In 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorsed the creation of a “Palestinian” state on the God-given Land of Israel.

In 2015, Pope Francis signed a treaty with that fictitious state. The Catholic Church thus denied what the Torah repeatedly and unequivocally affirms: the divine bestowal of Land of Israel to the Jewish People. For reasons of his own, however, the Pope aped the position of Mr. Netanyahu, who chokes on the word “God.”

Odd bedfellows

What strange bedfellows: Netanyahu, a Jew, and the Pope of Rome, a Catholic, would have us believe that the Jewish People do not have a divine right to the Land of Israel, which is also the position of Mahmoud Abbas, the President of a gang of Muslim terrorists.

How ironic, if not laughable! Mr. Netanyahu wants Mr. Abbas to acknowledge that Israel is the Land of the Jewish people. Abbas cannot do this without renouncing his Muslim faith.

Meanwhile, Pope Francis can’t acknowledge the Jewish People’s indefeasible right to the Land of Israel without renouncing his Catholic faith.

Lack of moral and logical clarity

Missing in these religions – a word that does not appear in Pentateuch – is moral credibility and logical consistency in word and deed. Whereas Pope Francis represents the “Religion of Love,” which has slaughtered millions of Protestants and Jews during the past 2,000 years, Islam, whose prophet called the “Compassionate” in the Qur’an, is a Religion of War, whose murder rate since its advent in the seventh century C.E., exceeds that of Christianity!

Today, Europe, once the home of Christianity, is succumbing to Islam, the punishment for the Nazi Holocaust in which most of Europe was complicit.

Another Approach to the Land of Israel

Israel, its neighbors, and disputed territories. Graphic: Central Intelligence Agency

By endorsing a Palestinian state in the Land of Israel, both Netanyahu and Pope Francis contradict international law governing the Holy Land. To substantiate this rather provocative assertion, some historical background is necessary.

In 1920, after World War I had ended, the Allied Supreme Council that assembled at San Remo, Italy, decided, in accordance with the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, to assign the mandate for the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine to Great Britain. This turned the right of the Jewish people over Eretz Israel into a right recognized by international law. The historic bond that the Jewish people had with Eretz Israel consequently became a right legally recognized by the 52 members of the League of Nations. The United States, which joined the League at a later time, affirmed the League’s decision.

Britain, however, in gross violation of its Palestine Mandate, decided in 1922 to separate the eastern bank of the Jordan from the western part and transfer control of the Eastern side to the Arabs (Transjordan). Subsequently, only Western Eretz Israel from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River remained, in international law, as the area designated as the national home for the Jewish people, an area includes Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem.

The Six-day War

Now, after Israel repossessed Judea, Samaria, and Gaza in the Six Day War of June 1967, Israel’s Government had a practical problem: On what legal basis was Israel to govern the Arabs in Judea and Samaria? Israel’s Government erroneously decided to deal with the Arabs in Judea and Samaria on the basis the humanitarian standards associated with “belligerent occupation” of the Geneva Convention, without Israel itself having the status of an occupying force, since the Arab countries that invaded Judea and Samaria in May 1948 never had any sovereign rights to this repossessed Jewish land.

Hence it was consistent with international law for the Jewish people to exercise their legal rights over the Western part of Eretz Israel in its entirety, including the right of settlement throughout Judea and Samaria after the June 1967 war.

The contrary position, adopted by Israel’s ultra-secular judicial system, has no foundation in objective international law, and it is contradicted by all earlier Israeli judicial decisions. The most reputed professors of international law, Eugene Rostow, Julius Stone, and others, confirm that Jewish National Rights to Judea and Samaria, according to the League of Nations Mandate on Palestine, are intact to the present day.

Misreading Resolution 242

Professor Rostow, one of the drafters of UN Resolution 242 concerning Judea and Samaria, rejects the contention that Israel must withdraw from “all territories occupied” in the Six Day War – words the authors of Resolution 242 deliberately omitted from the Resolution. This Resolution merely recommends withdrawal to “secure and recognized borders” in the context of total peace. A report to President Johnson in 1968 by the commander-in-chief of the American army said that “secure and recognized borders” means Israel’s retaining Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan Heights.

It should also be emphasized that all UN resolutions with respect to the Israel-Arab conflict (including Resolution 242) are based on chapter 6 of the Charter of the United Nations, which are only recommendations, unlike decisions based on chapter 7 involving the Security Council.

A clear title to Judea and Samaria

Thus, from the viewpoint of international law, the right of the Jewish people over all areas of western Eretz Israel, i.e., Judea and Samaria, is completely valid, including the right to settle throughout this territory.

However, to circumvent Israel’s Basic Law: Freedom and Human Dignity, Israel’s ultra-secular judicial establishment trashed previous Supreme Court rulings as well as international law related to Judea and Samaria. By so doing, this Court provided a legal umbrella for the Sharon Government’s 2005 expulsion plan.

Nevertheless, Jewish possession (i.e., repossession) of Judea and Samaria remains valid under international law as per the San Remo Convention of 1920, as well as per the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which treaty was ratified in 1925 by the United States Senate. Let us review those two international agreements, which clearly indicate that PM Netanyahu’s June 14, 2009 endorsement of the “two state solution” contravenes, in principle, (a) the Balfour Declaration of 1917; (b) the San Remo Resolution of 1920; and (c) Anglo-American Treaty of 1925.

The San Remo Resolution recognized the exclusive national Jewish rights to the Land of Israel under international law, on the strength of the immemorial historical connection of the Jewish people to the territory previously known as “Palestine.” The San Remo Resolution, which was affirmed by the Principal Allied Powers of the First World War (Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and the United States acting as an observer), was later affirmed unanimously by the League of Nations. San Remo therefore resolved “That no part of Palestine would be ceded or leased to any foreign power” (my emphasis).

Two-state solution illegal

It logically follows that the so-called two-state solution, which bestows Judea and Samaria on the Palestinian Authority, is null and void under international law. That Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama have opted for that solution has no legal standing. Indeed, their position appears legally suspect (not to say criminal)!

It should also be understood and emphasized that the UN General Assembly has no power to vary an existing valid international treaty which the League of Nations, its predecessor, approved (Res Judicata). We reiterate the fact that the League of Nations had granted Israel exclusive possession of the lands between the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.

It should also be emphasized that the San Remo Resolution is the basis on which the Mandate for Palestine was constructed by the League of Nations. While the decision made at San Remo created the Palestine Mandate de facto, the League of Nation’s assignment of Great Britain as the Mandatory power, made it de jure. The San Remo Resolution thus became a binding treaty in international law. It follows that the State of Israel has the right, under international law, to declare Jewish sovereignty over Judea and Samaria. That PM Netanyahu has shied away from this legal conclusion merely exemplifies a personal error or failing.☼