Monday, June 29, 2015

Amazing Occupation Or, A Question That Has Been Occupying My Mind

RL and I were conversing last night and the topic of terms was discussed, with me pointing out that the word "occupation" need not be feared.  After all, we were occupied in conversation and we each had professional occupations, etc.

And he pointed out that probably most of the people who were engaged in late 2011 and early 2012 in this movement

and wished to extend and enlarge it further

people like him

and like them

and them

as well as many who supported and identified with their protests, would very much be opposed to an "occupation" of another kind (even if it isn't quite an occupation)

especially Jews

Another double standard?


Friday, June 26, 2015

NYTimes Headline Writer Does It Again

Here is the headline and lead-in:-

Palestinian Shot After Opening Fire on Israeli Forces in West Bank
By Diaa Hadid
It was not clear whether the gunman was killed, and a spokesman for Israel’s military said the attack had occurred at a checkpoint in the Jordan Valley.

Why couldn't the headline writer compose it so?:-

Arab Shoots Israeli Soldiers At Checkpoint, Kille dBy Response Fire

Well, why not?


He seems dead:


Palestinian security officials told Ma'an that a Palestinian drove towards the al-Hamra checkpoint and opened fire at soldiers from his car.


A Palestinian man opened fire on Israeli soldiers at a checkpoint in the Jordan Valley on Friday morning. The soldiers returned fire at the attacker, seriously wounding him. He later died of his wounds.  No Israeli soldiers were wounded in the incident.

The shooting took place at the Beka'ot checkpoint in the northern Jordan Valley. The attacker got out of a vehicle and opened fire at the Israel Defense Forces reservist soldiers manning the checkpoint. The soldiers reacted quickly, taking out the attacker with their return fire.

Temple Mount Cucumbers

A cucumber harvest from Arnon Segal's weekly column on the Temple Mount in Makor Rishon this week

The south-east corner, looking east to the Mount of Olives, snapped in June 1933 (and thanks to the Israel Antiquities Authority).


Thursday, June 25, 2015

There Went Transjordan

I quote from the "Agreement between His Majesty and the Amir of Trans-Jordan", signed in Jerusalem on February 20, 1928 and ratified on October 31, 1929 (and there is a supplement):

WHEREAS His Britannic Majesty in virtue of a Mandate entrusted to him on the 24th of July, 1922, has authority in the area covered thereby; and Whereas His Highness the Amir of Trans-Jordan has set up an Administration in that part of the area under Mandate known as Trans-Jordan; and Whereas His Britannic Majesty is prepared to recognise the existence of an independent Government in Trans-Jordan under the rule of His Highness the Amir of Trans-Jordan, provided that such Government is constitutional and places His Britannic Majesty in a position to fulfil his international obligations in respect of that territory bymeans of an Agreement to be concluded with His Highness.

There is also this

Article 7.      Except by agreement between the two countries there shall be no customs barrier between Palestine and Trans-Jordan...
Article 18.    No territory in Trans-Jordan shall be ceded or leased or in any way placed under the control of any foreign Power; ...

But allow me to also quote from that League of Nations 1922 decision:

ART. 5.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.

True, there was this there, too:

ART. 25.In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 1516 and 18.

I would think that the operative term there is "postpone".  Postpone does not mean something is not done or finished or resolved but there is a delay, and the original situation is still in place until all sides, which in this case means the Jews, agree.

Consider this

Britain Rejects Demand of Transjordan Cabinet for Abrogation of Mandate
June 23, 1944

The British Government has rejected a demand submitted by the cabinet of Transjordan asking abolition of the mandate and complete independence, it was learned here today.

Any new arrangements or treaties concerning the status of Transjordan must wait until after the war, the British Government informed Emir Abdullah...Sir Harold Michael, British High Commissioner for Palestine and Transjordan...made a flying trip from Jerusalem to Amman, the capital of Transjordan.

Under the terms of Article 25 of the mandate, Transjordan was included in the mandated territory of Palestine. But by virtue of a saving clause in the article, the British Government, as mandatory, was empowered to withhold application of any clauses of the mandate which she might consider to be inapplicable to Transjordan, and to provide it with such administration as she might think fit.

In the British view, Transjordan unlike Palestine fell within the area in which the McMahon promise of independence applied. The British Government, therefore, in 1922, secured approval by the Council of the League of Nations of a memorandum proposing that Transjordan be exempted from all those clauses dealing with the Holy Places and the Jewish National Home. On the strength of this, Jews have been refused immigration into Transjordan and the right to purchase land there, a step which they resent as being an infraction of the article of the joint mandate which provides against discrimination on grounds of race, religion or language.

And what was the reaction at the time?

Transjordan Independence to Be Recognized, is Rumor
September 7, 1927   Jerusalem
(Jewish Telegraphic Agency)
Sensational reports concerning a new treaty between Great Britain and Transjordania, recognizing the latter as an independent state were published by the Arab weekly, “El Yarmuk.”
The Arab newspaper publishes what is purported to be the draft of a treaty between Great Britain and Transjordania. The treaty provides for the recognition of Transjordania’s independence under Emir Abdullah and for the creation of a legislative council at Amman. Great Britain is to provide adequate technical advisers for the Transjordanian government.
The treaty is to be in force for two years, the paper states. 

Umm, ISIS and ...Netanya

From here:

Karen sat in a hotel room in Istanbul, grappling with a difficult decision. She had spent about $3,500 (£2,220) on the round trip to Turkey from her home in the US but, when she had bought the ticket, she had had no intention of flying home. The return bookings were for appearance’s sake. Her SMS mailbox was filled with promises for the future: messages from an Islamic State fighter who had promised to marry her. But as she sat in that Istanbul hotel room, something didn’t feel quite right.
Her prospective groom’s insistence on absolute secrecy had not seemed strange at first. Karen had met him through the swarm of Isis-friendly social media...the hint of danger was part of the glamour and Karen thought she was being careful. She was in her late teens and had recently graduated from high school, where she had been a lonely girl interested in Star Trek and computer programming.
She converted to Islam less than a year before her journey, after watching the news and deciding to learn more about the religion. She had been inspired by Isis’s apparent authenticity – they were as far removed from the west as it seemed possible to be. Her Christian parents worried...Online, she disguised her identity by using a kunya – a traditional Arab title. Karen had created several of these, but mostly she went by Umm Khalid – “mother of Khalid”. The name derived from Khalid bin Walid, a military commander known as the “Sword of God” in the early days of Islam. Umm Khalid was also the name of a Palestinian village that was evacuated in 1948 and swallowed up by the Israeli city of Netanya. The name has its roots in violence inflicted and violence suffered.

I recall that the lands upon which Netanya was built were purchased.  So, I looked it up --- at Wikipedia:

In 1928 members of Bnei Binyamin and Hanote, an organisation set up after Straus was informed of the establishment of the settlement, are said to have purchased 350 acres (1.4 km2) of Umm Khaled (!) lands.

But a pro-Palestinian editor inserted this:

There remains today, however, considerable controversy among Palestinian and Israeli interpretation about whether land was sold (primarily from non-resident Arab land holders) during the British Mandate.

With no footnote or other reference site.

If you check the footnote for the purchase fact, you'll read this:

Oved Ben Ami and Itamar Ben Avi...returned from the U.S. [and] they started looking for land suitable for growing citrus orchards. During their search they came across Sheik Tzalah Hamdan, the ‘muchtar’ (head) of Umm Haled (!) village which was located east of the municipal cultural center of today, and they purchased 350 acres of Umm Haled lands for 5,600 Turkish Lira.

If you go to the Hebrew Wikipedia site, you'll learn that it was on the recommendation of the son of the mayor of Tul Karem who suggested to the potential land buyers that Sheikh Salah Hamdan would be a contact and indeed, he sold them the 1400 dunams and added that the price was cheap since he was simply accepting a symbolic fee for watching over the land for the 2000 years the Jews had been unable to return.

UPDATE   see here, pg. 177-178

Additionally, this entry notes that:

(a) the village existed until 1949.  in 1945 its population was just under 1000 souls.
(b) the Arab village, archaeological excavations have proven, was established on a Jewish village.

By the way, a few buildings, including a moque, still stand.

Moreover, you noticed this (!) I twice inserted?

Well, that's because the Muslim hero's name was Khaled ibn Walid.  And that's why the village was called Umm Khaled.  Not Khalid.

Poor Karen.

But she was lucky, after too much sexting from her intended:

She had flown home to the US after two days in Turkey (“with great photos of Istanbul”, she added, “lol.”). One final piece of information had clinched her decision to call off the Isis marriage...She began to wonder if Abu Muhammad was really who he claimed to be. “Talking to him, I realised that things weren’t right,” she said. She became convinced that Abu Muhammad was not from Isis but the PKK. It was by the grace of God, she told me, that she was still alive and free...She issued some sharp advice. “Brothers lie to get a wife.”

Here it is/was:


Wednesday, June 24, 2015

There's An Error in Diaa Hadid's Story

Israel canceled permission for hundreds of residents of Gaza to enter Jerusalem to pray during Ramadan in Al Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s third-holiest site, after rocket fire from the coastal enclave, officials said on Wednesday.

The move represents the latest effort by Israel this week to rescind gestures that were intended to ease movement into Israeli-controlled territory for the holy month of Ramadan.

I would suggest she errs.

This is from the Ma'an Agency:

Weekly access to the Al-Aqsa mosque by Gazans has become routine since October 2014 when some 500 Palestinians in Gaza prayed at the mosque for the first time since 2007

And more explicitly:

The decision to allow Gazans to travel to Al-Aqsa was reached as part of the ceasefire deal between Palestinian militant groups and Israel...

In other words, the visit of Gazans was not linked to recent measures for this month's Ramadan arrangements but rather to the halting of terror activity in and from Gaza even if there were additional improvements instituted for the Ramadan month.

And with continued rocket fire from Gaza, there is no reason to permit such a goodwill gesture.


America's Agenda - March 20, 1918

Well, well, a Jewish state was on the agenda (all found here):

P.S.  From a November 1918 Wilson memorandum:

and in later notes, including the term "liberation" and the matter of separating of Palestine and its Jewishness from other Arab matters:

and this record:

and one more reference:


Friday, June 19, 2015

And I Didn't Know

I didn't know this

Political Indoctrination of Soldiers in the IDF, 1948–1949,
Hazkani, Shay
Israel Studies Review, Volume 30, Number 1, Summer 2015, pp. 20-41(22)

This article explores themes in the political education and indoctrination of soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during the 1948 War. It argues that the army command attempted to advance the notion that a form of militarism rooted in Judaism was the only way to win the war. Education officers explained to soldiers that 'the Jewish tradition' sanctioned the eradication of the invading armies and indifference to the fate of Palestinians. The article also traces the influence of Abba Kovner's lurid propaganda on the rest of the IDF's education apparatus. Kovner, the education officer of the Givati Brigade, believed that hate propaganda made killing the enemy easier, and his views were shared by many other education officers who saw his work as a road-map for the entire military. Nevertheless, there were some officers who opposed his work out of fear for the consequences that it would have on the future of Israeli society.

I wonder: did the Arabs of the Mandate and the countries who invaded have 'education officers' or did they really need any?

Thursday, June 18, 2015

This Decision Occupies Me

This was sent my way and seems it will occupy opponents of Jewish revenant residency rights in Judea and Samaria:

Important decision of European Court of Human Rights (and discussed here) which includes this:

94 …. Military occupation is considered to exist in a territory, or part of a territory, if the following elements can be demonstrated: the presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign. According to widespread expert opinion physical presence of foreign troops is a sine qua non requirement of occupation], i.e. occupation is not conceivable without “boots on the ground” therefore forces exercising naval or air control through a naval or air blockade do not suffice.

As also the next paragraph which could be relevant to Gaza, perhaps also Area A of in Judea and Samaria:

95.  The rules of international humanitarian law do not explicitly address the issue of preventing access to homes or property. However, Article 49 of Convention [No. IV] relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 (“the Fourth Geneva Convention”) regulates issues of forced displacement in or from occupied territories.  [emphasis added]

As JT noted, this is support for view that art 49(6) does not apply to voluntary settlement.

I Love That Hat


A Betariah from Yurburg, 1935.


Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Jews, Gladiators and Graffiti

Well, we now know that graffiti messages engraved at Aphrodisias, in modern-day Turkey, reveal something of Jewish life there over 1,500 years ago, in addition to portrayals of gladiator combat, chariot racing, religious fighting and sex.

Aphrodisias also boasted a sizable Jewish population. Many Jewish traders set up shop in an abandoned temple complex known as the Sebasteion.

Among the graffiti found there is a depiction of a Hanukkah menorah, a nine-candle lamp that would be lit during the Jewish festival. "This may be one of the earliest representations of a Hanukkah menorah that we know from ancient times," said Chaniotis.


Most of the graffiti Chaniotis recorded dates between roughly A.D. 350 and A.D. 500, appearing to decline around the time Justinian became emperor of the Byzantine Empire, in A.D. 527.  In the decades that followed, Justinian restricted or banned polytheistic and Jewish practices. Aphrodisias, which had been named after the goddess Aphrodite, was renamed Stauropolis. Polytheistic and Jewish imagery, including some of the graffiti, was destroyed.

But while the city was abandoned in the seventh century, the graffiti left by the people remains today. "Through the graffiti, the petrified voices and feelings of the Aphrodisians still reach us, and they still matter," Chaniotis said.

(thanks to EH) 


Tuesday, June 16, 2015

The Biblical Narrative Triumphs

As I received it:

A Rare Inscription [the fourth] from the Time of King David was Discovered in the Valley of Elah
A rare inscription from the time of King David was discovered at Khirbet Qeiyafain the Valley of Elah. A ceramic jar c. 3,000 years old that was broken into numerous sherds was discovered in 2012 in excavations carried out there by Prof. Yosef Garfinkel of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University and Saar Ganor of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Letters written in ancient Canaanite script could be discerned on several of the sherds, sparking the curiosity of researchers.
Intensive restoration work...solved the riddle – the jar was incised with the inscription: Eshbaʽal Ben Badaʽ...

According to Professor Yosef Garfinkel of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University and Saar Ganor of the IAA,"This is the first time that the name Eshbaʽal has appeared on an ancient inscription in the country. Eshbaʽal Ben Shaul, who ruled over Israel at the same time as David, is known from the Bible. Eshbaʽal was murdered by assassins and decapitated and his head was brought to David in Hebron (II Samuel, Chaps. 3-4). It is interesting to note that the name Eshbaʽal appears in the Bible, and now also in the archaeological record, only during the reign of King David, in the first half of the tenth century BCE. This name was not used later in the First Temple period.The correlation between the biblical tradition and the archaeological finds indicates this was a common name only during that period. The name Bedaʽ is unique and does not occur in ancient inscriptions or in the biblical tradition."
According to the researchers, the fact that the name Eshbaʽal was incised on a jar suggests that he was an important person. He was apparently the owner of a large agricultural estate and the produce collected there was packed and transported in jars that bore his name. This is clear evidence of social stratification and the creation of an established economic class that occurred at the time of the formation of the Kingdom of Judah.
Garfinkel and Ganor add, "In II Samuel there was apparently reluctance to use the name Eshbaʽal, which was reminiscent of the Canaanite storm god Baʽal, and the original name was therefore changed to Ish-Bashat, but the original name of Eshbaʽal was preserved in the Book of Chronicles. Thus, for example, the name of the warlord Gideon Ben Joash was also changed from Jerrubaal to Jerubesheth." Khirbet Qeiyafa is identified with the biblical city Shaʽarayim. During several seasons of excavations directed by Prof. Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor, a fortified city, two gates, a palace and storerooms, dwellings and cultic rooms were exposed there. The city dates from the time of David, that is, the late eleventh and early tenth centuries BCE. Unique artifacts that were previously unknown were discovered at the site. For example, in 2008 the world’s earliest Hebrew inscription was uncovered there. Now, another inscription from the same period is being published from the site.
According to Garfinkel and Ganor,"Until about five years ago we knew of no inscriptions dating to the tenth century BCE from the Kingdom of Judah. In recent years four inscriptions have been published: two from Khirbet Qeiyafa, one from Jerusalem and one from Bet Shemesh. This completely changes our understanding of the distribution of writing in the Kingdom of Judah and it is now clear that writing was far more widespread than previously thought. It seems that the organization of the kingdom required a cadre of clerks and writers and their activity is also manifested in the appearance of inscriptions."


The 'Fortunate Race'

There is nothing unusual about members of the fortunate race disrupting a little leisure time from those of misfortune at a one of the few recreational spots in the area.

Amira Hass
Haaretz , June 16, 2015

P.S.  So, only Jews are a "race"?


Friday, June 12, 2015

A Quiz on Stripping

Here's the headline:

Eleanor Hawkins: British backpacker 
pleads guilty to 'obscene acts' after 
stripping on Malaysian mountain

She may receive three months jail sentence and a fine.  She

was with a group of 10 backpackers at the summit of Mount Kinabalu who were seen taking their clothes off for celebratory photos on 30 May.  They were also accused of urinating on the mountain and swearing at a guide who told them to treat it with respect, although the four denied telling the man to "go to hell" in court.

And then this:

Six days after the tourists took the naked photos, a magnitude-5.9 earthquake struck the 13,400ft-high mountain, killing 18 people and leaving hundreds more stranded.

Now, if this happened at the Western Wall what would happen.

And on the Temple Mount?


Tuesday, June 09, 2015

Found: Apartheid in Jerusalem




Is the Temple Mount Mosque Safe from Being Blown Up?

Over the past few years, we've been reading headlines like these:

Daesh/ ISIL blows up Shiite Mosque in Saudi Arabia

ISIS Blow Up 'Heretical' Shia Mosques In Mosul 

Syria: Sunni extremists blow up Shiite mosque

I hope the Islamic Waqf authorities and its Jordanian supervisory ministry have an emergency plan in place to protect its mosque:

Just in case something goes wrong.


The State Dept. Misled the Supreme Court On Zivitofsky

As the State Department justification for its non-recognition of Jerusalem as Israel is that all of Jerusalem was part of the recommended (never decided upon and rejected by Arabs) corpus separatum status of Jerusalem as included in the UN GA Partition Plan, there's a problem with the State Dept. regulation.

Bethlehem, Beit Sahour, Beit Jalla, Beit Hanina, Shoafat, etc. were also within the area of the corpus separatum according to the partition plan.  And as the State Dep't made clear in 1963:

...the geographic area of Jerusalem was the same; i.e., as defined in Resolution 181...the geographic boundaries of this area are as set forth in Resolution 181...This basic U.S. view concerning the geographic definition of the area describes also the area of jurisdiction of the United States Consulate General in Jerusalem.

As I posted six years ago, and passed on my findings, the State Dept designates US citizens born in those places differently than they do citizens born in Jerusalem:

...f. Birthplace in Jerusalem: For a person born in Jerusalem, write JERUSALEM as the place of birth in the passport. Do not write Israel, Jordan or West Bank for a person born within the current municipal borders of Jerusalem. For applicants born before May 14, 1948 in a place that was within the municipal borders of Jerusalem, enter JERUSALEM as their place of birth. For persons born before May 14, 1948 in a location that was outside Jerusalem’s municipal limits and later was annexed by the city, enter either PALESTINE or the name of the location (area/city) as it was known prior to annexation. For persons born after May 14, 1948 in a location that was outside Jerusalem’s municipal limits and later was annexed by the city, it is acceptable to enter the name of the location (area/city) as it was known prior to annexation.

In my understanding, the State Dept. arbitrarily recognizes municpal boundaries when it suits political persuasions rather than law or legalities.  If the corpus separatum is the basis, the boundaries of that entity still hold for today.  But the State Dept. 'relaxes' its definition of territory and makes 'holy' municipal borders'.  That's not fair.

Moreover, as the State Dept designates US citizens born in those places as in the West Bank [a state that doesn't exist now and didn't exist then], the prejudice is blatant.

Did the State Dept. mislead the Supreme Court?


P.S.   Rick Richman at The NY Sun has another problem for the State Dep't.


Some additional excerpts from State Dept. documents on its Jerusalem policy as background:

Washington, January 26, 1950—7 p. m.secret

In US view it is not consistent with present status UN consideration Jerusalem question for Israel to establish its capital in that city. US regrets note that Israel apparently does not share US view that no steps shld be taken which wld be prejudicial to final settlement Jerusalem problem...Recent action of Israeli Govt in obtaining Knesset approval of Govt-sponsored resolution concerning Jerusalem as capital of Israel will in US view make such settlement more difficult to reach.

Since Jerusalem question sub judice in UN, USG unable accede Eytan suggestion*.

In US view, basic problem is to obtain solution of Jerusalem question by a settlement which will safeguard legitimate interests of parties most directly concerned and of international community...Acheson

* on January 19, Mr. Eytan had approached Ambassador McDonald as Dean of the Diplomatic Corps with information that the Israeli Government was ready to cooperate with foreign missions in preparing for their offices and residences in Jerusalem. The Ambassador replied informally that his “categorical instructions re Jerusalem indicated that US Government would not be willing make any move now even of the most tentative kind in direction move Jerusalem.” (784A.02/1–2050)

784A.02/1–450: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in Israel
Washington, January 4, 1950—5 p. m.secret

1. US does not recognize sovereignty of Israel in Jerusalem.3 UN is seized of Jerusalem problem, and US attitude toward status of city will continue be framed in light UN situation.
2. US continues to support principle internationalization of Jerusalem along lines modified regime such as that proposed by PCC.
3. Dept does not desire Emb Tel Aviv to conduct official business in Jerusalem with Israeli Central Govt officials who may move there. FonOff in Tel Aviv provides normal means contact Israeli Govt for foreign dipls. If Israeli Govt shld seek persuade Emb reps carry on official business with Central Govt officials in Jerusalem, Emb reps shld state they not authorized do so. From time to time it will of course be necessary for Emb to deal with important Israeli officials whose offices have been transferred to Jerusalem, but Dept believes these officials will spend part of their time in Tel Aviv where official business can be conducted with them. If need arises Emb shld make clear to Israeli Govt that in present circumstances it can only conduct official business with Govt officials outside Jerusalem area.
4. Dept continues desire that Ambs visits to Jerusalem for unofficial purposes be restricted to absolute minimum.

5. No objection contact by ConGen Jerusalem with such Israeli ministries as may be in Jerusalem, on routine consular affairs affecting Jerusalem area only. If need arises both Emb and ConGen shld make clear to Israeli officials that Emb continues to be sole US dipl representation near Israeli Govt. Of course no objection to non-official courtesy and social contacts between Reps ConGen and Israeli Central Govt officials stationed in Jerusalem.


Memorandum by Mr. Leonard C. Meeker of the Office of the Legal Adviser to the Officer in Charge of Palestine–Israel–Jordan Affairs (Wilkins)

[Washington,] January 13, 1950.
Subject: Consular Exequaturs in Jerusalem

A legal opinion has been requested by NEA concerning the position which the United States should take if the Government of Israel now requests this Government to apply to Israeli authorities for exequaturs for American consular officials in Jerusalem. In a memorandum to Mr. Rusk dated December 9, 1949,1 Mr. Jernegan2 recalled that the Turkish Embassy in Washington had received such a request from the Israeli Embassy concerning Turkish consular representatives “in Israel and in territory controlled by Israel”. In that memorandum Mr. Jernegan expressed the view, which he believed was probably shared by the Turkish Embassy, that an answer to the request of the Israeli Ambassador would be dependent on action taken by the General Assembly at its Fourth Session concerning the internationalization of Jerusalem. On December 9, 1949 the General Assembly in fact adopted a resolution on internationalization.

In the light of this resolution, the United States, as a Member of the United Nations, should not take any steps with respect to the functioning of American consular officers in Jerusalem which would recognize the sovereignty of any national state in that area. However, it would not be inconsistent with the obligations of the United States as a United Nations Member to maintain consular officers in Jerusalem by agreement with the Israeli or Jordan Government, on a de facto basis and without exequaturs. It would also seem permissible to seek and accept exequaturs for such officials in Jerusalem if it were clearly understood that such action did not involve recognition by the United States of Israeli or Jordan sovereignty in Jerusalem. If, however, the national states concerned would not agree to issue exequaturs with such an understanding, but only on the understanding that recognition of sovereignty would be implied, then the United States ought not to apply for and obtain exequaturs for its consular officers in Jerusalem.

The General Assembly resolution of December 9, 1949, providing for a special international régime for Jerusalem, was based implicitly on the theory that the Assembly had the right to determine the status and future government of Jerusalem. The chain of reasoning would run somewhat as follows:

(a) In the World War I settlements Turkey renounced all rights and title to certain areas including Palestine, “the future of those territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.”
(b) Prior to the Treaty of Lausanne, in which this renunciation was made, the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers had met at San Remo and allocated Palestine to be placed under mandate (Class A), pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, with Great Britain as the mandatory power.
(c) Under the mandate instrument approved by the Council of the League of Nations, the mandate was subject to modification with the consent of the League Council and could be terminated by the mandatory power.*
(d) At the request of the mandatory power made early in 1947, the United Nations General Assembly made a recommendation concerning the future government of Palestine in the Assembly’s resolution of November 29, 1947. This recommendation, “accepted” by the mandatory power, contained provisions for an internationalized City of Jerusalem under United Nations control, apart from the Jewish and Arab States to be created in Palestine.
(e) Although the Statute for Jerusalem which the United Nations Trusteeship Council drafted pursuant to the November 29 resolution was not placed in operation upon the termination of the British mandate for Palestine (May 14, 1949),† Jerusalem remained at the disposition of the United Nations.
(f) Through its resolutions of May 6, 1948 and December 11, 1948,‡ the General Assembly has perpetuated its interest and authority with respect to the future of Jerusalem.
It is evident that the chain of reasoning just referred to is a complicated one, certainly not free from serious doubts and difficulties. It is noteworthy, for example, that the Israeli Delegation at the Fourth Session of the General Assembly took the position that “Jewish Jerusalem” had become integrated with the State of Israel. In a memorandum submitted to the General Assembly on November 15, 1949 the Israeli Delegation stated: “The Mandate unmistakably came to an end in the absence of a ‘specific link of any kind between the United Nations and Jerusalem.’” The memorandum went on to assert that no events after May 14, 1948 operated to confer legal authority on the United Nations with respect to Jerusalem. The memorandum concluded:

“Moreover, it would be misleading to think of the present political relationship between Israel and Jerusalem as a provisional connection which could still be loosened. History knows no precedent of a population, having once achieved union with its own natural and kindred government, voluntarily turning back to mere semi-autonomy under outside control. The Charter provides for no contingency whereby an area of independence can become a non-self-governing territory.”§

The General Assembly resolution of December 9, 1949 concerning Jerusalem provides as follows:

[Here follows the text of the resolution; see Foreign Relations, 1949, volume VI, page 1530.]

This resolution assumes power in the General Assembly to make binding provision for the future government of Jerusalem. When the Assembly was discussing the Jerusalem question, it was of course open to Members of the United Nations to debate the issue of United Nations power in regard to Jerusalem. The view held concerning this issue by the Government of any Member would properly be a factor in determining that Member’s vote on a resolution such as the one finally adopted by the Assembly. Once, however, the General Assembly has made a recommendation, the recommendation is entitled to great weight and Members of the United Nations ought to respect it.

In regard to the Jerusalem problem, United Nations Members are not free to attack collaterally and undermine the adopted resolution of the Assembly, even though they may disagree with the resolution or think it based on an erroneous conception of the Assembly’s authority. Considerations such as these were properly before the General Assembly when it adopted the December 9 resolution on Jerusalem and may be before the Assembly at a future session if it again takes up the Jerusalem problem. In the interim, while the December 9 resolution remains operative, the United States, as a member of the United Nations, should respect the General Assembly’s recommendation and should refrain from inconsistent action.

Consistently with the General Assembly resolution, the United States and Israel or Jordan might agree that, pending final determination and actual establishment of a permanent Jerusalem régime, this Government should keep consular officials in Jerusalem who would exercise their functions in the absence of any exequaturs issued by Israel or Jordan. But the United States should not now accede to requests from any national state that this Government apply to it for consular exequaturs covering the Jerusalem area if such action were understood by the governments concerned to imply recognition of the national state’s sovereignty in Jerusalem. Nevertheless it would seem consistent with the position of the United States as a Member of the United Nations to apply for and receive exequaturs from the government of a national state if it were clearly understood that these steps did not involve recognition of the state’s sovereignty in Jerusalem.

The past practice of the United States in analogous situations has not been uniform. In 1911 the United States sought and secured recognition from Belgium of American consular officials in the Congo, at a time when the United States did not recognize Belgian annexation of the Congo. The Department of State instructed the Minister to Belgium that such consular recognition was by the de facto authorities, “it not being a question of de jure determination.” See IV Hackworth, Digest of International Law (1942) p. 684. In 1924 the Department authorized American consular officers in Chile to accept exequaturs from an unrecognized régime on condition that the issuing régime understood clearly that acceptance did not imply recognition. See ibid. at 688. But under similar circumstances in Mexico and the USSR the United States declined to apply to unrecognized régimes for any official recognition of American consuls. See ibid. at 686–87.

In the cases of Czechoslovakia and Danzig in 1939, the United States sought exequaturs from the German Government on condition that the position of the United States with respect to the status of these two territories should be considered preserved. Germany refused, and the American consulates were closed. See ibid. at 689–90. The United States for its part has declined to issue exequaturs in this country to the consuls of unrecognized foreign régimes. See ibid. at 694 (Ecuador).

Leonard C. Meeker

1 Copy not found in Department of State files.
2 John D. Jernegan, Director of the Office of Greek, Turkish, and Iranian Affairs.
* Such termination perhaps required the Council’s consent during the period of the League’s active existence. [Footnote in the source text.]
† The Trusteeship Council completed its work on the Statute on March 10, 1948, but deferred the question of formal approval until the Third Part of its Second Session, to be convened in April. When the Council met again, it referred the matter of the Statute to the General Assembly on April 21, for such further instructions as the Assembly might see fit to give. The Assembly, then meeting in special session, did not reply, other than to adopt on April 26 a resolution requesting the Trusteeship Council to study measures for the protection of Jerusalem and report to the General Assembly. It was on the basis of the Council’s report that the Assembly adopted on May 6 a resolution recommending the appointment of a Special Municipal Commissioner for Jerusalem.

A Commissioner was in consequence appointed (Mr. Harold Evans, of Philadelphia). Although he never reached Jerusalem, a Deputy Commissioner—Mr. Pablo Azcarate—has served in the post for over 18 months.

The General Assembly has never revoked its resolution of November 29, 1947. On May 14, 1948 the Assembly adopted a resolution which in its third part merely relieved the Palestine Commission (established by the November 29 resolution) “from the further exercise of responsibilities.” On July 29, 1948 the Trusteeship Council adjourned indefinitely any further consideration of the Statute for Jerusalem. [Footnote in the source text.]


Friday, June 05, 2015

A Frank Letter

My letter in today's Jerusalem Post Weekeend Magazine (link not yet available):

Dara Frank, who heads a group that believes "that Israelis and Palestinians need to understand each other on a deeper level" and whose "trips are kept as balanced and as non-political as possible...[w]hile politics cannot be avoided" (from its website), writes about the first Bible Marathon from Rosh Ha'ayin to Shiloh in such a way as to imply, subtly yet determinedly, that one run is a violation of human rights while a parallel Palestine Marathon "ignores the area's complex political situation" (Running history, May 15).

But she then makes a u-turn and accuses the Bible Marathon of refusing "to comment of the reality of the current political situation with the Palestinans" and "promoting the rhetoric of the Jewish people's undeniable connection to the land" on a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' approach.

I think that Jews and pro-Zionists of other religions, in running such a marathon, are expressing support for the human rights of a people who have the right to reconstitute their national home in the land to which they have an historic connection as decided over nine decades ago in international law.  That was when the race was won.