with the idea of a nation-State as the homeland of a particular People, that is no reason to target Israel, because the overwhelming majority of modern States are the homeland of a particular People, e.g., Japan, Italy, or the twenty-one countries of the Arab League.

Israel and thirty-odd modern countries are all successor States of the Muslim Ottoman Empire which for four hundred years (1516-1920) was the principal Power in the Near and Middle East. Apart from the ruling Turks, the Ottoman population was composed of several large ethnic groups, including Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Arabs and Jews. For centuries, these Jews lived in large numbers in a variety of Ottoman venues — including Constantinople, Salonika, Cairo, Alexandria, Damascus, Aleppo, Mosul, Baghdad, Basra, Tiberias, Hebron, Safed, Jaffa and Jerusalem.

In late October 1914, the Ottoman Empire opted to enter the First World War to fight against the United Kingdom and its Allies. As the fortunes of war began to favour the British Army, the United Kingdom Government addressed the question of what to do with the multi-national Ottoman lands both in the light of current British interests and the nineteenth-century liberal doctrine of the self-determination of Peoples. In this regard, the father of modern political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, in his 1896 manifesto The Jewish State, had already proclaimed that Jews, though living in many different places around the globe, constitute one People for the purpose of self-determination.

In October 1917, the British Cabinet adopted, as a declared war aim, the creation of an entirely new country called “Palestine” to serve as “a national home for the Jewish People.” This was done to help realize the Jewish People’s self-determination on its ancestral lands; to shore up Jewish support for the Allied war effort in revolutionary Russia and the USA; and to help the British better cover the eastern flank of the Suez Canal, which was then the crucial gateway to British India. The intention to create this Jewish-National-Home Palestine was announced to the world in the November 1917 Balfour Declaration.

As Great Britain worked to defeat the Ottoman Turks, the world also began to learn about the national claims of the Arab People. Here recall the wartime exploits of Lawrence of Arabia and the Hashemite Prince Feisal ibn Hussein, both of whom were present at the 1919-1920 Paris Peace Conference. There, a powerful international searchlight was trained on the self-determination of Peoples, including the claims of the Arab People.

However, no one there had ever heard anything about a distinct Palestinian Arab People. Had there then been such a distinct Palestinian Arab People, Prince Feisal, USA President Woodrow Wilson, France’s Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George and others would have known about it. This assessment is confirmed by extensive local testimony and petitions collected, in 1919, by the USA King-Crane Commission which told President Wilson that Arabs around the Jordan River specifically rejected any plan to create a new country called Palestine. To the contrary, local Arabs then enthusiastically sought creation of a new, unitary Arab State matching the then Ottoman Province of Syria, which for centuries had included modern Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel.

The 1919-1920 Paris Peace Conference was concerned with the task of accommodating the political interests of the victorious Allied and Associated Powers with the claims to self-determination of well-known Peoples which had long histories of national self-affirmation and bitter suffering under foreign oppression. Thus, considered were difficult and entangled issues touching the self-determination of such famous Peoples as the Chinese, the Poles, the Germans, the Finns, the Letts, the Latvians, the Estonians, the Czechs, the Slovaks, the Serbs, the Slovenes, the Croats, the Italians, the Hungarians, the Romanians, the Bulgarians, the Greeks, the Turks, the Kurds, the Armenians, the Arabs and the Jews. In this larger context, just one decision among many was creation of an entirely new country called “Palestine” as “a national home for the Jewish People”.

The international decision to establish “a national home for the Jewish People” was the sole rationale for the 1922 creation of Jewish-National-Home Palestine which, under the aegis of the League of Nations, was administered by the British until May 1948, when Israel declared independence. Decision-makers at the 1919-1920 Paris Peace Conference knew that Jewish-National-Home Palestine would initially lack a Jewish majority population. However, the international decision to create Palestine “as a national home for the Jewish People” was made not so much on the basis of local demographics, but in recognition of the Jewish People’s aboriginal title and continuing links to the land around the Jordan River, as well as with regard to broader considerations of demography, history, politics and social justice that were both global and Middle Eastern. Thus, there was a conscious choice to refer — not just to the 85,000 Jews then living locally — but also to the past, present and future of 14 million Jews worldwide, including the one million Jews then living in the Near and Middle East.

Failure to create Jewish-National-Home Palestine would have meant denying the Jewish People a share in the partition of the multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire, where Jews had lived for centuries, including some west of the Jordan River. Failure to create Jewish-National-Home Palestine would also have meant that the Arab People would have received almost the whole of the Ottoman inheritance. That result would have been unacceptable to David Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson and their peers, because they clearly understood that the claim to self-determination of the Jewish People was no less compelling than that of the Arab People.

The Paris decision-makers strongly believed that they had also done justice to the claims of the Arab People whom they had freed from 400 years of Turkish rule and helped on the road to independence via the creation or recognition of almost a dozen new Arab States on territory that had formerly belonged to the Ottoman sultan.

Moreover, the decision to create Jewish-National-Home Palestine did not result in the displacement of any Arabs. To the contrary, from 1922 until 1948, the Arab population of Jewish-National-Home Palestine almost tripled, while the Jewish population multiplied eight times. The later problem of Arab refugees (about 736,000) from Jewish-National-Home Palestine and Jewish refugees (about 850,000) from Arab countries only emerged from May 1948, when local Arabs allied with several neighbouring Arab States to launch a war to exterminate the Jews living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Like the Greek People or the Han Chinese People, the Jewish People has kept the same name and subjective-objective national identity, in each and every century, since ancient times. By contrast, the first steps towards a distinct, subjective-objective Palestinian Arab identity were taken only after the international community had already created a new country called “Palestine” to serve as “a national home for the Jewish People”. Thus, the continuing subjective-objective national identity of the Jewish People and the creation of Jewish-National-Home Palestine were both preconditions for the subsequent evolution of a distinct, subjective-objective Palestinian Arab identity. This logical sequence reminds us that the history of Jewish-National-Home Palestine (1922-1948) and the factual existence of modern Israel are only explicable because the subjective-objective national identity of the Jewish People, and its continuous link to the lands west of the Jordan River, precede by around 3,500 years the formation of a distinct, subjective-objective Palestinian Arab identity and any articulated Palestinian Arab claim to a hypothetical Palestinian Arab State that has, in fact, never existed.

Thus, deep into the 20th century, Arab leaders themselves failed to recognize the right to self-determination of a distinct Palestinian Arab People. For example, as principal Arab leader at the 1919-1920 Paris Peace Conference, Prince Feisal specifically accepted the plan to create Palestine as “a national home for the Jewish People” and his father, the Hashemite King of the Hedjaz (later part of Saudi Arabia) was party to the 1920 Sevres Treaty that explicitly stipulated that the newly-created Palestine would be “a national home for the Jewish People.”

And, decades later, the governments of Egypt and Jordan showed how little regard they had for the self-determination of a distinct Palestinian Arab People; first, by rejecting the 1947 UN plan to partition Jewish-National-Home Palestine into two new independent States, the one Jewish and the other Arab; and second, by themselves failing to create a new Palestinian Arab State, between 1949 and 1967, when Egypt held the Gaza Strip and Jordan administered East-Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Such analysis does not deny the current existence of a distinct Palestinian Arab People; nor does it claim that such a Palestinian Arab People is today without rights. Rather, the conclusion is that there are rights on all sides, and that there should be a peaceful process that respectfully reconciles the rights of the Palestinian Arab People with the prior rights of the Jewish People.
no image specified

Now living in South China, Allen Z. Hertz was formerly a senior advisor in the Privy Council Office serving Canada’s Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. Earlier he taught history and law at universities in New York, Montreal, Toronto and Hong Kong. Allen was born in Montreal, where he studied history and languages at McGill University. He later did graduate work in European and Ottoman history at Columbia University and subsequently earned law degrees from Cambridge University and the University of Toronto. His daughters Tamar and Robyn live in Montreal.

Comment by yamit82 — November 3, 2009 @ 8:39 pm



The arguments in favor of Israel are compelling. The main problem has been the lack of interest on the part of Israeli governments to present those arguments. It’s infuriating!!! Now it has been left to plain Israeli citizens to take on the government of the United States.

I hope that this act by Justice for Israel Now will raise awareness both in Israel and abroad. I’m afraid that even Israeli schoolchildren may not know how international law supports Israeli rights to all the land.

It’s time to get the discussion going, and maybe the Israeli government will be forced to listen.

Comment by Aline — November 3, 2009 @ 9:24 pm



Please help disseminate this news (my talkbacks #1 and #2). Please send it to as many media outlets as you can. THANK YOU!

Comment by Aline — November 3, 2009 @ 9:27 pm


This article comes from

The URL for this story is: